Deron Marquez, Ph.D.
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
As the 80th gathering of the National Congress of American Indians nears, this may be the last gathering of all American Indians from across the nation. This year, on Sept. 11, an interesting date indeed, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Shawnee Tribe proposed amendments via a letter that seek to make NCAI an exclusive Indian organization. Technically, the Ute Indian Tribe, as the letter states, have similar concerns, but did not sign-on to the Sept. 11 letter, stating a separate proposal is forthcoming. Now, this is not to diminish the concerns these three tribes have, which was not stated in the letter, but the vehicle by which to engage their concerns — exclusion of Indian communities — needs further exploration.
Within the NCAI Preamble, it states “We, the members of Indian and Alaska Native Tribes of the United States of America” shall seek “to secure to ourselves and our descendants the rights and benefits” as sovereigns. The preamble also includes the preservation of rights. The constructs of secure and preserve are on opposite sides of the coin; preserve entails an attachment to rights and to secure is seeking that same attachment. We riddle our minds with sovereign fallacies, believing actions are a sovereign act. Is an act considered sovereign when it harms others and oneself? Is hampering the ability of certain tribes seeking sovereignty, security, and preservation “invoking the Devine guidance,” as stated in the Preamble? Within NCAI, sovereignty is not a private commodity, it is public and within Indian Country, this unique public tribal sovereignty is what unifies us. Does it not stand to reason that what makes Indian Country, regardless of external attachments, is that we are forever American Indians?
Plus, the use of the terms of the United States further illustrates inclusivity. NCAI’s General Assembly membership criteria contain similar language. “Any tribe, band or identifiable group of American Indians” who can satisfy four requirements: a “substantial number” of Indians living in the “same general locality,” remained organized, not an “offshoot,” and recognized by the federal or state government are eligible. Again, inclusive. Since the creation of time, and certainly since the arrival of Europeans, every tribal community has sought, and fought, to be secure and once secure, has fought to preserve its security. NCAI was assembled to assist in such endeavors for American Indians of the United States.
Related: NCAI has an identity issue, not state-recognized tribes
The Sept. 11 letter seeks to unhinge the organic inclusive state, moving into a trifurcation of Indian Country: 1. Federal Tribes, 2. Individual Federal Tribal Member, 3. Non-Voting Indian Organization (Organization Associate Membership). According to the proposed amendments, only tribes that appear on the Federally Recognized Tribes List Act (FRTL), which is published annually on or before Jan. 30, would be the only voting members. Further, only individuals from the Federally Recognized Tribes List Act tribes can seek individual membership status. If the proposed amendments are approved, tribes that currently have the right to vote on NCAI matters will lose it; they will no longer be able to advocate, preserve or secure their rights. The proposal would alter the original inclusive purpose of NCAI, and shift it to an exclusive institution, the National Congress of Federally Recognized American Indians.
The interesting construct behind this proposal is the willingness to use a colonizer’s “Indian description,” further empowering the federal government. Why would NCAI expand federal control over NCAI governance? Why would tribal governments give the federal government the authority to decide our futures, and why would we give the BIA power over our identities? Is NCAI wanting to adopt the colonial mindset of federal officials? Asking tribes to exclude tribes simply because they are state recognized? Has the colonizer co-opted the oldest known American Indian organization? Actions of this nature can become a slippery slope, creating a foundation of exile against “the other.” Governments will have disagreements and those disagreements should be welcomed, discussed, reimagined, and compromised to a “reasonable solution.” If the Congress cannot secure a resolution, and exclusion is the practice, where does this end? Will it apply to tribes who cannot get trust land? Or do we start streamlining voting eligibility by tribal functionality, allowing only tribes that engage in the topic to vote? Only non-P.L. 280 tribes can vote on criminal jurisdictional questions and vice versa? And so on and so on.
The idea to ostracize tribes should not be contemplated. NCAI delegates should weigh these amendments with their communities in their hearts because it could be your tribe on the opposite side of the action. This resembles the practice of disenrollment — victims of a system — except, now it is not individuals, it’s whole communities, the same ones NCAI turned to for assistance on various political fronts. For their steadfast nature, exclusion is their reward? Is NCAI in the business now of adjudicating communities’ and people’s identities? That is not who we are, and I sure hope that is not who we have become. “Secure and protect” was the original binding catalyst, attaching Indians of the United States to each other, seeking the betterment for all Indians. We protect each other, even more so when contention fills the air. At the end of the day, there are too few of us to erect walls and create divisions.
Interestingly, a proposed resolution that has countering language to the constitutional exclusion amendments has been submitted. The resolution, “Prohibition of hostile designs against any member,” seeks to remind NCAI of the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Mutual Assistance of 1947. The resolution reminds all members of NCAI to “assist other members in their struggle for rights, liberties or property” and the prohibition of “hostile designs against other tribes,” as stated in the treaty. The 1947 treaty does not condone actions of detriment and the proposed resolution serves to remind the congregation of its original intent — to secure and protect all NCAI members, regardless of Federally Recognized Tribes List Act status.
In 1944, near the end of World War II, the rejuvenation of tribal governments and the American Indian termination and relocation era around the corner, NCAI was formed to bring Indian people together. Today, 80 years later, members of NCAI may be asked to consider division over unity. Sovereignty is strongest when practiced, when it is not divided, thus stronger when supported by the masses. NCAI should abandon this divisive and colonized constitutional amendment, honor the 1947 treaty, and fulfill its original charter of securing and preserving the rights of all American Indians of the United States.
This opinion-editorial essay does not reflect the views of ICT; voices in our opinion section represent a variety of reader points of view. If you would like to contribute an essay to ICT, email opinion@ictnews.org.
More information about our guidelines: Submission guidelines.