Act monies became available in South Dakota and Governor Janklow was replaced with Governor Mickelson.²⁴

During these early years of the Coalition, however, other than a few key players, Native women continued to hold marginalized positions and were severely underrepresented. Artichoker recollects: "Tillie gets things started, they laid some foundation, but there aren't any number of Indian women involved to really begin building something."²⁵ In September of 1984, Charlene Lapointe, director at White Buffalo Calf Woman Society at the time, presented a workshop to the Coalition on the special needs of Native women but this effort did little to alter the dynamics within the Coalition. Artichoker remembers begging Native women to attend the meetings with her but receiving negative responses: "Every Indian woman I talked to would say almost the same thing. `I don't wanna go to that! I know what it's gonna be. I'll have to sit there with those white women.'"²⁶

In 1985, advocate and indigenous ally Carol Maicki moved to South Dakota from Wyoming where she had been the state program manager for family violence and sexual assault within the Wyoming Department of Health and Social Services. She was also a founder of the first rape crisis center in Wyoming. In 1987, she joined the Board of Directors of Women

Against Violence in Rapid City where Artichoker had just finished her term. She became Interim Director of the program and, thus, attended her first Coalition meeting in Sioux Falls. As early as her first meeting, she experienced a taste of the divisions that existed between Native and nonNative women involved in the work when she observed even the spatial divisions of women within the room: “I remember [my first Coalition meeting] was at the YWCA and around the table sat about 30 white women. In the corner, apart from the table sat 6 Native women, one of whom was Tillie Black Bear. It looked strange to me so I asked why they sat apart. The answer I was given by one of the white women was that was the way the Native women 'liked it.' She said they liked to be by themselves. This picture stayed in my mind because it was upsetting and I didn't understand it.”²⁷

At the Coalition meeting in February of 1987, when the South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence added “Sexual Assault” to their name, a major overhaul of the by-laws was proposed to change the structure of the organization and the NCADV's principles of unity and mission statement were adopted.²⁸ This process took several months, though, because there was not complete agreement on whether or not these changes should be made. In her recollection of adopting the principles of unity and mission statement, Pearl Gulbranson, Outreach Specialist for the coalition, tells us, "The root cause of violence was identified as oppression, including racism, sexism, classism, all of the 'isms and there were people that, members of the coalition that, really did think that it was still about alcoholism and some kind of innate individual characteristic about ourselves that causes violence."²⁹ Black Bear inserts that some of the Anglo members "were like, we just want to provide services to battered women. We don't want to deal with racism or any of these other issues."³⁰ Gulbranson adds, "It was getting scary because they [the non-Native women] were losing their power."³¹

In January of 1988 the Coalition contracted with Maicki to become their first statewide coordinator,³² and in June the Coalition celebrated their tenth anniversary. Twenty-six programs were represented as were state and national legislators, judges, prosecutors, men against violence and community people. Maicki immediately set to work writing grant applications for the

Coalition. Many were approved and the U.S. Justice Department even granted $95,000 to the

Coalition to conduct a national conference titled “Indian Nations: Justice for Victims of Crime.” Artichoker was contracted to assist Maicki in planning and implementing this huge project. The conference was a success and became an annual event for the Department of Justice.³³ Shortly thereafter, in 1989, the Coalition hired Artichoker to co-coordinate with Maicki.³⁴

Tension Builds

In 1988, Black Bear was the first woman of color to be elected Chair of the NCADV. It was during this time that she brought elements of the NCADV's way of conducting meetings to South Dakota. For example, in order to become more inclusive and to give all women skills, it was decided that new or inexperienced members would share the facilitator's job with “older” members. Additionally, a modified consensus model, which the NCADV had been using since its inception, was adopted by the SDCADVSA.³⁵ Prior to this moment, the South Dakota

Coalition had been using Robert's Rules of Order where the majority vote conducts business.

Black Bear recalls: "You have to keep in mind where we were at….the state of South Dakota, it was isolated and the women doing the work were pretty isolated and this is what we knew….I served on boards at home and it was all Robert's. I wasn't always comfortable with it, but that was the way decisions were made, until we saw a different way to do it."³⁶

The modified consensus model drastically changed the meeting procedures. Any member could offer a proposal to the group. A discussion then followed with clarifying questions. Lastly, the group would be asked to make a decision. Members could: (1) sit in "silence" which meant agreement with the proposal, (2) "stand aside" which meant the member was not in total agreement but would actively support the group's decision, or (3) "block" which meant that the member could not agree with the proposal in its present form. Any block could stop the process. If a member blocked, the only course of action was to offer a new proposal.³⁷

This new decision-making system allowed for all members to have a say but, more importantly, it guaranteed that a small majority could not impose their will on the rest of the group. There were problems in making this transition, though, because, for the first time, women had to be accountable for their votes as individuals. Additionally, modified consensus gave power to the Native women in the Coalition that they had not previously held. Artichoker explains: “There were, at that time, 22 members. I said, 'Even if every reservation sent an Indian woman [as a representative member], that means 9.' I said, 'We cannot outvote you. Your voter bloc could stop any Indian woman from getting into any position of leadership if you so choose. If Indian women get into positions of leadership, it's because you're allowing it. You're being benefactors…you're being, whatever! But if we go to consensus we all have to agree.³⁸ Artichoker also recalls a conversation she had with a non-Native member of the Coalition soon after the move to modified consensus was made: "I'm on the phone saying, 'Just think Sherry, the whole executive committee could be Indian women.'….She was sort of okay with me and then she called Carol and said, 'Oh my god! The Indians are taking over!"³⁹ Thus, even though the white women in the Coalition reluctantly agreed to the modified consensus model, it didn't take long for them to figure out that a shift in power could occur when the model was actually put into practice.

Native women remember the resistance they were met with during one of the first meetings where consensus was used and a Native woman was elected to a significant position in the Coalition. Again, the Native women sat separate from the white women, visibly illustrating the tension in Coalition dynamics. Artichoker recounts the comments from one of the white women during the election process: "'Well, I just don't understand how somebody new to the coalition could really do that job because when I think of the executive committee, I always think of the smartest people in the organization and they are the people who I am going to call if I need to know something and if you are just starting, I don't see how you could know anything.'"⁴⁰ As the participation of many Native women was relatively new to the Coalition, this comment was perceived by many of the Native women involved as a racist attack. No one addressed this issue to the whole group though and the meeting continued. Moments later, however, Native woman April Fallis leaned over to Artichoker and quietly articulated her anger, "'We should just leave and start our own [coalition]!'" This exclamation prompted Artichoker to interrupt the proceedings and attempt to explain the need for tolerance and racial equality to the non-Natives in the room.

As soon as Artichoker sat down, Maicki rose and exclaimed: "Shame on me, shame on me, shame on me….here's my beautiful little friend Karen and she's standing up there lips quivering….It should have been me standing up there and saying something and not her. I'm so sorry Karen."⁴¹ At that point, she turned to the white women in the room and began talking about racism and feminism. She asserted that racism was a white peoples problem and that whites should actually be the ones catching each other on their use of it. Artichoker remembers all of the Native women in the room saying, "Wow, wow, wow,"⁴² because their needs were finally being addressed by a non-Native in the Coalition.

Unfortunately, Maicki and Artichoker's attempts to dislodge the racism that was operating within the Coalition didn't make a significant impact on group dynamics. When Black Bear brought another innovation from her experience with the NCADV, the women of color task force,⁴³ the white women again expressed resistance and hostility. The women of color task force could bring proposals to the SDCADVSA as a group and they were charged with making the decision for hiring one of the two co-coordinators. This was to assure that at least one cocoordinator would either be a Native woman or have to be approved by the women of color task force. Additionally, the women of color task force had the authority to stop the proceedings of a meeting at any time to caucus.⁴⁴

Again, everyone seemed to be in agreement in patterning the SDCADVSA after the NCADV when Black Bear first proposed the task force, but the first time the women of color task force exercised their right to stop the proceedings and caucus, there was discomfort and resentment. Maicki recalls that when the Native women left the room to caucus, "there was silence and finally one non-Native woman remarked, “'Well, they have their group, but where is mine?' As she looked around the room and found they were all white women, the humor of what she said was obvious to all."⁴⁵ Resistance to the concept of inclusivity and to the new reality of having Native women “at the table” became a smoldering undercurrent that would eventually split the Coalition into two separate entities.

Another task the Coalition undertook around this time was to assess “underserved” women in South Dakota. They determined there were two areas in the state where women were at high risk because of lack of services and shelters: the Pine Ridge reservation (primarily rural

Native women) and northern Meade County (primarily rural white women.) Co-coordinators, Artichoker and Maicki began searching for foundations that would be willing to grant money for start-up activities in these areas. Under its health initiative, the Robert Wood Johnson foundation carved out monies for projects that involved Native Americans and health issues. Artichoker wrote a proposal and was successful in being approved for a three-year grant to start up a project on Pine Ridge. It was named Project Medicine Wheel and the Coalition was the fiscal agent for the grant.⁴⁶

Because Artichoker was an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Nation, the executive committee of the Coalition decided that she would oversee the project because it would not be appropriate or realistic for a non-Native to impose a program on a Native Nation. This duty was also in keeping with her job description that included providing technical assistance for all of the emerging programs on Indian reservations in the state. Artichoker designed Project Medicine Wheel so that the focus was a total community response to violence against women. She hired staff and monitored them. The Robert Wood Johnson foundation monitored the project's progress and Maria Russell, the non-Native coalition treasurer, administered and monitored the funds. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the development of this project too increased racial tensions within the Coalition. Ally Ro Ann Redlin remembers a non-Indian Coalition member commenting, "'I don't know if we should let those Indian women handle all that money.'"⁴⁷ Gulbranson elaborates on this memory and talks about all of "the squirming and the ugliness" that occurred when the vote to administer the grant took place: "We couldn't say that vote out loud. We had to do it ballot.

