Declaration of Independence Asserts Sovereignty of Colonists while Diminishing that of Tribes.

 In a side note, in class on Wednesday, I mentioned that the evolution of Federal attitudes toward Tribal sovereignty was already in motion at the signing of the Declaration of Independence (which ironically asserts a new level of sovereignty for the colonists).   At the time I couldn't remember the exact wording, so here it is from that document's list of grievances against the crown.

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

There are a few distinct issues that the framers raise here, but the last one related to "new appropriation of lands" is a direct reference to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which forbade colonists from settling new lands west of Appalachians which was reserved for Indian nations.

Anglo Gender Relations

      When we were visiting the cultural center, the woman leading us around spoke specifically about current gender relations.  When we read the article “The Tohono O’odham, Wage Labor, and Resistant Adaptation, 1900-1930” by Eric Meeks, it mentioned the ways in which Anglo influence affected gender relations and gender roles in the Tohono O’odham nations, reminding me of the ways in which we discussed feminism and the accomplishments of women during the visit to the cultural center.  She mentioned that women make up about seventy-five percent of the current legislators and that they actively work to remove differences in education by gender.  She identified the fact that there still exists segregation in occupation by gender but that they may contain more fluidity than before.  I founded it interesting that she noted the breakdown of gender roles and androcentrism in terms very Anglican ideals.  The areas of success that are identified are the areas of success as defined by European society (government and occupation).  These ideals have thus been applied to many other cultures and societies around the world based on imperialist acts and colonization.  The definitions of success in the Tohono O’odham nation may just reflect the alignment of Tohono O’odham definitions of success with European definitions of success or the societal Tohono O’odham alignment with Anglican influence, but it could also reflect the Anglo influence on gender roles, gender relations, and gender expectations.  Additionally, it could be that the woman giving the tour was fitting the information to fit her audience, using examples that we, as a predominantly Anglo audience, would be most likely to classify as examples of the breakdown of gender norms and thus allow her to get across her specific point.  I would be interested to know how gender relations exist currently in other aspects of life, including business, religion, art, and agriculture, as well as how the definition of success may differ to the Tohono O’odham and how the Anglo influence has affected that definition.  In addition, I would love to know if feminism and the breakdown of gender norms, in the eyes of the Tohono O’odham, exists as a manifestation of Anglo influence or if it functions to counter the prior Anglo influence that established many of the current gender structures.  I would imagine that a feminist agenda with entirely Anglo values, as she presented to us in the tour, would fall into the former, but a feminist agenda with cultural match that allowed for the alignment of values and definitions of success would potentially provide gender equality without oppressing Tohono O’odham culture.

The Jurisdiction Question

While reflecting on class discussion and the Rebecca Tsosie chapter, "Tribal Sovereignty and Intergovernmental Cooperation," I found myself particularly perplexed by the question of Native sovereignty and dubious legal jurisdiction. It seems like the constant debate over rightful jurisdiction, liability, and responsibility ultimately delays justice for the Tohono O'odham people. Native Nations are sovereign states that are domestically and dependently incorporated in the United States. They have internal jurisdiction over the Indians inhabiting the reservation, jurisdiction over the non-Indians who have formed consensual relationships with the tribe or tribal members, but they do not have jurisdiction over non-Indians who break laws on the reservation. This jurisdiction question complicates the pursuit of justice.

As long as Native Nations are considered "domestic, dependent nations," federal power will always trump (See what I did there?) the sovereign power of Native Nations. How can Indians maintain feelings of self-efficacy in this legal and political climate? I would imagine that some Indians might not feel safe on the reservation. Non-Indians can easily get onto the reservation, but they might not be held legally accountable if they break reservation law. This idea seems frightening to me at least. For how long will the United States federal government mistreat Indians?

Overgrazing Issues on Indian Lands

After going over the readings, and looking over today's discussion, I am fascinated by the issue of overgrazing on Indian lands. I have spent almost my entire life around horses and this topic is not news to me. For years, overgrazing has been a topic of much debate and horses continue to experience the aftermath. Just two years ago, more than 1,500 federally protected horses were sent to Mexican slaughterhouses, an action which sparked numerous discussions surrounding animal welfare and how to humanely tackle the removal of horses from lands that have experienced overgrazing.

It was interesting to me that the Indian people agree with reducing the number of horses and donkeys to help with the overgrazing issue, but continue to show lack of support for decreasing the number of cattle, which ironically contribute more to land erosion. I believe that the issue lies in the lack of proper explanation surrounding the true impact of overgrazing. The Bureau of Land Management is part of the issue as it has continuously refused to acknowledge that overgrazing is a significant issue. For example, in many Western states, the BLM permits grazing on 100% of available land. It rarely considers a reduction in grazing allotments. I think that the problem has continued to expand since the mid-1900s, and that the future of grazing lands, specifically in Western states, lies in proper scientific explanation. I also feel strongly that the answer is absolutely not mass horse slaughter, but I will avoid opening that can of worms.

