ID: 125570
Date Added: 2009-01-31
Date Modified: 2009-02-01
The sovereignty of the Indian nations is a critical Native value
document
Hunter Gray
|
|
|
document 51 of 55
Photo by Thomas Gray Salter. A half century of community organizational activism... We cannot run away from the Winds of Challenge and Change. We have to take History and ride with it. Always ahead, always toward the Sun. And always aware that Democracy is natural and, given half a chance, it will always flourish. We have big fish to fry and we're going to have to do it in our own home-grown skillet -- over a long-burning fire from the timber of our own forests. Bear's Lair
The sovereignty of the Indian nations is a critical Native value
by Hunter Gray, 31 January 2009
I do not agree with some of the statements presuming that Federal labor laws etc should be extended into Indian country [with especial reference to Native casinos].
The sovereignty of the Indian nations is an extremely critical Native value. It's frequently under attack in the United States by the Federal and state governments -- and requires effective Native vigilance and fight-back at all levels. For this reason, all of the 600 or so tribal nations, and the greatest majority -- and maybe virtually all -- of the Indian people, oppose incursions by state and Federal governments into the sovereign affairs of their respective nations. This applies to such matters as Federal labor laws and regulations [and any possible state ones as well] -- even when the motives are, at least ostensibly, the furtherance of labor unionism. I've found that it's often difficult for some non-Indian leftists, for example, to grasp these realities -- since most non-Indians fail to recognize the unique national status of each Indian nation and its respective culture. And most non-Indians don't even know or understand anything about the vast number of treaties [and some related agreements] between the Indian nations and United States which, as per Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution are considered part of "the supreme law of the land" -- legally trumping even Congressional statutes.
From the full sovereignty of the tribal nations [full control by the tribal nation of its land and people and affairs] that prevailed for eons until the European invasion, there has been, via the long "trail of broken treaties" [broken by the Europeans and then by the Euro-Americans], considerable erosion of sovereignty. The basic Native tribal/nation thrust is always the preservation and expansion of sovereignty to its full level and the achievement of full self-determination -- within the context of treaty rights; and always, too, the maintenance and expansion of the land base, the effective protection of the respective tribal societies and their cultures, and the preservation of the respective tribe's natural resources.
What follows is a discussion of tribal/nation sovereignty with especial focus on the matter of labor unionism. One of the points I make is that, if a union seeks to represent, say, workers on tribal lands -- or, if those workers want a union to represent them -- this is going to have to be done within the framework of the respective tribal nation -- not via outside Federal or state laws. [Violations of tribal labor laws can be dealt with in tribal court, or via tribal elections, or via informal internal means.] And if a union "from the outside" [as generally the case] is going to represent workers within the territory of an Indian nation, then the union is going to have to work hard to present an effective and appealing case. Among other things, that means hiring Native organizers and other staff[ preferably from the tribe involved] in genuinely meaningful capacities -- and not taking the presumed "easy route" of seeking advocacy from, say, the Federal government vis-avis Native tribal frameworks. Some unions have met this challenge well, many still haven't.
The Bush administration was no great friend of Native America -- but many Democrats haven't been, either. The nature and thrust of the Obama administration remains to be seen on Native issues -- and much else.
This is an older article, somewhat updated, but the issues have not changed.
UNIONS, NATIVES, TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
[HUNTER GRAY FEBRUARY 16 2002]
UPDATED JUNE 24 2005
"The 10-1 ruling said the pueblo's right-to-work measure was "clearly an exercise of sovereign authority over economic transactions on the reservation." From the AP story of January 16, 2002.
Note by Hunter Bear
This is a very complex -- and sensitive -- situation. I write as a Native activist who consistently and vigorously supports labor unionism. I presently belong to three unions.
Very recently, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling which upholds -- in the context of tribal sovereignty -- the right of a Native nation [San Juan Pueblo of New Mexico] to enact and maintain a right-to-work law. This relates specifically to workers at a sawmill on a reservation but has, many of us feel, very wide ramifications in Indian Country generally -- and a key economic dimension involved in all of this could well be workers in tribally-owned casino operations.
