OccupyAlcatraz
By Danielle Penn
Professor: Doug Sackman
History 400
On the early morning of November 20, 1969, a group of Native American activists boated
their way to Alcatraz Island located offshore of San Francisco, California. The group of protesters
called themselves the Indians of All Tribes. Although this would be their third attempt to occupy the
island, their motive was always the same: to bring attention to the undulating conditions Native
Americans were living under due to the actions of the federal government. Occupying the island was
intended to exemplify the notion that the living conditions on Alcatraz, a closed island with little
resources, resembled the living conditions of Indian Reservations. To best convey their message
they assembled a tongue-in-cheek proclamation declaring they wanted to “purchase the island for 24
dollars in glass beads and red cloth, a precedent set by the white man’s purchase of a similar island
about 300 years ago.”1
This intertribal group occupied the island for nineteen months. As the event took place
during the Civil Rights movement and at the height of radical and political activism in the nineteen
sixties, it was able to find its niche among differing groups. Those surrounding them included the
Women’s Liberation movement who were making progress for women's reproductive rights, critics
of the Vietnam war who were promoting anti-war rhetoric and activists from racially marginalized
groups who were fiercely fighting for political and social equality. With these other established
groups alongside them, the rise of a Red Power movement was only inevitable.
Once the protest began the Indian of All Tribes quickly attracted sympathy from all over,
garnering public attention from across the country. Even celebrities including the infamous Jane
Fonda and movie star Marlon Brando played a significant part in encouraging donations and
publicizing the event.2 Though the amount of support they received was not surprising. As Historian
Sherry L. Smith suggests in her book, Hippies, Indians and the Fight for Redpower, the political and social
context of the 1960s had a significant impact on how non-indians reacted to the event.3 And in
1
2
Adam Fortunate Eagle, The Indian Occupation of 1969- 1971 (Berkeley: Heyday Books, 1992),44.
Sherry L. Smith, Hippies, Indians, and the Fight for Red Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012),
6-10.
3
Ibid.,
Penn 1
many ways the demonstration served as a prominent example of the amount of influence and
cultural power American Indians had over non-Indians, and in particular white liberals at this time.4
With opposition to the Vietnam war and the tension between the state and the Civil Rights
movement, there was a growing negative sentiment towards the federal government. Thus, in many
ways their response to Native American activism was not just accidental but intentional.5 According
to Smith,
[This was] at a time when Americans were coming to terms with the shortcomings of the
their political and social system...At a time when the world witnessed global decolonization
movements and the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War elicited foreign and
domestic condemnation of American Imperialism Abroad, Indians were a reminder of the
Imperialism at home and an opportunity to redress those wrongs. 6
With Smith’s statement in mind, it was only a natural occurrence that white liberals had the desire to
adopt the cause of the Native American occupants. Both groups felt contention towards the federal
government and at this moment while their stances aligned, each of them could greatly benefit from
one another. Native Americans were looking for a form a visibility that could only come from a
spring of public outcry. In turn, white liberals and non-indians wanted to continue to assert their
presence and aggressive tone of anti-authoritarianism.7
Looking back on the occupation, it is difficult to identify the protest as a complete success.
As seen played out throughout the movement, the occupier’s relationship with white liberals did not
go without conflict. Even with a great amount of sympathy and support they had for Native
Americans, white liberals were not immune to the cultural appropriation that dominated hippie
culture in the 1960s. Furthermore, the momentum that drew from the overwhelming amount of
affirmative press coverage that the occupants started with, began to drop off at the end of the
4
Philip J. Deloria, Playing Indian (Chelsea: Yale University, 1998), 178-179.
Smith, Hippies, 6-10.
6
Smith, Hippies, 6.
7
Ibid.,
5
Penn 2
movement. Instead, more and more press became narrowly focused on their lack of leadership and
the negative habits of occupiers who openly engaged in using drugs and alcohol. In doing so many,
media outlets were continuing to perpetuate the unaccommodating stereotypes of Native
Americans. Apart from all of these external obstacles, the group of occupants themselves
experienced difficulties within the organization as they had disputes over the ideology behind the
movement and how to maintain a positive image. Nevertheless, in using their cultural power to
create a theatrical demonstration, Indian of Tribes turned Alcatraz into a symbol for Native
American activism and created a newfound public awareness of Native Americans.
San Francisco in the 1960s
If there was ever a place that best embodied the principles of the leftist culture in the 1960s,
it would be San Francisco, California. It was here where many demonstrations and protests went on
to make their mark during the twentieth-century. The significance of these moments is their
transcendence into the spirit of San Francisco and the ripples they forged into the 1960s. This is also
where the groups that had made an impact on the occupation, were brought together. Thus, in order
to understand the relationship between white liberals and Native Americans it is necessary to
examine the differences between each group and where each of them stood from one another both
contextually and ideologically in this moment in time.
The cause of the movement being mobilized by an inter-tribal group was in part attributed to
the diverse array of urban Indians harboring in the Bay Area. Some Native Americans were students
studying at nearby colleges including University of California, Berkeley and San Francisco State
University. Many others were brought by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for an assimilation program.
During the 1950s, the federal government administered a relocation program that would migrate
Penn 3
American Indians from their reservations to prominent urban cities nationwide.8 The program
consisted of Indians attending three-months of vocational training while they were provided housing
and financial assistance. Unfortunately, the program did not end up as promising as it set out to be.9
As soon as they found a job, their financial assistance would be dropped. Many of them found it
difficult to adjust to their new surroundings, especially without sufficient training and preparation.10
Naturally, forming a community with other Native Americans within San Francisco helped them cope
with their newfound grievances.
While finding solidarity with one another, an umbrella political organization was formed called
the United Bay Area Council of American Indian Center. The council devoted much of their time to
projects that assisted American Indians who were new to the Bay-Area relocation program.11 Not
unexpectedly, it would be this organization that set forth plans to occupy Alcatraz in 1969. For their
name, they found Indians of All Tribes (IAT) to be most fitting. The name was a nod to the diversity of
the group and equally represented the variety of tribes that they all came from.
White Liberals: The New Left and the Counter-Culturalists
During the 1960s an explosion of student activism emerged and formed what was called the
New Left. The New Left was identified as more politically engaged in contrast with hippies and
counter-culturalists. They consisted of college students who had both the time and resources to
explore themselves intellectually. In addition, their time spent at school isolated them away from the
realities outside university life and in conjunction it also served as a space to help foster their
8
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 19-23.
Troy R. Johnson, American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk. (Los Angeles: University of California,
Los Angeles, 1997), 60.
10
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 23.
11
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 25.
9
Penn 4
idealistic political views.12 In the wake of the civil rights movement, many students had a positive
outlook on the “moral power of the civil rights movement.”13 It was from this movement that they
learned instrumental politics alongside moral forces could bring the changed they hoped for. As
scholar Edward P. Morgan observes in his book, The 60s experience: Hard Lessons About Modern
America, “The civil rights movement’s tensions between idealistic activism and institutional defense
was replicated on the nation’s campuses.”14
The groups who best exemplified the ideals of the New Left were the Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).15 Before
each group moved toward a more radicalized direction in the 1970s, the main focus of the of SDS
and SNCC was to implement direct mobilization and create concrete results. All-in-all, the New Left
was quite successful in attracting the public to their protests that fought against “racism, university
rules, and regulations, academic bureaucracy and university complicity in the Vietnam war.”16 In fact
they were influential to such a wide extent that in 1969, Time Magazine announced everyone under
the age of 25 as the “Man [sic] of the Year.”17
The counter-culturalists were a by-product of the New Left's political activism. In
comparison, they were much less interested in the participation of instrumental politics. For this
reason, they were cynically looked down upon by the goal-oriented New Left. While the New left
was participating in protests on and off their university's campus, hippies and counter-culturalists
were more easily found dancing at a free Grateful Dead concert while tripping on LSD. Their
12
Morgan, Edward, The 60s Experience: Hard Lessons about Modern America (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1991), 86.
13
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 84.
14
Edward, The 60s, 25-26.
15
Edward, The 60s, 87.
16
Ibid.,
17
Ibid.,
Penn 5
attitude would be best described as rebellious with a childlike quality of innocence.18 Although they
were not as involved with direct political action, they nonetheless held similar political views to
those of the New Left.
The emergence of counterculturalism was rooted in the opposition to the staleness that
defined the 1950s. In its depths, counterculturalism was both a response to and rejection of the
culture of the prior generation. As historian Morgan notes,
Beneath its many manifestations the counterculture rejected much of postwar American life,
its materialism, technocratic rationality, atomistic loneliness, repression of feeling, and fear of
experimentation and personal growth. In its experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs and
its embrace of Eastern mysticism and Zen Buddhism, the counterculture explored the inner
subjective world, while recoiling from an objective outer world gone mad.19
Here Morgan alludes to not only the other various cultures that hippies latched on to but the
essence of the type of ideology they stood for. The place that best embodied this culture and ethos
that Morgan describes was the Haight Ashbury district in San Francisco.20 Remembered as an upbeat
residential neighborhood located near the Golden Gate Bridge, the region experienced the peak of
psychedelic music and culture. The Haight Ashbury district became a community where counterculturalists and their principles blossomed.21
One group that had a dominant presence among the Haight-Ashbury district was the
Diggers. The Diggers were known for their blend of “street theatre and anarchistic politics with
daring, humor, and mischief.”22 Peter Berg, the founder of the group, was inspired to create the
assemblage after being involved with an influential union of street performers called the San
18
Ibid,
Edward, The 60s, 171.
20
Jeff Kisseloff, Generation on Fire: Voices of Protest from the 1960s, An Oral History (Lexington: The
University of Press of Kentucky, 2007) 134.
21
Berg, Oral Histories, 132.
22
Berg, Oral Histories, 138.
