Is it just me, or does the whole Indian tribe thing seem like an anachronism? Indian policy has changed over the years from diplomacy, to removal, to genocide, to limited tribal sovereignty. Indians are now US citizens and are under no civil or political disability. What rationale is there for continuing to deal with "tribes" instead of with individual Indians? Would Indians be better off if tribal property were partitioned or converted to corporate property with tribal members as shareholders? Now, Indians who leave the reservation no longer derive any benefit from tribal resources. Moreover, they are not free to deploy what would be their share of such resources as they see fit. In effect, maintaining the tribal system works to ghettoize Indians and works against their assimilation into the US culture and economy.
But what would happen to tribal culture, an imaginary reader might ask? Indians would be free to associate with other Indians, to practice Indian ways and maintain Indian culture. If they choose not to, that is also their right. I don't think that Indians exist to maintain artificial cultural diversity for everyone's amusement. The diversity and Indian culture memes are part of the arsenal of legitimizing discourse employed by tribal elites to maintain power and to garner favors for the tribe. They do not, IMO, do much for individual Indians.
But what if individual Indians squander their patrimony, another highly condescending imaginary reader might ask? That would be unfortunate for the individual Indians and is one of the risks of liberty. It is my understanding that Indians are no more stupid than other Americans.
Bottom line: abrogate the treaties and buy out of any ongoing obligations and treat Indians as free men and women. Convert tribal assets and rights into private property, and let Indians handle their property as they see fit.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment