Native Americans' Legal Status in the U.S.

[randiann]

I don't know a whole lot about the Native American situation, but isn't the US still treating them--those that live on reservations, anyway--terribly?

Exactly. Look at the Sioux. The Rosebud Sioux reservation is perhaps the most poverty stricken area in the United States.

From the Rosebud Sioux Website

A 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior Indian Labor Force Report indicated that there were 22,870 tribal members with a total of 19,440 eligible for services, 6,804 under the age of 16, 11,132 are between the ages of 16-64, 1,504 over the age of 64, 8,084 are not available for work, with a total work force of 3,048. There were 2,009 employed, and 1,039 unemployed with an unemployment rate of 34%. The report indicates that there are 1,607 who are employed of which 80% are still under the poverty guidelines.

* It is important to look at the 11,132 tribal members that are between the ages of 16 to 64 and the 8,084 tribal members that are not available for work and the 3,048 individuals that are available for work. The report states that this total estimates the number of individuals who were over the age of 16 and who were included in a tribe's service population, but because of personal circumstances were not able to assume or sustain gainful employment. These 8,084 tribal members are not counted in the unemployment rate of 34%. Should these 8,084 individuals be available for work then you would have 11,132 individuals available for work for an unemployment rate. The tribe estimates that 11,132 are available for work, with an actual 82% unemployment rate.

As for repatriations-again, I am against that in its purest form. The US government has committed multiple crimes against all different races and ethnicities. What I am for is upholding contractual agreements that the US willingly entered.

As for sovereignty: No Native American Nation is completely sovereign. We are working on it. Sovereignty cannot simply be erased just because the United States says "Ok, I don't want you to exist anymore. Poof, you aren't there". They've tried that method. The US upheld its assimilation policies all the way up into the 1950's. They took away children and placed them into boarding schools. They beat them for speaking their native tounge. And then they dumped them back on the res after completely destroying their identity and sense of culture. And yet we prevail. We weren't granted the privilege of US citizenship-it was a method the US government used to try and further assimilate Native Americans. And, in your case PV, it worked. Your family became assimilated; mine in many ways did too. I am of mixed heritage-1/4 Choctaw, 1/8 Comanche, and 5/8 White. But it's not all simply about blood quantum. Why do you think the US tries to put restrictions on tribal membership based on blood quantum? It's another technique they use to try and make Native Americans dissappear. But in my heart, I am 100% Choctaw. I am culturally, socially, and legally a member of my tribe. I am a dual citizen: I am a citizen of the US, and I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. And I'm sorry you had to miss out on your own culture and identity. Your tribal heritage is just as important as the rest of your heritage. Sovereignty is a very hot button issue right now. But let me ask you this: If tribes never relinquished their right as sovereign nations (and I can't think of a single one who has given up this right), and because the US government has acknowledged the innate sovereignty of tribes numerous times in treaties and in federal law, how can it be that sovereignty does not exist for tribes?

I would also like to point out that if you look at the pure demographics of the United States, you will notice that we are NOT all equal. We like to think that everyone is on a level playing field, and legally I believe we are, but our own cultures and society can hold us back. Affirmative Action in practice is something we generally consider distasteful: people should earn things based on their merits rather than the color of their skin. But the sad fact is that in many instances minorities are more likely to live in poverty, be subject to disease and higher death rates, and lack the resources they need in order to obtain a higher education. Just food for thought.

 

[palabravampiress]

I don't know a whole lot about the Native American situation, but isn't the US still treating them--those that live on reservations, anyway--terribly? African Americans are equal in every way, but I don't think the Native Americans have quite made it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

^ You're wrong, but only "kinda" wrong.

Like other ethnic groups within the U.S., Native Americans as a group certainly do suffer from the deleterious effect of past treatment. Native American groups have suffered enslavement, epidemic brought on by non-native diseases, and genocide by overt means like wholsesale slaughter as well as more covert means like internal warfare (much of which has been caused by or influenced by the actions and encroachment of European peoples) and a high rate of intermarriage with European peoples and their descendants (which tends to obliterate Native American culture by encouraging assimilation).

