Tweet
************************************************** *************
This message is reprinted under the Fair Use
Doctrine of International Copyright Law:
************************************************** *************
FROM: THE DAY NEWSPAPER
f209&prnt=1
Featured in Columns & Editorial
Tribal Sovereignty? It Doesn't Exist
By KATHLEEN GRASSO ANDERSEN
Published on 9/12/2004
That George W. Bush cannot define tribal sovereignty does not surprise me. In
the first place, “sovereignty” is a four-syllable word and he can barely
speak in complete, grammatically correct sentences. By the same token, all the
journalists who laughed at his inability to explain what tribal sovereignty
means would be hardpressed themselves to give a cogent and accurate reply.
Put yourself to the test and print what you think tribal sovereignty is, as a
recent lettert writer requested. The difficulty lies in the fact that tribal
sovereignty is just a term that the government likes to pull out of a hat,
like a rabbit, whenever it wants to evade the issue of equal rights of Native
Americans. It does not exist in legal reality.
The U.S. trust policy makes each tribe a “ward of the state.” All so-called “
Indian land” is, in reality federal land that Congress has designated to be
used as “reserves” for Native Americans. Congress, through its plenary powers,
can terminate a tribe and extinguish Indian land title at any time, in any
manner, without the tribe's consent.
Does that sound sovereign to you?
It gets worse. The U.S. trust policy for Native Americans requires all tribes
to obtain the approval of the secretary of the Interior for their choice of
attorney. So, if a tribe wants to sue the federal government, it has to get the
OK from Uncle Sam on who will represent them. Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal can explain how this works.
In 1991, the Connecticut General Assembly voted to approve $30,000 for the
Connecticut Indian Affairs Council, but when CIAC Chairwoman Paulette Crone
requested the release of those funds so they could hire an attorney, the attorney
general refused to release the funds, citing Connecticut's trust agreement.
There are numerous examples where a tribe was denied the right to legal counsel
of it choice.
Does that sound sovereign to you?
A tribe also must obtain the approval of the secretary of the Interior for
every business proposal it wants to enter. The U.S. has often expanded its trust
responsibility to approve of the tribe's choice of legal counsel and simply
appointed an attorney to a tribe, whether or not one is wanted.
Usually these are former U.S. attorneys who proceed to accept settlements
against a tribe's wishes, or who simultaneously represent the tribe and an
American company with whom they are doing business. One example was the 1950s
appointment of attorney John C. Boyden, to the Hopi Tribe, to represent them in a
lease with Peabody Coal, for whom he also served as legal counsel. The tribe got
25 cents a ton for coal that was sold for $75 a ton.
When Peabody Coal wanted to expand its coal mining, Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., member of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, did his campaign
contributor, Peabody Coal, a favor and introduced legislation in 1974 calling
for the forcible removal of 10,000 Navajo and Hopi with a completion date of
July 6, 1986.
It gets worse. One would think if a tribe enjoyed ‘ “sovereignty” it could
decide on the tribal children's education. Wrong. By the authority of the U.S.
Trust Policy, Indian children since the early 1900s were forcibly removed from
their homes and transported long distances to BIA schools where they were
forbidden to speak their own language on pain of torture.
By forcibly, I mean the U.S. Cavalry riding out to an Indian village,
shooting dogs so families could not be warned and breaking the shins of children
attempting to run away. Parents who refused to give their children up voluntarilly
were sent to Alcatraz for 10 years.
Would you call that sovereign?
And then there's the issue of the military draft and so on, but you get the
picture.
You could ask our two senators and our congressmen to help you define tribal
sovereignty, but I would wager that their comprehension is as dismally
unenlightened as that of George W. Bush. It could be amusing, though.
Kathleen Grasso Andersen divides her time between a home in New London and
California. She assisted the Hopi Tribe in its formal complaint to the United
Nations that U.S. trust policy was a legal form of discrimination against Native
Americans.
