Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself — and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty.
Chief Joseph, Washington, D.C., 14 January 1879 Liberty Speech
Locked inside a cramped, dilapidated two-family house in Midwood with two hyperactive little brothers and a disgruntled mother, I often wondered if anything existed beyond the busy streets and crowded buildings towering over our heads. One summer day, my father had a plan. Summoning the enthusiasm of Clark Griswald, he announced to the family – we are going to Hershey Park! We loaded up our green and brown station wagon with as much as we could possibly cram, mom packed a cooler full of sandwiches and snacks, and before you could say holiday road, we were off!
Being the oldest child, I nabbed the entire rear window facing backseat to myself. Rather than looking forward, I watched the only world I had ever known vanish as we rolled further away. Somewhere in Pennsylvania, my father offered us a quixotic alternative. He pointed out that the highway we were on will lead us to Hershey Park, but if we continue along I70, we will reach California. My brothers and I screamed out “CALIFORNIA,” my mother signaled an “okay,” and on a whim, my father changed lanes. We were now heading for a cross-country adventure!
Reaching for memories of that incredible trip feels as useless as retrieving data from a fried memory card. Our photographs mostly serve as stale evidence. What has lasted was the feeling of being free to roam, to change direction and explore new horizons. Feeling the air change along with the topography of the land. Skyscrapers make way for open fields of wheat and buffalo. The sky shifts from a bright shade of blue to pink, lavender, and gold.
We drove through crazy storms, striking elevations through Colorado that made my mother gasp and awful Death Valley desert heat that could melt glass until we finally arrived in Los Angeles. We watched Shamu leap through rings, road Space Mountain, ate enormous burritos, and posed for cartoon portraits in Venice Beach. Rather than see the same thing twice on the way back home, we routed along the north. Throughout our three-week long excursion, we tried the pizza in every state we visited, all twenty-six – uniformly declaring the best is from New York (Wisconsin a distant second.)
After a special welcome as guests to an Indian Powwow and a morning visit to Mount Rushmore – Crazy Horse Mountain in South Dakota, dad purchased moccasins for the whole family. Real suede moccasins, made in America and fabricated by Native Americans, as far as we knew. The cozy fur lining warmed my tiny freezing toes and I never wanted to take them off. Eventually, they wore off because the soles were made for treading on soft land, not cement city sidewalks.
Waxing nostalgic during a road trip with my life-partner on our way to Texas, we stopped by an Indian Art bodega off old Route 66 in New Mexico. I was aching for an authentic pair of moccasins. Sadly, all I could find were the cheaply constructed factory kind made in China. Half-heartedly perusing the deserted store filled with tourist trap industrial tchotchke, we eventually purchased some bottled water and snacks not to leave empty handed. Frustrated, I began an inquiry into the subject of moccasin manufacturing and unwittingly opened Pandora’s Box. Researching moccasins is a fruitless endeavor without attaining some basic understanding of the Native Americans who originally made them. Unravelling their tragic history, we discover three decades of whiplash resulting in the evisceration of once flourishing Indigenous populations.
Hand-crafted with sewn rawhide and skillfully beaded, the footwear called maxkeseni (moccasins) were constructed for utility and for religious purposes. The unique culture of every Indigenous tribe was expressed through the artistry of their designs. In the 18th century, the Algonquian speaking Blackfoot, one of the most powerful militant tribes of the Northern Plains wore soft sole moccasins made from one piece of rawhide. It is said their soles were painted black or blackened as they aggressively expanded their territory through Saskatchewan to the Missouri River hunting buffalo armed with guns on horseback. Blackfeet Nation adorned beaded soles for ceremonies and burials.
The mighty Apache hunted, traded, and raided Spanish settlers and Pueblo Indians wearing hard sole moccasins. Whispering Wind delineates four styles of pointed toe and cactus kicker moccasin designs found among Apache tribes. Pointed Toe & Cactus Kicker: An Introduction to Apache Moccasins.
