High Noon: Indian Sovereignty

20 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  hhuseland on December 09 at 12:26 p.m.

  I understand Indian Sovereignty, but like Laughing, I have trouble with their dual citizenship.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 09 at 12:30 p.m.

  I think Native Americans should demand that ALL illegal immigrants get the hell off their land.

• 

  idawa on December 09 at 12:47 p.m.

  I understood enough of it to pass the bar … he,he. Actually, it makes a little more sense when you consider recognized Indian tribes as equal to the states in their sovereignty but still under Congress’s plenary authority. Now, throw in PL 280 and it gets really confusing. The most striking fact I learned was that the Bill of Rights does not apply to Tribal members in Tribal courts! It makes sense legally, but it sure shocked the, you know what, out of me when I learned it.

• 

  hhuseland on December 09 at 12:54 p.m.

  Actually, Phaedrus, I think those in holders of land within the reservations are there because the tribe or their members sold them the land. Still, if they have the ability to buy it back, that probably would be a good thing.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 09 at 1:13 p.m.

  Herb, I was revering to all white Europeans who’ve come to this land since 1492.. ;-)

• 

  Charles_Dixon on December 09 at 1:15 p.m.

  Yep, Phaedrus. Every person on Earth who lives in a land because his or her civilization threw some other civilization off that land should go back to where they came from. Of course, that would mean that about 90% of the world would end up moving back to somewhere in the Middle East (if you subscribe to most theories). And where there really is no recorded history for all of the invasions, overtakings, displacements, etc. of societies back to the beginning of humanity, at some point no one is going to be able to say who rightfully owns what property at all if we go by the sole theory of first in time, first in right.

  But hey, let’s give it a start. Throw every American who is not a Native American out of North America, most of which would go back to Britian or another European country. But then thow all of the Brits who come from Norman ancestry off the Island and back to France. Send everyone whose people were put somewhere in the world because of the Roman Empire conquests back to Italy. Throw every white person in Australia and Canada (and several other countries) back to Britian, but again, you have to sort out where they go from there.

  And as for the Native Americans, who owns what part of North America under our new rules? Even though they didn’t have formal borders and governments, tribes still fought each other for territories. How do we sort that all out? Do we kick Tribe X out of one part fo the continent because they assumed it by force as against another tribe?

  The world as it now exists wasn’t created by altogether just means. It was formed by human nature and the right of might. Yes, the United States put an end to Native American culture as it was then known, and we haven’t exactly been fair and just with them ever since. But in terms of recognizing their independent identity and trying to preserve what can be preserved of their culture, the U.S. does just about as well as most other countries in dealing with the prior inhabitants who have been overthrown.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 09 at 1:21 p.m.

  Tell it to the Palestinians.

• 

  idawa on December 09 at 1:32 p.m.

  actually, as I understand the issue the whole point of the lawsuit is that Indians do not own their own land. The land is held in trust by the US Govt for the recognized tribes benefit. In an effort to break up the tribes (perhaps breed them away), the US Govt decided to sell lands to non-tribe members thus creating the fee lands the pocket trust lands. The whole point of the lawsuit is that the US Govt violated its fiduciary duty as a trustee by selling off the land. So no, Herb, the land was not sold by Indians to non-tribe members because it was, according to the Gov’t, never theirs to sell.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 09 at 1:36 p.m.

  Yes Herb, many people sold their allotments, but many others had them taken way in nefarious ways. Just look into the case of John Harmelt’s land in Nahahum Canyon, the great P’squosa leader, or the debacle of the Lake Chelan allotments, not to mention the withdrawal of the north half of the Colville Reservation, or the complete withdrawal of the Moses Columbia Reservation. How did the Methow allotments pass out of Indian ownership? (I have searched the land tenure records, and can’t find out.) Why can’t the P’squosa fish and hunt in their own fisheries (The P’squosa are usually not called by their own Salish name, but by the name derived from the Sahaptin word “winátšapam,” which was corrupted in English into Wentachi). Why did the Coeur d’Alene have to fight for years to regain their rightful ownership of part of Lake Coeur d’Alene?

  Laughing - Indian Nations are sovereign because of U.S. Treaties, and any money that they receive is due to those treaty negotiations. Indian Tribes in Pacific Northwest ceded millions of acres to the U.S. government, and all of us who do not live on reservation land, now live in those ceded territories. The payments are for all of that land, according to law.
  So, the payments will not end. We will pay in perpetuity, the faucet will never run dry because we are still on those ceded lands. So, if Laughing is tired of making the small payments to Tribes, he is welcome to go elsewhere.
  The Tribes should have received more than the pittance in this settlement.
  As for citizenship rights, go check the Constitution for the answer.

• 

  Lizard_People on December 09 at 1:42 p.m.

  There is some really fishy stuff going on with how the government still treats the Indians. I don’t understand most of it, but I remember listening to 100.5 (Republic Broadcasting Network in CdA), and there was a Lakota Nation representative on there talking about how the land on reservations are held in trust, and therefore the Indians can’t take out loans on that land.

  So in what way is it “theirs”?

