From: beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!titan.ucc.umass.edu!derrico (Peter d'Errico)
Subject: Re: tribal govts (was: NAVAJO OLD GROWTH FOREST TO BE CUT)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:00:33 GMT

Original-Sender: titan.ucc.umass.edu!derrico (Peter d'Errico)

>
> Original-Sender: Daniel Ammon <CS.Stanford.EDU!ammon>
>
> >Original-Sender: titan.ucc.umass.edu!derrico (Peter d'Errico)
> >
> >I do not consider the US-imposed system of "tribal government" to be
> >the "people's government." The "tribal government" system is
> >essentially a puppet.
>
> How about "tribal government" systems that are based on the "ancient
> ways" and were adopted according to the laws of the ancient ways?

Sure. That's a completely different situation.

> 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?

> >(The discussion of "blood quantum" and "tribal
> >membership" shows other aspects of this puppetry, with ancient ways
> >being subordinated to the imposed ways; but that's another
> >discussion....)
>
> 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.

> >> Are you asserting that the Navajo Nation and Mescaleros do not have
> >> a representative governing body, and these people also have no power
> >> to elect new leaders?
> >
> >That's about it. I also assert that the "elective system" is part of
> >the baggage imposed on the Navajo and Mescalero peoples during the
> >last century.
>
> This is the crux of the whole conversation to me.  How does a person
> know if the current tribal govt is the "real governing body" or an
> unrepresentative farce?

Very important question. It's mostly a matter of looking at the
history of the situation. A good example is the article by Steven
Tullberg (of the Indian Law Resource Center), "The Creation and
Decline of the Hopi Tribal Council," which is in the National Lawyers
Guild book, "Rethinking Indian Law."

> 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 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.)



--
Peter d'Errico                                              phone: 413-545-2003
Legal Studies Department                                    fax:   413-545-1640
University of Massachusetts/Amherst 01003           dErrico@titan.ucc.umass.edu

Newsgroups: alt.native