"How can a sovereign nation legally exist within a sovereign nation? In a word, it's nonsense."
It is completely okay not to know something. This is a big and complicated topic. But this statement overlooks a lot of important history that helps explain why things are the way they are.
Native American tribes have a specific kind of sovereignty that has been recognized for a long time. In the early 1800s, the U.S. Supreme Court described tribes as "domestic dependent nations." That means they have the right to govern themselves in many ways, but they still have a relationship with the federal government. It is not full independence like a foreign country, but it is also not the same as being a part of a state.
This form of sovereignty is grounded in treaties. These were real, formal agreements made between the United States and tribal nations. Those agreements are still legally binding. The structure has also been upheld again and again in federal courts.
So when someone says the idea is nonsense, it usually means they have not had the chance to learn the legal and historical context yet. And that is okay. But once you do understand it, you start to see that tribal sovereignty is not about special treatment. It is about keeping promises and recognizing that these nations existed long before the United States did.
Learning this might be surprising at first, but it opens the door to a more complete and fair understanding of how the country works, and how we live alongside others who were here long before us.
Thanks, Art, for your detailed and thoughtful comments. I am familiar with the tribal history. My position is this. First, context is everything. At the time the settlers landed in what is now the United States, conquest was the name of the game around the world. The settlers didn't steal anything that any conqueror stole in Europe or elsewhere. As for the agreements, yes, they were made and are binding, but only in one direction. To favor the tribes. As for the CSKT in Lake County, MT, the Hellgate Treaty was intended to be the final agreement, encompassing payment for all the land, and they had 20 years to assimilate into the broader population. However, our politicians gave in, and the lobby continued to grow. After living on the Flathead Reservation for twenty years, I've had the opportunity to see the nonsense firsthand. The money does not reach the people on the street. The issue is much like many of our problems today: the politics of it all. In the end, if tribes want their own government, fine by me. Pay for it yourselves. Want healthcare free for all, pay for it. The American people have no obligation to be paying anything for any group after two hundred years. And that's coming from a guy who is a cousin to Princess Powhatten of the Powhatten Indians in eastern Ohio. Art, I had no opinion on the matter until I moved to MT twenty-five years ago.
Oh, Pocahontas, yeah, I used to hear that all the time when I was working with Indian Affairs. Usually from non-res folks trying to establish some kind of connection. But when you’d ask if their family was ever on the base roll, or if they’d had any ties to a tribal enrollment office or BIA-recognized roll number, it’d usually end up being a paper trail that stops before the Dawes era, or just a story passed down at the dinner table. Is your family actually connected to a recognized nation or have any ties through an IHS service area, or is it more like oral tradition without community affiliation?
My involvement is totally folklore from my Mother. We grew up being told we were one-quarter Native, her mother being full-blooded. We used to think that was cool until I moved to MT and lived on the CSKT for twenty years. What's funny is I had a DNA test through Ancestry, and it came back 0%. Then, six months later, they sent me an email with a picture of Princess Pocahontas, telling me she is a third cousin. If tribal members had to take a DNA test, they'd vanish. All of them out here have French names. I feel bad for the native people because they are being used by their leaders much like the black community. Its sad.
I appreciate you sharing your story honestly. It reminds me of the Senator Elizabeth Warren controversy she took a DNA test to ‘prove’ ancestry. You're just like her! But without any documented ties to a base roll or a recognized nation, it didn’t connect her to a community in a meaningful way. There’s a big difference between having a bit of Native ancestry in your genes and having a lived affiliation being on the rolls, having a CDIB, or participating in a tribal community. It’s a tough conversation, but an important one. Hopefully you have some fun friends that can poke and jab you and can start calling you "Elizabeth" and you all can have a laugh as you seem to not take yourself too seriously. As we say in Big Arm: X̣el cmn!
"How can a sovereign nation legally exist within a sovereign nation? In a word, it's nonsense."
It is completely okay not to know something. This is a big and complicated topic. But this statement overlooks a lot of important history that helps explain why things are the way they are.
Native American tribes have a specific kind of sovereignty that has been recognized for a long time. In the early 1800s, the U.S. Supreme Court described tribes as "domestic dependent nations." That means they have the right to govern themselves in many ways, but they still have a relationship with the federal government. It is not full independence like a foreign country, but it is also not the same as being a part of a state.
This form of sovereignty is grounded in treaties. These were real, formal agreements made between the United States and tribal nations. Those agreements are still legally binding. The structure has also been upheld again and again in federal courts.
So when someone says the idea is nonsense, it usually means they have not had the chance to learn the legal and historical context yet. And that is okay. But once you do understand it, you start to see that tribal sovereignty is not about special treatment. It is about keeping promises and recognizing that these nations existed long before the United States did.
Learning this might be surprising at first, but it opens the door to a more complete and fair understanding of how the country works, and how we live alongside others who were here long before us.
Thanks, Art, for your detailed and thoughtful comments. I am familiar with the tribal history. My position is this. First, context is everything. At the time the settlers landed in what is now the United States, conquest was the name of the game around the world. The settlers didn't steal anything that any conqueror stole in Europe or elsewhere. As for the agreements, yes, they were made and are binding, but only in one direction. To favor the tribes. As for the CSKT in Lake County, MT, the Hellgate Treaty was intended to be the final agreement, encompassing payment for all the land, and they had 20 years to assimilate into the broader population. However, our politicians gave in, and the lobby continued to grow. After living on the Flathead Reservation for twenty years, I've had the opportunity to see the nonsense firsthand. The money does not reach the people on the street. The issue is much like many of our problems today: the politics of it all. In the end, if tribes want their own government, fine by me. Pay for it yourselves. Want healthcare free for all, pay for it. The American people have no obligation to be paying anything for any group after two hundred years. And that's coming from a guy who is a cousin to Princess Powhatten of the Powhatten Indians in eastern Ohio. Art, I had no opinion on the matter until I moved to MT twenty-five years ago.
Oh, Pocahontas, yeah, I used to hear that all the time when I was working with Indian Affairs. Usually from non-res folks trying to establish some kind of connection. But when you’d ask if their family was ever on the base roll, or if they’d had any ties to a tribal enrollment office or BIA-recognized roll number, it’d usually end up being a paper trail that stops before the Dawes era, or just a story passed down at the dinner table. Is your family actually connected to a recognized nation or have any ties through an IHS service area, or is it more like oral tradition without community affiliation?
My involvement is totally folklore from my Mother. We grew up being told we were one-quarter Native, her mother being full-blooded. We used to think that was cool until I moved to MT and lived on the CSKT for twenty years. What's funny is I had a DNA test through Ancestry, and it came back 0%. Then, six months later, they sent me an email with a picture of Princess Pocahontas, telling me she is a third cousin. If tribal members had to take a DNA test, they'd vanish. All of them out here have French names. I feel bad for the native people because they are being used by their leaders much like the black community. Its sad.
I appreciate you sharing your story honestly. It reminds me of the Senator Elizabeth Warren controversy she took a DNA test to ‘prove’ ancestry. You're just like her! But without any documented ties to a base roll or a recognized nation, it didn’t connect her to a community in a meaningful way. There’s a big difference between having a bit of Native ancestry in your genes and having a lived affiliation being on the rolls, having a CDIB, or participating in a tribal community. It’s a tough conversation, but an important one. Hopefully you have some fun friends that can poke and jab you and can start calling you "Elizabeth" and you all can have a laugh as you seem to not take yourself too seriously. As we say in Big Arm: X̣el cmn!
Thanks for the comments. I got over myself years ago : )
That's a good attitude. To realize you're just as hypocritical as the libs. The country could use more of that self realization.