OCR Specification focus:
‘The American Indian Movement in the 1960s–1970s challenged discrimination and policy.’
In the 1960s and 1970s, the American Indian Movement (AIM) emerged as a powerful force, directly challenging systemic discrimination, federal policies, and cultural oppression faced by Native Americans.
Origins and Aims of AIM
Founding and Context
The American Indian Movement (AIM) was founded in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1968 by Dennis Banks, Clyde Bellecourt, and George Mitchell. Its emergence reflected growing frustration within Native American communities over persistent poverty, discrimination, police brutality, and cultural suppression. Inspired by the civil rights movement and Black Power activism, AIM sought to reclaim sovereignty and demand justice.
The late 1960s saw widespread discontent over broken treaties, loss of land, and socio-economic marginalisation.
Native Americans faced disproportionately high unemployment, poor healthcare, and low educational attainment.
Traditional tribal governance structures had been eroded by federal assimilation policies such as the Indian Reorganisation Act (1934) and termination policies of the 1950s.
Termination Policy: A U.S. government strategy (1940s–1960s) aimed at assimilating Native Americans by ending federal recognition of tribes and dismantling their reservations.
AIM’s founding represented a significant ideological shift from accommodation to militant resistance and self-determination.
Key Methods and Strategies
Urban Activism and Direct Action
AIM initially focused on urban Native Americans, many of whom had been displaced by federal relocation policies and were living in poverty. Early campaigns targeted police harassment and brutality, organising patrols to monitor police conduct in Minneapolis.
From this base, AIM adopted a range of strategies:
Direct action protests: Sit-ins, occupations, and marches brought attention to injustices.
Media engagement: AIM used press coverage to publicise Native grievances nationally.
Legal challenges: It sought redress for treaty violations and land claims through courts.
Cultural revival: Emphasis on language, religion, and identity countered centuries of assimilation.
This approach reflected a broader trend of Red Power, a militant and assertive Native American activism movement demanding sovereignty and self-determination.
Red Power: A Native American civil rights movement of the 1960s–1970s advocating self-determination, sovereignty, and cultural revival through direct action.
Major Campaigns and Events
Occupation of Alcatraz (1969–1971)
Although not organised by AIM, the occupation of Alcatraz Island by Native activists, many from the group Indians of All Tribes, profoundly influenced AIM’s strategies. Protesters invoked the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868), arguing unused federal land should revert to Native control. The occupation lasted 19 months, attracting significant media attention and inspiring similar actions nationwide.
Graffiti from the Indians of All Tribes occupation of Alcatraz (1969–71) symbolised intertribal protest and cultural assertion. While not led by AIM, Alcatraz helped shape the methods and aims of Red Power activism that AIM later employed. This contextual image includes extra detail about Indians of All Tribes rather than AIM specifically, which is appropriate for explaining AIM’s antecedents. Source
Trail of Broken Treaties (1972)
One of AIM’s most high-profile protests, the Trail of Broken Treaties, was a cross-country caravan culminating in a week-long occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) headquarters in Washington, D.C.
American Indian activists occupy the BIA building during the Trail of Broken Treaties in 1972. The demonstration highlighted demands set out in the Twenty-Point Position Paper, including recognition of tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. The image directly visualises AIM’s use of direct action to force federal attention. Source
Protesters presented a 20-point manifesto, including:
Restoration of treaty-making powers.
Recognition of tribal sovereignty.
Oversight of the BIA by Native representatives.
The occupation ended with some concessions but also heightened tensions between AIM and federal authorities.
Wounded Knee Occupation (1973)
The most dramatic AIM protest occurred at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge Reservation, a site already symbolic due to the 1890 massacre. AIM activists, alongside local Lakota residents, seized control of the town for 71 days to protest corruption in tribal leadership and federal neglect.
Poster photograph of AIM member Bobby Onco at Wounded Knee, taken after a ceasefire during the 1973 occupation. The image conveys the tense militarised context of the 71-day standoff central to AIM’s national profile. As a poster format, it includes design elements beyond the syllabus but accurately depicts an AIM participant at the site. Source
Key aspects of the occupation:
Federal marshals and FBI agents surrounded the area, leading to violent clashes.
Two protesters were killed, and numerous others injured.
Negotiations eventually ended the standoff, but AIM’s national profile soared.
This confrontation highlighted Native frustration with both internal tribal governance issues and external federal oppression.
Relations with Federal Authorities
Government Reaction and Repression
AIM’s confrontational tactics brought it into frequent conflict with federal and state authorities. The FBI and Department of Justice regarded AIM as a subversive threat, subjecting the organisation to intense surveillance and infiltration under COINTELPRO.
COINTELPRO: A covert FBI programme (1956–1971) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, and disrupting domestic political organisations deemed radical.