That's how uncomfortable people were."⁴⁸

The conflicted relations between Natives and non-Natives that were building inside the Coalition mirrored events that were occurring on the larger South Dakota landscape. In 1990, advocate and social justice activist Charon Asetoyer and others began looking for a location in Lake Andes where The Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center⁴⁹ could open a shelter. In their attempts to find an appropriate place, a situation developed that would only add to the smoldering resistance of white members within the Coalition who were not comfortable with the emerging leadership of Native women.

The mayor of Lake Andes had previously asked Asetoyer to contact him if the Resource Center ever decided to expand its organization. When the women found a location for the shelter, Asetoyer informed him that they had purchased the house next door to the Resource Center. Shortly after this exchange, Asetoyer was contacted by the City Council and told that she needed a zoning variance for the location that was chosen. A little concerned, she asked other members from the Coalition and her staff to attend the zoning hearing with her.⁵⁰ Coincidently, a year prior to these events Asetoyer had been featured in Mother Jones magazine.⁵¹ After this press, Joni, a woman from the east coast, had contacted Asetoyer and asked to collect video footage for a possible film. The night of the City Council meeting, this woman and her video camera too were in attendance.

When the women entered the meeting, the room was crowded with people and one of the zoning commissioners asked Joni not to videotape the proceedings. Joni turned her camera to the floor but left it on so that the audio could still be recorded.⁵² During that meeting, racial tensions reached their peak when states attorney Mike Whalen stood and announced: “Indian culture as I view it, is presently so mongrelized as to be a mix of dependency on the federal government and a primitive society wholly on the outside of the mainstream of Western civilization and thought. The Native American culture as we know it now, not as it formerly existed, is a culture of hopelessness, godlessness, of joblessness and lawlessness.”⁵³ Needless to say, the Resource Center was denied the zoning permit.⁵⁴ Asetoyer reflects on this moment: “We were in a state of shock. We couldn't believe the blatant racism - the states attorney was really supposed to be working with groups that are trying to protect victims of crime, and as we know [women] fleeing from domestic violence and sexual assault are victims of crime. Instead he was doing everything he could to prevent a facility from opening up in Lake Andes.”⁵⁵ After this event, Asetoyer contacted the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Yankton

Sioux Tribe organized a march down Main Street in protest of the racist atmosphere in the city.

To respond to a member program's distress and to show support, the executive committee of the

Coalition, at the request of Black Bear, decided to hold the quarterly meeting in Lake Andes.

They also decided to include a discussion of the remarks made by Mike Whalen on the agenda.

Asetoyer recalls that there was obvious resentment from some of the non-Native women in the Coalition and comments that concerns over racism seemed to trump the commitment to ending violence against women.⁵⁶

As the Yankton Sioux march in Lake Andes approached, a letter was written to Coalition

Chairperson, Shari Aaker-Gilchrist, by Bradley Olson (Chairperson of a local shelter program in Yankton). In his letter he objected to the proposed agenda because, “Although we empathize with the stand of Native Americans against the statement made by States Attorney, Mike Whalen, we feel the focus of the current agenda would be centered around this issue and not be beneficial or productive toward the common goal of addressing domestic violence. Therefore, it is the decision of our Board that the Yankton Women's Center/Shelter not be officially represented at the September meeting.”⁵⁷ This letter foreshadowed the rhetoric that would be used by white women who objected to the Coalition's growing involvement with what they termed “Indian Issues.” They viewed this focus as separate from their work of providing shelter and advocacy to victims of violence despite the fact that the women in Lake Andes were denied shelter accommodations precisely because they were Native women.

The meeting was held in Lake Andes as scheduled and the Yankton program's letter became an agenda topic. The executive committee tasked Artichoker with responding to Olson's letter, which she did on October 5, 1990. She wrote:

Mr. Whalen publicly stated that the Native American Women's Health Education

Resource Center, a member organization of the South Dakota Coalition, 'promotes evil.' While this remark referenced Indian culture, it would be irresponsible of us to allow a public official to make such disparaging and racist comments about a member organization of the Coalition. It would also be disrespectful to ignore blatant racism especially when battered women and children of color are the vehicle being used to promote racism.”⁵⁸

She went on to say, “Domestic violence is an issue of oppression in our society” and the mission of the Coalition is to confront it as such despite the fact that "many shelters/programs in our state have difficulty making the connection between providing direct services to battered women and the need for social change on a more global scale."⁵⁹ Artichoker ended the letter by saying, “In turn, the coalition is available to support the Yankton Women's Shelter/Center should you find yourselves facing a Mike Whalen who has power over you.”⁶⁰

