Research Reports
Reflections on Traditional American Indian Ways, 1998
Threats to Tribal Sovereignty, 1998
Traditional American Indian Leadership: A Comparison with U.S. Governance, 1997
Considerations for Indian Tribes
Two Northern Cheyenne elders, Enos Poor Bear and Austin Two Moons wrote about the unity at the Battle of the Little Big Horn:"The way that our elders made things better was through unity. Unity of purpose; unity of dedication; and unity of effort. When we look back over the pages of time, we observe that all major accomplishments of Indian people were brought about when unity was present. The major victory which our people enjoyed here at this very battlefield was the result of a unified effort among Indian people."
We are grateful to tribal leaders for their support and for their understanding while we assembled this report and the following points for consideration.
American Indians, the aboriginal people of the Western Hemisphere, are accustomed to having an intimate relationship with the natural laws of the Earth. Keep in mind, it is within this context that they approached treaty negotiations which would ultimately define their sovereign status. Tribal sovereignty is used quite frequent in today's discussions about Indian affairs. It was a term that did not exist in the native languages. It became a necessary term as European people and native people negotiated and defined agreements. Moreover, it continues to carry with it a defining nature for the future of Indian affairs.
Tribal sovereignty is to be protected for today and for the future. In today's ever-changing society, policies that are directed toward Indians are usually developed by non-Indians who have limited knowledge about these historic developments. This is so much so that a legislator in the Southwest erroneously tried to enact the Indian Sovereignty Definition Act of 1998. While tribes in the Southwest have been able to stop this particular policy for now, no doubt actions to redefine tribal sovereignty will continue. In addition, similar threats to tribal sovereignty are posed from multiple directions every day.
Tribal governments and individual tribal members may engage in policy discussions in a variety of ways in an effort to protect tribal sovereignty. No one way may be better than another. The critical element is that as tribal sovereignty is challenged, any new policy directives, protections, or "redefinitions" must be driven by American Indian people. With each threat toward individual tribes, strategies for protecting tribal sovereignty should be formed and a united front maintained. This united front would not usurp the individual rights of tribes as specified in their treaty, but would rather maintain the basic legal constructs of tribal sovereignty.
Examples of alliances formed by tribes include the 1997 Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes that have been proposed by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota and the November 1997 sovereignty summit supported by the Navajo Nation in the southwestern United States. The Minnesota alliance includes 33 tribes and 120,000 members in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa to counteract the perception of weak or disconnected tribal governments. This alliance will attempt to get all the tribes speaking on the same issues they mutually share, especially with respect to tribal sovereignty. Navajo Nation President Albert Hale proposed an Allied Indian Nations at the 1997 sovereignty summit that would periodically meet and consult concerning matters affecting one or all of the nations, resolve issues or disagreements between tribes amicably and without external influences, and respect the traditions and laws of each other (Taliman, 1997).
Many Indians are intensely caught in the current debate of issues. Individual Indians and groups in the Indian communities, while they may disagree on current tribal priorities and methods, must look beyond current disputes and support the concept of tribal sovereignty. Without sovereignty, there would be nothing to disagree upon. Without sovereign status, what would become of American Indian tribes?
The
Well-Being of American Indian Children in Minnesota: Economic Conditions,
1994
top | Projects
| Research | Publications
| Links | About Us
| Contact Us | Home
© Copyright 2002, American Indian Policy Center. All Rights
Reserved.
1463 Hewitt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55104 • tel: 651-644-1728
aipc@cpinternet.com
Last updated:
Tuesday November 1, 2005