This is a ruling -- in an obviously sad situation -- which virtually all Native people will support as well as informed and issues-sensitive non-Native people.The possible motives of the leadership of San Juan Pueblo in this matter quite aside, this general support for the ruling has nothing to do with unions. It does involve the absolutely critical importance for Native Americans in maintaining what tribal/national sovereignty remains.
Unions -- effective unions sensitive and committed to Native concerns -- are increasingly critical in the Native American worker context: both on and off the reservations. The Tenth Circuit ruling and the collateral implications pose a substantial challenge to unionism.
I strongly believe that unions can and must meet the challenge of effective organization and vigorous representation of Native American workers. I believe that unions will -- but it's going to require much awareness and sensitivity on their part with respect to Native people and societies and cultures and concerns. Among other things, unions are going to have learn a great deal about Native Americans. And the unions are going to have to hire Native organizers -- and certainly Native staff from the respective tribal setting involved. And more.
First, a little quick background on the matter of Native tribal sovereignty. Then, several excerpts from a long letter on Natives and unions that I've just written to a friend much involved on behalf of Native rights. Then, I have a section dealing with a labor union's reaction to a situation at a North Dakota tribally-owned manufacturing unit. Finally, a newspaper article on the background and specific nature of the San Juan Pueblo ruling.
TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY:
A Native tribal nation, like all nations, has inherent sovereignty. Full sovereignty is the full and ultimate control by the tribal nation of its land, its people, and its affairs. Much sovereignty has been lost -- however temporarily -- by the tribal nations in both the U.S. and Canada but some functional sovereignty does remain.
Native sovereignty has been badly eroded. In the United States, the current situation is referred to as "residual" or "limited sovereignty" -- a tribal nation has control over some dimensions but not over others. The fight is always to preserve and to expand sovereignty. Sovereignty, obviously, is power -- and protection and security -- and critical to individual and societal well-being.
A Federally recognized tribe today in the U.S. has these powers in the context of "limited" or "residual" sovereignty:
1] Tribes can govern themselves administratively and judicially -- under the regulations of the Indian Reorganization Act [1934] and subject to the Major Crimes Act [1885], Public Law 280 [1953] and the Indian Civil Rights Act [1968.]
2] Tribes can tax their members and tax outside business enterprises functioning on the reservation.
3] Tribes can handle domestic relations.
4] Tribes can apportion tribal property [e.g., homesites.]
5] Tribes can regulate inheritance.
6] Tribes can determine tribal membership.
Obviously this excludes much from "the full and ultimate control by the tribal nation of its land, its people, and its affairs."
As just an example, let's look at the criminal justice situation on a Federal Indian reservation today:
A tribe CAN arrest and prosecute an Indian who commits misdemeanor-type crimes within the boundaries of the reservation.
A tribe CANNOT arrest and prosecute anyone who commits felony crimes on its reservation. In the greatest majority of cases, this power is held by the Federal government under the Major Crimes Act of 1885 -- although a non-Indian to non-Indian felony on a reservation is turned over to state officials. In a small minority of cases, however, Public Law 280 [1953] gives all felony jurisdiction to the state.
[PL-280, BTW, was part of the infamous "Termination Package" of the reactionary 1950s and beyond which included, in addition to 280, formal efforts to terminate treaty rights -- and although this was kept at arm's length by most tribes and eventually ended and reversed as policy, played hell with the Menominee and Klamath and a number of other affected nations. Termination efforts included, too, the urban relocation scheme which maneuvered tens of thousands of Native people into the cities with both "the stick" and "pie in the sky" promises and dumped them there sans Federal Indian benefits.]
In 1978, the US Supreme Court issued the Oliphant decision which prevents tribes from prosecuting non-Indian offenders on its reservation. Immediately following this, I had the interesting experience of spending a day discussing OIiphant and its implications at a special workshop for Navajo tribal police at Window Rock. [I handled the Criminal Justice curriculum at Navajo Community College.] It was clear that massive confusion was fast developing and that the only immediate solution was cross-deputization of tribal police by state authorities. [The Navajo Nation is bigger than the state of West Virginia and, in this case, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah are involved.] Cross-deputization in Indian country generally came to pass quickly, enabling a cross-deputized tribal police officer to arrest a non-Indian on the reservation -- but the non-Indian would have to be turned over to state or Federal officers. Further, only rarely was a state cross-deputized tribal officer able to arrest someone on state jurisdiction.