Native American Entrepreneurship: A Call for New Definitions?

I found Chapters 7 and 8 in Rebuilding Native Nations to be incredibly interesting, because I have done a lot of research on entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurship as a catalyst for economic development. I believe that the textbook should have defined entrepreneurship before applying it to Indian reservations.

The OECD has proposed such internationally accepted definitions: entrepreneurs are those persons or business owners who seek to generate value, through the creation or expansion of economic activity, by identifying and exploiting new products, processes, or markets. Entrepreneurial activity is the enterprising human action in pursuit of the generation of value, through the creation or expansion of economic activity, by identifying and exploiting new products, processes, or markets (Ahmad & Seymour, 9). 

Based on these definitions, entrepreneurs are often characterized by innovation and creative disruption with the market entry of their firm or product. Should Native Americans who open basic independent businesses that support reservation life (for example: grocery or convenience stores, auto body shops, hair salons, etc.) be considered entrepreneurs? This seems like an interesting debate question. Maybe a business that does not seem innovative to greater society--and yet is the first in market on a reservation--is entrepreneurial in regards to Indian reservations. These independent, citizen-owned enterprises certainly can generate wealth, employment, and economic diversity. In my opinion, an Indian who opens an independent business that is unique (and perhaps first in market) on the reservation, and creates employment and wealth, should be characterized as an entrepreneur.      

Bibliographic Source for the Definitions:

Ahmad, Nadim and Seymour, Richard G. “Defining Entrepreneurial Activity:

Definitions Supporting Frameworks for Data Collection.” OECD Statistics, January 2008, www.oecd.org/std/business-stats/39651330.pdf.

RNN: Indian Citizen-Owned Enterprises

Although Native nations consist of the means to sustain benefits of an economy driven by citizen-owned enterprises, tribal councils and planners face challenges in encouraging tribal-citizen entrepreneurs.

In RNN, I found chapter 7's section "The Contributions of Citizen-Owned Enterprises" to be especially interesting. To know that such enterprises are reservation multipliers and increase jobs, community wealth, tax base, economic diversity, and more came as a shock to me. I knew that entrepreneurs are essential to a growing economy, but not how much of an impact they have on various parts of society.

Although citizen-owned enterprises additionally send signals to citizens, such as giving hope for the future with new businesses, improve quality of life, and broaden the development effort, Native nations are lacking in the independent business sector. I found it interesting to read how due to low population size and density, local demand remains stunted. Loss of industries such as agriculture and mining has also taken a toll as citizens leave the reservation to find work. I find it difficult to find a solution to this problem, however, I think that it is critical to analyze the affects of the decreasing population on the growth of new businesses. What does this mean for the future of Native nations' economy?

Baboquivari: A Sacred Peak

According to ever tribe member our class talked to and readings regarding Baboquivari, there'e no question that the peak is sacred to the Tohono O'odham tribe. As the resting place of I'itoi, the Creator, its assumed that Baboquivari is one of the holiest places on the reservation. However, everyone is allowed to hike Baboquivari, including those with no tribal affiliation. I remember thinking how odd it is for the reservation to not only allow outsiders to climb such a sacred place but also to let visitors look into I'itoi's cave. While the tribe members ask that visitors present a food offering to I'itoi if they go into a cave, there is nobody present to regulate this. Therefore, is it more beneficial to bar people from the cave or hope they follow the traditions of the Tohono O'odham? Furthermore, how can the Tohono O'odham regulate the entrance of disrespectful visitors and illegal immigrants?

Its clear that some Tohono O'odham members are hesitant in allowing outsiders of the reservation to go to Baboquivari. Joe Joaquin, in particular, expressed concern regarding I'itoi's cave and how some people might take food from the offering. These people tend to be immigrants who come through the desert to avoid border patrol. If the tribe decided to regulate entrance into the mountain, the immigrants will still make their way to the mountain and perhaps find the offerings for I'itoi. Thus, closing off the entrance or creating obstacles to I'itoi's cave will not help the tribe significantly. In fact, that makes it more difficult for tribe members to pay their respects to the Creator. A solution to the issue with I'itoi's cave is difficult to come with and perhaps will only be present when we address a larger social issue with immigrants.

If the tribe decides to regulate entrance to Baboquivari, they must start with the surrounding area. That would call for hundreds of park rangers patrolling the peak to make sure illegal immigrants don't take the offering to I'itoi. However, this would cost too much money and too many resources that the reservation does not have. Education for immigrants will not work because they do not stay long enough to be found by tribe members. Blocking off the entrance will not stop illegal immigrants coming from the south. Thus, the solution to the issue on Baboquivari is unclear as there is not solution that is probable in the foreseeable future.