"When an Indian speaks about “our country,” what country is being talked about? Is it an Indigenous Nation or the United States? When an Indian refers to “my President,” which president is being discussed, the president of an Indigenous Nation or the president of the U.S.? These kinds of statements need to be examined to determine whether the speaker is asserting something that supports or undermines consciousness of Indigenous sovereignty.
The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act declared, “all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…are…citizens.” Reaction among Indians was diverse, some welcoming the chance to more closely assimilate and others wary of the loss of Indigenous sovereignty. Prior citizenship acts had been tied to allotment, for example. Non-Indians were also divided in their views, some saying citizenship would “redeem… the tribes,” and others saying citizenship would empower Indians.
It may be the case that an Indian values U.S. citizenship and seeks an active role in the political system that dominates Indian nations. This approach may have some utilitarian value in struggling for Indian self-determination; but it is an approach fraught with difficulty because it uses language that can trap the speaker and listeners in an illusion of self-determination and cause them to miss opportunities for the real thing."
Get the Story:
Peter d'Errico: What is a Colonized Mind?
(Indian Country Today 12/12)
Related Stories:
Peter d'Errico: No basis
in the Constitution for plenary power (11/21)
Peter d'Errico: Religion
plays a role in anti-Indian court rulings (09/08)
Peter d'Errico: 'Special
rights' a loaded term in Indian Country (08/29)
Peter d'Errico: UN forum
looks at the doctrine of discovery (05/25)
Peter D'Errico: Wishful
thinking for tribes and their sovereignty (02/24)
Join the Conversation