Make no mistake: great atrocities were committed. I don't want any of this to sound better than it was and I don't want the U.S. to escape culpability merely because these issues were began by various European powers prior to the U.S.A.'s inception. Under President Jackson, the disastrous policy of forced removal to reservations was begun. Later, Generals Sherman and Sheridan conducted the Indian Wars by resorting to tactics (like destroying food supplies, burning shelters, and out-and-out massacre) that would now justly be considered war crimes.

The effects of this past treatment linger on today. Many formerly powerful tribes and nations no longer exist. Among those fortunate enough to have survived the colonial age with their cultures still relatively intact, poverty and social problems like alcoholism are common. This is due to past injustice, as well, as confinement on reservation lands tended to render traditional means of self-sustenance both impractical and illegal, so tribes were forced to depend upon the U.S. government, which was not always very charitable or ethical. Native cultures were further degraded by active policies of assimilation generally held in place (in one form or another) until as late as the 1970s. even as late as the year 2000, the Washington State's Republican party included Native American assimilation as part of their platform.

Now, Native Americans who live on Reservations generally hold dual citizenship: they are citizens of the U.S. (and have been since 1924) as well as of their particular ancestral sovereign nation. Depending upon the membership rules of a particular nation, dual citizenship may also be granted to those living beyond reservation boundaries. As the nations are sovereign, the U.S. doesn't have a whole lot of control or say about what goes on within a reservation, including how they make their money and how they choose to distribute it. That's why you hear about "Indian Casinos." What is illegal in other parts of a state is often legal on a reservation. Generally speaking, a sovereign Native American state has the same rights -- and limitations -- as any other sovereign state or commonwealth (like California, Ohio, or Tennessee). For example, they can create their own laws, their own internal government structures, their own police forces, their own taxes, etc., but they can't wage war or coin money. Furthermore, many Native Americans are eligible for various tribal, state, and federal aid that are unavailable to the public at large.

So you're wrong, but you're only recently wrong. 🙂 While Native Americans have traditionally suffered very poor treatment at the hands of European colonists and their U.S. descendants, their current treatment is not very different from the way the federal government treats any other state. Most of the deleterious effects, like poverty, currently suffered by Native Americans is the accumulated result of centuries of war, epidemic, genocide, and mistreatment rather than the result of current policy. In fact, current policy generally prohibits very much in the way of federal or state interference in matters related to sovereign native nations while simultaneously encouraging various forms of aid, Affirmative Action, and other assistance.



EDIT:
You're right, randiann. Equality under the law is one thing, equality of opportunity is another. You're also right that assimilation did "work" in the case of my family and that I did miss out on experiencing my heritage, but I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Over the course of my lifetime, I've seen the racial makeup of my family go from largely Native American to "white" and, now, to "black." That is in large part due to injustices of the past, especially as related to equality of opportunity. But that is exactly why I can't justify making special accommodations along racial lines -- even when it comes to sovereignty. The fact that my family and my heritage is more diverse than my skin color would indicate leads me to believe that there is no real basis for acknowledging such differences other than to create further division and prejudice. Why should my cousin be eligible for benefits for which I am not eligible (like Affirmative Action scholarships and such, let alone dual citizenship and national sovereignty) when we both grew up in the same neighborhood and in the same circumstances? Better yet, why should my cousin and his half-brother be treated differently under the law just because their different fathers give them different blood quantum levels?

In a nation of immigrants in which we all have rather diverse ethnic backgrounds, I find the idea of basing membership in a group -- a group to which benefits are afforded -- along racial lines to be prejudicial and based on fallacious ideas about the social construct of race.

 

[randiann]

Now, Native Americans who live on Reservations generally hold dual citizenship: they are citizens of the U.S. (and have been since 1924) as well as of their particular ancestral sovereign nation. Depending upon the membership rules of a particular nation, dual citizenship may also be granted to those living beyond reservation boundaries. As the nations are sovereign, the U.S. doesn't have a whole lot of control or say about what goes on within a reservation, including how they make their money and how they choose to distribute it. That's why you hear about "Indian Casinos." What is illegal in other parts of a state is often legal on a reservation. Generally speaking, a sovereign Native American state has the same rights -- and limitations -- as any other sovereign state or commonwealth (like California, Ohio, or Tennessee). For example, they can create their own laws, their own internal government structures, their own police forces, their own taxes, etc., but they can't wage war or coin money. Furthermore, many Native Americans are eligible for various tribal, state, and federal aid that are unavailable to the public at large.

You are partially right here. Native American tribes issue of sovereignty is a complex issue, especially in Oklahoma. Oklahoma's tribes are not on a reservation system, but rather are nations within the state itself. In some instances, their level of sovereignty supercedes the state and they are equal to the US-the federal government has upheld this notion of equality several times (I'll give some sources later, I'm at work and don't have access to all my books right now). In other instances, the tribe is equal with the state-as in your example of gaming. However, the US is HIGHLY involved in the regulating of gaming. They control which land casinos can be built on and even how the profits can be spent. Look at Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. They even have a National Indian Gaming Commission. And in other instances, Indian tribes are under state law, such as tribal members paying taxes, car tags (they aren't recognized by all states), etc. etc.

The fact that my family and my heritage is more diverse than my skin color would indicate leads me to believe that there is no real basis for acknowledging such differences other than to create further division and prejudice. Why should my cousin be eligible for benefits for which I am not eligible (like Affirmative Action scholarships and such, let alone dual citizenship and national sovereignty) when we both grew up in the same neighborhood and in the same circumstances? Better yet, why should my cousin and his half-brother be treated differently under the law just because their different fathers give them different blood quantum levels?

In a nation of immigrants in which we all have rather diverse ethnic backgrounds, I find the idea of basing membership in a group -- a group to which benefits are afforded -- along racial lines to be prejudicial and based on fallacious ideas about the social construct of race.

I'm right there with you on this one. It is unfair to base benefits based on blood quantum. Rather than abolish all tribes, however, why not recognize their inherent sovereignty and allow them the right to determine their own parameters of who qualifies as a citizen. Right now the federal government restricts tribal citizenship based upon rolls made in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Furthermore the federal government restricts tribal citizenship to one tribe. This works to combat Native American sovereignty in a number of ways

Example: Bob is a Native American. His mom is 1/2 Cherokee and 1/4 Choctaw. His dad is 1/2 Kiowa and 1/2 Comanche. Bob's a mutt, but a full blooded Native American mutt. Blood quantum requirements for these tribes (they do vary by tribe, this is just an example) are set at 1/2. Legally, Bob would not be eligible for enrollment in any of his 4 tribes, and he would be listed as White. Now say that the requirement is set at 1/4. Bob has to pick which tribe he is in, because federal regulations state that he can only be a member of one tribe. So Bob picks Cherokee, and is listed as 1/4 Cherokee, and 3/4 White.

Now say that instead of negating tribal sovereignty we embrace it. These restrictions are lifted, and a tribe can now adopt members based upon their cultural and social "Indianness". If Bob is White, but identifies with the Choctaw tribe, lives within the tribal boundaries, and is culturally and socially accepted and welcomed, he can petition for citizenship, much as someone who immigrates to the US could become naturalized.

You have to understand, I am not for extra federal benefits. Overall, I believe that the trust doctrine upon which these benefits are established is a flawed and dangerous notion. It is upon this basis that we are considered "domestic dependant nations"; little more than children who need mom and dad to take care of them. Instead of living on commodity cheese and depending on IHS when said unhealthy cheese clogs our arteries, why not instead take the reigns of our future? I'm not arguing for special treatment. I'm arguing for the right for the United States to recognize us as more than just its abused and neglected children; for it to see us as the sovereign nations that we are. And I will lobby for this till the day I die.