Tribes not ‘dependent’ of state
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
3 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
A recent writer voiced concern regarding the “Broadway stage play” that’s presumably hijacking the reserved water rights negotiations. His link to the negotiations is unclear, but I have worked for the tribes for 20 years and feel a comment is warranted.
My issue rests with the writer’s paternalistic labeling of the tribes as the “dependent,” whom the state is negotiating with instead of the “adult in charge.” Such rhetoric suggests more ignorance than enlightenment. The tribes were the first self-governing entities on this continent—and for millennia. I’m pretty certain they were the adult-in-charge then.
This reservation is not the State of Montana. It contains land originally occupied by the tribes and reserved, not given, to them for their “exclusive use and benefit.” And it is legally defined as Indian Country (18 USC 1151) regardless of land ownership. It is — rightly — a place where white power and privilege will not always provide in the accustomed fashion.
The Treaty of Hellgate was a government-to-government, not parent-to-child, document. Tribes possess inherent powers of self-government which they can and do exercise, including the power to establish unique forms of government, determine membership, administer justice, and charter businesses. Do those sound like the powers of children, or the parent-in-charge?
The familiar label “domestic, dependent nations” is not analogous to a parent-child relationship with the federal government. The foundations of federal Indian law were several 1830’s Supreme Court decisions defining the Indian relationship to federal and state governments. The decisions assured both federal protection of tribal sovereignty and — as domestic, dependent “nations” — protection from unwarranted intrusion by states.
The Flathead Nation has Winters water rights, not the state. Water, and the fisheries it supports, are critical resources and the tribes should be commended for exercising regulatory rights they could otherwise lose — it is an act of responsible government, be it tribal or otherwise. Moreover, since the tribes have never been hostile toward non-Indians, any fear of their motives should be derailed.
Lastly, social justice would be well served if non-Indians, choosing to live on the reservation, would maintain a larger perspective in tribal relations. And this can begin with reading, then honoring, the treaty.
Bill Bennington
Polson
