American Indian Alcoholism’s Dark Past & Uncertain Future

The enduring stereotype of the indigenous native of this country is that of the public drunk. It is an image that has prevailed since colonial times. Accompanying the strong visual nature of this impression is the vague sense that American Indians are somehow more susceptible to the lure of alcohol than other people. They either can’t hold their liquor or they can’t resist it and will drink until they drop, no matter where they happen to be; thus the public drunk image.
The likelihood that the average American has actually seen a drunken Indian is infinitesimal. With regional exceptions, few Americans see Indians at all. This is because the second most common stereotype of Indians is the fully costumed dancer. In mufti, doubtless many Indians pass by average Americans without registering the response, “isn’t that an Indian?”
Yet behind the drunken stereotype is some truth. In colonial times, alcohol was used by Europeans as a negotiating tool, among themselves and with Indians. The stress of the European invasion went hard on the native people who had lived in North America for a hundred thousand undisturbed years. So prevalent was the use of alcohol in dealings with Indians that the early history of the country is full of references to the drug. It was the excuse for the first prohibition laws—not because alcohol was a drug, but because when manipulated by special interests, it disrupted Federal Indian policy and the settling of the west.
Part I: The U.S. Structural Approach
The extent of alcoholism among American Indians, as verified by demographic and statistical data, shows that it is the most severe problem of its kind to appear among any definable cultural population in the United States. But unlike the other social problems which affect the general population, Indian alcoholism has historical roots that extend to the first contact made with Europeans 500 years ago.
Initial exposure to distilled alcohol coincided with forced social disruption, wars, land loss and the introduction of new diseases for which there was no Indian resistance. As dependence on alcohol increased, so did repressive laws that began to define the legal relationship between Indians and the United States.
Did alcohol exist here before the Europeans came? Oral traditions handed down over the centuries refer to the consumption of drugs and some forms of non-distilled alcohol in relation to specific rites, usually associated with religious practice, or in some cases, agricultural celebrations.
The practice of ingesting drugs or alcohol in non-ceremonial settings is not to be found in any oral recollections. There is no evidence of distilled spirits having been produced by native people.
Here is an excerpt from Maria Chona’s autobiography, as told to Ruth Underhill in 1936, when Chona was 90 years old:

It was good at cactus camp. When my father lay down to sleep at night, he would sing songs about the cactus liquor. And we could hear songs in my uncle’s camp across the hill. Everybody sang. We felt as if a beautiful thing was coming. Because the rain was coming and the dancing and songs...

Then the little rains began to come. We had jugs of the juice that my mother had boiled, and all the women carried them in their nets as we came running down the mountain back to our village. Much, much liquor we made, and we drank it to pull down the clouds, for that is what we call it. It was too little to drink. They put me on the house top with my solder sister. Our jars of liquor were up there, too. The housetop was the only safe place.

We heard the people singing over by the council house:

There sits the magician of the east
Holding the rain by the hand
The wind holding by the hand
He sits.

Then we began to drink. Making themselves beautifully drunk, for that is how our words have it. People must all make themselves drunk like the plants in the rain and they must sing for happiness...

The next day a relative came and said: ‘Your father and mother are out by the arroyo sleeping. Let a child go and stay with them until they wake...

At last my father and mother awoke and came home very happy...

