The success of the AIM and other indigenous movements and the ability to use political power to influence legislation shows that the state is not ontologically settler colonialist

The greatest tools in the self-determination movement's arsenal were American Indian activists groups, the most notorious of which was the American Indian Movement (AIM). The civil rights organization, which initially focused solely on Native Americans in urban communities, eventually expanded and aligned with the entirety of those seeking sovereignty and civil and cultural rights. They sought economic independence, a renewal of traditional culture, the protection of their legal rights, and more importantly sovereignty over tribal properties and the restoration of lands that were historical tribally held territory (Campbell2010:309). Among the biggest offenders violating American Indian rights were museums and how they displayed and represented Native American cultures. Native Activist groups confronted museums with grievances regarding human remains and with appeals that American Indians be allowed to communicate their own histories to the public. In 1971, AIM protested the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles' public display of their ancestors' remains. Leaders denounced ~he desecration of their dead, their beliefs, and their sacred places for science and for public entertainment (Milo 2000:45). The most infamous museum was the Dickson Mounds Museum. The burial site sits on land previously owned by Don Dickson who excavated the mounds. Instead of removing the remains and funerary objects from the graves, he decided to leave them in place, uncovered and open to the public. The Dickson Mounds Museum became a state-owned and sanctioned museum when ownership was transferred to the state of Illinois. In the 1960s, Native American protestors began to gain national attention, citing the desecration of the dead and racism, but they experienced a great deal of opposition from business owners living in the town and from researchers (Dellios 1992). It was not until1991-92 that the Dickson Mound's burials were enclosed and the remains laid to rest. Shortly thereafter, the museum closed for major renovations and in 1994 reopened to the public with new exhibitions in place. New York's Museum of Modem Art (MOMA) attempted to showcase a sacred Zuni figurine. However, after protests by the Zuni, the museum posted a note which stated that MOMA would not be put the figurine on display because of the objections raised by tribal authorities. Instead, the show ended with work from living indigenous artists (Clifford 1984:244-245). In these instances of protest and negotiation, Native Americans demonstrated two important aspects of self-determination: the first is the power of protests, and the second is the growing political influence Native communities wielded. By voicing criticisms in the display of their culture, activists brought national attention to the problem through the use of the media The influence of the media, in turn, shifted public opinion toward deference for the cultural sensitivities of Native peoples and in favor of repatriation efforts by universities and museums (Milo 2000:45). The growing political influence through protests led by Native communities and the subsequent favorable media coverage helped shape federal policy by first placing and then keeping Native American concerns on the national agenda (Kotlowski 2003:204). While Native American activists made strides politically, museum-focused activists, however, struggled to combat a slowly changing museum culture. Remnants of an earlier time period still clung to museum policy despite some instances of renegotiation. There was still a feeling among museum professionals and scholars that they alone had authority over the collections and their histories. Professionals intentionally built a wall between the museum and the layperson to exclude any voice in the exhibitions that was not from a scholarly background. The shifts in public opinion brought by the media was something that museums would have to reckon with, particularly when those same activists included a new tactic in their fight for change: legislation.