19
Penn 6
Francisco Mime Troupe. The main objective of the Mime Troupe was to present performance art in
public areas that bystanders could openly engage in. In one instance, they had a demonstration on
the Golden Gate Bridge that caused a firestorm from both the public and city officials. Beforehand,
the troupe promoted the event to the public declaring that they were going to do their performance
without a permit. This made the police adamant on preventing the protest from happening. Yet and
still the performance went on. As soon as the event started, the police arrived to remove the group
which then lead the theater director to stand up and state, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are presenting
an arrest.” Berg describes this demonstration as a “seminal moment in the San Francisco ‘60s
revolution” and the main reason why he decided to form the Diggers. As he goes on to state,
[It] gave me the idea of guerrilla theater as a weapon in a guerrilla war, which is an
underground war against repression. It wasn’t about putting a play on. The idea was that
people who saw the play would actually take part in it. They wouldn’t be an audience, and
this production would be a social action to cause or aid the revolution.23
With Berg’s idea as the foundation for the Digger’s conception, their performances went on to be
just as eye-catching and important as the Mime Troupe’s in the San Francisco scene.
In action, the group defined themselves as politically minded but, as they noted, one that
greatly differed from other groups. They often referred to the New Left and the Berkley SDS as
“credit card revolutionaries.”24 Their other activities included handing out free clothes and public
donations in the Ashbury district. Based on the Digger’s contributions, Berg had a much more
optimistic perspective on the counter culturalists and their intentions. As Berg states, “I never
agreed with the image of hippies as kids with mindless grins on their faces, covered with peace
symbol pins. That was the media’s image.”25 In many respects Berg was correct about the way
hippies were portrayed by the media during the 1960s. In 1967 a reporter from the New York Times
23
Berg, Oral Histories, 144.
Berg, Oral Histories, 141.
25
Berg, Oral Histories, 145.
24
Penn 7
gave an honest first hand account of the “Hashbury District,” providing insight into the drug culture
that was manifesting among hippies in the Bay area.26 The author, Hunter S. Thompson, goes on to
cite the counter culturalists as the “head generation.”27 The term “head” was coined by the hippies
and counter culturalists as a nickname for “a user of psychedelic drugs.”28 Not unexpectedly,
Thompson recalled the Diggers as a silver lining to the drug-infested district. Counter culturalists
regarded them as the “worker-priests” and a type of “invisible government” for the Victorian
neighborhood.29 The main objective of their demonstrations was to expose the faults of a capitalist
society whose lives were focused on gaining material goods rather than responding to the needs of
the people. Their group went on to be influential in a variety of ways, however they most notably
exemplified a type of theatrical performance that the occupiers would repeat.
The Occupation of Alcatraz
The first attempt to occupy the island was in 1964, one year after the Island of Alcatraz had
officially closed. The occupation was carried out by a small group of Bay- Area Sioux Indians who
planned to claim the island through the Sioux Treaty of 1868. The-100-year old treaty authorized nonreservation Indians to live on specific vacated government land.30 By many, the occupation has been
described as a mere “takeover” or “invasion” as the protest only lasted for four hours.31 Their purpose
for invading Alcatraz was to bring attention to the numerous treaties broken by the federal
government. In addition, they also wanted to highlight the government's offensive proposal to
26
Hunter E. Thompson, “The ‘Hashbury’ Is the Capital of the Hippies,” New York Times, May 14 1970.
Thompson, The Hasbury, 119.
28
Ibid.,
29
Thompson, The Hasbury, 120.
30
The Sioux Treaty of 1868 permitted Sioux Indians to take land that had been once used for forts or other
specified government purposes. In 1934, Congress revoked any regulations that allowed Indians to claim
land. There was an exception for Sioux Indians because of the high amount of land the Sioux tribe signed
over for the federal government to build forts.
31
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 14-15.
27
Penn 8
purchase California tribal lands for 47 cents per acre.32 Ironically, these tribal lands that were referred
to had already been in the hands of the federal government since the early days of the Gold Rush.33
It’s important to note the first attempt to occupy Alcatraz by Bay-Area Sioux Indians did not
go without a small amount of attention. It was covered by two prominent newspapers including the
San Francisco Examiner and the Oakland Tribune.34 The content of the articles was described as both
straightforward and “sympathetic.”35 Although, based on the little amount of coverage the event
received, no one could have quite predict the explosion of attention the nineteenth monthoccupation would have thereafter.
The Game Plan
In the years following the Sioux Indian’s first attempt to occupy the island, there continued
to be discussion from the United Council to occupy the island for a second time. In 1968, the
federal government had given Alcatraz as surplus property to the city of San Francisco. It was in
hearing the possibility of the city turning the Island into a commercialized space that led the United
Council to finally take immediate action.36 Furthermore, on October 10, 1968 the San Francisco
Indian Center burned down. Its destruction was a significant loss for Bay-Area Native Americans.