Apache Beaded Hide Boot Moccasins, Cowan’s
Moccasins became a desirable commodity with European explorers and settlers, who enjoyed their comfort, maneuverability and durability. The beadwork evolved as intricate designs became valuable to trade along with other products and services (i.e., maize, buffalo products.) Trading with Europeans was an important source of wealth for Indigenous Americans specializing in lower cost of services and goods[i].
The significance of trade among Indigenous economies has been documented in oral histories, but with the arrival of Europeans, their relationships shifted. As colonizers encroached on their property, bellicose tribes such as the Lakota Sioux engaged in war “to protect their lands, to exact revenge, to secure hunting and trading privileges, to enhance their power and prestige by taking slaves, to preempt threats – and the threshold for a military campaign was low”[ii].
After the American Revolution, Indian property agreements with the British were called into question by the United States. Beginning with the Indian Intercourse Act of 1790 followed by what is known as the Marshall Trilogy in the 1830’s, a seemingly endless, devastating chain of legal assaults transpired involving property and sovereignty rights, federal overreach, and reneged treaties. The Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v McIntosh in 1823 determined a precept that Indians did not own their land. Enforcement of Federal Indian law was entrusted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The so-called Five Civilized Tribes resisted and waged war. The Cherokee fought and lost, eventually making peace with the United States only to be forcibly evicted by gunpoint after gold was discovered on their ancestral land. The Ojibwe and Dakota ceded most of their Minnesota territory for annuities only to be sorely disappointed when those treaties were not honored. Tensions rose and in 1862 the U.S. – Dakota War resulted in the dissolution of the Dakota reservation and the largest mass hanging in American history.
The Indian Removal Act, the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 and the Dawes Act of 1887 stripped Native tribes of their ancestral land and mineral resources while attempting to culturally assimilate them. Sixty-million acres of Indian territory was relinquished to homesteaders and large corporations[iii]. The Trail of Tears shattered millions of Indigenous people who were displaced from their homes and crowded into urban centers or reservations. Native Americans were divested of twenty-seven additional acres of territory with The Burke Act or Forced Fee Patenting Act of 1906 and the 1908 Amendment. On June 2, 1924, all Native Americans born in the United States were granted citizenship under the Indian Citizenship Act.
The Meriam report shed light on the awful consequences federal restrictions and allotment confiscations had on Native Americans. FDR and the commissioner of the BIA, John Collier announced The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to ameliorate their tragic conditions. Couched as a benevolent “Indian New Deal,” a third of all the recognized tribes including the Navajo, Southern Ute and Mountain Ute declined this legislation, dismissing it as an “Indian Raw Deal.” This legislation was considered by many as an attempt to subjugate Native Americans further while aggressively advancing cultural assimilation, threatening to obliterate the generational continuity of their ancient languages and customs. It also compelled tribes to organize governments and judicial institutions that resembled that of the United States constitution. Despite low voter turnout and significant disapproval, the Act was adopted into law. Nevertheless, it did not live up to its promise. In 1964, Indians living on reservations were among the poorest people in the nation. The Johnson administration involved nearly all tribes in the War on Poverty programs to politically embolden Native Americans and increase “the capacity of tribal governments to administer federal programs.” The Indian Civil Rights act of 1968 was born, extending part of the Bill of Rights to individual Indians against tribal governments[iv].
Today, Native American most tribes are considered “domestic, dependent nations” with much of their wealth held “in trust.” Federally recognized American Indian tribes have been operating since the mid-1970s under formal policies of self-determination[v]. The Harvard Project describes complex and diverse economic and cultural conditions among Indigenous people across the United States:
Indian nations range from the very small to the quite large in both geography and population. Many reservations are quite rural, while others have become engulfed by major cities (as is the case with many of the tribes in and around Southern California; Seattle, Washington; Phoenix, Arizona; and Minneapolis, Minnesota). Economic systems range from the manufacturing economy of the Mississippi Choctaw in central Mississippi, to the predominantly gaming economy of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in Connecticut, to the retail trade economy of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington state. Cultural diversity, too, is marked, with widely varying rates of Indigenous language and religious practices that range from the stalwartly traditional to the devoutly Christian.[vi]
According to their findings based in part on U.S. Census Bureau information in 2010, Indian Country remains the poorest in the nation with a median household income of $24,249[vii], approximately half of the national average. Native Americans suffer disproportionally from obesity, substance abuse, domestic abuse, unemployment, poor education and poor health care. Some have argued that an increase in federal funding could improve the economic well-being of Indians[viii]. However, data analyzed by The Harvard Project showing economic progress since the eighties and throughout the nineties unequivocally disputes this theory. Exponential economic advancement occurred during this period of reduced federal funding.
