Steven Newcomb: U.S. perpetuates dominance over our nations

The United States government recently made a statement at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) which used the U.S. system of federally recognized tribes as a frame of reference. The statement was delivered on behalf of the United States on April 20, 2015 by Ms. Ann Marie Bledsoe Downes, an enrolled member of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, who also happens to be an attorney within the system of U.S. law and U.S. federal Indian law.

That April 20 statement by the United States says that the U.S. government “supports enhanced participation for representatives of its federal recognized tribes, which have a nation to nation relationship with the United States.” (emphasis added) “Its” tribes? Really? In English grammar, the word “its” is a possessive. Thus, on the world stage the United States has officially characterized “federally recognized tribes,” as “belonging to” the United States as U.S. “possessions.” Such terminology is clear evidence of the domination system.

The idea-system of “tribes” and “domestic dependent nations,” which the U.S. deems to exist “in subjection” to the U.S., is an idea-system which the United States uses against our originally and still rightfully free and independent nations and peoples. Given that there is no such thing as “a right of domination,” it is sensible to argue that our nations continue to be and shall forever be rightfully free and independent of the U.S. government’s unjust system of domination and dehumanization. Certainly Indian leaders and advocates have the capacity to argue that the United States has never had the right to impose its system of domination on our nations. Whether they will decide to make that argument, however, remains to be seen.

This brings us to the catch behind the U.S. April 20 statement at the United Nations: If the United States can make it seem to the world community that we have “freely consented” to the federal Indian law and policy system (the U.S. system of domination), then the U.S. can tell the world that it’s U.S. federal Indian law and policy system is not being imposed on us against our will based on domination. It can say that we have freely conceded to that system through an exercise of our own “free, prior, and informed consent.”