The practice of ingesting drugs or alcohol in non-ceremonial settings is not to be found in any oral recollections. There is no evidence of distilled spirits having been produced by native people. Neither were there any secular places established for the ingestion of alcohol, such as the tavern (a northern European invention).
Felix S. Cohen, former legal counsel in the U.S. Department of the Interior from 1933 to 1948, made a partial listing of laws relating to alcohol and American Indians in his seminal work, Handbook of Federal Indian Law. There were dozens of laws enacted in Colonial America and later by Congress which show the extent of a structural approach to alcohol regulation by the political powers of the day.
Massachusetts colonial laws (1660 to 1672) restricted the sale of liquor to Indians. Pennsylvania and New Jersey passed similar laws. On January 28, 1802, president Thomas Jefferson asked the United States Congress for a prohibition of “ardent spirits” among Indians for the “benefit of Indians” and “to keep peace.” The Act of March 30, 1802 (Sec. 21, 2 Stat. 139, 146), gave authority to the president to “prevent or restrain the distributing of spirituous liquors among all or any of the said Indian tribes.”
Then on July 9, 1832 Congress passed a general statutory prohibition on the traffic in liquor with Indians (C.174, Stat. 564). Two years later, on June 30, 1834, Congress added to section 18 of the Act to Regulate Trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes (4 Stat. 729), referring to the Constitutional powers of the Federal government to regulate affairs having to do with Indian tribes.
Continuing through the 1800s to the 1860s, treaty language in compacts with tribes included specific language regarding the prohibition or introduction of liquor. The Act of December 19, 1854, (10 Stat. 596 Chippewa), imposed liquor restrictions on lands adjoining reservations. Other non-contiguous lands would be regulated by states. The restriction was withdrawn in 1934.
On February 13, 1862, liquor laws were amended further (C.24, 12 Stat. 338) to apply prohibition laws to Indians who were under “the charge of a superintendent or agent” (wherever they might live). Indians and whites alike could have committed this crime.
The Act of July 23, 1892 (27 Stat. 260) established two classes of Indians who could not be sold or introduced to “ardent spirits: any Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the government (Indians who held trust land as compared to fee simple land), or to any Indian who is a ward of the government under charge of any Indian superintendent or agent.” (This class included any Indians who were under the guardianship of any department of the Federal government). The 1892 Act also provided for a general prohibition against any introduction of liquors, wines, beers, and sales into Indian Country. Penalties included one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $500 with second offense penalties of five years in prison and a fine of up to $2,000.
What comes to mind when most Americans hear the term “Prohibition” is the Volstead Act, the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1919. Special language was inserted so that the enactment and the repeal of Prohibition, “had no effect to supplant or repeal any of the special Indian liquor laws,” as researched by Cohen.
By 1916, possession of liquor in Indian Country had become “prima facie evidence of unlawful introduction” (39 Stat. 123, 124, 25 U.S.C. 245). In 1918, possession became a crime in itself. (40 Stat. 561, 563).
What comes to mind when most Americans hear the term “Prohibition” is the Volstead Act, the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1919. Special language was inserted so that the enactment and the repeal of Prohibition “had no effect to supplant or repeal any of the special Indian liquor laws,” as researched by Cohen.
The Act of June 21, 1906, established the special officer’s jurisdiction in Oklahoma, “through detective operations, to supplement the efforts of superintendents in charge of reservations.” From 1909 to 1911, the effort was expanded to 21 States with a staff of 159 officers and local deputies imposing fines of $84,463—more than the $70,000 appropriation to carry out the work. Clearly, the effort paid for itself.
Ordinary rules of social behavior were generally suspended in the push westward by Europeans. Into this chaos came disruption and devastation in the daily lives and customs of the Indian tribes.
These laws, referring exclusively to prohibitions against alcohol relative to American Indians, are just a small part of the vast array of federal laws, executive orders, federal regulations, and agency rules that governed the daily lives of American Indian people. In amended form, they continue to govern today. A systematic effort was made from colonial days to suppress and subjugate the indigenous peoples of the American continent. This suffocating approach clearly led to social problems among Indians as a result of the accompanying oppression.
There were also waves of social clashes with encroaching settlers and individuals who wanted to exploit the country’s resources for personal gain. Ordinary rules of social behavior were generally suspended in the push westward by Europeans. Into this chaos came disruption and devastation in the daily lives and customs of the Indian tribes.
In his work The Sovereignty of American Indian Tribes: A Matter of Legal History, George S. Grossman, writing for the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union Foundation, divided the chaos into time periods. Thus the waves of destruction can generally be categorized chronologically:
•The Colonial Era, ending with the U.S. Constitution, 1788. This period saw enactment of hundreds of colonial laws relating to Indians, including trespass laws, vagrancy laws, and religious laws.
•U.S. Federal early period. Taking England’s lead, the United States reserved the right to deal with Indians as a federal power and moved quickly to regulate trade and interaction with Indians.
•The Removal Period. Frontier land greed led to the election of Andrew Jackson as President and the interests who wanted Indians out of the way were successful in the 1830s in removing thousands to “Indian territory.” This is commonly referred to as one of the most shameful periods in American history.
