In July, I recounted a chance meeting with an old friend who turned out to be staunchly opposed (and in my opinion seriously misinformed) to the way that Indian land claims in Upstate New York are being handled. That column (Vol. 23, Iss. 5) generated some reader feedback, both positive and negative, on the question of where “Joe Six-pack,” an average American, gets his information about Indians.

Erasing the past

From Washington State came a rather long-winded and condescending diatribe that contained some dubious statements, a few of which are addressed below.

“It’s my belief that anything ‘pre-Constitutional’ in this country was in fact, nullified by the U.S. Constitution,” wrote “Mrs. Washington” of the idea of inherent Indian sovereignty.

Wow – the past can be erased through belief! Simply “believing” that the U.S. Constitution, as grand a document as it is, nullifies all that came before it is an intellectual leap of startling arrogance. Many of the principles found in both the Constitution and the body of American law are derived from centuries of British common law. Since these concepts precede the Constitution, perhaps we ought to just toss British common law out the window. But wait, what would that do to the Constitution itself?

Inherent Indian sovereignty stems from the fact that the governments of Indian tribes pre-date not only the Constitution, but also the arrival of European colonists, who from the beginning treated individual tribes as sovereign nations. The English Crown and subsequently the American government both negotiated treaties with tribes and dealt with them as entities of equal status, just as they would have done with any other national government. Many of those treaties are still in effect today, and the commerce clause of the Constitution is recognition of Indian sovereignty.

During the American colonists’ war for independence from the British, most tribes either tried to stay out of the conflict, or else sided with London. The Brits, because of their desire for trade and commerce with the tribes, were generally seen as less hostile than the Americans, who always seemed to want more land.

One exception was the Oneida Nation, which formally allied itself with the fledgling American government. The Oneidas, with a functioning government centuries old, enjoyed sovereignty while the Americans, as colonists, had no sovereignty whatsoever until Britain surrendered to them. Oneidas and other Indians shed their blood, in both the Revolution and the War of 1812, to help the colonials gain and keep the same sovereignty that Indian governments already had.

These are facts that cannot be nullified or erased no matter what you think you believe.

Degrees of sovereignty

Mrs. Washington lists “France, Canada, South Dakota, Washington [and] the United States” as political entities having “the same weight and leverage,” while Indian tribal governments fall someplace beneath them. This is completely incorrect – anyone believing that France and South Dakota possess the same degree of sovereignty perhaps doesn’t have a clear understanding of what the concept entails.

Federal-tribal relations are governed by treaties, which are agreements between sovereigns. The federal government does not conclude treaties with states because a state is an inferior political subdivision of the federal sovereign. States have certain political jurisdiction over the territory within their boundaries, but ultimate sovereignty over all land within U.S. borders rests in Washington, D.C.

The land claims in Upstate New York are based upon the fact that the state never received federal approval for it acquisition of tribal lands, which had been guaranteed by treaties, i.e. agreements between sovereigns. Because New York did not and does not possess the sovereignty to forge a treaty, the deals it forced on the tribes were deemed illegal. Blaming the Indians for the land claim mess is wrong – the fault lies with the state. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court and federal District Courts have sided with the Oneida and Cayuga tribes is yet another manifestation of Indian sovereignty.

Economic development

“Only a fully weaned and self-sustaining child has at least the opportunity to become a ‘sovereign’ individual. The same is true for countries, tribes and nations,” writes Mrs. Washington, arguing that tribes cannot be sovereign because they are “on the public dole.”

Blaming Indians for being confined to poverty-stricken reservations with minimal prospects for economic development, a situation that was not of their choosing, is blatantly unfair and illogical.

While I concede that it might appear incongruous for tribes to claim sovereignty and seek federal assistance, I ask that you take a good hard look around Indian country. Tribes everywhere are doing their best to wean themselves from “the public dole” now that they finally have a means, gaming, offering at least a measure of success. They don’t want handouts.

Any federal compensation that tribes receive under federal treaties hardly comes close to what has been forcibly taken from them, namely their land and their way of life. This is why Indians desire viable means to create sustainable economic development.

Did you know that the more successful gaming tribes actually return their federal assistance dollars for redistribution to less fortunate tribes? What did you do with your 2001 tax rebate, Mrs. Washington? Did you donate it to someone less fortunate than yourself?

Taxation

Mrs. Washington’s major gripe seems to be what she considers an unfair tax burden. From reading her letter, it would appear that America has only two classes of citizens – the “taxed” and the “untaxed.”

I wonder how she feels about the current Republican Administration giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy on the false premise of “trickle-down economics,” which failed miserably during the Reagan years. I wonder also how she feels about state, county and city governments across the country handing out tax abeyance to employers that locate or remain within their borders. Policies such as these increase the tax burden on all of us – but perhaps it’s easier to attack Indians than the rich, the business community or the federal government.

If Mrs. Washington were to examine the Internal Revenue Code, she would find no mention of the taxation of Indians. Why? Because it is a widely accepted principal of both black letter law and international law that one sovereign does not tax another sovereign; sovereigns exist independently of each other. The federal government, which generally respects Indian sovereignty, has no need to articulate this principal in its own tax law.

This, however, should be not confused with a tax exemption, because the federal government exempts only those entities it believes it can tax. The fact that the tax code neither exempts nor even mentions Indians is still another acknowledgement of Indian sovereignty.

Although she claims to desire equality, what Mrs. Washington wants might be better described as assimilation. I sincerely hope she does not believe the two are one and the same.

On the plus side

A woman from Florida wrote to say that she recently discovered a “family secret” that her heritage includes approximately one-fourth Indian blood. Upon discovering this information, after her 50th birthday, she said that she has become very interested in learning about Indian peoples, their cultures and histories. “Mrs. Florida” added that many of her associates also desire to learn more about Native Americans. She and her friends lament the fact that they never received any serious or in-depth instruction, other than passing references, on Indians during their school years.

Mrs. Florida opines that Joe Six-pack “gets his distorted view from our educational system and its failure in not teaching the true history of U.S. and various states’ policies regarding Indians and their cultures.” She believes this was done “so that people wouldn’t know the terrible things our leaders did to the first people of this country.”

Speaking from experience, I concur. My high school, despite receiving all sorts of accolades for allegedly being a great school, didn’t teach my fellow students and me a thing about Indians, even though a sizeable (for the Northeast) reservation is located within 20 miles. As a history major at a prominent college, I learned next to nothing about Indians there either, outside of a fascinating elective course I chose to take on Native American religious beliefs.

I doubt that this is the result of some vast conspiracy – scholarly work on Indian history is obtainable if you search. Rather, this failure to teach and learn stems from a general lack of concern on most peoples’ parts regarding things Indian. It seems that many folks would rather believe in one of two stereotypes, either the “noble savage” or the “drunken lazy Indian.” Mindless belief is certainly a lot easier than self-education.

Successful Indian gaming operations have put money into some tribal pockets, and with such money comes slightly greater prominence. As casinos have sprouted up and land claim issues have moved onto the front page, Indians are “reappearing” into the national consciousness. This has caused some people to be curious and strive to learn while others instead opt to resurrect old stereotypes and racist beliefs.

“Perhaps it’s time to lobby our Congressmen, State Legislators and the U.S. Department of Education to mandate [that] a more comprehensive study be added to schools and college programs,” Mrs. Florida writes. “Then, hopefully, Joe Six-pack’s children will learn the true history of our country’s first residents.”

Whether or not you concur with the concept of Indian sovereignty, you will hopefully agree that better education and a more thorough reading of history leads to better understanding of differing peoples and cultures, and the relationships between them. We all can benefit from that.