The San Francisco Indian Center was not just a meeting ground for the urban Indian community. It
was a safe space for their community to comfort and confide in one another.37 The United Council
saw the island of Alcatraz as hopeful replacement for new Indian facilities. The second attempt to
occupy the island took place a few weeks prior to the third. On November, 6 1969, Indian of All
Tribes attempted to claim the island. Unfortunately, the group was quickly removed from the island
32
Ibid.,
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 14-15.
34
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 15.
35
Ibid.,
36
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 39.
37
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 39- 40.
33
Penn 9
that day by government officials. However, 14 members of the group returned to sleep on the island
that following night.38 It was on November 21, 1969 when the nineteen month occupation went into
full effect.
The Proclamation
The message that the occupants wanted to send out to the country was best represented in their
proclamation which was both serious and playful. The sarcastic and humorous tone of the
proclamation was a purposeful element the group felt compelled to convey. Adam Fortunate Eagle,
a chairman for the United Council noted, “We all agreed that our proclamation should be a mixture
of humor, serious intentions, and hope. But the humor should not be just the laugh kind; it should
also have a sting”.39 And this “sting” is exactly the kind of feeling readers of the proclamation
receive from the declaration.40 While explaining that they would be willing to offer a portion of the
land to white inhabitants, the document cleverly stated,
We will further guide the inhabitants in the proper way of living. We will offer them our
religion, our education, our-life ways, in order to help them achieve our level of civilization
and thus raise them and all their white brothers up from their savage and unhappy state.41
Here there is acknowledgment of forced assimilation in addition to their play on Indian stereotypes.
Their use of American’s stereotypes of Indians provides evidence to their awareness of their own
cultural power.
In the same vein, similar to previous Native American land seizures, it was also important
for the occupants to bring attention to the poor living conditions of Indian Reservations. The
38
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 39.
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 43.
40
Ibid.,
41
Ibid.,
39
Penn 10
Proclamation made sure acknowledge the similarities between the closed Island and the current state
of Indian Reservations:
We feel that this so-called Alcatraz Island is more than suitable as Indian Reservation, as
determined by the white man’s own standards. By this we mean this place resembles most
Indian reservations.42
The parallels they found between the two settlements included “no fresh running water,” “no
industry,” “no health care facilities,” and “no educational facilities.”43 The living conditions of Indian
Reservations today are not highly publicized but have been noted to be poor condition. As Adam
Fortunate Eagle suggests Indian Reservations were in much worse state at the time of the
occupation.44 This new generation of Native American activists in 1960s and 70s were very aware of
the devastating realities of reservation life and to describe it as inadequate would be an
understatement. In 1968, nearly a year before the occupation, a Senate Subcommittee reported that
“the average annual Indian income was $1500, 25% of the national average; the unemployment rate
among Indians was 40%; ten times more than the national average [and] the average age of death for
Indian Americans was 44 years.”45 During this time, life on Indian reservations had been described
as “one of hopeless poverty and ongoing misery.”46
Some outsiders saw Native Americans at fault for their grievances. In 1965, a U.S. journalist
named Lawrence E. Berry wrote an article in America Magazine titled, “The Indian in a Cultural
Trap.”47 His piece published in the popular Jesuit magazine attempted to make the argument that the
lack of economic opportunities on Indian reservations was not the main cause of their plights.
42
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 45.
Ibid.,
44
Ibid.,
45
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 20-21.
46
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 19..
47
Lawrence E. Barry, “Indian in a Cultural Trap,”America, April 1965.
43
Penn 11
Rather he suggests, “the core of the problem lies in the Indians themselves.”48 Lawrence asserted
that the belief system and values of Native American traditions were the reason for their
impoverished lives. The truth, according to Lawrence, is that “the American culture respects honest
work. We frequently speak with pride of the hard-working men who built our country. Indian
culture as I have seen it, does not respect work.” However, these conditions were a direct outcome
of the troubling actions by the Federal Government.49
In hindsight, the group was aware of how far-fetched their plan was. They knew they lacked
both the political power and financial resources on their own to implement a new Indian center.
Nonetheless, they were hopeful that reclaiming the island might lead at the least to a humble
outcome.50 Although short lived, the group regarded the first attempt to occupy Alcatraz as a
success for the Sioux Indians. Their occupation not only raised attention to their disdain for broken
treaties but “ [the useless] prison island now symbolized the joking contempt for with which the
government regarded any native claims”.51 By creating a peaceful non-radical demonstration, they
could both show the world the importance of the on-going preservation of their cultural heritage
while raising the public consciousness of Native Americans.
Alcatraz: A Symbol
It is important to note that Alcatraz was not just a convenient space for the occupiers to
demonstrate a theatrical stunt, for the island had historical significance as well. During the Civil War
Indians were incarcerated on the Island as prisoners of war.52 In the 1900s, the Native Americans from
48
Lawrence, America Magazine, 483.
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 21-22..
50
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 48.
51
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 38.
52
Troy R. Johnson, American indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk (Los Angeles: University of
California, Los Angeles, 1997), 201.
49
Penn 12
the Hopi tribe were imprisoned by the federal government for their resistance to assimilation.
