Did you basically keep the provisions that were in the draft proposal? No, it’s been modified quite a bit in response to comments so we’ll be interested to see what the comments are on that. We’re going into a 60-day comment period where we expect to get more comments on the way we changed things primarily. Does the proposed rule maintain the change requiring proof of community and political authority from 1934 instead of 1789? We have maintained that and we’ve also maintained that if a petitioner has maintained a state recognized reservation since 1934 or if we’ve held land in trust for a petitioner since 1934 that that would satisfy the political authority and community criteria. What was the rationale for the earlier date of 1789? Well, obviously, that’s the founding of the United States. Here’s the problem: Petitioning groups didn’t like that because during times in our nation’s history we were either seeking to exterminate or terminate of assimilate Indians so often they went underground during those periods and the problem is if we demand that they show evidence from those time periods they could very justifiably say, ‘We don’t have any evidence because we were trying not to be noticed.’ The 1934 date is important because that’s when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. There was a period in the 1950s when tribes were terminated, but 1934 was the first time when [the federal government] said "Look, we think tribes should continue and we should help them draft constitutions and that sort of thing so that they can be ongoing political entities." If they didn’t exist in 1934 that’s a serious problem, but it’s 1934 coming forward that’s the period we’re looking for political authority within their own community.Get the Story:
Q&A: Kevin Washburn on New Proposed Federal Recognition Rules (Indian Country Today 5/25) Relevant Documents:
Proposed Rule | Press Release | Comparison Chart (comparing current rule to proposed rule) | Response to Comments on June 2013 Discussion Draft | Frequently Asked Questions Related Stories:
BIA plans separate meets for recognized, non-recognized tribes (5/26)
Little Shell Chippewa Tribe welcomes federal recognition reform (5/23)
Federal recognition reforms might not help tribes in Connecticut (5/23)
BIA announces regulation to reform federal recognition process (5/22)
Opinion: Federal recognition matters influenced by lobbyists (03/14)
Editorial: Connecticut argues against its own recognized tribes (3/13)
Editorial: Some Indians become inconvenient for Connecticut (3/7)
Editorial: Don't let BIA water down federal recognition process (3/6)
Connecticut governor opposes BIA federal recognition reforms (2/27) Connecticut politicians want BIA to drop recognition reform (8/30)
Connecticut leads opposition to federal recognition reforms (8/26)
BIA extends comment period on federal recognition proposal (08/13)
Join the Conversation
