When someone claims to be a California Native the general expectation of members of the public is that said person is a lineal descendant of the aboriginal peoples of California.
Part II. The Problem
Citizens of the United States (and others) hold rights and exercise authority within the tribal territories of recognized and unrecognized tribes in California. Within limits specified by Congress, California Native American individuals, tribal organizations, and tribes exercise sovereignty as Native entities within the tribal territories of the various California Native American tribes. The phrase “as Native” is critical because the federal government and the State of California grant specific rights and benefits to Native entities that are not granted to non-Native entities. Why? Precisely because of our status as Native American. Person who do not qualify as Native American do not have the status and therefore the same rights and privileges.
When the federal government and state governments designate rights and benefits specifically for Native Americans it is because our status as (members of) sovereign tribal nations uniquely qualifies us for said benefits. Native American tribes, both recognized and unrecognized, possess an inherent tribal sovereignty that preexists and is independent of federal recognition. Membership in a tribe requires proof of ancestry, or documented evidence of direct lineal descent from an aboriginal tribe. Why? Because proof of ancestry directly links an individual to a preexisting political entity, a sovereign tribal nation. Proof of ancestry therefore provides the individual tribal member with the legitimacy to claim an identity as a Native American, as a member of a Native American people group, and as a member of a Native American tribe.
Tribes can only govern (or exercise sovereign authority) their members and territory. That sovereignty extends over all tribal matters and tribal resources within a tribal territory, including our lands and waters. When the aforementioned benefits are tied to a particular tribal territory, only members of the host tribe can access those benefits. Far too often, federal and state laws allow other tribes to exercise authority over tribal matters in another tribe’s (i.e., the host tribe) aboriginal territory and to access tribal resources designated specifically for Native peoples from within the host tribe’s territory. Under the auspices of benefitting Native Americans, a surprising number of federal and state laws violate the inherent tribal sovereignty of especially unrecognized tribes. The frequency and scope of those laws continues to increase at an alarming rate.
For example, under the premise of protecting tribal cultural resources of California Native Americans, the Native American Heritage Commission, by means of the Contact List, allows external tribes to consult on tribal matters within a host tribe’s territory and allows the external tribes to remove tribal cultural resources (i.e., buried ancestors and cultural materials) from within the host tribe’s territory in clear violation of the sovereignty of the host tribe.
For example, under the premise of aiding the economic development of federal recognized tribes, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows an external tribe to establish a casino within the tribal territory of another tribe (i.e., the host tribe) and to remove tribal economic resources from within the host tribe’s territory in clear violation of the host tribe’s sovereignty. Like tribal cultural resources, a tribal economic resource is an economic resource (i.e., financial benefits from gaming) specifically designated for tribes.
Two critical problems result from the above.
First, federal and state laws designed to benefit Native Americans often result in violating the sovereignty of especially unrecognized tribes.
Second, the continued and expanding violations of sovereignty undermine the very doctrine and legal principle that provides tribes with their unique status in the first place—the doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty.
When the federal government and state governments designate rights and benefits specifically for Native Americans it is because our status as (members of) sovereign tribal nations uniquely qualifies us for said benefits. Native American tribes, both recognized and unrecognized, possess an inherent tribal sovereignty that preexists and is independent of federal recognition. Membership in a tribe requires proof of ancestry, or documented evidence of direct lineal descent from an aboriginal tribe. Why? Because proof of ancestry directly links an individual to a preexisting political entity, a sovereign tribal nation. Proof of ancestry therefore provides the individual tribal member with the legitimacy to claim an identity as a Native American, as a member of a Native American people group, and as a member of a Native American tribe.
Tribes can only govern (or exercise sovereign authority) their members and territory. That sovereignty extends over all tribal matters and tribal resources within a tribal territory, including our lands and waters. When the aforementioned benefits are tied to a particular tribal territory, only members of the host tribe can access those benefits. Far too often, federal and state laws allow other tribes to exercise authority over tribal matters in another tribe’s (i.e., the host tribe) aboriginal territory and to access tribal resources designated specifically for Native peoples from within the host tribe’s territory. Under the auspices of benefitting Native Americans, a surprising number of federal and state laws violate the inherent tribal sovereignty of especially unrecognized tribes. The frequency and scope of those laws continues to increase at an alarming rate.
For example, under the premise of protecting tribal cultural resources of California Native Americans, the Native American Heritage Commission, by means of the Contact List, allows external tribes to consult on tribal matters within a host tribe’s territory and allows the external tribes to remove tribal cultural resources (i.e., buried ancestors and cultural materials) from within the host tribe’s territory in clear violation of the sovereignty of the host tribe.
For example, under the premise of aiding the economic development of federal recognized tribes, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows an external tribe to establish a casino within the tribal territory of another tribe (i.e., the host tribe) and to remove tribal economic resources from within the host tribe’s territory in clear violation of the host tribe’s sovereignty. Like tribal cultural resources, a tribal economic resource is an economic resource (i.e., financial benefits from gaming) specifically designated for tribes.
Two critical problems result from the above.
First, federal and state laws designed to benefit Native Americans often result in violating the sovereignty of especially unrecognized tribes.
Second, the continued and expanding violations of sovereignty undermine the very doctrine and legal principle that provides tribes with their unique status in the first place—the doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty.