4 When it Does Serve White Interests
In order to explain why this is the case, I must revise my argument I made earlier; It does not serve white people to educate on these subjects—except in cases of elections. This is because the interests of politicians are largely fueled by funding, and Tribes can serve as interest groups with economic power just as any other group.
“Group size can matter. When there is a critical mass, political elites have an incentive to co-opt minority groups. While some scholars have suggested minorities are disadvantaged in Republican-controlled states, the effects are attenuated if the minority population is large. What this highlights is an uncertainty over the mechanism between demographics and the actual adoption of policies… From 1999 to 2008, campaign contributions from Native Americans to political candidates increased 330 percent. These contributions most certainly play a role in affecting federal-and state-level policy.”
—Foxworth et. al 2015, pg. 958-959
Studies have even found that for every $10,000 contributed by a Native Nation towards a campaign, there is a 1% increase on the risk of passage on relevant legislation (Foxworth 2015). Additionally, Indigenous groups in states with larger Indigenous populations are better reflected in their state’s education systems because there is a higher likelihood of Indigenous candidates being elected. With a larger Indigenous voting population, “minority candidates are able to signal to their co-ethnics that if elected, their interests will be represented… As an overview, the number of Native Americans within state legislatures has nearly doubled over the last 10 years. Currently, there are over 70 Native Americans sitting in various state legislatures. As such, the literature on descriptive representation would suggest that Native Americans within state legislatures would be more likely to push for inclusionary educational policies, especially in areas with larger Native American populations,” (Foxworth 2015, pg. 958).
This means that states with larger Indigenous presence will have more funding going to legislation regarding implementing Indigenous-focused curriculums in their schools, and have a higher likelihood of electing candidates who will push for these issues further. What happens in the states with smaller Indigenous voting populations, and less Tribal economic power? This question leads me to my decision to relate the two states which inspired this writing: Michigan and Washington.
I grew up in Southeastern Michigan in a primarily white suburb of Detroit. My fellow peers and I share the experience of having one unit in fourth grade which taught us apparently all we needed to know about Indigenous peoples, at least in the eyes of those who created the curriculum I was educated with. The message from this unit, like that of many other states, left me with the impression that Indigenous peoples did not exist in contemporary times, that those who were still here were very few and lived a pre-colonial way of life in some mysterious, far-away place called a reservation.
I grew up completely unaware of the twelve federally-recognized Tribes in Michigan; the Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Hannahville Potawatomi Indian Community, Huron Potawatomi-Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Matchebenashshewish Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, and Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. While my experience was fairly universal across areas and generations of Michigan, this was the experience for only some people my age who obtained their K-12 education in the state I now call home—Washington.