If this was not confusing enough, the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1990 Duro decision sought to prevent a tribe from arresting and prosecuting Indians of other tribes on its reservation! This fast-developing and completely bizarre twist led Congress to forthwith pass special "blocking" legislation which was made permanent in 1992. Thus Duro has been effectively nullified.
This has led a great many of us to call for restoration of full Native civil and criminal jurisdiction [jurisdiction over everyone!] on the reservations.
The completely tangled criminal justice jurisdictional situation on Federal Indian reservations epitomizes the very complex mess in which most Native people are caught up today.
Sam Friedman comments: Hunter and I have discussed this issue before on these lists, and I am well aware of his far superior depth of understanding of Native tribes and cultures.
There seems to me to be a weakness in Hunter's argument--albeit a weakness that might not seem to be of enormous immediate relevance--although one can hope.
Hunter's argument here is that the tribe is sovereign, and thus that US labor laws should not apply.
Now in the USA or other countries, one of the implications of national sovereignty (in theory--though not in practice) is that svereignty means that if the workers of the country rise up and overthrow its government and economic system, they have the right to do so. (Of course, this right will be challenged by international attacks, as happened in Hungary in 1956 and would have happened in France in 1968 if the movement there had gone further--but, in theory, these can be condemned in Hunter's approach as violations fo sovereignty.)
However, in the current legal environment as the US government sees it, and most if not all tribes accept, the US government is the ultimate sovereign with the "responsibility" to maintain "order." What this means in practice is that if the workers or others in a tribe rise up to overthrow the tribal authorities due to the way their social order mistreats poor and worker tribal members, US forces (FBI or National Guard, probably) will intervene to maintain the power of the employers and others.
Thus, from the viewpoint of the workers and20of poor members of the tribe, it seems to me that Hunter's approach here is in danger of meaning that the approach he supports takes away any support local workers get from outside labor victories yet reduce their actual power due to the existence of a legal order in which the ultimate sovereignty is that of the USA.
I offer these thoughts in order to learn from the ensuing discussion.
Hunter Gray responds: To come to the point, Sam, you're trying to use a European [and I include the United States in that context] urban/industrial theoretical approach -- in your case, Marxism -- as your primary analytical measure of Native tribal sociology. And that will never work -- because there is a deep Grand Canyon of socio-cultural difference between those two basic worlds . From the vantage point of Indian tribal nations [each with its own distinctive culture but with many similarities], the United States [and Canada] are literally other countries. [Certainly there has been some acculturation in many Native settings vis-a-vis American culture, but there has Not been any assimilation by any stretch.] Native American tribal nations and at least almost all of the people therein have certainly never accepted the United States government as the "ultimate sovereign."
A Native tribe is a Nation and it's also, in many respects, One Big Family where many are related, some way, by blood or by marriage. [There are social mechanisms, such as clan systems, which exist, among other reasons, to prevent incest.] The basic economic ethos of any Native tribal society is fundamentally communalistic -- and, despite some material inequities, essentially classless [certainly very much so, compared to the United States or comparable countries.] The basic social ethos is that of tribal [mutual] responsibility: the group has an obligation to the individual as the individual does to the group. If there should be a conflict, the tribe prevails but there are also clearly defined areas of individual and family autonomy into which the tribe cannot intrude. It's worth mentioning that the tribal ideal with respect to a good leader is one who serves his or her community rather than serving one's self.
Again, efforts to gauge and predict any Native tribal sociology by any European measure makes no sense. These are two entirely different dimensions.
Perhaps, as you suggest, the workers in what's called the United States will, some way and some time, revolt. [Maybe they won't.] But whatever they may do or don't do in that regard, it'll be on the other side of the deep socio-cultural canyon from all of the quite distinctive Native tribal nations.
