Reference no: EM133569016

Case Study: Josh Lohmer, in "An Issue of Sovereignty," explains some of the unique contours that tribal sovereignty embeds in the American Indian struggle for rights. As noted in the article, many tribal leaders emphasize "that Indians are nations, not minorities" and that "If you don't know anything about tribal sovereignty, then you don't know anything about Indians." As important as tribal sovereignty is to understanding Native American culture, the article asserts that "Indian sovereignty is the one thing people have trouble appreciating about tribes." Perhaps this isn't completely surprising; tribal sovereignty involves a complex body of law. There are 562 federally recognized tribes and more than 300 ratified treaties with tribal nations. This means that the tribal-federal relationship varies greatly among one tribe and another. About a million of the two million Native Americans in the United States live on tribal reservations which are independent jurisdictions not subject to state control (or state taxes), despite tribal lands being enclosed by state lands and tribal lands being provided access to some state services (such as public education). Tribal sovereignty grants enrolled tribal members triple citizenship as citizens of their tribes, their states, and the United States. Some tribes even employ their sovereignty to print their own passports.

Tribal lands are subject to federal regulation, but these federal regulations are complicated by treaty obligations. During the United States' western expansion, the US government negotiated treaties with the tribal nations they encountered. Tribal nations (often with limited options) signed nearly 400 treaties that were ratified by the US government. These treaties often included tribal nations surrendering large tracts of land in exchange for perpetual access to hunting grounds, fish takes, water rights, healthcare benefits, and educational opportunities. The United States' obligations in these treaties-and tribal sovereignty-limit the state policies that can be adopted and place requirements on the federal government. Since most people don't understand tribal law or treaty rights, many people mistakenly assume that fulfillment of treaty obligations are simply special favors granted Indians because of their minority status. Lohmer's article provides an example of how these misunderstandings lead to conflicts. In one specific example involving fishing regulations, Billy Frank Jr, a member of the Nisqually tribe, must demonstrate decades of perseverance just to enjoy what are rightfully part of his tribe's sovereignty and its treaty rights.

Questions:

1) What did each party receive in the 1854 Medicine Creek agreement between the US government and Nisqually Indians?
2) Why was it that after US District Court Judge Boldt's 1974 decision that 1% of the population controlled 50% of the fish?
3) Why do you think John Echohawk argues, "If you don't know anything about tribal sovereignty, then you don't know anything about Indians"?