Additionally, Hopi Indians had prophesied the “younger people rising up and finding a way for people
to live.”53 With this in mind, the Native American occupants having historical ties to the island made
their statement that much stronger. Richard Oakes, a leader of the protest and main spokesperson
stated, “we sensed the spirit of the prisoners. At sometimes it was spooky, but mostly the spirit of
mercy was in the air...They mingled with the spirits of Indians and hoped for a better future.”54
The Media
Before declaring their Proclamation, the leaders and members of Indian of All Tribes deliberated as
to how they would handle media. According to Fortunate, they knew the press would play a
prominent role in helping them get the attention they needed in order to bring awareness to their
cause. Early on they had a good relationship with Tim Findley, a young journalist from the San
Francisco Chronicle. Before the occupation started, Eagle told Findley of their plans of staging a big
event and asked for advice as to how to get in touch with the media. Coincidentally, Findley was
having a get-together at his house with a group of journalists he could connect them with. Both
Richard Oakes and Adam Fortunate Eagle attended the party with their partners55 It was here they
announced to a large group of journalists that they would be officially taking over the island of
Alcatraz. They made sure to give both background information about the Island and what their
motives were to the group of Bay Area reporters. However, Fortunate also made sure to mention
that if any of journalists reported the event before the date they planned to officially occupy the
island, they would cancel the event completely. Thankfully, their secret plans remained undisclosed56
53
Charles, Wilkinson, Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indians (New York: W. W. Norton and
Company, 2006), 134.
54
Wilkinson, Blood Struggle, 134.
55
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 48.
56
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 48-49.
Penn 13
As Fortunate has explained while recalling the event, the main purpose of telling Bay Area
reporters about the protest before its official date was not to give priority or exclusivity to a select
few media outlets. It was to get the coverage they wanted. By setting up the premise of the event
and giving media outlets early notice, they knew they would be able to get more traction for their
event. During the first attempt to occupy the Island by Native American, there was very little
coverage.57 There was in turn worry over whether or not people would be interested in hearing the
cause of Native Americans. Fortunately, their plan worked and almost overnight the occupation
receive attention from the media and press.
Non-Indian Support
The occupiers received both an outpouring of support from Non-Indians and to general
skepticism. However, for the most part the movement gained positive sentiments from around the
country. The occupiers found that their biggest supporters were white liberals. Both the counterculturalists and the New Left were happily willing to support the occupier’s cause. In effort to keep
the occupation centered on Native Americans, IAT made sure to direct their white supporters to
specific activities. In vocalizing their support for the movement, white supporters were asked to
send out letters to government officials in addition to donations that could help the occupiers live
on the island.
One prominent way this was exemplified was through their constant help in getting food
and water to the occupiers while getting around the Coast Guard blockade. The Coast Guard
blockade intended to be an obstacle to prevent aid and donations from getting to the island. Those
living in the Sausalito Waterfront, a counterculturalist hub near Alcatraz, did what they could to step
in. When Native Americans wanted to join the occupation and boat their way the island, they were
57
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 47-46.
Penn 14
often in discussions with the counterculturalist community on the Sausalito waterfront on how to
get there.58 Brook Townes from the area took part in helping them get through the blockade during
the first nine days of the occupation. As Townes recalled,
...almost all [Indians headed for alcatraz] were sent over to Sausalito with instructions to find
the “Indian Navy”-- which meant either me or Peter...We landed every Indian who wanted
to go out there, and all of the stuff they brought plus goods increasingly donated by Bay
Area citizens of all backgrounds.59
For example, Candra Day, a freshman from Reed college
living in the Sausalito community, felt like she was rooting
for “the underdogs.”60 She explained that the
counterculture community understood the seriousness of
their cause, suggesting that they were aware of how
meaningless theirs was by comparison. Here they found
solidarity with American Indians which could be found in
the great amount of effort they devoted to help them.
White Liberals also had a hand in promoting the
event through media. Aside from Tim Findley and his
colleagues, the occupation was covered by two prominent
underground newspapers including the Berkeley Barb and the Berkeley Tribe. In addition to covering
the most popular political movements at the time, they included protests that came forth from
Native American activism. In the Berkeley Barb they included a piece that discusses the Coast Guard
Blockade while they referred to themselves as the “Red Mountain Tribe.”61 The Tribe reported the
58
Smith, Hippies, 87-88.
Smith, Hippies, 88.
60
Smith, Hippies, 87-88.
61
Smith, Hippies, 89-90.
59
Penn 15
event and showed a picture of a Native American Man hovered in clouds on the front cover.
Unfortunately they ended up putting more of a focus on non-Indian support than on the occupiers
themselves. Although the support from non-indians was necessary to keep the occupation going, it
was important that the occupiers maintained their agency. They were the only people allowed to
occupy the island were Indians and they continually had to make that clear.
Counter- Culturalists and Cultural Appropriation
Although sympathy from white liberals helped garner the media attention and donations
they needed, the occupiers were also subjected to their supporters cultural appropriation. As Philip J.
Deloria explains, “playing Indian” was nothing new in American culture and tradition.62 Gone were
the days of the negative portrayal of the uncivilized Indian as it was now replaced with a new
romanticized image that would help represent an anti-American identity for the 1960s and 1970s
counter-culturalists. The symbol of Indianness had historically changed and evolved over time, it
was no less one of the same. According to Deloria, “[The only major difference] was that
nineteenth-century savages had become authentic twentieth-century victims and critics.”63
As Deloria argues, playing indian is in part due to America’s repeated moments of identity
crisis. In times of political or social upheaval, Indianness was an alternate identity for Americans to
latch on to. This action was also demonstrated during the eighteenth century by the Tea Party
Mohawks who wore Indian dress to embody the notions of “instinct and freedom.”64 During the
1960s and 1970s, Indianness had the ability to signify an authenticity that went beyond the
boundaries of their own American identity. Nonetheless, the root of both these identities was
62
Deloria, Playing Indian, 1-9.
Deloria, Playing Indian, 162.
64
Deloria, Playing Indian, 3.
63
Penn 16
congruent with the idea that Indians were the “other.”65 During the nineteenth century, Indian
identity was considered inferior and savage like. The American Indian was viewed as an “other” who
needed to be assimilated into American culture in order to succeed and become a civilized member
of society.66 It wasn’t until the following century when more positive traits were associated with
Native Americans. By the twentieth century these qualities expressed “positive” notions of
“community, individualism and spiritual essence.”67 For counter-culturalists, Indianness was an
identity that allowed them to distance themselves from the turbulent political and social climate.
Wearing bandanas, fringe, peace symbols and other elements of Indian dress could be seen as a sign
of rebellion. It could demonstrate a cultural opposition to the Vietnam war and the on-going
discrimination against minority groups. Moreover, the symbolism churned itself into a variety of
meanings when combined together which in turn could be viewed as a form of political expression.68
During the occupation of Alcatraz, the help from non- Indian supporters was welcomed at
varying degrees. To maintain their autonomy, it was important to decipher between Native
Americans who had the authority to take part in leading the movement and those who would put
forth efforts to mobilize their occupation. Although, counter-culturalists were directed to be apart of
the latter group, that did not stop them from attempting to cross boundaries in order to legitimize
their Indianness. Some counter-culturalists believed in their American Indian identity to a troubling
extent and would even at times claim they were from specific tribes in order to get permission to
occupy the island with Native American protesters.69 These white hippies and wannabes were easily
65
Deloria, Playing Indian, 103.
Ibid.,
67
Deloria, Playing Indian, 179.
68
Deloria, Playing Indian, 181.
69
Christopher Wetzel, “The Dilemma of Differential Mobilization: Framing Strategies and Shaping
Engagement in the Occupation of Alcatraz,” in Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change Volume 30, ed.
Patrick G. Coy (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010), 257.
66
Penn 17
identifiable and not always welcomed. According to one occupant, Rose Harden, a Winnebago
Indian, their support was less poignant than represented:
The hippies are nothing but a bunch of spoiled white rich kids who are lazy and claim they
want to go back to the ways of the Indians. They’re all over San Francisco, wearing their
headbands, vests with the fringe hanging all over them; they’re buying beadwork, trying
beadwork. If they ever had a chance to change the color of their skin, they would never do
it...I figure they’re a bunch of lost people who don’t know what they want…70
Harden’s sentiments touches upon a common trope of cultural appropriation. The identity of white
liberals had fluidity. They could take on a superficial facade of the American Indian identity as easily
as they could take it off when suited. They would never be subjected to the real plights of Native
Americans.
While giving credit to their sympathies, Cree Indian and folksinger Sainte Marie gave a much
harsher critique of white liberals’ attempt to become free,
They’ll never be Indians...The white people never seem to realize they cannot suck the soul
out of race. The ones with the sweetest intentions have the worst soul.71
Through her statement Sante-Marie makes it clear that although their intentions may have been in
the right place, their practice of appropriating Indians was a continuation of turning the Indian
identity into a caricature. Along the same lines, another Native American had another negative
observation of the Ashbury-District hippies and their indian symbolism:
Oh of course, we all know about ‘wannabes.’ They have no identity of their own, so they
conjure up a fantasy that they are Indian. Eventually they believe it themselves...I pity them,
for they are lost, but I also resent them, because they replace Indian people who desperately
need the jobs and benefits these imposters make take. 72
70
Johnson, Troy R. The American Indian Occupation of Alcatraz Island: Red Power and Self- Determination
(University of Nebraska, 2008), 107.
71
Smith, Hippies, 81.
72
Wetzel, The Dilemma, 257.
Penn 18
His observations could not be argued against, as white liberals continued to sentimentalize the
Indian identity Although the symbolism of Indianness was congruent with anti-American thought
and radicalization that Native Americans could stand behind, it was still disheartening to see the
appropriation. White liberals never had to deal with the serious and challenging conditions that
Native American’s were going through. It was as though they were detached from the reality they
were trying to live.
