From: Daniel Ammon <beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!CS.Stanford.EDU!ammon>
Subject: tribal govts (was: NAVAJO OLD GROWTH FOREST TO BE CUT)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 23:06:52 GMT

Original-Sender: Daniel Ammon <CS.Stanford.EDU!ammon>

>Original-Sender: titan.ucc.umass.edu!derrico (Peter d'Errico)
>
>> Original-Sender: Daniel Ammon <CS.Stanford.EDU!ammon>
>> How about a current tribal government system not based on tradition, but
>> yet is still the system that the people want?
>
>Well, the tricky phrase is "the people want." What doea that really
>mean in a context of overwhelming outside power?

I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds like:
	Indians currently operate under GOVT R (for red).
	Outsiders overwhelmingly advocate for GOVT W.
	Indians say OK, and formally switch to GOVT W.
Now,
	Indians are formally under GOVT W, but they really continue
	to operate under GOVT R.
	"The people want" R, but are formally under W.

>From your past postings, you seem to advocate undermining GOVT W
as a solution.  I do not support this.  Undermining GOVT W with the
hopes of re-instating GOVT R will effectively be undermining the
future powers of the desired-government-to-be.

I think if "the people want" R, then the people should work from within
W to change the governance structure to reflect R.  Obviously, there
can be problems here.  But, I think if R is the "true" tribal government
then this truth will emerge, likely accompanied by a necessary pain.

>> I think the tribal membership issue is fundamental to the question
>> of "What is a tribe?".
>
>Exactly. So do I. And that's why I think it's so important to
>recognize the difference between indigenous and imposed definitions of
>membership. If the "people" referred to above are defined by an
>outside power (e.g., the BIA), the "tribe" is not really determining
>its own membership; and therefore what these "people" "want" as a "tribal
>government" is reflective of the outside power, not the indigenous
>people.

It sounds like we agree maybe more than I thought.  When some of the
modern Indian Govts became formalized through acts like IRA, the BIA/US Govt
had much to say about how the tribe determined membership. However, this
does not prevent the tribe from NOW changing this imposed membership criteria
to the GOVT-R-style membership criteria.

I believe if the tribe chooses to continue to use the GOVT-W-style membership
criteria, then although the definition is not indigenous, it is just as
real and valid now as however the tribe determined it's membership at any
point in the past.

>> Just curious... do you represent any tribes in legal matters?  If
>> so, do you acknowledge and work with their tribal government?
>
>Most of my work is with people who would be called "traditionals" in
>the current jargon -- folks who are asserting hunting and fishing
>rights outside the structure of state and federal laws, for example.
>In Mashpee and Gay Head (Wampanoag), I have worked with groups who
>have challenged the federal "recognition" process.

I assume that when you say you worked with "groups", this really
means "tribes" since it was with the federal acknowledgement process.
Do you consider them tribes?  If so, I still ask: did you acknowledge
and work with the tribal govts of the Mashpee and Gay Head Wampanoag tribes?

>I am doing a little
>to help the "unrecognized" Abenaki assert their "aboriginal rights."
>(I put that last phrase in quotes because this is the term used by the
>law to define the kind of rights that are usually not recognized by
>the government, becasue the government hasn't created these rights.)

When you work with the Abenaki, are you working with their tribal
govt, or are your clients individual Abenaki Indians?

danny ammon
ammon@cs.stanford.edu