Times-Dispatch: Welcome. Let's start with a basic question. How does one become the chief of the Chickahominy Tribe?

Stephen Adkins: Every four years we have elections. The tribe has a 12-member board of directors and its members serve staggered terms. Every four years I come up for election as chief. The Chickahominy method kind of distinguishes itself from an American system that uses an electoral college. The Chickahominy don't need that -- we think every vote counts. The popular vote gets the chief elected.

T-D: Has it always been that way?

ADKINS: Actually, years ago, the female leaders chose the chief matrilineally. But the Chickahominy tribe was governed by what we call mungai -- that was a council

of elders -- and there wasn't a specific chief. However, in times of crisis, a leader emerged. We were a spiritual people and much of their guidance was obtained and sought from the priests within our system. But we did migrate to a system where we elect a chief to lead the tribe.

T-D: So, how do you establish voter eligibility? You can vote in a Virginia election if you have residency in Virginia, you can vote in a union election if you're a card-carrying member of the union. How does it work for the Chickahominy?

ADKINS: You can vote in a national election if you are a citizen of the United States or its territories. If you're a citizen of the Chickahominy Tribe, age 16 and older, you can vote.

T-D: If you're a Chickahominy and you live in Illinois, can you vote?

ADKINS: You can vote if you are a member of the Chickahominy Tribe in good standing and above the age of 16 -- you can vote no matter where you live. If you live in Germany, or anywhere outside the United States, you can file for an absentee ballot.

T-D: Chief, during the 1920s Virginia basically wiped its Indian population off the books. How do you prove you're a Chickahominy if there is this clear break in your lineage?

ADKINS: That's a good question and Walter Plecker [Virginia's registrar of Vital Statistics from 1912-46] did seek to classify all Native Americans and Indians as "colored." But even doing that, he wasn't able to erase the history we had in our people. Some of it is very basic. We were converted to Christianity very early on. Documents as simple as church records and family Bibles -- we always had those -- hold information.

Even though Plecker sought to destroy the history of the people, he wasn't able to do that. For instance, my parents had their birth certificates that classified them as Indians. So, Plecker wasn't 100 percent effective. But, I've got to give Plecker credit: He tried valiantly. He was a friend and confidant of Adolf Hitler. He tried diligently.

T-D: So, are Virginia's Indians still trying to reconstruct their records?

ADKINS: Our tribal records essentially are intact. And I would have to say that Gov. George Allen actually put the burden -- the financial burden -- of correcting Virginia's records on the state. If a member of any of the eight recognized tribes of Virginia seeks to have his birth records, or marriage records -- any of their vital statistics -- corrected, the state will void the costs.

We've come a long way. You know, natives kind of live under the radar screen. For many years, our people -- even my father -- were afraid that those material possessions they had gained through hard work would be taken from them.

T-D: Give us your views on the overall attitude toward Native Americans in Virginia and their status here. Most Virginians -- and Americans -- know their history from 1607 and Jamestown. But the Indian experience is often viewed as more of a Western experience than that of the East Coast. Some people might even be surprised. They might say, "The Indians? Oh -- that's Oklahoma, that's New Mexico."

ADKINS: And that's very interesting. A lot of folks don't realize that Indians still exist in their ancestral homelands east of the Mississippi. That's really the product of an educational system that essentially taught a version of history that excluded who we are. There was a method to that madness -- it didn't happen accidentally. It happened because those folks who approved textbooks and the curriculum of the schools told it their way. The fact that people in our own state didn't realize we existed wasn't happenstance. It was all part of a systematic process to disallow American Indians' existence.

You know, we just celebrated the 4th of July -- which is American Independence Day and a big event in the Indian community. And sometimes we ask ourselves, "Why?" And I think of Francis Scott Key who in 1814 witnessed the bombing of Fort McHenry and wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner." But he talked about the flag that flew over the land of the free and the home of the brave. And I wonder in what context -- even then -- was he speaking. Had he been conditioned to recognize or to believe that at that point, America was the land of the free and the home of the brave in light of the fact -- or despite the fact -- that Lewis and Clark in 1803-06, had moved further westward, claiming lands in the Louisiana Purchase that really belonged to the indigenous people? Or decades before the Civil War that people were embroiled in slavery?