  I support the Lakota initiative to withdraw from their treaties, and get recognition as an independent state.

  By the way, Citizenship in the Lakota nation isn’t restricted by ethnicity. i thought that was neat.

• 

  hhuseland on December 09 at 2:12 p.m.

  I don’t think the constitution deals with the rights of a nation within a nation. It’s very muddy water. I do agree though that my stating that the in holders bought their land. Certainly I didn’t mean to imply that they weren’t cheated out of much more than they sold. However, Phaedrus’ suggestion, suggests that he’s been smoking a controlled substance.

• 

  hhuseland on December 09 at 2:19 p.m.

  One point regarding the history of conquistadors, is that I believe we are the only civilization that, after conquering the indigenous tribes, not only didn’t completely eradicate them as most wars have done, but offered them land side by side, as a separate group. OK, I know that many lands were taken and many treaties were broken or modified. But still, we stand alone, not as the destroyers of these tribes, but of the conservators. Plus sending Phaedrus back east, thence to Europe would be predicated on them allowing him back.

• 

  moscow_minidoka on December 09 at 2:21 p.m.

  “But still, we stand alone, not as the destroyers of these tribes, but of the conservators. ”

  Canada did a slightly better job.

• 

  hhuseland on December 09 at 2:28 p.m.

  Yes they did. They didn’t put missionaries in charge of Indian affairs, like we did. Huge error.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 09 at 2:54 p.m.

  Herb, check the 15th amendment. At least that is what I recall from high school civics.
  “But still, we stand alone, not as the destroyers of these tribes, but of the conservators.” - Herb

  I really must differ. In the last 30-40 years we are getting better, agreed. But not for the previous few centuries. Herb, we almost totally destroyed the Tribes (not always by malicious intent, but we still almost wiped them out). Government Indian agents stole much from Indian people well into the 20th century.
  I suggest that you talk to elders who were removed from their families as children, and forced to go to boarding schools. Talk to people who can no longer hunt and fish in parts of their traditional territories where they grew up. Talk to people who had the center of their religion removed. Take a trip to the Colville or the Spokane Reservation and try to understand the causes of that poverty.

  I have had the honor of being invited to some tribal ceremonies, and had the privilege to listen to tribal elders. I have led groups of elders to parts of their traditional lands that they had never seen before because of issues of poverty, age, and difficult access. It was an experience that still blows me away, and gives a whole different side to these issues.

• 

  idawa on December 09 at 2:59 p.m.

  FYI - the Constitution specifically gives Congress plenary authority over governments interaction with tribes (Section 8.3). Also, see my bill or rights comment earlier, the Constitution does not apply to the Tribes as Sovereign Entities (their courts) as the Constitution is an agreement among the States, the Tribes are not a party to the Constitution and thus are not bound by it. However, tribal member are US Citizens and State and Federal government are bound by the Constitution in their interaction with tribal members. As Sys said, the jurisdiction issues are fascinating - and they are becoming even more so as tribes are finally making some money.

• 

  Lizard_People on December 09 at 3:08 p.m.

  Do you guys ever read the columnist Gary Brecher, the War Nerd? He had a great article about this subject called “Massacres paid your mortgage, dude”. When I have time I’ll google it up.

• 

  Laughing on December 09 at 3:37 p.m.

  “massacres paid your mortgage?” Referring to Wounded Knee, Yahi or Sand Creek?

• 

  hhuseland on December 09 at 11:28 p.m.

  Several of you have differed with me on a point here or a point there. Please understand that none of my remarks were intended to be as treatise about relations with the tribes. Taking things out of context, then expanding them is fun but tends to distort the post objected to.

  I very much support Indian rights and the overturning of previous injustices. I also realize that some of these injustices cannot be cured. The simple truth is that events have bypassed the history with regards to the tribes.

  I would love to be selected to a committee that was formed with the understanding that the federal government would go as far as possible toward righting the previous wrongs. Knowing that nothing can be done to reverse things to the extent that the Pilgrims should have been repelled. Yes, there are still things that can and perhaps should be done to bring the tribes closer to equality and more important, in equity.

  One of my pet peeves is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal government still refuses to recognize those smaller tribes that didn’t sign peace treaties lo those many years ago. I think we need to revisit each claim and promptly cure what can be cured. For the most part, land, not just desert but viable land is the most important part of the heritage that the tribes need. They were forced off of the most tillable land even though in many cases the land had already been promised to the tribes.

  Some rights have been restored. On the coast and in the Columbia River, the Indians have the majority of the commercial fishery. But until the Black Hills are restored to the Northern Cheyenne and the Lakota, justice still stands still, and the battle of the Little Big Horn unresolved.

  I am, however still interested in the vow of Phaedrus to return to his roots. Hopefully, he will begin his requests for a visa to whatever beginning he chooses. (My god, I can’t believe even he could go that far) However, more power to him in his quest for civilization’s perfection.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 10 at 9:06 a.m.

  Thanks Herb for the thoughtful and sincere remarks. I agree, especially about the federally unrecognized tribes. Let’s start with the Wanapum.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic