Post by Okwes on Mar 7, 2006 12:52:28 GMT -5
Colgate explores Indian sovereignty
By DEANNA HORNYAK, Dispatch
Staff Writer 03/06/2006
www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16250055&BRD=1709&PAG\
=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6
<http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16250055&BRD=1709&PA\
G=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6>
<http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1709&dept_id\
=68844&newsid=16250055>
HAMILTON - This weekend, Colgate University hosted a conference on a
topic that doesn't have one clear definition agreed upon by all:
American Indian sovereignty.
Chris Vecsey, director of Native American Studies at Colgate, welcomed
people Saturday, saying the point of the conference was to look more
deeply at the question of Indian sovereignty, in theory and practice.
"It has not only impacted New York state, but the country as well," he
said.
[Click Here!]
<http://bannerads.zwire.com/bannerads/redirect.cfm?ADLOCATION=4000&PAG=4\
61&BRD=1709> While Vecsey said that he didn't expect to come to
complete clarification on the issue of sovereignty when the day was
over, he hoped everyone would take something away from the conference.
"American Indian sovereignty can be confusing," he said.
The first speaker, Frank Pommersheim, a professor of law at the
University of South Dakota, said that American Indian sovereignty is at
a crossroads. "Tribes are doing more now than they ever have in the
modern era," he said. "They are testing the front of tribal
sovereignty."
Pommersheim, who was formerly an associate justice on the Rosebud Sioux
Court of Appeals and the chief justice on the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribal Court of Appeals, framed his talk around the relationship between
tribal sovereignty and the Constitution.
"I am willing to argue that when the Constitution was adopted in 1789,
there was some degree of respect towards tribal sovereignty," he said.
"I am also willing to argue that that respect doesn't exist today."
Pommersheim listed four themes in the Constitution that reflect the
relationship between the Indian tribes and the new Americans.
The first answers the question of why the Europeans came to the
Americas. "Their primary motivation was commerce," he said. "The
Europeans were under the influence of the Enlightenment thinkers and the
highest level of development for them was commerce."
Pommersheim went on to explain that the Constitution addresses commerce
with Indian tribes in the Article I, Section 8. "It says Congress shall
have the authority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes," he said.
"The word 'with' recognizes that Indian tribes are sovereign. It
indicates a partnership, not a power over someone else."
The second theme, Pommersheim said, is diplomacy or treaties. He said
that treaties are negotiated between two sovereigns. "In Article II,
Section 2 the executive branch is given the authority to make treaties,
with the approval of Congress," he said. "This is how the colonists
interacted with the tribes, with treaties, which mean that tribes were
sovereign."
The third and forth themes, Pommersheim said, go hand-in-hand. "How did
the colonists and tribes understand each other?" Pommersheim asked.
"First of all, they didn't quite embrace each other; the theme of
difference. Secondly, they lived separate of each other; the theme of
separation."
The themes of difference and separation, according to Pommersheim, are
reflected in the Constitution in Article I, Section 2. "The only place
in the Constitution that makes reference to individual Indians," he
said, "is when it explains how the number of congressmen in the House of
Representatives should be determined.
The phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" suggests difference and
separation, Pommersheim said, because Indians were different by not
paying taxes and if they wanted to move into town and pay taxes, they
would have had to separate themselves from their tribes. "While the
phrase suggests difference and separation, it does entertain the
possibility that an Indian's status could change on some level," he
said.
While Pommersheim said he would define sovereignty as the ability of a
government to govern all of its individuals in its borders in all ways,
Congress does not see it that way. "In the United States, sovereignty is
defined as whatever Congress or the Supreme Court think or say it is,"
he said. "Tribes are recognized as sovereign today, but with much less
dignity and respect than in 1789."
To wrap up his speech, Pommersheim suggested some ideas that could
achieve meaningful tribal sovereignty on a Constitutional platform. The
first two, either a constitutional amendment or a return to treaty
making, are long-shots according to Pommersheim.
"The second two, Congress or the Supreme Court taking steps away from
plenary power over Indian affairs, may be more of a possibility in the
long run," he said. "All in all, Indian tribes are a positive crossroads
when it comes to tribal sovereignty."
How to obtain sovereignty
The second speaker, Robert Odawi Porter, a professor of law and founder
of the Center for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship at Syracuse
University, explained what it takes to obtain sovereignty. "My
definition of sovereignty is fairly straightforward," he said. "It is
the freedom of a people to choose what their people will be."
