Game Theory and the Santa Clara Pueblo
Looking at how policy change at a federal level can trickle down to have real impact on individuals and change the optimal way to govern
This article was inspired after reading this essay - In the Spirit of Vine Deloria, Jr.: Indigenous Kinship Renewal and Relational Sovereignty
ABSTRACT:
Over the last hundred years there has been a change in how membership to the many Native American tribes across the United States is granted. I specifically look at the Santa Clara Pueblo and how one family was denied membership based on this change. A landmark case in the domain of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) was started based on this exclusion and has been the subject of much discussion since its ruling.
In this article I analyze an essay that explores this case, Santa Clara Pueblo vs. Martinez, and explain why the prescription on how to alleviate the persistent issues is wrong by using a game theoretical perspective. Game theory examines how rational actors make decisions given a set of choices. By using a game theoretical lens to begin examining this essay, I can explain why only a limited amount of change can occur within the current system.
In the northern reaches of New Mexico, in a small semi-arid corner of the county of Rio Arriba, there exists a little tribe of Pueblo Native Americans. The Santa Clara Pueblo, as they’re known federally, don’t occupy an especially large tract of land. The 2020 Census recorded 920 citizens living on barely more than two square miles of New Mexico. Despite being small in size and numbers the Santa Clara Pueblo are known quite well by those familiar with the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and scholars of both Supreme Court cases and the sovereignty of Native American tribes alike.
In 1941, a “full blooded” member of the Pueblo named Julia Martinez gave birth to her daughter Audrey. Audrey was born, raised and socialized on Pueblo land amongst the Pueblo people. She spoke the traditional Tewa language and participated in cultural ceremonies. Along with her family Audrey participated in the religious practices of the Santa Clara Pueblo. The Martinez family were active members of the Tribe and from the day she was born Audrey was as well. As an outsider that’s removed from the situation by more than 80 years it seems to me that for all intents and purposes Audrey was a full fledged member of the Tribe. However, the leadership of Santa Clara disagreed in 1991 and continue to disagree today. The issues began before Audrey was ever born. As previously stated, Julia was “fully” a Pueblo. Her parents, grandparents and so many before her had been of that Tribe. Her husband, on the other hand, was a member of the Navajo nation.
In 1939 the council of the Santa Clara Pueblo developed and adopted a new ordinance that impacted membership into the Tribe. Going forward, there were only two ways for a newborn child to be recognized as a member. The first is straightforward and easy to understand: any child born to parents who both already belong to the Santa Clara Pueblo would be granted membership. The second is where issues began to arise. For any child born to a male member of the Santa Clara Pueblo and a female from outside of the Tribe, membership would be granted. This one parent membership did not extend to female members of the Tribe.
This ordinance was a far departure from the traditional though unwritten rules that had existed for centuries. The historic means through which membership was granted included those that the ordinance laid out, but additionally granted membership to children born to women of the Tribe and non-member men. Additionally outsiders who were naturalized and recognized by the council could likewise be considered full fledged members. The 1939 ordinance severely limited who could become a member, in turn making the recognition as Pueblo much rarer and exclusive.
So, despite growing up amongst the Pueblo and knowing no life outside of Santa Clara, Audrey was not a member. She wasn’t permitted any of the rights and privileges awarded to those who were members. As Julia was the family's only recognized link to the Tribe, once she passed the family wasn’t permitted to reside on Santa Clara land. Audrey and the rest of her siblings were denied the right to inherit their mothers home or Julia’s traditional claim to possessory land.
Those who study this case tend to agree upon the reason for why the council of Santa Clara passed such a controversial ordinance: tribal per-capitalism. In essence this concept plays out as follows: the tribe is allotted a fixed amount of money from the United States federal government and it has a commitment to distribute this allotment amongst members. By reducing the number of officially recognized tribal members there are, those who are recognized are able to keep more for themselves.