Best, Hunter [Hunter Bear]
Sam Friedman responds: I deeply appreciate this aspect of your analysis, Hunter, and I am sure that there is much truth to it. But I am not totally convinced for two reasons. First, to the extent that casinos or other large-scale employment comes into a native community, this tends to change relationships over time. The communal gets strained when some folks are working long hours for little pay and others are getting lots of money for doing nothing but accepting kickbacks, for example. So although I am sure that what you are saying reflects a lot of native life, I am not sure that it is not changing.
The other reason is that we have all heard the same arguments before--which does not mean that they are incorrect in this instance. But I remember all the discussion of communal and tribal solidarity in many parts of Africa as being much like what you are saying, and thus of African socialism as the answer to capitalism, "Communism," and Marxist approaches. Again, I would say that the last 50 to 60 years have shown that that view did not hold up for Africa very long.
On the other hand, in the US and parts of Canada, many tribes have been fairly resistant so far. The question I am raising is, in part, whether that will continue to be so.
Hunter Gray replies: Thanks for your response, Sam.
Tribalism, of course, has very deep and very resilient roots -- and the loyalties of tribal people to their tribal nations runs very deep and enduringly. I think this is globally true of the "Fourth World" -- the tribal world. In this instance, I'm speaking only of our Native American situation. I understand that this is essentially true in Siberia and "both Mongolias"-- the old "Soviet" Mongolia and that in the bailiwick of China. I think it's pretty true of Africa as well -- though History there, and especially the colonial dimension, has been different than that of the Western Hemisphere. But I have never been able to visit those places and my knowledge is admittedly limited. Our Thomas of course is married to Mimie [Yirengah] Chilinda of Zambia [you met them both when you were here in 2005]. Although Mimie's father, Amos, is a university trained mining engineer, he and his family speak frequently of their tribal roots and connections. The "indigenous" tribally based populations in many parts of the world -- including much of this Hemisphere -- are often much, much larger numbers-wise than they are in the United States or Canada. The reasons are many, including hundreds of years of genocide in America north of Mexico.
One of the most striking dimensions in the Native situation -- usually surprising to non-Indians -- is the fact that, despite literally centuries of occupation by Europeans and Euro-Americans, the primary commitment of a Native person is to his or her tribal nation and its culture. This holds very true whether we're talking of, say, a relatively small reservation in northern Maine or a comparable reserve in southeastern Canada -- where Natives have been "involved" with the Euros since the 1600s -- or the Hopis and Navajos in the Southwest. It holds right here in this Idaho setting where the Shoshone/Bannock reservation physically adjoins Pocatello. It also holds true, as far as that goes, for "urban Natives" -- of whom there are now many, but who very much indeed retain their primary tribal loyalties and commitment in the midst of such places as Minneapolis and Winnipeg or the even tougher urban crucible of Chicago.
As I say, there has often been Native acculturation vis-a-vis United States and Canadian culture -- but there has not been assimilation. This holds true for reservation/reserve situations and the urban setting.
And the socio-cultural divide is deep.
About five years ago, drawing from an interesting little survey our Chicago-based Native American Community Organizational Training Center conducted in that metro area in the 1970s, I posted a short piece which is now on our website: How Each Side Sees The Other Side: Native Views and Anglo Business Views. It's well worth a look.
Coming back to unions, it's much easier for unions to enter and work in a reservation setting if the context involves "outside" corporations -- e.g., Peabody Coal on the Navajo reservation [and the United Mine Workers.] But most "business" on reservations is tribally owned -- again, the very communalistic context. This holds very true for the casinos which employ both Indian and often non-Indian workers. Even here, of course, it could be possible for unions to eventually play a helpful role -- If the unions follow some of the suggestions that I made in my basic piece on all of this: e.g., unions have to take the time to learn at least the basics of the respective tribal culture involved, need to hire tribal people as meaningful staff, need to talk honestly with tribal leaders and tribal people in general, need to move slowly and sensitively, and not prattle about "Federal labor laws and regs."