•The Civil War Era. Troops were used against tribes and bands with disastrous results. Provisions provided for by treaty were not sent. Later, President U.S. Grant asked religious groups to assist with Indian policy. This is one clear example of church/state collaboration in official U.S. policy.
•The Plains War period. Following the Civil War up to the last battle at Sugar Point, Minnesota, U.S. Army troops were called out again and again to open European settlement routes and quell “rebellions” by Indians. Thousands of Indians died as a result of the wars, from starvation or from disease introduced accidentally or purposefully by military and civilian personnel.
•End of the Treaty Making/Allotment period. As the military power of tribes ebbed, Congress declared an end to treaty making in 1871. In 1887, the General Allotment Act was passed. Its purpose was to destroy the tribal concept of commonly held land and take more land away from Indian control. Parcels or “allotments” were assigned to heads of households and 90 million acres of the “surplus” land was opened up to European settlers.
Several developments followed swiftly on the heels of the 50-year period at the end of treaty making and allotment. The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act attempted to create Indian governments by setting up political structures according to strict federal guidelines and oversight. Felix Cohen was recruited by the Franklin Roosevelt administration to lead this effort. He eventually had 250 staff persons working with him to help extricate Indians from what was beginning to look like political annihilation.
In the 1950s, Federal regulation without the benefit of Federal law was used to remove thousands of Indians from reservations and move them to distant urban centers. In the same decade, Congress, probably illegally, terminated several tribes from trust status and offered criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservations within their borders to states that wanted it.
Two decades later, the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Act sought to consolidate several laws dealing with tribes to restore tribal powers of “self-determination” in the areas of law and order, construction, education, and health, among others. However, the federal government still retained broad powers to approve tribal decisions and the law restricted several areas of tribal governance. It was more than a halfway measure, but less than self-rule.
From the end of the U.S. Civil War to the 1975 Act, government and missionary-controlled schools refused to let Indians speak their native languages, practice their religion, wear their native clothing, or practice any custom that did not suit the methodology of “acculturation” which was being applied. Under such conditions, families were torn apart, kinship systems were destroyed, cultural and religious customs were torn away from previously orderly societies.
Dispossessed of national status, tribes became reactionary bodies, unable to govern the affairs of their citizens. By the 1970s, several social indicators were showing the resultant effects on the general Indian population:
The United States Health Report of 1979, issued by the then U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare stated that:
a. The health of American Indians and Alaskan Natives lags 15 to 20 years behind that of the general population.
b. An Indian child born in 1970 has a life expectancy of 65.1 years.
c. Infant mortality has been reduced by 74%. Maternal mortality has been reduced by 91%.
d. The accidental death rate for ages 25-54 is 5 times that for the total U.S. population of comparable ages.
e. Alcoholism death rates for Indians are 4.3 to 5.6 times the rates of the total population.
There has been considerable recent effort to redress past oppression, with some positive political effect. However, the changes are too recent to have any discernible effect in the short term. Now that all the prohibitions and repeals have occurred, Indian alcoholism remains a widespread problem.
A clear and consistent approach has not been maintained in addressing alcoholism or other problems experienced by Indian people. This has resulted in a continuation of problems including high unemployment, low educational attainment, the continuing breakup of families, and stratification of the Indian population at the lowest level of society.
The federal government, state government, and in some instances local government all continue to play key roles in addressing Indian alcoholism. Because these political entities reflect the attitudes of the general population, and because American Indians by and large represent a weak segment of the electorate, societal trends and government policies ebb and flow without much regard for Indian opinion. A clear and consistent approach has not been maintained in addressing alcoholism or other problems experienced by Indian people. This has resulted in a continuation of problems including high unemployment, low educational attainment, the continuing breakup of families, and stratification of the Indian population at the lowest level of society.
Arguments that Indians are “predisposed” to alcoholism, that Indians are susceptible to widespread mental illness, or that Indians simply “won’t help themselves,” do nothing to alleviate the problem.
As long as governmental policy waivers with the general mood of society, an even larger burden on public dollars will be the result. A few public planners understand that early changes are more effective and less costly than later treatment, but the arguments over spending public dollars are usually made to reflect or lead public opinion.
Part II: Societal Attitudes and Trends
Partly because there is disagreement as to the causes of Indian alcoholism, and partly because the changes necessary to retard the incidence of the problem have not been defined, the status of drug treatment among Indians is in a sort of limbo. Further, the fact that no widespread alcoholism existed before colonization by Europeans has not deterred some medical researchers from attempting to assign a genetic cause to Indian alcoholism.
Some treatment strategies, such as having Indians treating Indians and allocating more funds for programs, depend in the main on a generous public policy because the greatest majority of clients are poor. But when public dollars are not sufficiently allocated to the problem, fewer Indian victims are treated, no matter what the strategies are.
