3 ms·

I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that their sovereignty was something they possess of their own accord and not merely because the Federal g

I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that their sovereignty was something they possess of their own accord and not merely because the Federal government chose to recognize them? I seem to remember being taught in school that the native american reservations exist because of treaties signed by the united states government with sovereign nations (those nations being the native americans) and that the US government is obligated to respect their autonomy and sovereignty by the terms laid out in those treaties. i don't mean to contradict your claims that the Federal Government has a long history of violating these treaties, as that is undoubtedly true. i'm just curious because the way i interpreted your description makes it seem as if they're only autonomous because the federal government has chosen to recognize them.

wizardwes 3y ago
Well, yes and no. Theoretically, I could create my own sovereign nation on whatever land I want. But if nobody recognizes that sovereignty and applies their laws to that land instead of mine, am I really sovereignty? These reservations exist on land that otherwise is part of the USA. If the government decides not to recognize their sovereignty and say the treaties are void as a result, unless they can mount a resistance, they aren't really sovereign at that point.
solardev 3y ago
It is really complicated, and I'm not at all an expert, but I believe it is more complex than "they are sovereign, end of story". Through centuries of conquest and betrayal, the US governments have eroded much of the tribes' previous power, and these days they exist under a complex legal framework in which they have some sovereignty and some autonomy, but not to the same degree that, say, Canada or China have. Their rights under US law are granted by (and can be revoked by) acts of Congress. Lacking their own militaries and international diplomacy, they are more like states than countries as we think of them. But it's actually way more complicated than that and depends on whether the tribe is federally recognized, what specific rights Congress withheld from them, whether they are prosecuting tribesmembers, other Indians, or non-Indian Americans, etc. At the end of the day, it unfortunately comes down to who has the bigger stick. Tribes can say no all they want but it's up to the US Congress to listen or not. And they don't necessarily have the same Constitutional protections that US states have, either. It just really depends. And again, I'm not an expert at all! This page has more detail: https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/generalprinciplesoffederalindianlaw.php https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/generalprinc...

wizardwes 3y ago

Well, yes and no. Theoretically, I could create my own sovereign nation on whatever land I want. But if nobody recognizes that sovereignty and applies their laws to that land instead of mine, am I really sovereignty? These reservations exist on land that otherwise is part of the USA. If the government decides not to recognize their sovereignty and say the treaties are void as a result, unless they can mount a resistance, they aren't really sovereign at that point.

solardev 3y ago

It is really complicated, and I'm not at all an expert, but I believe it is more complex than "they are sovereign, end of story". Through centuries of conquest and betrayal, the US governments have eroded much of the tribes' previous power, and these days they exist under a complex legal framework in which they have some sovereignty and some autonomy, but not to the same degree that, say, Canada or China have. Their rights under US law are granted by (and can be revoked by) acts of Congress. Lacking their own militaries and international diplomacy, they are more like states than countries as we think of them. But it's actually way more complicated than that and depends on whether the tribe is federally recognized, what specific rights Congress withheld from them, whether they are prosecuting tribesmembers, other Indians, or non-Indian Americans, etc. At the end of the day, it unfortunately comes down to who has the bigger stick. Tribes can say no all they want but it's up to the US Congress to listen or not. And they don't necessarily have the same Constitutional protections that US states have, either. It just really depends. And again, I'm not an expert at all! This page has more detail: https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/generalprinciplesoffederalindianlaw.php https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/generalprinc...