> Obviously, increasing tribal political autonomy and power over nonmembers
> who affect their destiny is clearly the best way to provide solutions to
> many problems that face Indian communities. While I cannot tell from your
> inquiry, I suspect you may be using the term sovereignty, however, almost
> in an out-moded, international, all-or-nothing, secessionist sense, rather
> than recognizing the interdependent nature of political power both
> domestically and, increasingly internationally. For example, while we
---Thank you again for your enlightening responses. Excellent point here.
I suppose I am thinking of sovereignty in a "secessionist sense." I do,
however, understand the "interdependent nature of political power." It is
difficult not to think of sovereignty as "all-or-nothing" when religious
freedom and sacred sites are at stake.---
> deny the right of states of the federal union to secede (witness the Civil
> War), we describe them as sovereign states and we discuss state
> sovereignty. I certainly think sovereignty in this sense is important to
> tribes and enlarging the domain of that sovereignty is critical.
---The question is then, compared to the states, are the tribes viewed as
EQUALLY sovereign by the federal government? It seems that many tribes must
answer to both the state(s) and the federal government in issues regarding
sacred sites, depending on the specific circumstances. I don't see tribes
being given anywhere near the same status as states. I am not sure I "buy"
the "Civil War" analogy in that regard. Because of the obvious
inequalities, I am not too sure that tribes can ever reach equal status
WITHIN THIS U.S. CONTEXT. It seems to me that true secession may be the only
way for some tribes, if they so decide, of course.---
> Indian rights problems. They often strike me as not only utopian but
> impracticable. For example, take the Mesquaki Tribe (the Sac and Fox of
> the Mississippi in Iowa) located on 4,000 acres of farmland in the center
> of Iowa. True secession and national sovereignty for the Mesquaki would
> mean that in the absence of an agreement the United States could impose
> tariff barriers to products entering and leaving the Mesquaki Settlement,
> that it could refuse to permit Mesquakis from entering United States
> territory (even to get to a local airport or buy groceries off the
> reservation) and that the United States could withhold all services and
> benefits from schooling to public assistance. Obviously, such horribles
> could be changed by a negotiated agreement, but the Mesquakie and many
> other tribes have little leverage in such bargaining and less assets
> (other than land which they do not want to trade) to offer in exchange for
> trade, movement, or other concessions. Thus, I am skeptical of the
> outcome of true secessionist sovereignty suggestions since most tribes,
> like the Mesquaki, are simply not large enough or economically self-
> sufficient to really go it on their own. There are, of course, some
---Yes, I am familiar with the "checkerboard" problem of the Mesquakie rez.
Do you also think it nonsense to propose cross-tribal unity, joint
secession, set up so that the tribes less able to "go it on their own"
will be protected (somehow decided by negotiated agreement within the
unified coalition of tribes)? Sure, this would take one hell of a lot of
work to iron out, not to mention time, but it seems to me that independence
from the US framework (which is counterproductive for many tribes) would be
worth the trouble. Or am I just a utopian idealist?---
> tribes, like the Navajo, whose population and economies might be
> different. Additionally, frankly I doubt that most tribal members want to
> give up their US citizenship (unless, of course, the choice were either US
> citizenship or tribal membership, but not both).
---Actually, I know more tribal members who would prefer NOT to be US
citizens, believing that citizenship was imposed on us by the government...---
> Thus, I agree with you
> that the solution to many problems involves increasing tribal sovereignty,
> but not necessarily in a secessionist sense. I also agree that the tribes
> need to get out from under the paternalistic pupilage of the Bureau of
> Indian Affairs and rely more heavily on their own leaders and less on the
> Indian middle class that increasingly comprises that agency.
---VERY glad to hear this from you! So, how do we do this?---
> Under federal Indian law all tribes, not just the Iroqouis, are viewed as
> sovereign, but, unfortunately, that has meant less and less in recent
> years when you and I would agree (I suppose) that it should mean more and
---You "suppose" correctly, but isn't this sort of a contradiction to your
earlier statements about NOT being secessionist in sovereignty? I know that
many Iroquois VIEW THEMSELVES as completely sovereign, ignoring the state
and federal government- even having their own Hodenosaunee passports
recognized by the U.N. How can you "agree...that it should mean more" and
not support sovereignty in all its forms?---
> more in this era which otherwise has been one of decolonization. The
> question is not whether or not tribes are sovereign, it is, rather, what
> that sovereignty means and how the tribes chose to exercise it.
---Ah yes, I may have spoken too quickly. I understand your point here.
You are right, as I pointed out above in the Iroquois example, it is up to
each tribe how they chose to define and exercise sovereignty. I suppose I
am just impatient and extremely worried that many sacred sites will be
destroyed or marred for all time. I personally mourn for Paha Sapa (Black
Hills), my native "homelands" that are now bought and PAID FOR!!! against
my tribes' wishes. I feel the pain for all our sisters and brothers whose
most sacred places have been turned into tourist attractions, or worse,
flooded and now inaccessable. I am impatient to find a way quickly to
remedy these injustices. Thus, my concern about the impact of NAFERA. I
feel that if we cannot find a way that works through legal channels, we
MUST find an alternative! If that alternative is secession, then so be it.---
> I have elaborated on a number of these themes in an article entitled
> Tribal Courts and the Federal Union published at 26 Williamette Law Review
> 841-936 (1990) and in Redressing the Legacy of Conquest: A Vision Quest
> for a Decolonized Federal Indian Law, 46 Arkansas Law Review 77-160
> (1993). They should be available from the UNM or other law libraries.
---And thank you also for sharing your expertise and directing me (us) to
the above mentioned articles. I will seek them out.
Hi ye, brother,
Kim Morris (Wakinyan Chikala- Lakota Nation/ Oglala)
Mitakuye Oyasin!