But that "Star-Spangled Banner" talks about the "land of the free and the home of the brave." The people it appealed to initially didn't realize the land wasn't totally free. There were people whose land was being taken, and there were people who were enslaved.

Even after the signing of the Constitution in 1788, even after the amendment that talked about rights of persons and search-and-seizure, even those rights didn't apply to indigenous people -- even though we were living in that "land of the free and the home of the brave."

So, when you speak of the phenomenon of people recognizing the tribes out West, even their rights weren't respected. We laud the folks who explored the frontier and talked about how valued they were. But we give little consideration to the people whose lands were being taken.

I think people have romanticized the very existence of Native Americans and have been able to employ tunnel vision. They are not able to recognize the pain and suffering that natives endured as their lands were being taken and as they were being moved from one place to another. Even as they were being attacked with weapons a lot more sophisticated then their own.

T-D: After Plecker's actions, what was the status of the estrangement of Virginia from its native citizens? When was a closer, more respectful relationship forged?

ADKINS: As early as the '30s and '40s. I have some tribal minutes that go back to at least September 1901 that record a good relationship. But, even in the 1930s we had our own school. We bought the land, built the school, and paid for our teachers. In the 1940s, there was an effort to attain higher education. Virginia stepped up and said, "We'll pay your one-way ticket to Oklahoma or other places to receive an education -- and we'll pay your tuition."

In my mind, when I think back, a one-way ticket might have been a subtle hint -- don't bother to come back.

Even in those times there were spots when we had a direct relationship with the government of Virginia at our powwows. In the 1940s and the 1950s we had governors come to the powwows.

My grandfather -- who was chief -- we have pictures of him bringing the tribute to the governor's mansion in November. These pictures are from as early as 1920-21. So there was an accommodating, quasi-relationship with the government. I don't think everybody embraced the same kind of hard approach that Walter Plecker did.

But we really came into our own, I would say, in the late '70s.

I was on the School Board in Charles City County. I served on it for 20 years. And we received funding to educate our kids. We had to have classes on Saturday to teach our kids about Native American culture and just let them know who they are -- or who they were. It was a very successful schooling for our kids.

Well, when we came up to reapply for the funding, we looked at the criteria. Part of criteria was that the tribe must be federally or state recognized. My wife was chair of this program and she asked, "Are we state recognized?" And I said, "Sure we are." I looked back at the relations we have had with the governors over the years with the tributes -- but it turned out that when I called the governor's office, there was no official recognition.

So we began the process of state recognition, which we achieved in the early 1980s. There was essentially no resistance within the state legislature. So over time, although there was no official relationship, we did maintain a relationship with the state government and the local government. In the late 1970s, one of the tribe's members was the county administrator for Charles City County.

T-D: You mention federal recognition -- and that's been in the news off and on for several years. What exactly does that entail and what's the status of it and the debates about gambling?

ADKINS: Federal recognition has been afforded to probably 564 tribes today. The Chickahominy Tribe and the upstate tribes have not achieved federal recognition. I think the first thing is that it's a matter of pride. We had a relationship with the crown. The Treaty of 1677 called us sovereign subjects of the crown. That's kind of a contradictory statement, but we did have that relationship with the crown. And even when Chief Justice John Marshall was asked about the relationship with the Indians in the U.S., he said the relationship with the U.S. is the same as a U.S. relationship with France or Germany, or other countries.

The two oldest reservations in the U.S. are in King William County, and they were conferred through the crown. We did not have an official relationship with the United States. We think that was probably just an oversight initially. We never had the relationship with the U.S. that we had with the crown. We want to make it right.

What does that do from a practical perspective? It allows us to compete for educational grants. It allows to get in the queue for scholarships.

If you look at the native peoples in Virginia, statistically those folks you would find on public assistance is insignificant. We have a code within ourselves where we take care of our own. Some folks who probably would qualify for public assistance just have too much pride to avail themselves of that assistance.

We'd like to have a level playing field with the other tribes. And indirectly it would help the commonwealth of Virginia because of the funds that would recruit, the opportunities federal recognition would recruit.

The idea of a gaming? We have signed off, and we don't plan to game. I'm a deacon in my church and I probably would be kicked out of my church if we brought gambling to the community. Most of the folks in my tribe wouldn't support those beliefs. We have done all we can to write that off. But that is what some people have been afraid of.