Porter, a member of the Seneca tribe, said that sovereignty starts with
the belief that your people should be free. Second, Porter said a group
of people must have the ability to carry out that belief. "For example,
they must have some sort of resources, financial, natural or
governmental," he said.
The last thing a tribe needs, Porter said, is recognition of their
sovereignty and abilities. However, Porter said there is tension in the
United States when it comes to tribal sovereignty. "The USA disagrees
with the belief and ability of tribes to be sovereign," he said.
Today, Porter said, it is hard for a tribe to be sovereign. "Colonialism
shaped our ability to be sovereign," he said. "We don't have much land,
people or financial resources."
Porter said sovereignty has eroded over the years. "We now have many
non-Indians in our jurisdictions and the Supreme Court is increasingly
mindful of this," he said. "That in turn can affect how we are
recognized."
When describing the impact of the arrival of the Europeans, Porter
Indians and the colonists were on two parallel paths, and still are. "We
have to interact with each other, but still maintain our separate
positions," he said.
Increasingly though, over time, Porter said there is much more
convergence on the Indian side of the path. "The path of extinction, as
I call it, is a system by which we are drawn into the colonists' way of
life," he said. "I do however see resistance by some. For example, many
tribes try to revitalize their language and reclaim their land."
Lastly, Porter gave the audience some political observations about
sovereignty. "Sovereignty comes from our own people, not the colonists
or Congress," he said. "It is an inherent right."
"Sovereignty is not given, but earned and has a price," he said. "It may
not be easy to get and we may have to sacrifice to get it."
Porter said Indians must not underestimate how much "the colonists" are
still motivated by fear. "Fear is still out there," he said. "Especially
on the local level when it comes to land claim issues."
In the end, Porter said that sovereignty is about one thing. "While
happiness may be a derivative of sovereignty, happiness is not the
goal," he said. "Sovereignty is ultimately about freedom."
Later in the afternoon, Mark Mitchell, governor of the Pueblo of
Tesuque, L. Gordon McLester III, former tribal secretary of the Oneidas
of Wisconsin and Chief Irving Powless Jr., a leader of the Onondaga
Nation spoke.
[This message contained attachments]
By DEANNA HORNYAK, Dispatch
Staff Writer 03/06/2006
www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16250055&BRD=1709&PAG\
=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6
<http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16250055&BRD=1709&PA\
G=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6>
<http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1709&dept_id\
=68844&newsid=16250055>
HAMILTON - This weekend, Colgate University hosted a conference on a
topic that doesn't have one clear definition agreed upon by all:
American Indian sovereignty.
Chris Vecsey, director of Native American Studies at Colgate, welcomed
people Saturday, saying the point of the conference was to look more
deeply at the question of Indian sovereignty, in theory and practice.
"It has not only impacted New York state, but the country as well," he
said.
[Click Here!]
<http://bannerads.zwire.com/bannerads/redirect.cfm?ADLOCATION=4000&PAG=4\
61&BRD=1709> While Vecsey said that he didn't expect to come to
complete clarification on the issue of sovereignty when the day was
over, he hoped everyone would take something away from the conference.
"American Indian sovereignty can be confusing," he said.
The first speaker, Frank Pommersheim, a professor of law at the
University of South Dakota, said that American Indian sovereignty is at
a crossroads. "Tribes are doing more now than they ever have in the
modern era," he said. "They are testing the front of tribal
sovereignty."
Pommersheim, who was formerly an associate justice on the Rosebud Sioux
Court of Appeals and the chief justice on the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribal Court of Appeals, framed his talk around the relationship between
tribal sovereignty and the Constitution.
"I am willing to argue that when the Constitution was adopted in 1789,
there was some degree of respect towards tribal sovereignty," he said.
"I am also willing to argue that that respect doesn't exist today."
Pommersheim listed four themes in the Constitution that reflect the
relationship between the Indian tribes and the new Americans.
The first answers the question of why the Europeans came to the
Americas. "Their primary motivation was commerce," he said. "The
Europeans were under the influence of the Enlightenment thinkers and the
highest level of development for them was commerce."
Pommersheim went on to explain that the Constitution addresses commerce
with Indian tribes in the Article I, Section 8. "It says Congress shall
have the authority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes," he said.
