Sovereignty

April 20, 2015
By:
Steven Newcomb

In his book Captives of Sovereignty (2010), Jonathon Havercroft points out that a number of contemporary political philosophers (Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben, and Michae

February 26, 2015
By:
Donna Ennis

A historic event happened in Indian Country this month.

January 06, 2015
By:
Peter d'Errico

Damian Webster and Emmy Scott ask important questions in their recent article

December 22, 2014
By:
Jose Barreiro

Cuban sovereignty was the big winner—reaffirmed and finally respected—as Cuban President Raul Castro and U.S. President Barack Obama simultaneously announced historic new agreements that reestablish nation-to-nation relations between the two countries.

December 02, 2014
By:
Dina Gilio-Whitaker

On October 7, Native Hawaiians and their supporters successfully blocked a groundbreaking ceremony for the building of a new telescope atop Mauna Kea.

November 26, 2014
By:
Dina Gilio-Whitaker

“Kamau a Ea” in Hawaiian means “keeping the breath of life.” Ea is life but it can also mean sovereignty, rule, or independence. So the phrase has multiple meanings that in essence equates sovereignty with life.

November 01, 2014
By:
Mark C. Van Norman

The Constitution’s original intent treats Indian nations and tribes as prior sovereigns, with jurisdiction over our citizens and territory.

October 23, 2014
By:
Al Carroll

This is an excerpt from A Proposed New Constitution, a call for 15 articles to be adopted in a new constitutional convention.

September 13, 2014
By:
Steven Newcomb

In 1996, while attending the Intersessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, I posed a question to the United States delegates.

September 12, 2014
By:
Kenneth Deer

This column was first seen in Cultural Survival Quarterly Issue: 38-3

July 14, 2014
By:
Rick Cuevas

In a recent piece for Indian Country Today Media Network, titled "The Debate Over Disenrollment" by UCLA Indian Studies professor Duane Champagne, we who have been disenrolled from P

June 16, 2014
By:
Steven Newcomb

On June 3, there was an informal meeting at the United Nations regarding the development of an “action oriented outcome document.” The document is scheduled to be formally adopted by the UN General Assembly at the end of a UN High Level Plenary Meeting that will take place this coming September a

June 03, 2014
By:
Jennifer Lee Schultz & Stephanie Carroll Rainie

The lack of good data about U.S. American Indian and Alaska Native populations hinders tribes’ development activities, but it also highlights a space for sovereign action.

March 27, 2014
By:
Dina Gilio-Whitaker

I write this in response to Steven Newcomb, who took issue with the column I recently wrote titled, “Moving From Sovereignty to Autonomy.” He is passionate about his opinions and intellectual projects and I respect that. I respond in the spirit of public debate that this issue requires.

Not surprisingly, Newcomb is concerned about language and the meanings behind words and concepts such as “autonomy” and “indigenous” and the ways they are deployed in international law to imply and reinforce relationships of domination. Of course his concerns are justified, and in principle I agree with him 100 percent. Where we part company, perhaps, is in our approaches to addressing those structures of domination he so aptly names. For me the question is: how do we as “indigenous” peoples negotiate our way within those very deeply entrenched and troubling structures to find workable solutions? To borrow a bureaucratic colloquialism, how do we find “work-arounds” to what sometimes appear to be insurmountable obstacles?

In a perfect world, states’ governments would wake up one day and having seen the error of their ways they would renounce those oppressive structures in the interest of following an altruistic, moral imperative to do right by indigenous peoples. We can all hope and even work for that. What he is saying needs to be said. But it seems to me that in reality we could be waiting a very long time, if it were to happen at all.

Would I like to see the doctrine of discovery repudiated and the entire regime of international and federal Indian law restructured to assume new, more just meanings and models relative to indigenous peoples? Yes. Is it possible that Indian nations can be restored to their pre-colonial levels of independence? In my opinion, that’s highly questionable and at this point maybe even undesirable for some nations, but it’s for each nation to decide for themselves.

We live in a different world now compared to our pre-contact ancestors. It is a world far more dependent on the quality of our political relationships. Like it or not we are swimming in the river of international relations as it exists, not as we wish it to be. From my perspective we must find ways to advance self-determination through the channels that are available—as imperfect as they may be—even while we imagine better paths. We can do both.

The fact is that the world of human relations is always evolving; it has never been static. Contrary to Steve’s Alice-in-Wonderland metaphor of “the illusion of moving from one state of being to another” the one thing we can count on is change. This is the core of the idea of political development.

Right now an available channel for indigenous political advancement is UNDRIP, written with the language of self-determination and autonomy. It stresses the ability of “indigenous peoples” (and I would argue indigenous governments as political bodies accountable to their respective peoples) to “freely choose their political status.” Are the choices circumscribed by relationships of domination? Probably, yes. Is it possible for indigenous and state governments to come to new political arrangements with each other based on mutually agreed upon understandings of the meanings of autonomy and self-determination (and whatever else they deem necessary)? I think so.

Pages