"Federal Sovereignty, State Sovereignty, And The Sovereignty Of 562 Native American Tribes:
A Match Made In Heaven Or Somewhere Less Pleasant?" That's the title of the Federalist Society's Third Annual Western Conference, at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, on the outskirts of L.A. The conference will be Saturday, January 24, and has -- as usual for the Federalist Society -- an illustrious and ideologically mixed set of speakers. Check out the program here; it should be an excellent event.
Also, once you get beyond the Santa Monica area, there's almost no traffic. (IIRC, I made it up from San Diego in about two and a half hours.)
Oh, and slightly off topic, can you refer to a Caucasian from South Africa who is an American citizen as an "African-American"?
Just asking
What treaties did your forebears, as representatives of independent, sovereign nations, sign with the US govt? Not that this matters in present day supreme court jurisprudence toward native tribes. Congress has plenary power, so native tribes, treaties to the contrary notwithstanding (never mind that treaties are supposed to be the law of the land), have no sovereignty that congress is bound to respect.
I have heard a story (I have no idea if it's true) that a white student from Africa (in the story I heard, she was actually from Kenya, I think) applied for a scholarship for "African Americans" all the while honestly believing she qualified. According to this story, she was expelled from her university. Again, this story may be completely false, (but apparently that doesn't stop me from retelling it).
No, but you are free to call yourself clueless. What exactly is the problem that some right-wingers have with "Native American." At least it's a name they picked for themselves, unlike the ridiculous "Indian" or half-ridiculous "American Indian."
Of course what's really going on here is that some-let's be frank-white people have a problem with anybody trying to distinguish themselves from the teeming mass of Americans. If they have their very own name, then somebody might be inclined to pay attention to their very own unique problems. And we can't have that, because we wouldn't want to have whites feeling guilty about anything their ancestors might have done.
"Special treatment"? Are you talking about all those free scholarships to college the federal government gives to all Natives automatically, the vast oil money, or the gaming checks that allows all Natives to buy three cars and a giant house?
What make you think I'm a right winger? I simply have a problem with segmented, or Hyphenated-Americans. Has a very Balkanizing effect. Results in societal distortions. Absurd policy decisions. Stupid SCOTUS decisions. Demagoguery. Preferential treatment.
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
My ancestors had nothing to do with what happened to the indigenous peoples of the US. Didn't even arrive on these shores before the early 1900s. So, guilt is not something with which I am afflicted. Of course you're welcome to feel as guilty as you want to.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'm sure one of the Catholics or Calvinists on the boards will enlighten us on the precise mechanism of Original Sin.
Uh, Xanthipp, you might look into your own clue supply, as a whole lot of us prefer to be called American indian, or even just "Indian" -- usually pronounced "In-din", at least out here in the Southwest.
The issue with "Native American" is that it has a meaning on its own, one which (viz the recent kerfluffle about Obama's birthplace) has substantial significance. Leaving us on occasion to note that we're "native American Native Americans."
Plus, there's the aspect where a whole lot of us would prefer not to be told what we should think, do, or how we should refer to ourselves by politically-correct dolts, and fakes Like Ward Churchill.
I believe the U.S. originally treated the various Indian tribes as sovereign nations -- its members were not U.S. citizens (or citizens of any State) and the tribes could conduct foreign relations with the U.S. You are right that that status has been eroded over time to the point that it is almost meaningless, except for the fact that states still do not have jurisdiction over tribal lands.
The problem is that ending this status would probably anger and alienate a lot of people for very little public benefit. So the "sovereignty" of the tribes continues in the same quaint way that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands continue to claim they are "sovereign nations."
I believe on the island of Sark, which was a feudal state until recently, the island's hereditary political leaders are required to keep a rifle at the entrance to their homes so that they are ready to bear arms to defend against foreign invaders at a moment's notice. Things like this are pretty slow to change, at least in the offshoots of Imperial England.
In 1855, the United States made a treaty with the Yakama tribe of Washington which stated that the tribe and its members had “the right, in common with the citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways.” In Smiskin, a member of the Yakama tribe was charged with failing to notify the Washington Liquor Control Board before transporting cigarettes that did not have tax stamps.*
The court held that the pre-notification requirement was a restriction on the Yakama right of travel in violation of the Treaty, which provided the tribe the right to travel on public highways “‘without restriction’” and “‘with no conditions attached." Id. See also Cree v. Flores, 157 F.3d 762, 765 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding Yakama truck drivers could transport timber without paying fees for hauling timber on public highways).
*Although the indictment in Smiskin was based on a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2342(a), state law controlled the decision— the federal statute deferred to state law to determine if cigarettes were to be considered contraband, a necessary prerequisite for a federal violation. Smiskin, 487 F.3d at 1263.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.