The city of Boston, steeped in history and symbolic of American ideals, carries a curious and unsettling legal relic within its municipal code. Despite centuries of progress and a commitment to inclusivity, a law dating back to 1675 technically prohibits American Indians from entering the city limits. This archaic statute, a vestige of a tumultuous period of conflict, casts a long shadow, serving as a stark reminder of past injustices and a poignant symbol of the complex relationship between early settlers and the indigenous population.
This article delves into the historical context of this unusual law, exploring its origins, its practical implications (or lack thereof), and the ongoing efforts to finally repeal it. The narrative also examines the emotional impact of this legislation on American Indians, who view it as a discriminatory and offensive artifact that should have been expunged from the books long ago.
A Shadow of the Past: King Philip’s War and its Legacy
The year 1675 marked the beginning of King Philip’s War, a bloody and devastating conflict between English colonists and a confederation of Native American tribes led by Metacom, known to the English as King Philip. The war, fueled by escalating tensions over land, resources, and cultural differences, engulfed much of New England and resulted in significant loss of life on both sides.
In the midst of this conflict, the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted a series of laws aimed at controlling and suppressing the Native American population. Among these measures was the act entitled "Indians Prohibited Being in Boston," which effectively barred American Indians from entering the city. This law, along with another that established an internment camp on Deer Island in Boston Harbor, reflected the fear and hostility that permeated colonial society during the war.
While the war itself was relatively short-lived, ending with Metacom’s death in 1676, the laws enacted during this period remained on the books. The Deer Island internment camp law was repealed the year after the war concluded, but the prohibition against American Indians in Boston strangely persisted, lingering as an anachronistic echo of a bygone era.
An Anachronism in the Modern Age
In the 21st century, the notion that a law exists forbidding American Indians from entering Boston seems almost unbelievable. The city, now a diverse and multicultural hub, has undergone a profound transformation since the 17th century. The demographics have shifted dramatically, and the legal landscape has evolved to reflect a greater commitment to equality and justice.
Yet, despite these changes, the "Indians Prohibited Being in Boston" law remained, a silent and largely unenforced presence in the city’s legal code. While the likelihood of an American Indian being arrested or prosecuted under this statute is virtually nonexistent, its mere existence has been a source of deep resentment and frustration for many Native Americans.
For individuals like John "Sam" Sapiel, a 74-year-old Penobscot Indian, the law serves as a constant reminder of the historical injustices and systemic discrimination faced by indigenous peoples. Although Sapiel, like countless other American Indians, has visited Boston without incident, the knowledge that he is technically considered a "persona non grata" within the city limits is profoundly unsettling. "I feel kind of put out on the whole thing, because we’re being singled out as Indian people," Sapiel stated, expressing the sentiment shared by many within the Native American community. "I think about it quite a bit. It’s on my mind all the time."
The Push for Repeal: A Matter of Principle and Progress
For years, American Indians and their allies have been advocating for the repeal of the "Indians Prohibited Being in Boston" law. Recognizing the symbolic significance of this archaic statute, they have argued that its continued presence on the books is offensive and incompatible with the city’s commitment to inclusivity and equality.
The Muhheconnew National Confederacy, a coalition of American Indian tribes, has been particularly vocal in its call for repeal. The organization has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the issue and to pressure lawmakers to take action.
In recent years, the movement to repeal the law has gained momentum, attracting support from a broad range of individuals and organizations. Boston Mayor Tom Menino, recognizing the negative impact of the statute on the city’s image and its relationship with the Native American community, filed a petition to have it removed from the books.
The issue gained further attention when Unity: Journalists of Color Inc., a national organization of minority journalists, considered whether to hold its 2008 convention in Boston. The organization made it clear that the existence of the "Indians Prohibited Being in Boston" law would be a "deal breaker," as it would be unconscionable to hold a convention in a city that banned one of its members, or any group. The potential loss of the convention, which would have brought an estimated 8,000 journalists and $4.5 million in revenue to the city, added urgency to the repeal effort.
Awaiting the Final Chapter
The efforts to repeal the "Indians Prohibited Being in Boston" law have faced various hurdles and delays. However, recent developments suggest that the end may be in sight. A state legislative committee has recommended that the full Legislature take up the issue, and there is growing optimism that the law will finally be repealed.
State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who co-chairs the committee that recommended repeal, has emphasized the importance of removing the law from the books, stating that "just having it on the books was offensive enough."
Governor Mitt Romney has also indicated that he would sign the bill if it reached his desk, paving the way for the law’s final demise.
The repeal of the "Indians Prohibited Being in Boston" law would be a significant step towards reconciliation and healing. While it cannot erase the injustices of the past, it would send a powerful message that Boston is committed to creating a more inclusive and equitable future for all its residents, including its Native American community. It is a symbolic act, to be sure, but symbols matter. They reflect our values, our aspirations, and our commitment to building a better world. For Chris "Quiet Bear" Montgomery, a member of the Nipmuc tribe, the law is "a black mark against the state of Massachusetts. Not just Boston, but the whole state." Its removal would be a step toward erasing that mark.
As Sapiel poignantly states, "This should have happened a long time ago. I’m glad it’s happening now." The removal of this law will be a testament to the power of persistence, the importance of confronting historical injustices, and the ongoing pursuit of a more just and equitable society.