We have said we would never game as long as the commonwealth says, "No," so it seems pretty ironclad.

T-D: If memory serves, John Warner has said his concerns have pretty much been met -- and same goes for Rep. Frank Wolf, a longtime holdout. And then as legislation was moving through, Sen. Webb said he hadn't had time to get up to speed on the matter and that sort of brought the train to a halt.

Do you face the task of getting the Virginia delegation all reading from the same page, at which point some of them leave office and you start all over with some new members. Has that been part of the problem?

ADKINS: We have had to bring some of the junior delegates and some of the junior members of Congress up to speed. I don't think we'll ever see members of the congressional delegation all on the same page on some subjects.

But Sen. Webb does support federal recognition of Virginia's indigenous people. His office is talking to us and I think it's going to happen. It's the right thing to do.

Then next step would be a markup in the Senate Indian Affairs committee. And I do believe that will happen. I've had conversations with Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chariman Byron Dorgan's staff.

My wife says I'm an eternal optimist, but I do believe this is the right thing to do. I have a great job in front of me to educate people about the bill and engage their support.

T-D: Of course, the next senator is going to be either another Mark Warner or Jim Gilmore. How is your relationship with each of those two?

ADKINS: I can't see either one of those folks opposing it, but I hope that's a moot point. I hope it passes in this Congress. I hope when the new Congress convenes in January that we will have achieved federal recognition.

T-D: Is this a Republican/Democrat issue or are there other forces at work here?

ADKINS: That one's a hard to call. We have had support from Republicans and Democrats. But we haven't had support from every Republican and every Democrat. We've had bipartisan support, but not 100 percent support from the congressional delegation.

T-D: What are your relationships with the various federal agencies and officials? As a result of non-recognition, do you have no relation or are you actually in touch with them the same way the Navajo would be?

ADKINS: We have essentially no relations. The only relationships I've had are with the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Everything is there, but I have not had a direct relationship with any of them.

You know, one of the members of the Chickahominy tribe was an administrator in the Indian Health Services. He went to school in Oklahoma and ended up staying there. He was an administrator in a very responsible position -- but he couldn't avail himself of those health services of which he was an administrator because he wasn't a member of a federally recognized tribe.

T-D: Why is such a long and laborious process? Is it mainly about gaming?

ADKINS: We received state recognition in 1983. After we received state recognition we began looking toward federal recognition. We actually entered the process in the early 90s through the petition process. But the typical movement of this initiative through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and federal acknowledgement is between 15 to 30 years.

Why? You talk about a glacial pace. People have been on queue all those years. There's been some activity in Congress -- this year and last year -- looking at ways to speed up the process. It's been a laborious process, but to me it's the right thing to do. I think we've gone through and tried to address the concerns and eliminate the barriers.

T-D: There are only two Virginia tribes that actually have reservations, right?

ADKINS: Yes, the Chickahominy tribe was moved to Aylett in the treaty of 1646. So, we were moved from our homeland only a matter of 50 miles -- but if you have to walk, it's a pretty significant distance.

Before that the Chickahominy were kind of nestled between the James River -- which we called the Powhatan River -- and the Chickahominy River. Prime real estate when you look at the navigable waters of the James and the Chickahominy, and the trade routes it afforded for the settlers as well as for the indigenous people. I can understand why invaders would want that land. . . . By the middle of the 18th century, around 1750, my folks had started migrating back to our ancestral homeland -- and even today we own that property. But we are kind of in a conclave. We are kind of clustered around the church that has served as the nucleus of our community for many years. Just adjacent to that property is the property of the tribe.

T-D: You talked a little earlier about how Virginia paid to send Native citizens to Oklahoma to go to school. That's exactly what the commonwealth did with the black Virginians -- sent them to Washington, DC, and other places to go to school, away from UVa, William and Mary, and Tech. How did other laws treat Native Americans during segregation? What schools did you go to? What libraries did you go to? What lunch counters could you use?

ADKINS: Well, we had our own school, Samaria Indian School. The name of our church is Samaria Baptist Church.

T-D: A private school, not attached to the commonwealth?

ADKINS: The state took it over in the '50s. We ended up giving the land and some labor to build the school facility. When we went to full integration in the 1960s, Samaria school was closed and the Indian kids went to Charles City High School, along with the white students and the black students.