© The Day Publishing Co., 2004
This message is reprinted under the Fair Use
Doctrine of International Copyright Law:
************************************************** *************
FROM: THE DAY NEWSPAPER
f209&prnt=1
Featured in Columns & Editorial
Tribal Sovereignty? It Doesn't Exist
By KATHLEEN GRASSO ANDERSEN
Published on 9/12/2004
That George W. Bush cannot define tribal sovereignty does not surprise me. In
the first place, “sovereignty” is a four-syllable word and he can barely
speak in complete, grammatically correct sentences. By the same token, all the
journalists who laughed at his inability to explain what tribal sovereignty
means would be hardpressed themselves to give a cogent and accurate reply.
Put yourself to the test and print what you think tribal sovereignty is, as a
recent lettert writer requested. The difficulty lies in the fact that tribal
sovereignty is just a term that the government likes to pull out of a hat,
like a rabbit, whenever it wants to evade the issue of equal rights of Native
Americans. It does not exist in legal reality.
The U.S. trust policy makes each tribe a “ward of the state.” All so-called “
Indian land” is, in reality federal land that Congress has designated to be
used as “reserves” for Native Americans. Congress, through its plenary powers,
can terminate a tribe and extinguish Indian land title at any time, in any
manner, without the tribe's consent.
Does that sound sovereign to you?
It gets worse. The U.S. trust policy for Native Americans requires all tribes
to obtain the approval of the secretary of the Interior for their choice of
attorney. So, if a tribe wants to sue the federal government, it has to get the
OK from Uncle Sam on who will represent them. Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal can explain how this works.
In 1991, the Connecticut General Assembly voted to approve $30,000 for the
Connecticut Indian Affairs Council, but when CIAC Chairwoman Paulette Crone
requested the release of those funds so they could hire an attorney, the attorney
general refused to release the funds, citing Connecticut's trust agreement.
There are numerous examples where a tribe was denied the right to legal counsel
of it choice.
Does that sound sovereign to you?
A tribe also must obtain the approval of the secretary of the Interior for
every business proposal it wants to enter. The U.S. has often expanded its trust
responsibility to approve of the tribe's choice of legal counsel and simply
appointed an attorney to a tribe, whether or not one is wanted.
Usually these are former U.S. attorneys who proceed to accept settlements
against a tribe's wishes, or who simultaneously represent the tribe and an
American company with whom they are doing business. One example was the 1950s
appointment of attorney John C. Boyden, to the Hopi Tribe, to represent them in a
lease with Peabody Coal, for whom he also served as legal counsel. The tribe got
25 cents a ton for coal that was sold for $75 a ton.
When Peabody Coal wanted to expand its coal mining, Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., member of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, did his campaign
contributor, Peabody Coal, a favor and introduced legislation in 1974 calling
for the forcible removal of 10,000 Navajo and Hopi with a completion date of
July 6, 1986.
It gets worse. One would think if a tribe enjoyed ‘ “sovereignty” it could
decide on the tribal children's education. Wrong. By the authority of the U.S.
Trust Policy, Indian children since the early 1900s were forcibly removed from
their homes and transported long distances to BIA schools where they were
forbidden to speak their own language on pain of torture.
By forcibly, I mean the U.S. Cavalry riding out to an Indian village,
shooting dogs so families could not be warned and breaking the shins of children
attempting to run away. Parents who refused to give their children up voluntarilly
were sent to Alcatraz for 10 years.
Would you call that sovereign?
And then there's the issue of the military draft and so on, but you get the
picture.
You could ask our two senators and our congressmen to help you define tribal
sovereignty, but I would wager that their comprehension is as dismally
unenlightened as that of George W. Bush. It could be amusing, though.
Kathleen Grasso Andersen divides her time between a home in New London and
California. She assisted the Hopi Tribe in its formal complaint to the United
Nations that U.S. trust policy was a legal form of discrimination against Native
Americans.
© The Day Publishing Co., 2004
Comment