As scholar Nick Bromell recounts, one of the reasons a number of white liberals moved to
political radicalization was to help create their own substantial form of oppression. Although white
liberals could not “suck the soul out of race,” they could become victims in their own way.73 In
order to escape from the dull existence of the “lonely liberal,” hippies would turn to radicalization as
an alternative.74 As Bromell states,
To remain a passive accomplice of the system was to be a ghost, precisely the nonentity the
system worked to produce; but to become a victim or better yet, an enemy of the state was
something to be solid and real... The liberal whose heart bled for others rather than himself
was simply denying the act that he had no self to be concerned about. The radical repressed
this self in the very act of admitting that he or she was oppressed-conflating with the
oppression of others with what Osha [described] as the oppression by one’s own
subjectivity.75
Here Bromell statement emphasizes the negative qualities of the counter-culturalists who were both
passionate about the struggles of others but who were not real victims themselves. To a number of
social movements, including the Red Power movement and those of other marginalized groups, the
oppression that whites were facing were not often as concrete as they may have believed. Their
redirection to radicalization sheds a light on their need for an alternate identity, whether it be as the
73
Smith, Hippies, 81.
74
Nick Bromell, Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000), 130.
75
Bromell, Tomorrow, 131.
Penn 19
Indian or the anti-authority enemy. With this in mind, the occupiers had to find a way to maintain
their sense of agency while liberals were trying to become their own victims. However, when the
occupation’s efforts to assert a positive reputation of the occupation in the media began to
deteriorate, so did the support of white liberals.
Negative Press
As the event was making its way towards a close, negative press began to infiltrate through.
On February 22, 1970 a reporter named Earl Caldwell published an article in the New York Times
discussing how the occupation had begun to simmer down. His condescending outlook in his
coverage of the event was most apparent when he titled the article as, “Teen-Age Indians Occupying
Alcatraz Are Feeling the Grip of Boredom.”76 In his article, Caldwell illuminates the fact that there was
little going on in the movement, and the momentum had become stunted. At the center of the
article, the author includes of photo of an empty teepee with the golden-gate bridge as the backdrop.
The image itself can be interpreted in a variety of ways, both hopeful and negative. Theoretically, the
photo could stand to represent Indians and Indian culture making their presence known in an urban
city and environment. In another context it could serve to play into the stereotypes of Native
Americans and cater to an uneducated audience that may view a teepee as an accurate representation
of Native American activism in all its simplicity. But what is most problematic about the photo and
the article itself is the lack of attention to the cause of the protesters and their active leadership.
Caldwell’s content does hold varied weight as many protesters left during the months of January and
February. Although his article seems to represent a recurring pattern of the media presenting the
protesters as “lazing, neutered, and invisible” during the final months of the occupation.77 In his
76
Earl Caldwell, “Teen-Age Indians Occupying Alcatraz Are Feeling the Grip of Boredom,” New
York Times, Feb 22 1970.
77
Christopher Wetzel, “Envisioning Land Seizure,” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (2012):160.
Penn 20
essay, Envisioning Land Seizures, Wetzel
studies the ways in which these traits are
illustrated through visual representations of
the occupation that were presented in news
articles. As Wetzel suggests, images similar
to the ones displayed in Caldwell’s article is a
“type of image [that] not only eliminated the
context of the action but rendered the
Indians completely invisible.”78
At another point during the
movement, negative press about the
occupants drinking and doing drugs on the
island started to get attention. For the most
part, the group was fairly successful in keeping the occupation drug and alcohol free, however by the
1970s they had became a common habit for some occupants. The press also caught light of these
aspects of the occupation and in turn began to writing negatively about the event. This type of press
angered many of the occupants and some emphasized that it was hypocritical for the public to be
concerned with Native American’s struggles with alcoholism on Alcatraz, when they paid little
attention to its effects on real Indian reservations. 79
Finding Agency
78
79
Wetzel, Land Seizure, 161.
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 114.
Penn 21
While experiencing the negative aspects that their supporters brought with them, the
occupiers themselves were also dealing with their own conflicts on the Island. On one front, there
were concerns over the message that they were sending based on the compromises they were willing
to make with the government at the end of the occupation. While the Nixon Administration was
focused on handling the foreign matters abroad, they avoided any impulsive actions that might get
lead to a stark reaction from the public.80 This proved the sympathies and outcry from the general
public played a hand in getting the government's attention for the occupiers. Throughout meetings
and conferences with the Native American demonstrators, the government offered to turn the island
into commercialized property with public tours that would educate people about Native Americans
in addition to other Indian facilities. However, the main issue of this compromise for some
occupants was that it would still be in control of the federal government.
Even with the support they had Native American activists knew they still lacked the political
power that would help them get all of the items they laid out in the proclamation. From the
beginning most occupants were are aware of this, but they still had differing views of what the
protest was set out to accomplish. At the start of their protest, many saw their demands as only
“tangible goals,” and that that the occupation should be devoted to increasing the reputation of the
occupation and keeping it as a symbol for Native Americans.81 In many respects that was the goal
that was accomplished by the occupation. By all means it was a theatrical performance to create
visibility and no less a stunt performance. Even so, some Native American activists saw the benefits
that would come with regarding the Island as more than just a symbol. In relation to the group
turning down public tours to educate the public about Native Americans that the federal
government offered, Fortunate noted:
80
Paul Chaat Smith, Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee ( New York:
The New Press, 1997), 106.
81
Paul Chaat Smith, Like a Hurricane, 107.
Penn 22
At the time I felt angry and frustrated. I felt that we had lost a unique opportunity
to raise much needed money and further educate the public. At the same time, I could
understand their refusal to turn a revolution into a commercial activity or cater in anyway to
the dominant culture.82
Adam’s point of viewed clashed with other leaders in the occupation who understood the the
protest as symbol with “[revolutionary]” traits. As another leader of the occupation named LaNada
stated,
We cannot let Alcatraz die because just as it was symbolic in reawakening Indian
Consciousness and bringing attention to Indian people, it will be symbolic of our death if it
should die.83
Based on her statement, she makes it clear that maintaining the island as a symbol was necessary for
it to keep its power. Once the area becomes commercialized, the spirit of their message dies with
them.
Conclusion
As historian Troy R. Johnson cites, although the IAT did not gain the political objectives
they presented in the proclamation, the occupation was by all means successful.84 It would be this
occupation that influenced the Red Power Movement and the Native Americans protest that would
appear soon after. Moreover when observing the history of Native Americans, land seizures have
played a significant role within Native American activism. In his study on Native Land Seizures and
social movements, Sociologist Christopher Wetzel reveals that acknowledging the history of land
seizures by Native Americans recognizes the concept of land as crucial aspect to the Native
American identity. In the span of 19 years, between 1950 and 1969, there have been 13 Native-
82
Eagle, Alcatraz!, 117.
Paul Chaat Smith, Like a Hurricane, 107.
84
Johnson, Self Determination, 7.
83
Penn 23
American land seizures.85 These forms of protest were carried out to meet a variety of goals. A
handful of events strived for material gains while others were pursued to re-establish sovereignty.
According to Wetzel, “[land seizures] enabled Native peoples to theatricalize the state’s exercise of
power, making these actions more obvious and therefore more complicated.”86 Wetzel’s statement
gives power to the notion that by Native American’s reinstating their right to land, they were able to
remind Americans of whom the land historically belonged to in the first place. During the 1960s in
particular, land seizures of federal property were generally geared toward bringing attention to the
living conditions of Indian Reservations and reclaiming control over the land.87
In conclusion, although the activists were not able to maintain control over the island after
the occupation, it still made great strides for Native Americans. This cause garnered more attention
than the occupants had expected. Again, as Smith notes the amount of support they received played
a significant role in helping achieve their objective of Alcatraz becoming a symbol. However, by
staying on the message they determined for themselves, they were able to find their own agency in a
white dominated society.
Primary Sources
Barry, E. Lawrence. “Indian in a Cultural Trap.”America, April 1965.
85
Christopher Wetzel, “Envisioning Land Seizure,” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (2012): 151-171.
Wetzel, “Envisioning, 158.
87
Wetzel, “Envisioning, 153.
86
Penn 24
Caldwell, Earl. “Teen- Age Indians Occupying Alcatraz Are Feeling the Grip of Boredom.” New
York Times (New York, NY), Feb. 22, 1970.
Eagle, Adam Fortunate. Alcatraz! Alcatraz! The Indian Occupation of 1969- 1971. Berkeley: Heyday
Books, 1992.
Kisseloff, Jeff. Generation on Fire: Voices of Protest from the 1960s, An Oral History. Lexington: The
University of Press of Kentucky, 2007.
Thompson, Hunter E. “The ‘Hashbury’ Is the Capital of the Hippies.” The New York Times (New
York, NY), May 14, 1967.
Secondary Sources
Bromell, Nick. Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000.
Deloria, Philip J. Playing Indian. Chelsea: Yale University, 1998.
Edward, Morgan. The 60s Experience: Hard Lessons about Modern America. Philadelphia: Temple
University, 1991.
Johnson, Troy R. The American Indian Occupation of Alcatraz Island: Red Power and
Self-Determination. University of Nebraska, 2008.
Johnson. Troy. R. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk. Los Angeles: University
of California, Los Angeles, 1997.
Smith, Paul Chaat. Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York:
The New Press, 1997.
Penn 25
Smith, Sherry L. Hippies, Indians, and the Fight for Red Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2012.
Wetzel, Christopher. “Envisioning Land Seizures,” Behavioral Scientist 56, no. 2 (2012): 151-171.
Wetzel, Christopher. “The Dilemma of Differential Mobilization: Framing Strategies and Shaping
Engagement in the Occupation of Alcatraz,” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change
30, (2010): 239-270.
Wilkinson, Charles. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indians. New York: W. W. Norton and
Company, 2006.
Penn 26