I went out to Oklahoma for junior college. I had the option of going to RPI -- which is now VCU -- but I just followed the tradition and went to [Oklahoma].

T-D: So, did the commonwealth treat Native Virginians in the exact same manner that it treated black Virginians or were there shades of difference?

ADKINS: I have a friend who is Native American and he said that he lived in the black community as an African-American because he found it much easier. Now what that means, I don't know. In his mind, he had an easier life living as a black man in America. He saw what was going on in the Native-American community.

For whatever reason, the dominant culture drove a wedge between two groups of people who should have been natural allies. And for many years there was a rift or chasm between blacks and Native Americans.

We've mended those fences and we've found that we can support each other's causes. Not to the exclusion of mainstream America, but there are some situations which are unique to people of color that we need to address jointly.

I think we've bridged those gaps and we've become allies on a much larger scale. In the commonwealth of Virginia, if you come to Charles City, you see three cultures that live and work well together.

I know there are still pockets in this great country in which we live where that is not the case.

T-D: You mentioned serving as a deacon of your church. You have also discussed the spiritual side and the traditions. Could you talk about the contemporary scene regarding religion. It is said that the United States, by most numbers, is the world's most active church-going nation. A lot of people are surprised to learn that the highest concentration of Episcopalians in the United States is on a reservation in South Dakota -- because for whatever reason, that tribe is Episcopal. Could you talk about religion in general.

ADKINS: If you look at where we were religiously in 1607 and prior -- and I'll take the Chickahominy tribe -- there were two gods, Ahone and Okeus. One was a good god and the other was a bad god. People used to make offerings to the bad god to appease that god, recognizing that the good god was going to look out for us anyway. So, it was kind of like, from the Christian perspective, God and Satan.

I don't think the transition from our beliefs to Christianity was a big stretch.

I spoke to a Methodist meeting a couple years ago about the fact that the United States of America has about 400,000 Native-American Christians, and that's out of a population of 4 million. That says out of the last 400 years, only 1,000 a year have converted to Christianity. So that begs the question, "Why?"

Two answers: One would be John Chivington, who was called the fighting parson of Methodist Church. At the battle of Sand Creek, he went in under the cover of darkness and one of his folks asked, "Are you going to kill the women and children?" He said, "Nits grow up to be lice." So, they went into Sand Creek and actually burned the dwellings and as people were coming out, if they had to shoot them, they did. Now, he was called The Fighting Parson and he was a Methodist missionary who brought his ministry to Indian folks. Also when the settlers came over in 1607, they were armed with the Doctrine of Discovery, which came from Pope Nicholas IV in 1452. The doctrine said that if you discovered lands inhabited by pagans and non-Christians, it's your manifest right to take that land. So there's a disconnect between preaching Godly values and taking land and killing women and children.

In 1610, Lord De La Warr said when he was departing, "I don't want any Christians." On his way back, some of De La Warr's folks had the queen of the tribe, with her two children. Some of the captors said, "We better not take them back because Lord Delaware said, 'I don't want any Christians.'" So, they shot of her kids and threw them in the Chickahominy River. Probably the first recorded act of gun violence towards children in Virginia. Then they killed her. That will tell you why people were reluctant initially to embrace Christianity.

T-D: Do you have a dog in the fight over the King William reservoir?

ADKINS: I've got to believe that restricting the flow and taking water out can't be healthy for the river. As a concerned Native American and as a fellow tribe to the involved tribes, I am concerned. I don't think it's the right thing to do.

When there's a move to rid some of the obstructions in the waterways of Virginia, to clean up the streams and clean up the Chesapeake Bay, why would we then restrict the flow to the Mattaponi -- and perhaps somewhere down the road, increase the potential for it's salinity? I can't speak from a technical position. But philosophically, it doesn't feel to me like it's the right thing to do.

In this age where we have all this technology, why couldn't we have some sort of a desalinization process for that great supply of water that is right down in the Tidewater area?

T-D: Chief, would you talk a little about our presidential election?

ADKINS: I think it's very interesting. This is probably the first time that I can remember that Natives have been courted this much. The Native population is maybe 12 percent in one state and 6 percent in another. The presumptive nominees for both parties have been to those states. I think the Native vote is going to count -- and I'm looking very closely at both candidates. I know much more about them than they know about me, but I'm trying to cast an informed ballot. I try to do that with every election.

My folks went through a lot of pain and suffering just to get the right to vote so I don't take it lightly. I encourage the people in my tribe to do the same. As a matter of fact, at the next several tribal meetings, I'll be pounding the gavel and talking about registering to vote. I look very closely at state and local elections to make sure that the candidate that I vote for respects and looks at the values and concerns that I hold.

I want to keep this Republic strong forever.

T-D: I think it is interesting that on one hand, the Democrats do have a better record since the 1960s at least, of reaching out to minorities than Republicans have. On the other hand, John McCain comes from Arizona and probably has the comfort level with Native-American issues that a senator from a different state might not have. Would you talk about that some?

ADKINS: I testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee when Sen. McCain was the chair and he was very attentive to my testimony and he made comments afterwards that suggested he understands where we are. He listened very attentively, he asked sound questions. He does live in Indian country, and coming from such a state makes him well versed in the problems and challenges that exist.

This is an exciting time, and I think this election will be a very exciting movie.

T-D: What is the preferred term? Is it "Indian" or is it "Native American"?

ADKINS: I'm okay with the term Indian. I grew up with that term.

T-D: That seems to be the term that's preferred in Virginia.

ADKINS: My folks say "Native American," but I don't find "Indian" offensive and have no preference.

T-D: We've had controversies over the years regarding sports nicknames and logos. There was a recent ruling on the Redskins. There was the NCAA ruling against William and Mary -- and it has changed its imagery. Please share your thoughts.

ADKINS: I'm kind of ambivalent on some points of that issue. But to be sitting at a football game and seeing someone ride onto the field dressed in our ceremonial clothing to perform an utterly nonsensical chant, I don't find that very complimentary to my culture. I really don't like to see my heritage set up as a mascot. I think it's kind of humiliating and dehumanizing.

It really does dehumanize. It lays aside the regard we have for ceremonial dress.

When I put on my native regalia, I don't do it for show -- I don't do it for entertainment value.

T-D: Is there a way to do use Native-American imagery in a sports context without being denigrating? Was William & Mary's use denigrating?

ADKINS: The term "Tribe," I didn't find offensive at all. I didn't find the feather offensive. When you get into a game and it's wall to wall fans who do crazy chants and tomahawk chops and all that if -- if you're one Native in a sea of thousands of fans, you wonder, "What's this all about?"

It's not a cause that I'm going to go out and demonstrate and march against, but I think we need to look below the surface and treat cultures with dignity and respect. If displays at public events meet that test of dignity and respect, than it's okay with me.

There are a lot of things that have happened to Natives that wouldn't meet that test. For example, desecrating graves, taking off Native jewelry, and bragging about it and wearing it, and putting it on eBay. Those actions are very hurtful, and they shouldn't happen.

Yet, universities have gone through and exhumed Indian remains to store them on the shelves. These are the remains of mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers -- they should be treated with dignity and respect.

I had some folks just come down and look for graves on tribal land because, "We'd like to get some artifacts." I asked, "Sir, are you interested in the Civil War?" He said, "Yes." So I said go to the Hollywood Cemetery. There's places there where you could unearth some Civil War generals and probably get some swords that are intact. That didn't resonate so well with those folks.

T-D: Any final thoughts you'd like to share?

ADKINS: I appreciate the opportunity to sit here and talk with you folks. It's been good. It surely opens the door for people to see the perspective of one Native American. I can't sit here and speak for all Native Americans.

I've been in meetings with those from dominant cultures and there will be eight chiefs from different tribes gathered. At the end of the day folks will say, "Why, I thought you all would agree." I ask them if they would ever sit down with the CEOs of eight different corporations and expect them to walk in lockstep? Don't hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. I have my own opinions. My wife and I live together. We've been married 32 years, and I can't speak for her. She has her own mind and I have mine.

I value divergent view points -- and at the end of the day you may convince me you are right. We have to learn from each other.

It has been good to share my thoughts with you folks. Perhaps together we can create an understanding between cultures.

T-D: Thank you for joining us today, Chief Adkins.
The Times-Dispatch participants were Todd Culbertson, editor of the Editorial Pages; Bart Hinkle, deputy editor of the Editorial Pages; Bob Rayner, associate editor of the Editorial Pages; and Cordel Faulk, commentary editor.