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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:28:38 GMT

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

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

Well, it's not that I advocate undermining GOVT W, but that I am
cautious about accepting what GOVT W says in its claims as a
"representative of the people." And in that caution, I exercise my own
judgement about what actions are open for me to take in response to a
perceived problem (whether it be forest cutting or nuclear waste
storage). The fact that a statement has been made by GOVT W is not in
itself a sufficient basis for me to act.

> 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.

Sounds ok to me, with one addition: the people may work in or around
or out or even against W in their attempt to assert R.

> 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.

 Yes, definitely

> 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.

Well, how do we take into account the continuing outside pressure that
supports W? The continuation is not necessarily a "free choice."

> >> 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?

By "groups" I do not mean "tribes." I mean groups of people who may or
may not have any official roles in the official tribal govt (if there
is one; some "unrecognized" peoples do not have any formal govt
structure, as with the Nipmuc). As to Mashpee, many of the people I
work with have had roles in the tribal council (which up to the
present is still not a "recognized" govt body, but only a state
incorporated entity). As to Gay Head, virtually none of the people I
worked with were on the formal "tribal council," before or after
"recognition."

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

I work with the Chief and the Tribal Judge, and others whom they
suggest.


--
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