In a report by Miriam Jorgensen and Jonathan Taylor entitled “What Determines Indian Economic Success?” researchers at The Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy found three consistent determinants of Indian economic development; Sovereignty, Culture, and Institutions.[ix] Researchers credit self-governance initiatives for the success of some tribes and claim that chronic poverty among Indigenous Americans is a “political problem – not an economic one.” Asserting there is a shortage of safe havens for capital for Indian Country investments and that this is “a matter of tribal political and institutional effectiveness,”[x] they recommend a separation of civic governance and corporate governance among tribes as it is evident in their research that political pressure is a detriment to Indigenous enterprise.
“Indian sovereignty—the autonomy of the Indian person— means re-equipping Indian people with the dignity of self-sufficiency, the right not to depend upon the white man, the government, or even the tribe. This is not a new notion. It is only a circling back to the ancient and most crucial of Indian values— an understanding that the power of the tribal community is founded upon the collective energy of strong, self-sufficient, self-initiating, entrepreneurial, independent, healthful, and therefore powerful, individual persons. Human beings. Indians.”
Bill Yellowtail, Apsáalooke (Crow), “Indian Sovereignty: Dignity through Self-Sufficiency”
Through the Indigenous Art Market, skilled Indigenous artists have enjoyed entrepreneurial and personal artistic fulfilment. Many trading posts along the highway carry guaranteed authentic handcrafted Native art from prominent award winning Native American artists. For instance, the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center showcase stunning pottery collections by Helen Bird and Tony Sangre along with carefully handwoven rugs and baskets crafted by Navajo, Apache, Tohono O’Odham and Hopi craftspeople. Exquisite traditional drums and flutes, fine art and dazzling handmade jewelry are sold in stores and online. Authentic hand-beaded, custom-made moccasins are not usually found in stores, but are sold by artists online through Etsy or private websites like Jamie Gentry Designs to serious buyers for a serious price.
While Indian arts and craft collectors might scoff at my pedestrian interest in moccasins, highway retailers seem to realize that Native Art is a niche market. Although some might dabble, purchasing expensive Indigenous artwork they imagine understanding, mostly consumers purchase apparel and increasingly, footwear. The ever-growing footwear market in the United States leads the world, generating nearly eighty-six billion dollars in 2023 alone followed by China at seventy-nine billion[xi]. China is the leading producer of shoes on the planet and Asia Pacific accounts for over seventy-five percent of all footwear manufacturing[xii].
To remain competitive, major moccasin companies such as Minnetonka, the Indigenous-owned Manitobah, and Laurentian Chief tailor their brands to align with the demands of the industry and the average consumer, advertising what can essentially be described as stylish, comfortable, durable slippers and fringy festival booties. Their Native “inspired” designs may appear authentic, but most of these products do not boast a certificate of authenticity or a comparable standard for quality. While Laurentian Chief can proudly celebrate their products are entirely handmade by local practitioners in Canada, Manitobah and Minnetonka outsource their manufacturing to China and the Dominican Republic among other international vendors.
For the most part, consumers are not affected or interested in the culturally disconnected design and manufacturing of moccasins. With the rise in inflation, most people are appreciative of the availability of more affordable goods. This indifference is in sharp contrast to the ire voiced by some Indigenous people. With racial and cultural tensions reaching a fever pitch in the wake of the George Floyd riots and demonstrations, a few companies are attempting to reconcile the past with the present.
