The problem of “Indian wealth” as conceived by Prof. Alexandra Harmon in Rich Indians is that native people who are much wealthier than their fellow tribesmen are viewed as morally problematic by both whites and other Indians. Her sources are typically newspapers and magazines, but she also cites historical accounts and discussions by government officials.

Unlike white Americans, where the pursuit of wealth is usually considered natural and desirable, the author argues that different standards are set for Indians. Assumed is that all Indians are poor and share their goods and a wealthy Indian is an anomaly. This leads to unusual questions. Is being wealthy the same thing as being greedy or selfish and to the detriment of the group? Are rich Indians bound to share their wealth with fellow tribesmen? If so, how long will they be wealthy? If wealthy Indians don't share, will they lose their place in tribal society? Harmon traces these discussions from the early colonial period to the present.

Harmon dates the dilemma faced by rich Indians to Jamestown. Trade between the English and local Indians was controlled by Indian leaders and made some chiefs rich. In order for a leader to maintain his control of trade, however, he was expected to distribute goods to less fortunate members of the tribe. A poor chief would not have followers, but accumulating too much wealth or land would also weaken a leader's influence.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the relatively few wealthy Indians were treated as anomalies by both fellow tribesmen and whites and their wealth was seen as making them not truly Indian. Perhaps the most infamous incident in Indian-white relations in the early nineteenth century was the removal of the Cherokee Indians from Georgia. Claims about the behavior of wealthy Indians provided justifications for moving Indians from the Southeast. John Ross, the elected leader of the tribe, was relatively wealthy and assimilated and opposed the removal of the tribe to Oklahoma. Those who accepted removal as inevitable were also relatively wealthy. Both sides accused the other of putting self-interest above tribal welfare. Whites who favored removal also dismissed wealthy Indians as exploiting poorer tribesmen.

By the 1870s Indians who had left the southeast lived in self-governing republics in the Indian Territory (what is today eastern Oklahoma). Land in these Indian nations belonged to the tribe collectively, but individuals had exclusive use rights to land that they developed. Non-Indians could not own land in the Territory. While most members of the tribes lived in modest cabins on small subsistence farms, some tribesmen gained wealth by engaging in controversial activities like using barbed wire fencing to enclose their land and leasing the enclosed range to white ranchers. They were accused of exploiting the system at the expense of more traditional Indians, and writers in the popular press debated the morality of such wealth accumulation. The terms of this debate reflected similar discussions about the morality of wealth accumulation in the Gilded Age, but there were special paradoxes for Indians. Poor traditional Indians were urged to be more like whites by saving and accumulating property. Yet wealthy Indians were condemned because they had accumulated property and lived like wealthy whites.

Another often-mentioned group of rich Indians were the oil rich Osage in Oklahoma. Their reservation was divided proportionally and allotted to members of the tribe in 1907, and some fortunate Osage became wealthy when oil was discovered on their reservation in the teens. Some newly wealthy Osage were condemned for wasting their wealth, and the press cited purchases of expensive cars and lavish presents for children. In 1921 Congress passed a law to “protect” the Osage from themselves by limiting payments from oil to a maximum of $4,000 per year (about $48,700 in 2010). The paradox is that policymakers wanted Indians to be independent and act like whites, yet passed laws to limit how they could use their property.

The final two chapters consider the recent past. Prof. Harmon surveys shifts in public perception of Indian welfare in the late 1920s to the 1970s. The growing calls for reform in Indian policy in the 1920s in the Merriam Report called attention to Indian poverty and failures in government programs to help Indians. The 1934 Wheeler-Howard Act (the Indian New Deal) championed a shift towards treating tribes as political entities and an end to land privatization. The post-World War II period saw a move to “terminate” tribes and turn Indian programs over to states. After a few tribal governments were legally dissolved, the policy was ended in the early 1970s.

Twice in the recent past, newly wealthy tribes have attracted considerable attention. In the 1970s some tribes with abundant natural resources attempted to act as a mini-OPEC, forming the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT). Recently, concerns about the implications of Indian wealth relate to the impact of the profits from casino gambling. The passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 allowed some tribes to gain rents from casino gambling. As in other cases, Indian tribes have faced external and internal discussions about how to use such wealth. Fortunate tribes are viewed with some suspicion while poor tribes are urged to develop new economic activities. The author relates recent discussions of Indian wealth to episodes discussed in earlier chapters.

A unique feature of this book is that it covers episodes over roughly 350 years to highlight the complexities faced by Indians in navigating the interaction with Euro-American and Indian society. Many readers of this JOURNAL will not be surprised to learn that Indians sought to become wealthy, although most will not have thought about the unique balancing act faced by wealthy Indians.