Individual Native persons have played significant roles in essentially non-Native social justice endeavors in "mainline America" or "mainline Canada" -- and many other Hemispheric settings. And, to some extent, the reverse has been the case. But I have to say, in all candor, that only relatively few non-Indians have supported -- in a culturally sensitive fashion -- Native causes.
As you know, Sam, I have personally worked in these situations for my entire life. I like to think of my "Culture Hero" and ggg/grandfather, John Gray [Ignace Hatchiorauquasha], leader of the mostly Mohawk [but with some St Francis Abenaki] band of fur hunters in this general part of the Rockies during the earlier part of the 19th Century:
"His unusual ability to deal with the whites enhanced his stature as an
Iroquois chief. . .he stood out as a gifted leader of his people, understanding and following their ways in a manner that would have been difficult for a white man. . . he not only explored the wilderness. . .he also helped to bridge the cultural gap between Indians and whites during the years of the fur trade, even though much of the time the Iroquois and white trappers did not get along together at all well , and the whites often resented his position on the Indian side when there were differences in outlook. More than that, his leadership of the Iroquois out of Ogden's camp, May 24, 1825, contributed substantially to the Hudson's Bay Company adoption of competitive pricing that limited the expansion of the St. Louis fur trade in the Oregon country." [Merle Wells, Idaho State Historical Society, on John Gray]
Cornet Joyce comments: All nations are tribal until they become posttribal. European nations were not exceptions. (Richard Burton used to say he was "detribalized Welsh.) The endurance of cultures is not absolute but relative. Some die soon and some die late. Languages and dialects die at an ascending pace, we hear, and others have commented on the passing of Indian languages. (The last Cornish speaker died in the early 18th century.)
Hunter responds: You're talking about different situations, Cornet. Actually, a great many Native languages are intact -- and, in cases where they may be fading, tribes are making concerted and successful efforts to renew them. In all Native tribal cases, the socio-cultural basics are strong. It's been observed by many that, even in urban Indian settings, Native people, feeling with justification threatened by the surrounding urban/industrial situation, work "extra" hard to maintain tribalism and tribal cultures. Chicago, for example, has not only a number of very viable Indian-controlled service programs, with cultural education dimensions, but also a number of tribal clubs: the Winnebago [Ho-Chunk] Club, Sioux Club, Chippewa, etc.
The respective Native/tribal identity dimension not only survives, but frequently is sharply strengthened. And it's also worth noting that the "urban Indian experience" has fostered Pan-Indian [inter-tribal] relationships and social justice endeavors.
Cornet Joyce responds: Yes, I'm talking about different cultures and different situations. One of the things that they share is the effort to survive as the world around them changes. Many are intact and many are faltering. Those that are intact are not unchanged either. As one of those bad ole euros said, "you never step twice into the same river" - or culture.
Hunter Gray responds: Among the differences, Cornet, is the fact that formal treaties and/or comparable agreements exist between the Native tribes and the Federal [in a few cases, state] governments -- and more to the point, Natives almost always have a land base, often one with their respective traditional roots. There is always, in the context of the tribal cultures, a persistent and active sense of "aboriginal spirituality" [regardless of Christian incursions in some instances] -- and often the traditional religion is quite intact. This spiritual dimension is much related to land and other Cosmic dimensions and qualities. Geographical isolation, as is the case in a number of Native instances, is a factor -- though I would tend to see that as more secondary.
Anyway, just some quick thoughts.
Cornet Joyce comments: I see no important differences between the situation of Indian tribes and that of "the Celtic fringe" and numerous other surviving cultures. Many have treaty histories and treaties should obviously be observed.
For many more pieces by Hunter Gray click to his Bear's Lair Library here in mytown. And perhaps save Hunter to your favourites or desktop and visit regularly.
TLG in USA
REAL communities on the Web
The Lunatic Gazette
Have feedback? Email the Editor
document 51 of 55
A half century of community organizational activism... We cannot run away from the Winds of Challenge and Change. We have to take History and ride with it. Always ahead, always toward the Sun. And always aware that Democracy is natural and, given half a chance, it will always flourish. We have big fish to fry and we're going to have to do it in our own home-grown skillet -- over a long-burning fire from the timber of our own forests.