Indigenous people have their fundamental rights of individual nature and they do not consider themselves a minority. Indigenous people in Hawaii are colonized by the Americans and Asians in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The colonizers claim Hawaii as their own state and deny indigenous history making the Hawaiian people a minority. The native people become subordinated suffering from landlessness, disastrous health, Diaspora, institutionalization in the military and prisons, poor educational attainment and confinement to the service sector of employment. The Americas had many inhabitants; African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and whether they originated from North America or distant lands they are still considered the original inhabitants. Though sovereign treaties are not based or supported by the US constitutional law, the tribe’s treaty are in constitutional theory. In May 14 1998, President Clinton put an order that assured the Indians that the United States recognized the tribe as a domestic dependent nation under its protection.(Amerasia Journal)
The word sovereignty refers to supreme political authority that is independent and unlimited by any other power. In reference to indigenous people sovereignty is framed differently within an intellectual framework of internal colonization. Internal colonization is the domination of indigenous people by sovereign foreign settle state. European sovereignties in North America were first legitimized by signing of treaty relationships by Europeans and indigenous nations. Independent nationhood of indigenous people is recognized in the following documents: the Treaty of Utrecht, the Articles of Capitulation and the Royal Proclamation. The era of European exploration gave rise to the need for peaceful relations with indigenous nations this was defined in the states’ charter document which made reference to Indigenous people as separate politically and independent. Denial of legal rights of indigenous people in courts is mirrored in governing structures that embedded the false notion of European superiority in indigenous community life, the state generally uses political, economic and intellectual strategies to impose and maintain dominance. Sovereignty of indigenous people is recognized in the common law of the In United state but simultaneously allows its limitations by the United States Congress. “Native sovereignty” is a movement that engages Western society to restore to the indigenous people their power and cultural integrity in the area of governance. In order to draw indigenous people closer the state has allowed a small measure of self administration and fore gone a small portion of moneys gotten from exploitation of indigenous nations’ land hence therefore integrating its sovereignty. In indigenous traditions, social and political institutions were designed by men hence people have the power to change them , sovereignty hence is as social creation as a result of choices made by men .to therefore transcend state sovereignty there is need to de-think sovereignty and replace it with a notion of power. Creating a legitimate post colonial relationship involves abandoning notions of European cultural superiority and adopting mutually respectful positions.(Taiaiake 2004 pp160-473)
In relation to American politics where do indigenous people fit into the system? This is question that was brought forward In 1999 in the case of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band the Supreme Court the Mille Lacs Band part of Chippewa nation wanted the court to uphold an 1837 treaty that guaranteed their hunting and fishing rights. Since a treaty is an agreement between sovereign governments it brought to the court the recognition of tribe’s sovereignty, this brought up the issue of tribal sovereignty and the relationship between United States and indigenous people. Jesse Ventura comment on the issues of tribal sovereignty highlighted two important issues that is indigenous people claim a sovereignty that is unclear in the United States the logic being that if a tribe is part of the United States then it is not sovereign, but if it is sovereign it cannot be part of the state hence cannot make demands in the state. The second issue being that treaty secured right of indigenous tribes stem from an ancient political time and cannot assume a modern form. Ventura got it wrong as stated by Marge Anderson that sovereignty is the inherent right of every American Indian tribal Government and is a reflection of the fact that American Indians lived on the land and governed themselves before European arrived. Invocation of spatial and temporal boundaries is common of American political actors and institutions while trying to impose political rule of the colonial power these have been transcended since tribes have inherent sovereignty since it is a historically feature in the cultural and political identity of indigenous tribes. Thus saying indigenous tribes have a right to sovereignty but must in some degree defend and secure it within American political system.( Kevin .(2007) )
Internal restrictions are intended to protect a group from destabilizing due to internal dispute while external protections are intended to protect a group from impact of external decisions. Kymlickas argues that certain external protections should be endorsed where there promote fairness between groups but internal restrictions which limit the rights of individual members of a group to question and revise traditional authority should be rejected altogether. Indian civil rights act says that in exercising self government it shall not make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion or freedom of speech, violate people’s right to secure their property, compel any person in a case to be a witness. In general it shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. In 2007 the Cherokee Native American Tribe of Oklahoma voted to disenfranchise members of African ancestry as a result members of congressional Black caucus introduce a legislation to deny the Cherokee Nation of federal health and education benefits and strip them of casino gaming licenses. Though a small percentage of them enslaved people of African descent slavery became incorporated into the social economic and political landscape of the Cherokee many enslaved people defined themselves within the social cultural and national framework of the Cherokee. Cherokee tribe was imposing internal restrictions on their members of African Ancestry(cited in Ma thesis 2006)
Whaling and whales are central to the Makah culture, the whales gave oil meat, bone, sinew and gut for storage containers, it is so important that in 1855 the treaty of Neah Bay was signed by the United State and the tribe that reserved their right to whaling when thy ceded thousands of acre of land to the federal government. Most native tribes relied on hunting and fishing for their survival and their culture revolved and was reflected by their method of gathering food. The right to hunt and fish on reservation land is an established tribal right this represents sovereignty as it is presumed to exist in treaties with the United States even if it isn’t explicitly defined. The Supreme Court held that Indian hunting and fishing rights were a form of private property hence thus any taking of them by the federal government entitles the tribe to compensation; this guarantees the tribe survival once source of income has been removed. In Montana v. United States (1981), the Supreme Court created exception to the rule that Indian tribes may regulate all hunting and fishing within reservation. The tribe may only impose its laws to the following scenarios:-activity threatens tribe political integrity, economic security or welfare; or landowner has entered into a consensual relationship with tribe. In the treaty signed by the Chippewa with the United stated in 1854 in which their relinquished to the government a portion of their territory they retained their right to fish and hunt on the said land provided it is unsettled. Non native people feel threatened by native hunting and fishing due to the fact that there feel the native are endangering the wildlife.( Pevar 2012 pp 185-204)
References
Bruyneel Kevin .(2007) .The Third Space of Sovereignty:The Post Colonial Politics of U.S Indigenous Relations London University of Minnesota Press