The letter from the Yankton program is only one example of the many complaints nonNative boards and directors around the state launched when the direction of the Coalition began to shift. Even though the SDCADVSA's goals and mission were in sync with those of the NCADV, the new approach was upsetting for many white South Dakotans. Maicki explains, "Some of the resistance by the white women came about because of the changes they were experiencing. For some, being on the 'side' of Native people was a new and frightening experience because it felt unsafe."⁶¹

One of the non-Native women who participated in the Lake Andes march was so traumatized she needed many hours of discussion to come to terms with how she felt. She said:

All my life, I've lived here in South Dakota and never did I have any contact with Native people until I came to the shelter escaping my batterer husband. Now that I'm free of that relationship and am actually working in a shelter, I was feeling proud of myself and what I had accomplished until that day in Lake Andes. I couldn't understand the pure hatred on the faces of white people like me as we walked past them. I couldn't believe that people like me could look at me like that. They saw me as one of them - as one of the Indians! It threw me into a crisis that lasted for weeks. That night, I desperately phoned people from my motel room to talk about it. I spent the night sleepless and crying.⁶²

Advocate Brenda Hill recalls the reactions of the white women who participated in the march similarly:

I remember how surprised I was at how fearful many of the white women were. Some of them were talking about leaving and it occurred to me that as Native women, as women in general, we're used to having to listen for footsteps and all of that, but for Native women, we're used to the idea that we can be hurt because of our….being Indian anytime just as well.⁶³

Asetoyer adds, "I do remember that there were women who were talking about leaving and I was kind of like in a state of shock because this was all over a group of women trying to open up a shelter….I just couldn't understand what their concern was….their fear."⁶⁴ To help address these issues, allies Penny Hauffe and Gulbranson initiated a white women working against racism committee at the Lake Andes meeting but this too was met with dread and resistance.⁶⁵ Gulbranson remembers white women in the Coalition asking, "What do you mean white women working against racism? All of us?"⁶⁶

Similar reactions surfaced at a board meeting of the member organization Women

Against Violence in Rapid City. When Director Frances Hitzel reported on her attendance at the quarterly meeting held in Lake Andes, she explained the development of the women of color task force and the white women working against racism working group. The board members were not only upset with her recap of the meeting, but most were furious. They simply could not understand why racism needed to be addressed when all programs were doing the same thing - providing safety to battered women. It should be noted here that the Board of WAVI consisted of nine members, all of whom were non-Native. Their shelter was almost always filled to capacity and the majority of women sheltered were Native battered women.⁶⁷

Maicki remembers that the difference between individual acts of racism and institutionalized racism was very difficult for some of the white women to understand. She asserts, "A typical comment from a white person was that they, themselves, were good-hearted people without any evil intentions to do harm to minorities so why should they be accused of colluding with oppressors from the past?"⁶⁸ Nevertheless, training programs were developed and, albeit hesitantly, some members began to read and educate themselves about racism.⁶⁹ For example, Maicki recalls that one shelter director went to a workshop and the main thing she came away with was that even though she, herself, did not operate in a racist way, the very fact that she was born and raised in a community that had institutionalized racism meant she couldn't help but have racist thoughts and opinions. She embraced this concept because it explained a lot to her about the way she thought about herself in comparison to Native people. She remembered that when she was a resident in a shelter that had Native women as staff, she had thought to herself, “what can that Indian woman possibly help me with?” ⁷⁰

The Walkout

Despite the diversity trainings and efforts of some member organizations to directly address and remedy the racism operating within the Coalition, unrest still permeated the air. For example, Native women had begun making complaints regarding the services and attitudes at some of the non-Native shelters they had utilized. Hill recalls a story a Native woman had told her regarding her experiences:

She said that one of the white women residents had said something to her like 'her dirty Indian kids' and she should just go back to the reservation….the Native woman told one of the advocates and the advocates said they needed to sit down and work it out, you know. And they weren't allowed to use sage and it just got worse and worse and worse 'til one woman told me, 'Well I had been there once and I'd rather sleep under a bush than stay in the Aberdeen shelter!'⁷¹

It was right around this time that some of the non-Native programs began to hold secret meetings apart from the quarterly meetings of the Coalition. On March 7, 1991, seven women, all Directors of non-Native programs met in Sioux Falls to “discuss concerns in the direction of the Coalition.”⁷² This meeting resulted in a list of concerns that was “anonymously” sent to Coalition Chair Aaker-Gilchrist on March 8, 1991. The participating member organizations listed eight major concerns along with “resolution ideas” to be considered by the executive committee and the membership. Prominent among these concerns were utilizing consensus format in place of Robert's Rules of Order, the implementation of co-chairs rather than one chairperson, and the management of Project Medicine Wheel. Notably, these concerns challenged Native leadership and Native management of funds. For example, in regards to Project Medicine Wheel, it was suggested that the executive committee of the Coalition review the policy manual, financial records, and overall management of the project to ensure that it was being conducted according to the grant that funded it.

On March 15, the executive committee met in Redfield to respond to this list of concerns.

They reminded the Coalition that all by-laws, including consensus format and the implementation of co-chairs, had been agreed upon by the membership as a whole. They also reminded members of the processes that needed to be followed in order to change these by-laws. Additionally, they responded that both Chairperson Aaker-Gilchrist and Treasurer Russell oversaw the execution of Project Medicine Wheel.⁷³

Hill took exception to the executive committee's acknowledgment of the list of concerns from anonymous “members of the coalition”⁷⁴ and sent a response letter to all Coalition programs. In this document she argues, “That the executive committee acknowledged and thereby condoned the clandestine meeting in Sioux Falls is an affront to all Native American programs and others who understand that racism is as lethal as sexism.”⁷⁵ She went on to make the connections between batterers' tactics and the “nameless, faceless people” at the Sioux Falls meeting who refused to utilize the names of the Native members whose programs they suggested be placed under review:

Batterers rarely use their victim's name. Our coordinator's name is Karen Artichoker. The policy manual was written by Marlin Mousseau [not Marlin Russow]. As Native people we do have names and identities. We do have voices and will not be discounted. But of course, it is easier to do violence, once the “enemy” has been dehumanized.⁷⁶

Additionally, she asserts, “The gross misinterpretation of sharing leadership is a great example of racism. Native women shouldn't/can't be leaders; we're supposed to shut-up and sit in back of the bus; quit being so uppity and stay on the reservation. White women only as 'leaders,' is that what they want?”⁷⁷ Hill ends the letter by exclaiming that the Native women of the Coalition will not be submissive: “We are standing up, voicing our rights in a direct, open and ethical way. We will not submit to racism. You can be sure that as Native women continue to assume our rightful role in Coalition leadership, we will treat everyone with the respect and dignity they have earned and deserve.”⁷⁸

The Coalition then received word that the Division of Human Rights within the Department of Commerce had contacted the Community Block Grant Program, a federal funding program, because the Director had received an “anonymous” phone call complaining that committees within the Coalition were excluding people upon the basis of race and sex. It was specifically in response to this complaint that the women of color task force requested a special meeting to consider a statement they would distribute to the group. In April 1991, 24 member programs of the Coalition convened a special meeting at the Asbury United Methodist Church in

Sioux Falls to consider and respond to the women of color task force statement of concern. The Coalition had requested that Senator Maicki return to facilitate the meeting and it had been decided that the women of color task force would present their statement of concern and then leave the meeting so the white women could discuss the statement. After this, the Native women would return so decisions could be made.⁷⁹

The night before the meeting, Maicki was in her motel room when she had a visit from a non-Native member who expressed that she felt the situation within the Coalition was hopeless and that some of the white programs were determined to leave the Coalition and form another group. Maicki asked the visitor to come to the next day's meeting with an open mind and to put the needs of the entire group above individual interests. The visitor said she would try but that she was not optimistic.⁸⁰

The next morning member programs assembled for the meeting. The women of color task force handed out their statement. To start the meeting, task force Chair Black Bear offered a prayer in her Lakota language and then the Native women left the building and said they would return in two hours. Maicki suggested that everyone take the time to read the statement drawn up by the task force before she led them through the issues one by one. Before this could happen, a woman voiced her objection to the prayer offered by Black Bear. She said, “That's rude. Why couldn't she translate the prayer into English?” while another woman inquired as to why a Christian prayer was not offered in addition to the one in Lakota.⁸¹

The prayer served as a catalyst for the non-Native women to bring up every complaint they had about the Native women. There were some objections to these complaints and the discussion became heated because not all of the white women were in agreement. One member asked why the prayer had been so disturbing. Another offered that perhaps English wasn't God's first language. The discussion and complaints continued for the entire two hours. When the Native women returned, they were told the statement had not yet been considered so they left for two more hours during which Maicki moved the discussion toward considering the women of color task force's 5 page statement of concern.⁸²

In its introduction, the statement named the recent activities within the Coalition as acts of racism. It presented an analysis of racism, linking the dynamics of racism to the dynamics of sexism, so there might be common ground to begin rebuilding the Coalition into a strong, multicultural organization that represents diversity and provides a voice for all battered women and their children.⁸³

The letter also called for an examination of power and privilege within the Coalition and acknowledged the gestures that had been made to address these imbalances:

The privileged group must be willing to give up the privilege that comes with belonging to a certain group. You outnumber us. That is the reality of the Coalition. With parliamentary procedure, the voices of women of color were moot - lost. A majority vote decision-making process renders women of color powerless within this organization. It would be your privilege and with your benevolence that the voices of women of color would be heard. Your willingness to move to a consensus model of decision making - thus giving up some of your privilege was heartening to us. It indicated that you truly did want us to feel that the Coalition was an organization that we could feel invested in and a part of. In a racially mixed organization, this is indeed a rare experience for us.⁸⁴ However, the statement continued, "You have now come face to face with you loss of privilege" and "We see individuals defending the status quo of their shelters/programs. It is obvious that the Coalition does not yet have a 'collective consciousness.'”⁸⁵

The statement then enumerated the problems within the Coalition as the women of color task force perceived them. First and foremost, they believed that problems were surfacing because of lack of leadership and they request that Chairperson Aaker-Gilchrist resign her position. Five additional concerns were then set forth:⁸⁶

In regards to the anonymous person that contacted the Division of Human Rights, it was demanded that the person who made this call “must be identified and held accountable for this subversive activity. They must either be censured or removed from this organization.”

They ask for clarification on relationships between the executive committee, staff/contract consultants, and committee members so that misuse of committee power does not occur. They suggest this can be addressed through by-laws and in-house policy.

It is suggested that an orientation packet be developed for all new members so that the philosophy that guides the Coalition is clear.

They recommend a retreat designed to provide information and time for extensive dialogue on the connections between racism, classism, homophobia, etc. and domestic violence in order to develop a common understanding and language.

They ask for a policy on ethical communication, asserting that it is not acceptable for white women to use the excuse of safety or female socialization as a reason for holding selective and exclusive meetings.

The statement ends with the desire that white women be strong and courageous and take risks - exactly as battered women are asked to have the courage to plunge into the unknown when they leave violent relationships. The task force also firmly states they will not withdraw from the organization and they anticipate a new and stronger future - as sisters.⁸⁷

Under the facilitation of Maicki, the white women moved through the issues contained in the statement. Aaker-Gilchrist refused to resign. No one in the room would identify herself as the person making the anonymous complaint to the Division of Human Rights. The body agreed to all other issues, although not unanimously. Some women chose to “stand aside” indicating they were not in total agreement but that they did agree not to block the adoption of the other task force suggestions. The women of color task force returned and were told about the decisions made.⁸⁸ Unfortunately, though, little was truly resolved because what followed was a dismemberment of the Coalition as it existed at the time.

On July 3, 1991 (less than three months after the Coalition meeting addressing the women of color task force's statement) a letter on behalf of the same seven non-Native programs who had held secret meetings was sent to the Department of Commerce that disbursed state funds to the Coalition. In this letter, the seven organizations first thanked state officials for having met with them and then asserted that they chose to no longer participate in the

SDCADVSA. Among the reasons given for this decision were the following:

The Coalition no longer addresses domestic violence and sexual assault.

There is no cohesiveness between programs. Meetings address issues such as Wounded Knee and White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, which are individual and community issues that have no bearing on the mission of the Coalition.

The Coalition has reported training that never happened and was reimbursed from state funds.

An audit is overdue and Coalition meeting minutes are not available.

Lastly, the letter ends with the seven organizations asserting they are "committed to providing safety and shelter from any form of battering" yet find themselves "in a unique position of being victims" in Coalition meetings and proceedings.⁸⁹ They add, "Learned behavior is applicable throughout society. It is no respecter of race, religion, color, ethnic background, age or social standing. We choose to not continue in a disruptive, embroiled environment."⁹⁰

A letter of response was sent from the Coalition to the resigning programs. The letter expresses regret at the resignation but also notes concern "that no grievances or formal discussion was brought forth beforehand."⁹¹ "Nevertheless," the letter continues, "the door of the Coalition remains open should you decide to 'carefront' these issues or rejoin in the future."⁹²

After their resignation from the Coalition, the seven programs created the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault. The Network was immediately supported by the State of South Dakota and the Coalition's state funding was essentially cut in half to accommodate the Network. The situation today remains the same. The Coalition still has a diverse membership that includes programs located in Indian Country in addition to “white” programs located off-reservation. The Network is exclusive with no members located in Indian Country. The Network continues to challenge state and federal funding sources to fund their organization instead of the original Coalition. Despite the fact that the federal government recognizes the original Coalition as the designated Coalition in South Dakota, the state government continues to support and advocate for the Network in the interest of “fairness.”⁹³ Asetoyer articulates the sentiments of many Native women who witnessed the walkout when she says:

You know, what has always puzzled me to this day is that the split between the Coalition and the formation of the Network was based on race….Rather than the state saying, 'You all have to work this out and move forward together,' they went and rewarded the racists by funding them and subsidizing them! That is something we can't overlook!....I mean it was a contributing factor to the racism and it made them safe to be racist.⁹⁴