Leaders such as Dennis Banks and Russell Means faced repeated arrests and trials, often on questionable charges. This campaign of repression weakened AIM organisationally by the late 1970s, though its influence persisted.
Policy Change and Legal Impact
Legislative and Judicial Shifts
AIM and the broader Red Power movement contributed significantly to shifting federal policy and public attitudes toward Native Americans. Although direct legislative victories were limited, their activism helped shape key developments:
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975): Granted tribes greater control over their affairs and federal programmes.
Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Protected the right to practise traditional religions and ceremonies.
Indian Child Welfare Act (1978): Addressed the widespread removal of Native children from their families and communities.
AIM also influenced important Supreme Court rulings affirming tribal sovereignty and land claims. For example, United States v. Sioux Nation (1980) recognised unlawful seizure of the Black Hills, awarding compensation (though the Sioux refused the payment, insisting on land return).
Cultural and Ideological Legacy
Identity and Revival
Beyond policy, AIM catalysed a profound cultural renaissance among Native Americans. It promoted:
Revival of indigenous languages and spiritual practices.
Growth of Native-run schools and media outlets.
Strengthening of tribal governance and pride in heritage.
AIM’s emphasis on sovereignty and self-determination reshaped Native activism for decades, influencing later groups and campaigns. Even as internal divisions and government repression weakened AIM organisationally by the late 1970s, its impact on Native consciousness was enduring.
Wider Influence
AIM’s methods and ideology resonated beyond Native communities. Its emphasis on self-determination, cultural pride, and militant protest inspired other minority groups and intersected with the broader struggle for civil rights and social justice in the United States.
FAQ
Women played significant leadership and organisational roles within AIM, although their contributions were often overshadowed by male leaders. Figures such as Madonna Thunder Hawk and Anna Mae Aquash were central in activism, education, and cultural revival.
They helped run community programmes, organised protests, and advocated for women’s and family rights within Native communities. However, tensions over gender equality sometimes surfaced, reflecting broader debates within 1960s–70s social movements.
AIM often clashed with tribal governments, many of which it accused of corruption or collaboration with federal authorities. This was especially visible during the Wounded Knee occupation (1973), where activists opposed the tribal chairman Richard Wilson.
Such tensions complicated AIM’s campaigns, as internal divisions weakened Native unity and allowed federal authorities to portray AIM as disruptive rather than representative.
AIM linked its struggle to broader global movements for indigenous rights and anti-colonialism. Leaders attended international forums, including the United Nations, and built alliances with other indigenous groups in Canada, Latin America, and the Pacific.
These connections framed Native American struggles as part of a worldwide push against colonial legacies and for self-determination, amplifying AIM’s message on a global stage.
Education was central to AIM’s mission of cultural revival. The movement helped establish survival schools such as the Heart of the Earth Survival School in Minneapolis, designed to teach Native history, languages, and traditions.
These schools provided an alternative to mainstream curricula, which often ignored or distorted Native perspectives, and empowered younger generations to embrace their heritage and identity.
After the 1970s, AIM’s national profile declined due to internal divisions, government repression, and leadership disputes. However, local chapters continued community work and advocacy.
The organisation’s legacy endured in the growth of tribal sovereignty initiatives, increased Native representation in politics, and continuing cultural revival movements. AIM’s emphasis on direct action and self-determination remains influential in indigenous activism today.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Identify two key aims of the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the 1960s and 1970s.
Mark Scheme:
Award 1 mark for each correctly identified aim (maximum 2 marks).
To challenge discrimination and systemic oppression faced by Native Americans. (1)
To reclaim sovereignty and self-determination for Native tribes. (1)
To secure the enforcement of treaty rights and recognition of tribal governance. (1)
To revive and protect Native American culture, language, and traditions. (1)
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how AIM’s methods reflected wider trends in civil rights activism during the 1960s and 1970s.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 6 marks based on the depth and accuracy of explanation.
1–2 marks: Basic description of AIM’s methods with limited explanation of wider trends.
3–4 marks: Clear explanation of AIM’s methods with some reference to how they mirrored broader civil rights approaches.
5–6 marks: Detailed and well-supported explanation linking AIM’s strategies directly to wider trends in activism.
Indicative content may include:
AIM adopted direct action such as occupations (e.g. BIA building, Wounded Knee), reflecting the assertive tactics seen in the civil rights and Black Power movements. (1–2)
Emphasis on media visibility and national attention mirrored strategies used by groups like the Black Panthers and civil rights organisations. (1–2)
AIM promoted cultural pride and self-determination, aligning with wider trends of identity-based activism. (1–2)
Use of legal challenges and demands for recognition of treaty rights paralleled broader rights-based legal campaigns. (1–2)
