Indigenous Sovereignty And The Pursuit Of Natural Resources

The migration of European settlers and culture to North America is an often examined area. One aspect of this, however, is worthy of deeper analysis. The conquest of North America by Europeans and American settlers from the 16th to 19th centuries had a profound effect on the indigenous political landscape by defining a new relationship dynamic between natives and settlers, by upsetting existing native political, economic and military structures, and by establishing a paradigm where the indigenous peoples felt they had to resist the European and American incursions. The engaging and brilliant works of Andres Rensendez and Steve Inskeep, entitled respectively “A Land So Strange” and “Jacksonland”, provide excellent insights and aide to this analysis.

In 1874, Custer led an army expedition to the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota, a sacred property of the Lakota-Sioux Nation, which was recognized under the Sioux Treaty of 1868. There, Custer and his men found a great amount of gold, and when President Grant and the US administration offered to buy the area, the Lakota-Sioux nation refused to sell due to its holiness in their culture. Two years later, the

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

During the end of the nineteenth century, the United States had formed policies which reduced land allotted to Native Americans. By enforcing these laws as well as Anglo-American ideals, the United States compromised indigenous people’s culture and ability to thrive in its society.

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

When first considering the Navajo-Hopi land dispute as a topic of research, I anticipated a relatively light research paper discussing the local skirmishes between the two tribes. However, my research has yielded innumerable volumes of facts, figures and varying viewpoints on a struggle that has dominated the two tribes for over 100 years. The story is an ever-changing one, evolving from local conflict to forcible relocation to big business interests. The incredible breadth of the dispute's history makes it impossible to objectively cover the entire progression from all viewpoints. I will therefore focus on current issues - and their historical causes - facing the two tribes as they mutually approach

Until gold was revealed in the Rocky Mountains in 1859, the native population was virtually undisturbed by outside influence and the prairies were freely used to sustain life. When the gold was discovered, a whole new attitude came across the land. The population exploded and that means that there came change. With the discovery of gold, the invaders from the east would make those changes. Just like the unearthing of this widely sought out metal a decade earlier in California by the forty-niners, the fifty-niners forced themselves in to stake and protect their claims. With these changes, those who had original title to the land would find themselves under new ideas, new laws, and a new way of life. But, just because there is gold to be had, not everybody will be successful. There will be new wealth and bitter disappointment. So, the question is who benefitted the most from this discovery and who got the wrong end of the stick?

“The Indian presence precipitated the formation of an American identity” (Axtell 992). Ostracized by numerous citizens of the United States today, this quote epitomizes Axtell’s beliefs of the Indians contributing to our society. Unfortunately, Native Americans’ roles in history are often categorized as insignificant or trivial, when in actuality the Indians contributed greatly to Colonial America, in ways the ordinary person would have never deliberated. James Axtell discusses these ways, as well as what Colonial America may have looked like without the Indians’ presence. Throughout his article, his thesis stands clear by his persistence of alteration the Native Americans had on our nation. James Axtell’s bias delightfully enhances his thesis, he provides a copious amount of evidence establishing how Native Americans contributed critically to the Colonial culture, and he considers America as exceptional – largely due to the Native Americans.

Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could

With globalization and colonization taking over almost the entire known world, native tribes who are indigenous to their lands are losing control of the lands that their people have lived in for ages to the hands of foreign colonizers who claim the land as their own. Now, indigenous people all around the world are struggling to reclaim the lands and rights that were taken away from them through non-violent social relations with national governments and large corporations. Anthropologists have recorded how indigenous people across the globe attempt to create relations with national governments to reclaim rights and lands that they once had before the colonization of their ancestral homeland.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe currently fights to save its only water source from natural gas and oil contamination. This troubling current event has a somewhat forgotten historical analogue where very similar themes presented themselves. The Kinzua Dam Controversy, which took place in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, resulted in the displacement of over 600 Seneca Indian families and the acquisition of a large tract of traditional Seneca Land for dam building. Additionally, the acquisition of Seneca land represented a breach of “The Treaty with the Six Nations of 1794,” which explicated prevented such action by the US Government. The dam and its construction, which primarily benefitted Pittsburg, inspired a heated discourse concerning the ethics of native relocation.

By 1876, gold had been discovered in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The gold was found on Sioux land, and this region was considered sacred to the Lakota Sioux Indians. The he land was to be protected and respected by the United States Army, because of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 18681, but the Army could not keep miners off the Sioux ground, which led to the increase of Sioux grievances towards the Americans; some grievances that are still taken offense to today. These battles and negotiations soon were known at the Great Sioux War of 1876.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal

With the federal government’s support, many Native tribes have constructed Native Governments and Corporations where the rights to land and money are placed to their own responsibility. What this actually means is that the rights of the people’s land and monetary bonds are transferred from governmental trust to

From the moment of organized European appearances in North America, negotiation has been a central characteristic of relationships between aboriginal residents and newcomers. It is a characteristic that has been evident in treaty-making throughout Canada for more than three hundred years and it continues to be the order of the day in modern treaties, claims and agreements being negotiated with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis across in Canada. 1