Conclusion

As I suggested in the introduction to this chapter, the indigenized account of the SDCADVSA that I have provided above directly refutes mainstream efforts to marginalize and disappear Native women from genealogies of anti-violence organizing. Native women, Native lands, and Native concerns have been and continue to be central to anti-violence mobilization. An acknowledgement of this reality is critical in ongoing efforts to halt violence against Native women because it balances the pathologization of Native women as victims of violence with a record of the mobilization and survivance Native women have surmounted against said violence. Likewise, this indigenized retelling decenters mainstream colonial narrations of a monolithic anti-violence movement that, at best, marginalizes Native women and, at worst, attempts to “include” women of color in a superficial and subordinating manner that further strengthens white supremacy and violence.⁹⁵

In addition to rerighting our understanding of the anti-violence movement, this counternarrative also expands our knowledge of the intricacies and intersections of settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy which do not have to manifest as genocide proper in order to be recognized as genocidal practice. For example, it becomes increasingly clear throughout the development of the Coalition that although the non-Native membership professed commitment to both Native and non-Native concerns, white supremacist practices and ideologies were ultimately privileged. Non-Native members within the Coalition might have made a show of renouncing their power with actions such as the move to modified consensus and the adoption of the NCADV's mission statement and principles of unity, but when the power balance within the Coalition actually began to shift, these same members demonstrated an inability or refusal to work with an anticolonialist framework. They were willing to “include” Native women in the Coalition but only if the Natives sat quietly in the back of the room and white supremacy dictated the terms of their conversations and mobilizations. Furthermore, they sincerely expected Native women to remain silent about the Coalition decisions and viewpoints that actually contribute to violence against

Native women. When Native women refused this role, the non-Native members responded by abandoning the Coalition and creating an exclusively non-Native organization that eliminates

Native concerns, Native members, and ultimately, attention to violence against Native women. This is poignantly demonstrative of Linda Tuhiwai Smith's assertion that the forms, manifestations, and executors of settler colonialism can range from “'rapacious bandit kings' intent on exploitation to well-meaning middle class liberals intent on salvation."⁹⁶ Furthermore, it illustrates the significance of “charting the continuities, discontinuities, adjustments, and departures whereby a logic that initially informed frontier killing transmutes into different modalities, discourses and institutional formations as it undergirds the historical development and complexification of settler society.”⁹⁷ In other words, the racism and hatred sanctioned within the SDCADVSA and then reaffirmed through the creation of the Network might look different than the frontier homicide of Native peoples but is informed by the same logic and ultimately accomplishes the same goal of eradicating indigeneity.

However, it is also critical to emphasize that Native women never left the SDCADVSA or gave up in their fight to end violence against Native women. Hill reminds us, "We need to recognize and celebrate the fact that we not only survived a time that could have destroyed us, we came through it with not only our dignity intact, but wiser and stronger. We clarified, by test of fire, what our mission is about."⁹⁸ This perseverance is both a testament to the resistance Native women have demonstrated throughout colonization and a building block for the federal legislative efforts I will explore in the following two chapters. For, I would argue, it was the continued and unwavering commitment Native women have demonstrated and the resounding cry against violence they have emitted that eventually prompted the federal government to

“address” the incidence of violence against them.

Yet, as I argue in the next two chapters, we must carefully consider the exact form that such attention has taken. For, while we can, and should, acknowledge the foundational importance that Native women have in anti-violence organizing, we must also appreciate the degree to which the work of Native women has been appropriated and transformed by the state in the interests of the state. For example, in her recollection of the creation of the Network, Asetoyer asserts, "The Network is rewarded. The state funds the Network and rewards them for their racism. It's such a hard pill to swallow. It's so big I'm not gonna swallow it."⁹⁹ But perhaps we should contemplate this pill for a moment, let it roll around on our tongue until we taste its bitterness. For the ways in which the state strategically sponsored the white supremacy and heteropatriarchy enacted by the Network yet simultaneously pantomimed efforts to work with indigenous women and against these logics through the Coalition play a key role in maintaining violence against Native women and set the stage for the smoke-and-mirror tactics that became employed in subsequent settler state-initiated “efforts” to halt violence against

Native women.

Chris Rock, Bigger and Backer, HBO Special, 1999.

For examples of white-supremacist framings that dominate descriptions of the anti-violence movement, as well as responses to such depictions, see texts such as Natalie Sokoloff and Christina Pratt, eds., Domestic Violence at the Margins: Readings on Race, Class, Gender, and Culture (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005); Maria Ochoa and Barbara Ige, eds., Shout Out: Women of Color Respond to Violence (Emeryville: Seal Press, 2007); and Incite!

Women of Color Against Violence, eds., Color of Violence: The Incite! Anthology (Cambridge: South End Press, 2006).

I utilize these terms as they are conceptualized by Linda Tuhiwai Smith as tools in a decolonizing project that takes seriously the intersections between imperialism, history, and the exclusion or misrepresentation of indigenous voices; see Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (New York: Zed Book Ltd, 1999).