"The word 'with' recognizes that Indian tribes are sovereign. It
indicates a partnership, not a power over someone else."
The second theme, Pommersheim said, is diplomacy or treaties. He said
that treaties are negotiated between two sovereigns. "In Article II,
Section 2 the executive branch is given the authority to make treaties,
with the approval of Congress," he said. "This is how the colonists
interacted with the tribes, with treaties, which mean that tribes were
sovereign."
The third and forth themes, Pommersheim said, go hand-in-hand. "How did
the colonists and tribes understand each other?" Pommersheim asked.
"First of all, they didn't quite embrace each other; the theme of
difference. Secondly, they lived separate of each other; the theme of
separation."
The themes of difference and separation, according to Pommersheim, are
reflected in the Constitution in Article I, Section 2. "The only place
in the Constitution that makes reference to individual Indians," he
said, "is when it explains how the number of congressmen in the House of
Representatives should be determined.
The phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" suggests difference and
separation, Pommersheim said, because Indians were different by not
paying taxes and if they wanted to move into town and pay taxes, they
would have had to separate themselves from their tribes. "While the
phrase suggests difference and separation, it does entertain the
possibility that an Indian's status could change on some level," he
said.
While Pommersheim said he would define sovereignty as the ability of a
government to govern all of its individuals in its borders in all ways,
Congress does not see it that way. "In the United States, sovereignty is
defined as whatever Congress or the Supreme Court think or say it is,"
he said. "Tribes are recognized as sovereign today, but with much less
dignity and respect than in 1789."
To wrap up his speech, Pommersheim suggested some ideas that could
achieve meaningful tribal sovereignty on a Constitutional platform. The
first two, either a constitutional amendment or a return to treaty
making, are long-shots according to Pommersheim.
"The second two, Congress or the Supreme Court taking steps away from
plenary power over Indian affairs, may be more of a possibility in the
long run," he said. "All in all, Indian tribes are a positive crossroads
when it comes to tribal sovereignty."
How to obtain sovereignty
The second speaker, Robert Odawi Porter, a professor of law and founder
of the Center for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship at Syracuse
University, explained what it takes to obtain sovereignty. "My
definition of sovereignty is fairly straightforward," he said. "It is
the freedom of a people to choose what their people will be."
Porter, a member of the Seneca tribe, said that sovereignty starts with
the belief that your people should be free. Second, Porter said a group
of people must have the ability to carry out that belief. "For example,
they must have some sort of resources, financial, natural or
governmental," he said.
The last thing a tribe needs, Porter said, is recognition of their
sovereignty and abilities. However, Porter said there is tension in the
United States when it comes to tribal sovereignty. "The USA disagrees
with the belief and ability of tribes to be sovereign," he said.
Today, Porter said, it is hard for a tribe to be sovereign. "Colonialism
shaped our ability to be sovereign," he said. "We don't have much land,
people or financial resources."
Porter said sovereignty has eroded over the years. "We now have many
non-Indians in our jurisdictions and the Supreme Court is increasingly
mindful of this," he said. "That in turn can affect how we are
recognized."
When describing the impact of the arrival of the Europeans, Porter
Indians and the colonists were on two parallel paths, and still are. "We
have to interact with each other, but still maintain our separate
positions," he said.
Increasingly though, over time, Porter said there is much more
convergence on the Indian side of the path. "The path of extinction, as
I call it, is a system by which we are drawn into the colonists' way of
life," he said. "I do however see resistance by some. For example, many
tribes try to revitalize their language and reclaim their land."
Lastly, Porter gave the audience some political observations about
sovereignty. "Sovereignty comes from our own people, not the colonists
or Congress," he said. "It is an inherent right."
"Sovereignty is not given, but earned and has a price," he said. "It may
not be easy to get and we may have to sacrifice to get it."
Porter said Indians must not underestimate how much "the colonists" are
still motivated by fear. "Fear is still out there," he said. "Especially
on the local level when it comes to land claim issues."
In the end, Porter said that sovereignty is about one thing. "While
happiness may be a derivative of sovereignty, happiness is not the
goal," he said. "Sovereignty is ultimately about freedom."
Later in the afternoon, Mark Mitchell, governor of the Pueblo of
Tesuque, L. Gordon McLester III, former tribal secretary of the Oneidas
of Wisconsin and Chief Irving Powless Jr., a leader of the Onondaga
Nation spoke.
[This message contained attachments]