Denver Post
editorial
Sunday, December 08, 2002 - First came the John Wayne classic movie "Fort Apache." Then came the 1980s flick "Fort Apache: The Bronx." Last week, Americans witnesssed a real-life drama that could be called "Fort Apache: The High Court."
The U.S. Supreme Court heard a pair of cases that could prove whether the federal government will honor or break its promises to modern-day Indians.
In one case, the U.S. Department of Interior had signed away coal-mining rights on the Navajo reservation, leaving the tribe with just 20 percent of the resource's value. The case involved a back-room deal struck between the coal company and a high-level government official. So the feds OK'd a contract contrary to the Indians' interests, without telling the Indians the full story. Understandably, the Navajos want Uncle Sam to pony up for the lost income. The Navajo reservation straddles Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.
In the second case, the government so badly bungled the management of a historic site - Fort Apache in Arizona - that today it is of little value as a tourist attraction. Yet the struggling White Mountain Apache tribe needs the tourist revenue, particularly because much of its other main resource, timber, went up in smoke during last summer's forest fires.
These cases are similar to a third lawsuit Indians brought against the federal government regarding trust funds Uncle Sam is supposed to manage on behalf of about 300,000 individual Indians nationwide. However, that lawsuit, pressed by the Boulder-based Native American Rights Fund, relies on a different but broader legal theory than the two cases the high court heard last week.
In the trust-fund case, the Indians seek what lawyers call equitable relief - that is, a direct government action to correct past wrongs. Specifically, the Indians want a proper accounting of what the feds did with billions of dollars owed the Indians over more than a century. By contrast, the Navajos and Apaches are seeking monetary damages from the government. Legal experts believe the trust fund case won't be affected by the high court's ruling in the two cases heard last week.
However, the cases are related in a broader moral and public-policy sense. All ultimately ask the same, compelling question: Will America in the 21st century deal with Indians honorably, or will our country continue to treat its first inhabitants with the shabby disregard that hallmarked earlier, shameful eras?
Modern Americans can't go back in time and prevent the massacres at Sand Creek or Wounded Knee. There's no way to erase the horrors of the Trail of Tears. But there should be ways to prevent new wrongs against the Indians living today. The Supreme Court should recognize that overarching truth.