Patrick Wolfe, “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” Journal of Genocide Research 8:4 (December 2006): 387-409.

Ibid., 388.

White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, Information Pamphlet (South Dakota).

Black Bear recalls that the women had to use the men's restroom because there was not a women's restroom in the entire building.

SDCADVSA, interview by author, Rapid City, South Dakota, March 2008.

Commission on the Status of Women, South Dakota Department of Social Services: Division of Human Development Memo, 26 July 1978, Private Collection.

SDCADVSA, Workshop Summaries, July 1978, Private Collection.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Steering Committee to SDCADVSA, July 21, 1978, Private Collection.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Ibid.

Carol Maicki, From the Beginning, Private Collection.

Carol Maicki, Herstory, Private Collection.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Ibid.

Maicki, Herstory.

Notably, though, the order did not initially protect unmarried people. In order to apply for a protection order, a victim of abuse had to be legally married to the perpetrator. In February of 1988, however, changes were made to the legislation that extended protection to unmarried persons.

Maicki, Herstory.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Ibid.

Maicki, From the Beginning.

Bylaws Revision Committee, Proposed Bylaws Changes of the SDCADVSA, March 24, 1987, Private Colection.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Ibid.

Ibid.

SDCADVSA, Coordinator for SDCADVSA Contract, February 18, 1988, Private Collection.

Carol Maicki, Annual Report of Co-Coordinator Carol Maicki, June 1, 1989, Private Collection.

This legislative response to violence against women motivated Maicki to run for office. Maicki was elected in November of 1990 to the South Dakota Senate and began her term in January of 1991.

SDCADVSA, Parallel Development, Private Collection.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

As the adoption of task forces (which had more recourses than committees) was intended to bring political equity to disenfranchised groups, the Coalition later went on to approve additional task forces such as the formerly battered women task force, rural women task force, sexual assault task force, and lesbian task force. Also notable is that the Coalition eventually changed the name of the women of color task force to the Native women of sovereign nations task force in order to highlight issues of colonialism as well as the unique government-to-government relationship Native nations have with the United States. This change too reflects the feeling that Native women in South Dakota had regarding the irrelevancy the term “women of color” has for Native women. SDCADVSA, interview.

SDCADVSA, Parallel Development.

Maicki, From the Beginning.

Karen Artichoker, Report to the Coalition Annual Meeting, June 1, 1989, Private Collection.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Ibid.

Founded in 1985 by Charon Asetoyer, Clarence Rockboy, and Jackie Rouse.

Charon Asetoyer, interview by author, Lake Andes, South Dakota, March 2008.

Sara Miles, "Asetoyer-Rockboy: One Life at a Time, She Saves a Nation," Mother Jones, January 1990.

Asetoyer, interview.

rom the original transcript of the zoning hearings from the audio recording Joni was able to capture. For media coverage of Whalen's comments please see: Patsy Jeltz, “Yankton Sioux Call for Boycott: Racial Slurs Raise Tempest,” The Lakota Times, September 11,1990; Steve

Young, “Lake Andes Case Proves Change Due,” Argus Leader, September 17,1990; Bradley

Hauff and Creighton Robertson, “Whalen's Comments Called `Grotesque,'” The Lakota Times,

September 18, 1990; Mike Whalen, “Whalen: Progress is Needed,” The Daily Republic,

September 20, 1990; Staff, “Protesters Demand Whalen's Resignation,” The Lakota Times,

September 25, 1990; David Lias, “Mickelson: Whalen Can't Be Forced to Resign,” The Daily Republic, September 28, 1990; Bob Mercer, “S. Dakota Pioneers a Holiday for Native America,” The Washington Post, October 9, 1990.

Sue Ivey, “Andes Abuse Shelter Plans on Hold for Now,” Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, September 18, 1990.

Asetoyer, interview.

Ibid.

Bradley Olson to Shari Aaker-Gilchrist, 1990, Private Collection.

Karen Artichoker to Bradley Olsen, October 5, 1990, Private Collection.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Maicki, From the Beginning.

Ibid.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Asetoyer, interview.

SDCADVSA, Parallel Development.

Ibid.

Maicki, From the Beginning.

Ibid.

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Follow-Up Report: South Dakota Technical Assistance Visit, February 10, 1990, Private Collection.

Ibid.

SDCADVSA, interview.

Maicki, From the Beginning.

SDCADVSA Executive Committee to Shelter Programs, March 18, 1991, Private Collection.

The individual member programs that lodged the list of concerns were not known at the time.

Brenda Hill to All Coalition Programs, March 25, 1991, Private Collection.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Carol Maicki, Why There Are Two Coalitions in South Dakota, Private Collection.

Maicki, From the Beginning.

Ibid.

Ibid.