Tag Archives: native americans

Proposals: Delegates to Congress from Native American Tribes and from Americans Abroad

Politics, Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

I have two ideas for better representation in Congress:

A Delegate for Native American Tribes

For several years, the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians have both pursued the goal of sending a delegate to the U.S. House. The Treaty of Hopewell (1785) and Treaty of New Echota (1835), signed between the Cherokee and the United States, promised a delegate for the Cherokee to Congress, but it was never acted upon until Cherokee Nation President Chuck Hoskins appointed activist Kimberly Teehee as a delegate in 2019. Despite this appointment, Teehee has not yet been seated in any session of Congress.

Similarly, the Choctaw Nation, who received a promise for a delegate in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (1830), has never pursued sending a delegate, although the nation did send an ambassador to represent them before the general U.S. government throughout the 19th century. The Lenape Delaware Nation also signed a Treaty of Fort Pitt (1778) with the U.S. government, which encouraged them to form a state that would have representation in Congress, but never pursued either idea.

The issue here is that if the Cherokee (which are split between three tribes) and Choctaw deserve representation, that still leaves over 570 tribes which did not receive such a promise and do not have representation in Congress.

Their political concerns may be better represented by an at-large delegate who is popularly elected by enrolled voters from all the federally-recognized tribes in U.S. territory.

This idea, which may either provide for at-large or perhaps at least two districts on either side of the United States, more equitably support the representation of Native Americans in the federal level of government beyond the bounds of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The idea also passes the smell test of the 14th Amendment, as this would be limited only to enrollees of sovereign nations within the United States, including the 1 million who reside on reservations.

A Delegate for Americans Abroad

More countries in the 21st century, including France, Italy, Tunisia and more, have created electoral districts or reserved seats in their national parliaments to allow citizens who live abroad to vote for their own member/representative. This is often a recognition of the diasporas of citizens who keep their nationality and citizenship even as they live abroad for a long duration of time.

As of 2016, there were at least 4.8 million U.S. citizens who live abroad, including Armed Forces personnel, diplomats, businesspeople, expats, their families, and even accidental Americans who were born on U.S. soil to temporary workers or tourists but who have been raised for most of their lives in another country.

Suffrage for U.S. citizens has greatly increased since 1986, when the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) was passed. But what overseas U.S. voters are allowed to vote on varies between their state of formal residence, with some only allowing them to vote in federal elections, or some states barring their overseas residents from voting in any election if they have never resided in their formal state of residence.

Furthermore, expecting all overseas Americans to know about the candidates who are running for office on home soil is a tall order.

At the very least, those Americans who reside abroad should have more competent federal representation in Congress from U.S.-citizen candidates who may also reside closer to or on the same continent as themselves and share similar concerns as other U.S. expats.

Similar to France, this arrangement could create more than one district, but that may get into the weeds of reapportionment and how to draw lines to ensure equal population in order to comply with law, at least unless this delegation is exempted from the equal population requirement.

Finally, creating an overseas constituency for one’s parliament is an example of projecting soft power to a country’s diaspora which goes beyond just mere diplomacy, business networking or cultural promotion:

  • It creates a “legislator-diplomat” who liaises and and advocates for policy between the home country and its citizens in other countries, albeit more in the legislative branch more than in the executive.
  • If a foreign ministry executes the policies developed in the legislative branch which impact overseas citizens, it stands to reason that overseas citizens ought to have a direct say in the legislative branch.
  • Even when the policies from the legislative branch don’t directly affect foreign policy, overseas citizens also have an interest in domestic policies of a country to which they may return at some point for as long as they keep their citizenship.

Idea: Federal Recognition for “Traditional Peoples and Communities”

Uncategorized, , , ,

Several communities have campaigned for decades for federal recognition as indigenous tribes. Besides the 571 federally-recognized tribes, 62 others are recognized at the state level across 16 states, while several in the Midwest and Appalachian areas lack any state recognition but have several unrecognized communities which are seek some sort of government recognition. Some of the largest groups locked out from federal recognition as tribes are the Lumbee people of North Carolina, the United Houma Nation of Louisiana, the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, and the Chinook Indian Nation of Washington.

But then there are other communities which do not consider themselves as Native American but may either have some level of indigeneity to their homelands or are currently organized around distinct economic and cultural activities largely separate from their neighbors in the prevailing culture. This includes the Native Hawaiians, but on a broader level includes the Gullah-Geechee of South Carolina and Georgia, the Romani people, the Melungeons of the Appalachians, the Freedmen communities in Oklahoma, and more.

In Brazil, the federal government since 2007 uses the designation “traditional populations/communities/peoples” to describe a broader number of communities than just federally-recognized indigenous peoples. This term includes the quilombolas, or residents of historic maroon communities in the interior of Brazil, among several others.

Canada’s federal government largely uses the term “indigenous peoples” when describing “First Nations”, “Inuit” and ‘Metis” altogether, but each group is legally distinct from each other.

I argue that the U.S. federal government should create a second tier of federal recognition of peoples through the Department of the Interior, one with a broader definition and looser criteria for federal recognition than those for federally-recognized tribes. My idea is that these communities which fall under this broader umbrella would:

  • include state-recognized tribes, unrecognized tribes, indigenous communities distinct from Native Americans, and ethnic groups which maintain distinct folkways.
  • form public-private partnerships with the federal government in which the federal government plays an advisory and assistive role (similar to the recently-formalized National Heritage Areas)
  • are not entitled to the level of sovereignty accorded to Indian tribes
  • would not be entitled to exclusive land claims
  • may only be designated by an executive order, an Act of Congress, a federal judicial decision, a administrative decision or an application by a state government which recognizes that group under state law

This would go a long way to accommodating several of these communities in this country. They would also bring more tourism opportunities in the areas where they live, as well as allow for more opportunities for ecological and historical preservation.

And at the very least, state governments should lead the way, away from “state-recognized tribes” to “state-recognized traditional peoples and communities”.

I love when African Americans tell ourselves that this is our land or birthright and that no one will run us from it.

That birthright was gained through pointless, thoughtless murder and theft of both Native American bodies as well as our own. This land, this birthright, is stolen, ruined goods.

The Native Americans have aboriginal moral title over this entire continent. The descendants of African slaves are just unwilling, alienated guests.

And we will never be secure in peace.

How to get back in the habit

Uncategorized

I’ve finally figured out the best way to kill or maim an endeavour:

let it be.

That’s all one has to do, especially if he he has other, more pressing matters to attend to.

And for a bit, that was working.

But now I’m bored again.

This’ll be one weekend that we don’t have to spend in Columbus, one weekend where I don’t have to wonder on whether or not I’m a life-wasting dummy, one weekend where I can have something to do besides editing Wikipedia or surfing Digg.

Well, Digg can wait at the moment. Too full of “iPhone” stories and other retarded shit ATM to warrant my attention (seriously, why are they going all ga-ga over an Apple rumour? It’s common over there, but that last iPhone story took the cake).

So, I’m posting to LJ while I wait, like I’m at the airport terminal or something.

Currently, I’m reading on Native America’s blood quantum laws.

Concerning them: I find it funny that card-carrying Native Americans of today are willing to tolerate most of the political indignities exacted upon them by both federal and state governments.

For instance, the state Legislature of the Massachusetts Commonwealth, only last year, repealed a 330-year-old Massachusetts law which banned Native Americans from entering the City of Boston.

Oh, and according the Commonwealth of Virginia, all Native Americans living there are considered “colored”. Apparently, they have been “mongrelized” too much with Black people for Virginia’s tastes.

I mean, just……….WTF?