The Miller family have owned and operated Minnetonka since the nineteen-forties and have struggled with historic waves of backlash and accusations of appropriating Native designs, such as the Thunderbird. Undoubtedly, this was the disappointing brand I encountered in New Mexico. To make amends with indigenous communities, they recently hired an Anishinaabe artist/activist to act as a reconciliation advisor for the brand. In a passionate statement[xiii], Adrienne Benjamin assures the public of the deep remorse the Millers expressed to her for the “financial gain that they had benefitted from Anishinaabe and Dakota names, crafts, and culture” and their commitment to “bring about meaningful change.” Benjamin explained that the family listened while she educated them about the harm indigenous people suffered as a result of the misrepresentation and commercialization of their culture such as “stereotypical sexualization of indigenous women” for the financial benefit of others. Apparently, the Millers are expected to atone for the sins of Hollywood and Disney as well as their moccasin designs.
The business adopted a strategy that aims to form a bond with Indigenous communities. Steps they have taken include discussing long-term investments and collaborations with tribal organizations and publishing an “open admission of guilt.” They are also paying local Indigenous artists for designs and visual works (such as murals) and hiring models “of color” for their advertisements. Another step they consider important was redesigning their brand logo, which they state had contained “culturally appropriated symbols.”
The carefully curated public relations strategy devised by Minnetonka is commendable. Clearly, the Millers are atoning for their “sins,” but will they ever be absolved? Is it reasonable to hold the Miller family accountable for the damage caused by generations of federal abuse, political corruption, legacy media propaganda, and bureaucratic mismanagement? Afterall, Minnetonka is a shoe company, not a deity. Although some grievance groups may find this form of self-flagellation culturally productive and healing, it would be absurd to claim this is an effective socio-economic solution on a micro or macro scale. The nominal philanthropic investments afforded by this family-owned footwear company could not possibly meet the long-term needs of entire Indigenous communities. The only economies truly benefiting from the manufacturing of Minnetonka moccasins are overseas. If Minnetonka wanted to accurately represent their moccasins, their models would be Chinese and Dominican.
To be fair, Minnetonka clearly express their desire to manufacture in the United States, however, insurmountable hurdles prevent them from doing so including the lack of a skilled workforce, a lack of materials, (and probably a load of bureaucratic red tape.) Although we can never walk in the proverbial shoes of disenfranchised tribes, goodwill and cooperation can open a fresh path forward. A resolve to foster enterprising conditions through indigenous systems offers the possibility of attracting the lucrative footwear manufacturing industry onto Native soil. This could employ thousands of Native Americans and perhaps spark the return of moccasins production to their innovators. A quixotic alternative, but it’s always possible to change direction.
“Imagine if we put the energy that we use in trying to convince, change, challenge, and confront colonial systems and instead used that very same energy on reestablishing, restoring, revitalizing, and regenerating indigenous systems.”
Andrea Landry, Anishinaabe from Pawgwasheeng (Pays Plat First Nation)[xiv]
Willy L. Neil
[i] Anderson and Ratté, Renewing Indigenous Economies, 5.
[ii] Hamalainen, Lakota America, 17.
[iii] Reynolds, “What Was the Dawes Act?”
[iv] “Indian Civil Rights Act Of 1968 | Encyclopedia.com.”
[v] Cornell and Kalt, “American Indian Self-Determination,” 3.
[vi] Cornell and Kalt, 6.
[vii] Cornell and Kalt, 8.
[viii] Asante-Muhammad, “Challenges to Native American Advancement.”
[ix] Jorgensen and Taylor, “What Determines Indian Economic Success?” 5.
[x] Jorgensen and Taylor, “What Determines Indian Economic Success?”
[xi] https://www.statista.com/topics/4704/us-footwear-market/
[xii] https://www.statista.com/forecasts/758682/revenue-of-the-footwear-market-worldwide-by-country
[xiii] https://www.minnetonkamoccasin.com/our-commitment-to-the-native-american-community
[xiv] Indigenous Motherhood, “Wasted Energy on the Battles Against Appropriation and Racism.”
Featured Photo Credit: LBJ Library