Indian alcoholism was seen as a nuisance and at times dangerous to early European settlers; thus many of the laws were enacted as a result of complaints against those who provided the liquor. There was no mention made of treating the victims. At the same time, official delegations from the federal government, local governments, and private companies had a practice of supplying alcohol to groups and individuals when negotiations or treaty making were underway. A dual policy existed: prohibitions with penalties were in place for those who wanted to deal in alcohol to Indians, and the federal government alone had the constitutional right to negotiate with tribes; nevertheless, government representatives often themselves used alcohol in the treaty making process. In this dangerous environment, the key actors experiencing the problem were neither part of policy making nor enforcement, nor could they exert any control over the “unofficial” practices of the government representatives.
Colonial laws regarding American Indians were enacted as early as 1660. The first federal law on alcohol and Indians was passed in 1802. During this same period, waves of northern Europeans were settling the Indian territories east of the Mississippi. After the Constitution was ratified, and relations with Indians were reserved to the federal government, laws and treaties made by colonies and states were nullified. This alone did nothing to deter territories and states from attempting to pass restrictive laws on Indian tribes and encroach on Indian land, but there was at least an avenue of relief for those lucky enough to gain federal attention. Out on the prairies, Washington’s reach was not long enough to inhibit territorial governors in a timely fashion.
Those who made claims about Indian alcoholism were usually not Indians. A few individual chiefs and other powerful members of tribes were able to make themselves heard. They made expensive and time-consuming trips to Washington, D.C. to ask that alcohol not be brought among their people or into their territories. These requests must be viewed in the context of the times. As heads of nations, Indian leaders were asking the federal government to control its own wayward citizens. The leaders were not applying as supplicants for relief.
There was also a humanitarian element, particularly among missionary groups who did wish to reduce the trade in alcohol to Indians. They included some members of congress and President Thomas Jefferson. The most powerful white voices, however, had reasons unassociated with alcoholism for asking that laws be passed restricting the trade in alcohol to Indians. They were in favor of restricting all trade with Indians in order to reduce the tribes’ military capability to fight off further land encroachment.
Arguments in favor of free trade were coming from private companies and wealthy individuals who were supplying the alcohol and arms to tribes in trade for furs and other commodities. In the process of the bigger shutting out the smaller interests, entreprenuerism was stifled.
These varying interests soon collided—Indian leaders who wanted commerce in alcohol curtailed; missionaries supporting humanitarian measures; and the ruling class who wanted to weaken tribes militarily. The powerful who desired capital gain prevailed. Extremely few individuals occupied the top strata of American economic life and they had direct access to public policy formation. The group included congressmen, governors, military leaders, land company officials and bankers.
The smaller entrepreneurs who wanted to trade with tribes on a free market basis were shut out and found they had no political power. The overwhelming majority of the population was illiterate, could not vote, and had no organizing ability. American Indians in this configuration occupied a position totally outside of this stratified system. As time passed and Indian power and curiosity status waned, tribes were subsumed into the social system at the bottom.
Treatment for alcoholism did not come into acceptance until tribes were subdued militarily and politically, forced into citizenship of the United States, and recognized as having treaty rights.
American social custom changed over time, so much so that present day alcoholism has little connection with its historical roots. More than a century passed following enactment of the first prohibition before any thought was given to the effect alcohol had on habitual users. Treatment for alcoholism did not come into acceptance until tribes were subdued militarily and politically, forced into citizenship of the United States, and recognized as having treaty rights.
In fact, the treatment of Indian alcoholism did not really begin until Indian prohibition was repealed in 1953. Recognition began with two views: that alcoholism is a widespread problem among Indians which has devalued their quality of life (no blame), or that alcoholism is the fault of a system that encourages consumption (blame and thus obligation to treat).
Twenty years later, alcohol would be classified as a disease, and the only effective treatment was said to be total abstinence. There is more general agreement now on what the problem of alcoholism is and how it affects its victims, but much less agreement on how to treat it and how much government should pay for care. The disease classification clearly is of some advantage to the middle class who can argue for insurance coverage for their treatment. For poor Indians, who must rely on public assistance, the disease classification is less useful.
Importantly, the disease classification labels American Indians as individual alcoholics. Indians have become socially identified with welfare cheaters and other types of presumed weak personalities. Any connection between tribes and the federal government is lost in the disease definition.
Some medical researchers have theories on the genetic causes of Indian alcoholism. This view has the tendency to relieve government of responsibility, thus feeding into political arguments that public dollars to address the problem should be limited. Others cling to the earlier social view that Indians could stop consuming alcohol at any time if they wanted to. Indians themselves either agree with these arguments wholeheartedly or attempt to finesse the issue by creating alternative treatment models, usually strongly tied to cultural and spiritual connections. Rarely will Indians totally refute the disease model for another theory.
