The Encyclopedia Of Human Rights

Amanda Cobb (2005) defines sovereignty as “a nation’s power to self-govern, to determine its own way of life, and to live that life---to whatever extent possible---free from interference.” If tribal sovereignty falls under Cobb’s definition, Native American tribes in the United States are not completely sovereign, for some aspects of their lives are still under the control of the federal government. Tribal councils are still regarded as having tribal sovereignty, but they are limited by federal funding and authority.

Historically, the Native American Indians were taken advantage of, not because they lacked innate human intelligence, but because their culture was initially one of a trusting people who believed negotiating a fair peace would benefit their tribe. As they negotiated from a position of a disestablished legal structure, a position of forced poverty, a position of disenfranchised rights, a position of assigned inferiority, a position of dependent “children”, the Federal Government brought about grave disregard for the tribes’ rights to even exist if they stood in the path of the Manifest Destiny of White Americans. If the Native Americans stood in the way of exploitation of land, timber, or mineral resources, their existence was deemed dispensable.

Native Americans were very important to American history; they were the first people in America (Nash, 2010, p. 13). Native Americans have their own form of governing, vastly different language, religious beliefs, and dress and for some reason the Natives have been generally excluded from American success (Nash, 2010, pg. 14-15). This is especially true when we look at how America put into place the "Manifest destiny" the idea that the United States had the God-given right and duty to take

This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.

Native Americans express their voice in films by incorporating their history, culture and traditions for Indigenous purpose. These independent cinema efforts are produced by filmmakers who want to tell a story about their tribes around the world and educate the younger generations. Zacharias Kunuk, filmmaker of Antantarjuat; The Fast Runner and Journals of Knud Rasmussen, “compels non-Inuit spectators to think differently, not only about what constitutes indigenous content in films and more conventional representations of Native Americans in cinematic history, but also about indigenous visual Aesthetics” (Raheji 1168).

Today the United States is known as a land of freedom, and as elegantly stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Unfortunately these words have not always been a reality for Native Americans, who were treated not as equals, but as subhuman by early white European settlers.

In the year of 1827 the Cherokee Indians declared themselves a nation by drafting a constitution. “The discovery of gold was made just after the creation and passage of the original Cherokee Constitution” (“A Brief History of the Trail of Tears 1”). Aware that the native Indian land was in danger of being encroached upon by new settlers, the Indians went to the government to create an arrangement to protect their lands. “The Cherokees signed treaties ceding portions of their land to the United States” (Bjornlund 8).

The United States Supreme Court ruled all Native American tribes had full legal rights to internally govern themselves, manage their affairs, as well as to engage in political and legal relationships with the federal government in the 1830s. Currently the United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, guarantees sovereign rights to the 566 federally recognized Indian nations and federal government laws require that the individual states that have Native Tribes living

Native Americans have been working unremittingly for sovereignty over their own affairs since the very beginning of Euro-American contact. The twentieth century in particular was a progressive time for Native Americans as they continued to fight for sovereignty over their own affairs and Historians have taken note of this. Most historians of Native Americans have given a substantial amount of attention to the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA). Many historians concur that the ICRA was a fundamental tool for Natives to not only gain autonomy in a progressively bellicose society, but equally between themselves. After acknowledging that Indian Nations were not invited to the Constitutional Convention and that the United States Constitution was never

In Rhetorical Sovereignty: What Do American Indians Want from Writing?, Lyons states, “sovereignty is the guiding story in our pursuit of self-determination, the general strategy by which we aim to best recover our losses from ravages of colonization…the pursuit of sovereignty is an attempt to revive not our past, but our possibilities” (2000). I agree with Lyons on this statement. Sovereignty should be way of retelling the history of different groups so those who do not know their story can become familiar with it. People cannot learn from history if they do not know their history. Once they know the history, then they can seek the possibilities they once claimed from it. This can go for any group of people, not just Native Americans.

Originally Native American tribes were viewed as their own Nations. They owned their own land and could make up their own rules. Most importantly, the United States government did not have authority over them. However, by 1838 this had all changed. The Cherokee Indians had been forced to give up their ancestral land and walk to their new, United States government determined, land. not only did this go against policy, it resulted in the death of many Cherokees as they were forced to walk hundreds of miles. As shown through the Trail of Tears, Later federal policy towards Native Americans Became both more heartless and more harmful. especially when it's put in contrast with the earlier fairer

Afflicting America from century to century is the ultimate question of who does or does not hold a legitimate right to say he or she is an American Indian. Who decides identity? The white man? The Indian? Or how about the United States government? Identity of millions of individuals over time, scattered throughout the United States must be determined to some degree so that self-determination can be exercised by the indigenous people, now and in the future.

One major reading that contests this idea of sovereignty is the book Mohawk Interruptus by Audra Simpson, which discusses the trials of Native American populations and their efforts to reclaim their own sovereignty. Within Mohawk Interruptus, the people of the Kahnawá:ke tribe struggle against the colonial idea of American or Canadian sovereignty lorded over them, and through refusal of such “gifts” regain their sovereignty. “… Kahnawa’kehró:non had refused the authority of the state at almost every turn and in so doing reinstated a different political authority” (Simpson, 2014, 106). Through these rejections, the people of Kahnawá:ke and Kahnawa’kehró:non established that the current system of sovereignty does not work for them, as it is colonially based to oppress the Native American communities. Simpson uses these examples to make a larger point on the Western systems of governance and understandings of authority. Though this idea of sovereignty, Simpson argues, was a way to appropriate land and incorporate or destroy opposing cultures.

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to

Glendon, Mary Ann (2002). A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Random House. ISBN