Polishing the covenant is critical now
You say that you are our Father and I am your son.
We say, We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers.This wampum belt confirms our words. These two rows will symbolize two paths or two vessels, traveling down the same river together.One, a birch bark canoe, will be for the Indian People, their laws, their customs and their ways.The other, a ship, will be for the white people and their laws, their customs and their ways.We shall each travel the river together, side by side, but in our boat. Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel.
The agreement has been kept by the Iroquois to this date.
These words were spoken to reiterate the relationship between the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people and their white ''brothers'' upon agreeing to co-exist as separate but equal governments. As the Dutch became principals in the North American fur trade, they sought more control of Indian lands in the East. Historians point out that although the agreement, commonly known as the ''Silver Covenant Chain,'' is woven throughout Iroquois oral and written history and up through contemporary times, it is barely mentioned in the Dutch record.
Read More
This disconnect is reflective of the general attitude toward Indian treaties by our ''brothers.'' The Indians' intention was to reaffirm the freedom to conduct its affairs without intervention from another sovereign (and meant to stand ''as long as the sun shines upon this earth''). It is not clear that the agreement meant as much to the Dutch. Such agreements, covenants and treaties often were discarded by European and, later, American signatories when they proved contradictory to land expansion.
Indigenous laws and customs, by all accounts, were complex and enforced by the power derived from the people and their spiritual beliefs. Sovereignty is not derived from treaties; it is strengthened by them. It is important for the nations involved to keep the covenants polished and alive, to reaffirm and recognize the other's sovereignty.
Today, Indian nations are struggling to maintain sovereignty as the federal government continues efforts to undermine their political status. Assertions, stated or implied, by local, state or federal Indian fighters or mainstream media that Indians are racial groups and not political entities defined by self-governance are ridiculous and always demand immediate correction. It is a constant threat orchestrated on high and executed at various levels of government with increasing success.
The wave of discourse on law enforcement is reaching a crest now, with another recent Senate hearing devoted to the matter. The inability of Indian governments to enforce its own laws has been a common theme, suggesting the problem is not at all ''local,'' as some key players in the Department of Justice believe. It is nearly impossible for Indian nations to conduct effective law enforcement without resources or recognition of the government-to-government relations. They face constant affronts to sovereignty as their territorial authority is diminished by the competing jurisdictions of state and federal law enforcement agencies. But this is established fact. The question is why it continues despite widespread criticism and calls for accountability.
At the SCIA hearing on law enforcement in Indian country, Kevin Washburn, a Chickasaw attorney and associate professor at University of Minnesota Law School, pointed out a fundamental problem in law enforcement on or near Indian communities: In a complicated system of tangled jurisdictions, ''only the tribe has a primary concern for the Indian reservation.'' It is true, but the fundamental issue of Indian sovereignty and the threats against it must also be voiced. It's time again to polish our covenants.
