In the 1950s, Congress passed Public Law 83-280, commonly know as PL 280. Two policies contributed to its passage, termination, which sought to assimilate Indians into American society and culture, and the move to end tribal land holdings. PL 280 encouraged these policies by transferring criminal jurisdiction to state authorities. The other reason Congress passed PL 280 were the various reports of reservation "lawlessness." As a result, PL 280 used state courts and police to extend "public safety" to tribes.
Today, PL 280 (in parts) is still an active policy. While the specter of termination and its twin relocation no longer haunt Indian Country, the jurisdictional issues raised by PL 280 still stop the tribes from using tribal police to enforce laws on the reservation. When PL 280 was passed, the BIA stopped funding courts and police on all reservations that came under the act. Recently, courts stated that PL 280 was not designed to preempt tribal jurisdiction or police authority. Further, the courts stated that tribes and states share "concurrent" jurisdiction over criminal matters, while civil issues are under the purview of the tribe. All of this may be well and good, and a healthy dose of historical misunderstanding, but how does it play among Indians? How well have the state authorities fared as an alternative to tribal controls?
The UCLA Native Nations Law and Policy Center surveyed reservation residents, police, and criminal justice personel. The soon to be made public results show that Indians on reservations believe that state authorities are NOT providing effective service, don't understand tribal cultures and traditions, do not communicate with the tribes, often overstep their authority, and show a lack of respect for tribal authorities. When the same survey was given to law enforcement professionals in PL 280 states, they responded that they believed themselves to be delivering quality services to tribal communities. In non-PL 280 states, reservation residents agree that their courts and police are quality and professional.
This hold over from the 1950s, and the Cold War mindset that favored and forced conformity needs to go and go fast. Indian people routinely support their own tribal courts and police forces, and state that at the tribal level these services meet their needs. As soon as white law enforcement becomes involved, services to the community seem to fall off--the same lack of respect for people and culture that drove Congress to policies like termination and relocation. Perhaps its about time for Congress and the rest of the federal government to recognize that the best policy they could develop for Indians is to LEAVE THEM ALONE. Let Indians be Indians and run their own affairs.
5 comments:
I think the white government's perspective in this is very much unchanged over hundreds of years - you can't withdraw if you haven't conclusively 'won' - look at the debacle in Iraq for a modern-day equivalent.
The white government, and the white population generally, also do not see the reservations as having a government. The 'Tribal Council' provokes a mental imagery of savages sat around a campfire planning the next scalping raid. Just the word 'tribal' has a negative connotation for these people.
I consider myself pretty enlightened, and I firmly consider myself not racist, but I even catch myself falling into these traps of the language, where the racism is built into the common meaning of the word...
Interpetation is so important to changing these policies. Who asks? How do they ask? How is the request interpreted and viewed?
While the history has a lot of compexity to it, it's not going to play a large part in the reservations getting their sovereignty back. Protests and demands may make it harder. They give the feeling of tension and conflict, and make the government want to hold on tighter and control more. Yet relaxing never got anything done.
I know what I think doesn't matter a jot, but I think all the tribes need to set up a formal Congress, and call it that, and use terminology that has more credibility and authority with white government... It needs to run parallel to everything else, and it needs to run following similar rules so any c riticism of it is a criticism of the established US structures too.
Oh, and Todd, you know, you should comment and discuss in responses to your own posts - it's nice to have a dialog going, instead of edicts from upon high :P ;)
Dave--You raise an interesting point. Perhaps the language of colonialism has become pervasive among the tribes themselves. A result of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was that Indian governments were established and given constitutions in the white language. These IRA constitutions however, were composed in a top down manner with the Commish of Indian Affairs dictating the language. Thus, John Collier, who may have been the most enlightened person to serve in that position until recent memory, was in charge of formulating a one size fits all Indian consitution.
What road is the Commissioner to take?
Despite my opinions, I'm just going by what seems like common sense to me. It's conclusions based on my inner sense of what's right. It isn't based on anything native, or anything outside the values my parents gave me about letting people be themselves and not judging anyone, no matter how different their world view, unless they're trying to kill you.
You're not trying to kill me, are you Todd? ;)
No Dave I'm not trying to kill you, in fact I think you're absolutely correct. Real Indian sovereignty would be respecting the type of governments that native people have had for thousands (if not millions) of years. Allowing Indian nations representation in COngress or treating them as the foregin nations the Constitution says they are is my ultimate wish. If the federal government would respect the rights of all native peoples this nation would finally live up to the promises it made in far too many treaties of dispossession! This government has lied to Indian people for far too long and professional historians and others of their ilk have simply swallowed the story and spit it back out--even those who style themselves revisionists. Real and honest sovereingty is just that sovereignty. So no Dave, I'm not trying to kill you, jsut playing devil's advocate for the sake of conversation.
Interesting to know.
Post a Comment