The essay in which I read about the Santa Clara Pueblo vs. Martinez case followed the overview with some possible ways in which tribes across America could alleviate some of the issues caused by colonizer governments that last even today. Some of these suggestions included such things as increasing the usage of traditional words and languages through some means, like renaming tribes back to more historic titles or expanding language education to help preserve the culture, and other actions that are more drastic and harder to systematize. One such example is to return to more traditional kinship systems, as opposed to the more European familial system.
While on paper this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, nor one that I think is without merit, the suggestions gave me reason to pause. The changes that have happened in tribes all across America have been fast paced and somewhat in sync with one another. There wasn’t a sudden shift in cultural values in each of the different tribes overnight. Instead those with power were given a new rulebook and began making optimal moves.
While reading about the Santa Clara Pueblo I couldn’t help but analyze it from a game theoretical perspective. Game theory is the study of strategic interactions between rational players. The players we’re concerned with right now are the Tribal governments that are in charge of drafting legislation. We would assume they’re rational actors, meaning that at any given point they’re looking to make whatever decision nets them the highest payoff. In this instance we can say that the highest payoff for Tribal government officials is one that ensures they remain in elected office. I bring up game theory and rational decision making for one clear purpose: to demonstrate that the unfortunate situation that the Martinez family and so many more like them find themselves in is the result of the rules of the game changing.
In the early 1900’s, before the fateful ordinance that changed how tribal membership for Santa Clara Pueblo was awarded, a few factors built upon one another that I would argue ultimately led to the aforementioned ordinance. One was a clause in the Dawes Act. The Dawes act as a whole regulates land rights on tribal land, but the specific clause in question granted any tribal member a right to a proportional share of monies allocated for said tribe. In other words, if you are a member of some particular tribe and that tribe is given a sum of money through a trust, you are entitled to a certain percentage share of it. In conjunction with this clause there was an increase in the amount of money being awarded to tribes through settlements from the United States from the 1920’s onward. So all of a sudden there’s more money than before and everyone within a given tribe has rightful claim to a portion of it.
By changing the rules for who is a rightful and recognized member of their Tribe, the council of the Santa Clara Pueblo simultaneously shrank the number of constituents they have to be concerned with and enacted a policy that would surely help them remain in power. By limiting the means of how someone might be added to the Tribe, they reduced the current and future claims on the trust money from the government. In turn those that do hold membership status are able to draw a greater amount of money from the trust as they aren’t required to share it amongst as many people.
This policy change seems to make sense if your goal is to remain in power so that you’re able to reap the benefits that holding office brings. There are fewer people you need to worry about convincing to reelect you, and you’re more easily able to do that by funneling a larger share of tribal money towards them. Additionally those that drafted and enacted the policy made their own membership status in the tribe more valuable by excluding others from it. They acted in an optimal way that keeps themselves in power and their fellow tribesmen happy. The issue is that it excludes many, such as the Martinez family, from the Tribe when they by all accounts are rightful members.
Really, it’s no business of mine who may or may not claim belonging to any of the tribes located throughout the United States. While I sympathize with the Martinez family, it isn’t my place to say that the Santa Clara Pueblo governing council is wrong for denying them membership. Instead I merely sought to point out the hypocrisy of putting the burden on the tribes instead of looking at the forces that dictate their actions. The United States plays an immense part in geo-political and economic affairs all around the world. This would obviously hold true for the tribes that are landlocked within its borders.
As I stated earlier, I don’t necessarily think that the leaders who changed the means through which membership is granted are at fault. They were just doing what made the most rational sense considering the rules that they had to act under. This is why I take issue with the linked article for calling on individual tribes and tribesmen to enact change in order to break from this exclusive policy and mindset. While yes it may help to alleviate some of the problems that exist and aid in keeping the culture alive, it’s putting the onus on the wrong party. Instead, a reassessment of the Dawes Act may be what’s required to right the wrongs of so many decades.
As an aside, I wanted to explain my reasoning for putting the words fully or full-blooded in quotations throughout this article. From my readings and personal interactions with Native Americans, the concept of belonging isn’t as simple as what the percentage breakdown of your heritage is. It’s a Euro-centric concept that doesn’t really capture what it means to be part of one tribe or another. I simply used the term to express that the Martinez children had a strong historic connection to the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe.
