Tribal Sovereignty: A Promise, Not a Privilege

Tribal sovereignty is a right given to the American Indians by treaties made with the

United
State

government. It is not a privilege to be revoked, but a promise that should continue to be honored. Although it might be seen as an outdated institution and an unfair advantage by many, tribal sovereignty is necessary to the maintenance of the American Indian culture and the continuing improvement of their quality of life.

Tribal sovereignty is a tenant that predates the . The writers of the Constitution recognized the idea of sovereignty, which is the allowance of American Indian tribes to remain as independent nations with separate governments, as a right belonging to them. American Indian tribes are domestic, sovereign nations within the (Deloria 2).

A controversy has arisen over the fact that the introduction of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave "all Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States full citizenship but adds that such status does not infringe upon the rights to tribal and other property that Indians enjoy as members of their tribes" (Deloria 3). American Indians now have dual citizenship. Opponents of tribal sovereignty, who see Native Americans as having special privileges not awarded to everyone, claim this is unfair. There has been a resurgence of the move to assimilate Indians into mainstream . There is a lack of understanding about the importance of sovereignty to the maintenance of the American Indian culture and way of life.

The complete assimilation of the American Indians into the white culture has been attempted countless times. These attempts have had extremely scarring effects upon the Native American people. A prime example of this is the boarding school experiences of many young Indians from the late nineteenth century through the 1970s. Indian children were removed from their homes, sometimes forcefully, to attend boarding schools in accordance with what was then the current law (de Leon 3). These schools often had the motto "Kill the Indian and save the man" (de Leon 3). Rules were established forbidding the Indian children from speaking their language, practicing any Indian traditions or discussing "their parents, relatives, or tribe" (de Leon 3). Their hair, a talisman in many tribes, was forcibly cut, and they were not allowed to wear tribal clothing (de Leon 3). These acts of stripping people of their children and stripping those children of their heritage were the direct results of the previous attempts to forcibly assimilate Indians into the white culture. Atrocities were committed by well-meaning people trying to "save the savage."

These acts were committed under the guise of charity in most instances. However, there was an underlying bigotry motivating the previous attempts to end the Indian way of life. These prejudices still exist, even though people may not be so overt in expressing them. That is why many arguments of the opponents of tribal sovereignty who are crying, "Unfair" must be taken with a grain of salt. Their arguments, when based on bigotry, might be unsubstantiated.

A specific aspect of the American Indian's way of life, hunting, has come under fire increasingly in recent years. Both hunters complaining about the unfair advantages that Indian hunters have, erroneously believing this infringes on their own hunting success, and animal-rights activists alike have objected to the hunting rights and practices of the Indians. However, hunting, like most aspects of Indian culture, is a treaty-given right and has little or no impact on non-Indian hunting. A Swinomish Tribe hunting authority, for instance, states that Indian hunter kill only five percent of elk taken every year (
Carson
2). Tribes have their own laws governing when and where members can hunt (Hughes 1). Offenders of these laws are dealt with through tribal law (Hughes 2). The effort to end, or at least rein in, tribal hunting rights is another attempt to undermine the sovereignty of the Indians. It is an attack on a major component of American Indian culture.

Indians are not just concerned with remembering their history and retaining their culture. They are also looking toward the future. Tribal sovereignty has allowed them to make advances in education and employment that would otherwise have been much more difficult to attain. Although bingo halls and gaming casinos are a controversial issue within themselves, they add substantially to the tribes' funds. These funds are used for both tribal schools and higher education costs for tribal members. The gaming halls provide employment opportunities also. The Puyallup Tribe, for instance, opened a bingo hall in 1993. By 1996, six-hundred-and-seventy-five people were employed by the gaming hall alone. Many other job opportunities in the community, for non-Indians as well as tribal members, were also created because of the bingo hall profits. A new health center and a school, as well as other operations, were a results of these profits. (Kremer G1)

Attempts have been made to eliminate sovereign immunity from the list of tribal rights.. Sovereign immunity is the protection of a government from civil lawsuits. Indian tribes have the same sovereignty as federal and state governments, which are also immune to lawsuits (Blumenthal 1). This immunity is an essential part of a sovereign government. The loss of it could result in dire consequences, economically as well as culturally, for any government, even more so for the tribes who are trying to improve the situation of a poverty-stricken people. If tribal governments are made to be the only government in the open to lawsuits, years of improvements and progress could be destroyed. Tribes would be open to countless frivolous lawsuits attacking every aspect of tribal life from hunting to the education of their children. The court costs alone would bankrupt most tribes. The attempted end of sovereign immunity is a direct assault on the concept of government sovereignty.

Another fact ignored in the attempt to end sovereign immunity is that Indian tribes, as a separate government, have their own courts. The Lummi Indian Nation of Washington, for example, has a court system that by April of 1998 had heard twenty non-Indian cases, half of which had been found in favor of the non-Indian party. (Shukovsky 2)

The most important argument for protecting tribal sovereignty is the fact that it was promised to the Indians through numerous treaties made with the government from its very inception. Indian tribes exchanged their own land for the right to self-govern (Deloria 3).

Tribal sovereignty is sometimes perceived as another social program that taxpayers have to fund, a sort of welfare for Indians. However, this is a gross misconception. Sovereignty is not just another program to be cut when Americans want a tax cut.

Tribal governments are equal to any other government within the . There is no question of compromise, no question of revoking any aspect of tribal sovereignty in order to placate the insipid squalling of opponents who are afraid somebody else might possibly have more than they do. It is a promise made to the American Indians by the government. The revocation of tribal sovereignty would be a violation of the intent of the United States Constitution and this country's founders, as well as another broken promise to the American Indian people.

Works Cited
Blumenthal, Les. "Gorton Keeps Up Pressure to Limit Tribes' Sovereignty in Court." The News Tribune 29 September 1996; G5.

Carson, Rob. "An Upheaval over Who Hunts Where: Conflict Over Tribal Rights Suggests to Some That Boldt III May Be On Its Way." The News Tribune 27 may 1998; A1.

De Leon, Virginia. "Hard Lessons for Years: Thousands of American Indian Children." The Spokesman Review 13 April 1997; E1.

Deloria, Vine and Clifford Lytle. The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Tribal Sovereignty. New York; Pantheon, 1984.

Hughes, John. "White House Opposes Bill to Make Tribes Obey Washington State's Hunting Laws." Columbian 29 July 1998; 1.

Kremer, Lisa. "Building a Business Empire." The News Tribune 7 April 1996; G1.

Nalder, Eric and Alex Tizon. "Tribal Housing." Seattle Times 19 Dec 1998; A1.

Shukovsky, Paul. "Indian Tribes' Sovereign Immunity Debated." Seattle Post 7 Apr 1998; B1.