By ROBERT JUMPER
Tutiyi (Snowbird) and Clyde, N.C.
Over my years with the tribe, I have been a witness to a lot of chest-thumping over Indian sovereignty. From top tribal leadership to the lowest common denominator, we take pride in our perceived freedom. However, governmental sovereignty predicated on another government’s authority isn’t sovereignty at all. And Indian tribes’ ability to make free decisions in their “jurisdictions” is derived from the permissions granted in the United States government governing documents and state treaties.
Have you ever heard the old joke about the husband who says he is the king of his castle? It goes like this: A man was asked by his friend if he could go golfing. The man immediately said yes. The friend asked the man if he didn’t need to check with his wife first. The man puffed out his chest and proclaimed, “I don’t have to ask anybody for permission, I am the head of my household.” The friend said, “Oh really? And how do you know that you are the boss of your domain?” The man responded, “Because my wife said so.”
If we must ask anyone for permission to do what we do and be who we are, we are playing fast and loose with the term “sovereign”. As we have discussed before, the dictionary definition of sovereignty is “The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority, paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration.”
Sounds like us, at least on the surface, right? Indian tribes have long held that we are sovereign, but we never step outside the laws of the federal government when creating our laws. It wasn’t until the federal government made special provisions for Indian tribes to get into the cannabis business that Indian tribes “sovereignly” decided to get into the cannabis business.
In 1831, in a case titled Cherokee Nation versus Georgia, the United States Supreme Court ruled that, specifically, the Cherokee tribe was not a foreign nation, but a “domestic dependent nation”. In the same ruling, the Court referred to the tribe as having “inherent sovereignty,” acknowledging simply that the tribe and its government predate that of the United States. I found it curious that the terms “dependent” and “sovereign” were used in the explanation of this ruling, since they are antonyms. If you are sovereign, you are not dependent. And if you are dependent, you are not sovereign.
Much of our “sovereignty” is drawn from the establishment of federal recognition. Federal recognition establishes that the “relationship between the Tribes and the United States is one of a government-to-government. This principle has shaped the history of dealings between the federal government and the tribes.” (Office of Tribal Justice-U.S. Department of Justice). We perceive ourselves to be sovereign because the federal government makes that acknowledgement. And that is why it is important to have strict parameters for what it means to be federally recognized.
Federal recognition has long been a standard for government-to-government relationships involving Indian tribes. There is a set of criteria that are recognized by the federal government to identify tribes, peoples who are among those who predate the U.S. government. We are not Indian tribes because we qualify for federal recognition. We are federally recognized because of the legitimacy of who we are, which concurs with the federal definition. We are legitimate Indian tribes; therefore, the federal government recognizes us for who we are, not the other way around. Our being Cherokee doesn’t hinge on anyone else thinking so, but our status as a tribe with the ability to negotiate treaties and laws with the federal government does.
So, the line between federally recognized tribes and anyone else who would claim to be Indian must be clear and distinct. Some states, North Carolina being one of them, did not make keeping that line clear and distinct easy.
“The North Carolina Assembly formally recognized the Lumbees in 1885. They amended their recognition, using the name Tribe of Indians of Robeson County in 1911 and Cherokee Indians of Robeson County in 1913. Responding to pressure from the tribe, the state recognized the name Lumbee in 1953. Governor Mike Easley affirmed in 2004 that the state had continuously recognized the Lumbee Tribe since 1885.” (Wikipedia.org)
Apparently, the criteria for state recognition doesn’t match those of the federal government. “As of March 24, 2023, there are 574 tribes legally recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 228 of which are in Alaska. (Federal Register/Alaska Region Bureau of Indian Affairs). On the state level, in late 2007, about 16 states had recognized 62 tribes. (Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 48, November 2007) According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only 14 states recognized tribes at the state level by 2017.”
I can’t help but think that state recognition in North Carolina back in 1885 might have been a by-product of or a reaction to the Civil War. States, especially southern states, had only twenty years passed since that fateful war. They were likely looking for any way to distinguish themselves from the federal government without alienating it. Having their state recognition for “tribes” could have been an outgrowth of the differences still lingering after that war.
This matters because attempts to side-step or bypass the federal recognition criteria weaken the sovereignty of the existing federally recognized tribal nations. Like blood quantum, if the criteria for federal recognition are diluted, federally recognized tribes will be indistinguishable from non-Indians. Keep in mind, when the indigenous peoples of America were “conquered” by the immigrating peoples and cultures, primarily European, they first sought to exterminate, then to assimilate indigenous peoples. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the more we water down what it means to be Native, the more opportunity for the federal administration to assimilate Native Peoples into their idea of culture. The safety of federally recognized tribes doesn’t depend on numbers. We will not protect our people by including those who claim to be Indian without meeting the criteria, just to gain favor with U.S. legislators or even the President of the United States, and having us stand with them, because it might mean a favorable vote from constituents. The federally recognized tribes must stand together against diluting what it means to be Indian, standing on history, language, culture, and tradition that predates indigenous contact with conquering immigrants.
People sometimes get bashed and targeted for speaking their minds. That is one of the few things that, as an editor, I am not very tolerant of. No matter how much I disagree with another person’s position, I think they equally have a right to express their thoughts to anyone who can hear. When I express my opinion, I can be as right or as wrong as the next person. I do think we, as a society in general, have become more gullible and brainwashed. We are so used to listening to experts tell us what is right and wrong that we can’t manage reasoning and common-sense thought like we used to. And we are bad to remain silent when we just aren’t sure our point of view would stand scrutiny.
So, at the One Feather, we have tried to create a safe environment where issues important to the community of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians can be expressed. That doesn’t mean we let people criticize others or their positions. It means that we will be arbiters of the people. If potentially libelous statements are avoided, community-acceptable language is used, and opinions are issue-based, we do our best to pass along your thoughts. In an interaction with one official several months ago, this official indicated that they don’t necessarily care for commentary. They quickly corrected themselves and identified my commentary as the source of their distaste.
Early on at the One Feather, I was told that when I wrote a commentary, it was subject to editing and rewriting by my immediate supervisor because it was editorial and was going to be thought of as the position of the paper. At first, I expressed that I would not write “editorials” as I didn’t want my public opinion manipulated by a government official. I did some quick research to understand the difference between editorial and commentary, then I immediately began writing commentary, and not labeling it as editorial. If you see an editorial comment in the One Feather, it will be something that has been approved, written collaboratively by the editorial board. My commentaries are my personal opinion as a member of the tribe. As a sovereign individual, I speak my mind. That doesn’t mean I am right or wrong. It is simply my truth to speak. I hope every sovereign member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians uses their voice to speak truth to power. It is the only way we will ever effect change.
