Comment by solardev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by solardev | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Some tribes were able to secure federal recognition, which grants them a more official diplomatic relationship in regards to their dealings with the federal and state governments of the United States: https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-federally-recognized-tribe

> Because the Constitution vested the Legislative Branch with plenary power over Indian Affairs, states have no authority over tribal governments unless expressly authorized by Congress. While federally recognized tribes generally are not subordinate to states, they can have a government-to-government relationship with these other sovereigns, as well.

> Furthermore, federally recognized tribes possess both the right and the authority to regulate activities on their lands independently from state government control. They can enact and enforce stricter or more lenient laws and regulations than those of the surrounding or neighboring state(s) wherein they are located. Yet, tribes frequently collaborate and cooperate with states through compacts or other agreements on matters of mutual concern such as environmental protection and law enforcement.

From https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions

Unfortunately, this is just a continuation of the numerous betrayals the US and military units have inflicted on them for the past centuries. Our government and soldiers routinely violated the treaties we signed and forcibly relocated and murdered many people.

Many tribes did not retain their federal recognition and just kinda exist in a no-man's land between states and the federal government, lacking much of the autonomy of the federally recognized tribes.

I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that their sovereignty was something they possess of their own accord and not merely because the Federal government chose to recognize them?

I seem to remember being taught in school that the native american reservations exist because of treaties signed by the united states government with sovereign nations (those nations being the native americans) and that the US government is obligated to respect their autonomy and sovereignty by the terms laid out in those treaties.

i don't mean to contradict your claims that the Federal Government has a long history of violating these treaties, as that is undoubtedly true. i'm just curious because the way i interpreted your description makes it seem as if they're only autonomous because the federal government has chosen to recognize them.

Well, yes and no. Theoretically, I could create my own sovereign nation on whatever land I want. But if nobody recognizes that sovereignty and applies their laws to that land instead of mine, am I really sovereignty? These reservations exist on land that otherwise is part of the USA. If the government decides not to recognize their sovereignty and say the treaties are void as a result, unless they can mount a resistance, they aren't really sovereign at that point.

It is really complicated, and I'm not at all an expert, but I believe it is more complex than "they are sovereign, end of story".

Through centuries of conquest and betrayal, the US governments have eroded much of the tribes' previous power, and these days they exist under a complex legal framework in which they have some sovereignty and some autonomy, but not to the same degree that, say, Canada or China have. Their rights under US law are granted by (and can be revoked by) acts of Congress. Lacking their own militaries and international diplomacy, they are more like states than countries as we think of them.

But it's actually way more complicated than that and depends on whether the tribe is federally recognized, what specific rights Congress withheld from them, whether they are prosecuting tribesmembers, other Indians, or non-Indian Americans, etc.

At the end of the day, it unfortunately comes down to who has the bigger stick. Tribes can say no all they want but it's up to the US Congress to listen or not. And they don't necessarily have the same Constitutional protections that US states have, either. It just really depends. And again, I'm not an expert at all!

This page has more detail: https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/generalprinc...

This doesn’t actually contradict anything I said (maybe you never intended to contradict me?). But yes you are in fact correct.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to contradict anything you said, just noting that it's not so much "what they call themselves" that determines their status, but whether they were able to secure federal recognition before the treaties stopped.

I see yes this was my original point (though you expanded a bit more than I did). The question of whether they call themselves a tribe or a nation or something else doesn’t really have much bearing on things.

Gotcha. Sorry, didn't mean to make it seem like I was trying to correct anything. Apologies if it looked that way. Just wanted to share the info with people who might not be familiar with tribal governments in the US (it's super complicated!)

But you're totally right, the name itself doesn't mean much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com