Two views seem to prevail alongside one another: one is that alcoholism is widespread and deleterious and it was introduced to Indians for covert reasons. Those holding this view see no one as responsible. The disease is just something that happened as a result of an unfortunate weakness for alcohol among Indians. This position tends to embrace the disease model and wants to find the causes of Indian alcoholism in the Indians themselves.
Those holding the second view see the history of organized introduction of alcohol to Indians as a tale of seduction and later abandonment. In the current context, they see a system passively promoting alcohol by permitting its widespread use as a cheap drug while at the same time withholding sufficient funds with which to treat the victims. Most holding this view agree that alcoholism is a disease but, curiously, may also see Indian alcoholics as weaker members within their own race.
If alcoholism is a disease, shouldn’t the drug be regulated more closely at the source and the pushers punished when tragedy strikes?
In either view, there are profit-making and non-profit facilities and institutions that stand to gain from a continued definition of the problem as a disease. Advertising to increase awareness about the effects of alcoholism are widespread in print, on the radio and on television. The subject of the advertising is invariably the individual alcoholic—again stressing the disease model. The alcoholic is depicted as dying young, being a strain on the family, being a dangerous person to others or himself, and being a poor worker. The images focus on awareness by stigmatizing the victim. Drunk driver laws, for example, punish the driver, not the providers of alcohol. If alcoholism is a disease, shouldn’t the drug be regulated more closely at the source and the pushers punished when tragedy strikes?
Unfortunately, as in the past, the target of responsibility is the individual alcohol user. Little research is being done to support another point of view. Almost no literature reports on why alcohol is used so frequently in the general population, why poor people become chronic users, or why the promotion of alcohol far outstrips the dollars spent on a search for prevention. Indian tribes and organizations, lacking political power, are not in a position to offer alternative definitions or treatments, even if they were to believe an alternative is possible.
Indian efforts have been confined to the fringes. Spiritual movements have surfaced over the years that offer to help individuals. Social gathering places and events have been established for non-users. While most of these alternative strategies have clearly been established to reward non-alcohol using habits, some must also be seen as image-polishing efforts that attempt to dispel the myth of Indians and alcohol as inseparably linked.
In the 44 years that have ensued since the end of Indian Prohibition, Indian tribes and organizations have attempted to identify the problem, bring it to national attention and establish treatment programs for victims, but the attempts have been resisted and they have been made secondary to what the better organized and more powerful groups are saying about causes and cures.
Part III: Possible Solutions
In the general population, the mood could be trending away from a disease definition of alcoholism. As public dollars for treatment decline, drunk driving penalties have increased, signaling a shift in public mood against the alcoholic as a victim, and toward a definition of criminal perpetrator. If drunk drivers are criminals, it is a short step to making drunkenness itself punishable.
Add to this that the insurance industry, disorganized as it might be at the moment, is moving away as fast as it can from the area of mental health treatment. Treatment coverage has been shortened, and this trend will likely continue.
Indian organizations find themselves in the hapless position of having little or no influence on change in definition—disease or not—and having to support the status quo in order to get whatever financial support there is for the treatment of victims. As weak partners in the greater network of alcohol treatment organizations, they serve to confirm the mainstream theory that alcoholism is a disease but that the individual is ultimately responsible for making the changes in her or his life that will arrest the disease. It doesn’t seem to matter that Indians never had the disease before European contact.
It would be quite a different picture if Indian organizations could nudge the debate away from the developed power base. Then a re-connect with a unified tribal/cultural model for defining and treating Indian alcoholism might be possible. Original thinking will have to occur, throwing out the established assumptions about alcoholism that stem in part from a legacy of Indian hatred. It will take a leap of faith to realize that education and jobs will lower alcoholism rates more than anything in the Physician’s Desk Reference. The interests of established treatment centers and practitioners will have to be heard and transformed. Most importantly, the “alternatives” of spiritual and cultural approaches will have to be elevated and restored to former prominence within the tribes.
In some respects this is already happening. Commonly, events on tribal lands prohibit alcohol. Now, rather than sounding vaguely like a threat, the prohibition could be a declaration of independent and positive tribal choice.
The first part of the model might be to focus away from the victim. Alcohol abusers have learned to self-medicate themselves when life becomes hard. In indigenous societies around the world, such conditions arise. Some groups have gained access to alcohol and some have not. They cope with the underlying problem within the context of their own culture. That is what Indians did before Europeans came and that is what must happen once more.
Access to alcohol will always be there and thus “cures” will not be possible. But to the extent that tribes can restore their economic, political and cultural strength, the rates of alcoholism will drop. Perhaps some day alcoholism will be known as another one of the “white man’s” diseases, rare among American Indians.