The poor state of roads and bridges in Indian country is well-documented, and all too familiar to tribal citizens who face impassable roads during storms, rough dirt roads that are the only routes to take children to school, and bridges that may only be accessible seasonally. The lack of road safety features result in crash injuries and death more often in Indian Country than anywhere else in the United States. Decrepit infrastructure has hindered economic development and stifled job growth in many tribal communities.
On April 29, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx put forward the Obama Administration’s transportation bill, “Grow America Act,” which has the construction industry, labor leaders and transportation policy advocates praising the effort to stimulate congressional action on needed investment in the nation’s deteriorating road, bridge, and rail networks. The proposal reflects some of Indian Country’s transportation needs, but falls short of the commitment required to reduce the historical funding inequities that have left many tribal roads systems stuck in the mud. Moreover, the viability of the Obama Administration’s proposal depends upon Congress adopting tax reform measures that generate new revenue to shore up the depleted Highway Trust Fund -- a big presumption given partisan gridlock in Washington.
Most Indian tribes operate their own transportation departments with funding received through the Highway Trust Fund, and these tribal transportation programs are crucial to providing safe and reliable roads, bridges and transit services. The effectiveness of such programs is essential to stimulating commerce, job creation and economic development in Indian Country.
Representatives from Indian country have been working to build momentum for tribal transportation legislation that boosts funding and further empowers tribes to transform dangerous and deficient roads and bridges into transportation networks that can safely provide tribal citizens better access to services, resources and commerce.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the Intertribal Transportation Association and the newly-formed Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus have linked tribes and tribal organizations in an effort to develop and promote the “Tribal Transportation Unity Act,” a proposal for comprehensive tribal transportation legislation. This tribal coalition presented their proposal to key transportation and infrastructure committees in the Congress the week before Secretary Foxx delivered his.
The Tribal Unity proposal urges the United States to deepen its commitment to infrastructure investment and transportation services in Indian Country through substantial funding increases as well as terms that provide tribal governments greater authority to plan, construct and operate transportation programs to meet tribal needs. The Obama Administration’s “Grow America Act” reflects some of these priorities, but fails to contemplate the level of investment or the breadth of tribal authority contained in the Tribal Unity Act legislation.
The most significant challenge facing tribes is the lack of adequate funding to meet the overwhelming and documented need. This Congress has objected to increasing investment in transportation when revenues from its sole funding source—the federal gas tax—are declining.
Indians of all nations are skeptical of the federal government. This is why, even though most tribal societies practiced capital punishment in one form or another, tribal governments have not rushed to opt in to the federal death penalty.
For those of us who grew up watching Rod Serling’s classic science fiction series, The Twilight Zone, there was a memorable 1962 episode, “To Serve Man.”
Cliven Bundy’s dispute with the Bureau of Land Management has brought the Western Shoshone Nation and the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley back into focus.
John Winthrop, a wealthy Puritan lawyer and would-be theologian, might be styled a founder of “American exceptionalism.” It was his sermon, A Model of Christian Charity, that contained the line made famous in modern times by President Ronald Reagan, “we must consider that we shall be as
The word “indigenous” has become ever present in the way that most people now tend to speak, think, and write about the nations and peoples that were living in this hemisphere when the monarchs of Western Christendom first made their invasive landfalls in the 15th and later centuries.
The world is moving forward on Indigenous Rights, yet the Supreme Court of the United States is moving backward. In 2010, the United States joined the United Nations in supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which declares:
After being ignored for nearly six decades the Grindstone Indian Rancheria, located in Glenn County, California, will receive its own representative on the Stony Creek Joint Unified School District Board of Education in Elk Creek, California.
Our Creator, Wakan Tanka, endowed our Lakota people with life and liberty. As Sitting Bull said, “We are free. We choose our own path.” We Lakota established the Lakota Nation, Oceti Sakowin or Seven Council Fires.
Every few decades it seems that Indian country has new concepts that it adopts that become the backbone for how we talk about ourselves. Those concepts usually seem to be about how we frame our relationships as Indian people to the dominant society, or more specifically to the federal government. They often mirror whatever the current policy regime happens to be. For the last 40 years we have spoken in terms of self-determination and sovereignty. Now “good governance” seems to be our new buzzwords.
A few weeks ago I attended a conference on that very topic at a prominent law school. It was organized by some prominent Native law scholars and academics, people highly regarded for their brilliant work in the fields of Indian law and Native American studies. Sadly, the conference was only one day long and could easily have filled two or three days with presentations. The presenter list read like a who’s who of people that have written influential policy papers, law articles, and books on topics related to tribal governance.
But there was something that stood out about the topics they were talking about and the kind of work many of them are doing: the presentations seemed to have a heavy emphasis on economic development. How to best maximize economic development; good self-government for better economic development; attracting business to the reservations; these were the kinds of things being talked about under the umbrella of good Native governance. It was as though good Native governance means good economic development.
What was missing, it seemed to me, were any critical perspectives. Possible critical topics that could have been included: the problem of tribal disenrollment in gaming tribes; the environmental repercussions of resource extraction on reservation lands; the dangers of hydraulic fracking to reservation communities; income disparity in Indian communities. Here’s one: how about negotiating the philosophical differences between capitalism and indigenous worldviews in economic development projects?
The very nature of capitalism is its commitment to unending economic growth (which means unending resource exploitation). It doesn’t recognize limits. It is a reflection of the Western (civilized) never-ending imperative, always wanting more: more land, more growth, more money, more technology, more power. The commitment to values based on profit. This paradigm is what caused our ancestors to lose their lands and what is causing indigenous peoples in other parts of the world to lose their lands in this globalized economy. Capitalism is wrapped up in the language of civilization, disguised as the desire for a better, easier life. It is responsible for a changing climate, for increasing global poverty, human rights violations and war. It is the big trickster of our time—it is coyote in his modern day manifestation.
Capitalism as a way of life is imposed as a civilizing technique of the colonizing American government, especially during the eras of assimilation and the Indian Reorganization Act. The goals of self-government under the IRA were envisioned primarily as a business creation and management regime, tribal governments were organized as corporations. This was in response to the poverty that resulted from the miserable failure of allotment (and arguably, all the land theft and cultural disruption before that).
I expect Utah is as much a cesspool of corruption as Texas, because that happens in one party states. This is not a partisan comment directed at Republican Utah.
On March 25, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a for-profit corporation, Hobby Lobby, claiming it (the corporation) would be denied religious freedom if forced to offer Obamacare compliant health insurance policies that cover birth control to some 13,000 employees.
Mohawks, who are one of the six Nations of the Haudenosaunee, have traditionally not voted in Quebec or Canadian elections believing that, as Mohawks, they are neither Quebecers or Canadians, and should not interfere in other peoples politics.
In mid-March the Department of the Interior’s Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back Program) sent purchase offers to approximately 16,000 landowners with fractionated interests at the Pine Ridge Reservation.