Advertisement

On Black Freedmen in Indian Country

  • Matthew L. M. Fletcher
Chapter
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Most critical race theorists assume that the racial playing field in America is federal and state law and ignore the rising importance of American Indian law or the law of American Indian tribes. When questions of race discrimination arise, advocates for the victims of race discrimination turn exclusively to the Constitution or federal and state civil rights statutes. Even where the alleged perpetrators of discrimination are Indian tribes, advocates still turn to the Constitution and federal or state law. These advocates ignore or are unaware of the advantages of seeking relief from the proper sovereign—in this case, Indian tribes—because they fail to recognize the racial hierarchies in question. For the purposes of this chapter, most discussions of race identify rights as the central paradigm, metaphor, or fiction for challenging white supremacy because they posit the black-white binary and its handmaiden, antidiscrimination law, as the framework for understanding racial hierarchy. This chapter offers a different fiction, through the example of the black Freedmen, to ground a different role for law for promoting freedom and equality.

Keywords

Indian Tribe Tribal Member Fourteenth Amendment Racial Hierarchy Indian Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).Google Scholar
  2. 25 U.S.C.§§ 1301–1303.Google Scholar
  3. 25 U.S.C.§ 1603.Google Scholar
  4. 25 U.S.C.§§ 1901–1911Google Scholar
  5. 42 U.S.C. § 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Aleman v. Chugash Support Services, Inc., 485 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
  7. Allen, Jake. “Conducting Embryonic Stem Cell Research on Native Lands in Michigan.” Journal of Law & Medicine 11 (2007): 395–445.Google Scholar
  8. Baca v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians, No. CV 01–278 (Puyallup Tribal Court, February 25, 2002).Google Scholar
  9. Beck, George. “The Fourteenth Amendment as Related to Tribal Indians.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 28 (2004): 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bell, Derrick, Jr. “Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Dilemma.” Harvard Law Review 93 (1980): 518–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell, Derrick, Jr.“Foreword: The Civil Rights Chronicles.” Harvard Law Review 99 (1985): 4–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benton-Benai, Edward. The Mishomis Book: The Voice of the Ojibway. St. Paul, MN: Indian Country, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. Berger, Bethany. “Justice and the Outsider: Jurisdiction over Nonmembers in Tribal Legal Systems.” Arizona State Law Journal 37 (2005): 1047–1125.Google Scholar
  14. Buffalo, William, and Kevin J. Wadzinski. “Application of Federal and State Labor and Employment Laws to Indian Tribal Employers.” University of Memphis Law Review 25 (1995): 1365–99.Google Scholar
  15. Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F. 3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
  16. Clinton, Robert. “Sovereignty and the Native American Nation: The Dormant Indian Commerce Clause.” Connecticut Law Review 27 (1994): 1055–1147.Google Scholar
  17. Clinton, Robert. “There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribe.” Arizona State Law Journal 34 (2002): 113–260.Google Scholar
  18. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp. v. Orr, No. AP98-008 (Colville Confederated Tribes Court of Appeals, December 4, 1998).Google Scholar
  19. Constitution of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, http://tb.orpe.ou.edu/constimtion/GTBcons3.html.
  20. Danahy, Scott. “License to Discriminate: The Application of Sovereign Immunity to Employment Discrimination Claims Brought by Non-Native American Employees of Tribatly Owned Businesses.” Florida State University Law Review 25 (1998): 679–703.Google Scholar
  21. Deloria, Vine, Jr. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. 1969. Reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. “Establishing Standards for the Placement of Indian Children in Foster or Adoptive Homes, To Prevent the Breakup of Indian Families, and for Other Purposes.” H.R. Rep. 95–1386. July 24, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Bringing Balance to Indian Gaming.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 44 (2006): 39–95.Google Scholar
  24. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “ICWA and the Commerce Clause.” In The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30: Facing the Future, edited by Matthew L. M. Fletcher, Wenona T. Singel, and Kathryn E. Fort. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  25. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Indian Bill of Rights.” In Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, vol. 2. Edited by Paul Finkelman, 806–10. New York: Routledge, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “The Insidious Colonialism of the Conqueror.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 19 (2005): 273–311.Google Scholar
  27. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “The Original Understanding of the Political Status of Indian Tribes.” St. John’s Law Review 82 (2008): 153–81.Google Scholar
  28. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Politics, History, and Semantics: The Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes.” North Dakota Law Review 82 (2006): 487–518.Google Scholar
  29. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Preconstitutional Federal Power.” Tulane Law Review 82 (2007): 509–64.Google Scholar
  30. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “In Pursuit of Tribal Economic Development as a Substitute for Reservation Tax Revenue.” North Dakota Law Review 80 (2004): 759–807.Google Scholar
  31. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Rethinking the Role of Custom in Tribal Court Jurisprudence.” Michigan Journal of Race & Law 13 (2007): 57–98.Google Scholar
  32. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Same-Sex Marriage, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution.” University of Miami Law Review 61 (2006): 53–85.Google Scholar
  33. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. Sawnawgezewog: “‘The Indian Problem’ and the Lost Art of Survival.” American Indian Law Review 28 (2003–2004): 35–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Stick Houses in Peshawbestown.” Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal 2 (2004): 189–287.Google Scholar
  35. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “The Supreme Court and Federal Indian Policy.” Nebraska Law Review 85 (2006): 121–85.Google Scholar
  36. Fletcher, Matthew L. M.“Toward a Theory of Intertribal and Intratribal Common Law.” Houston Law Review 43 (2006): 701–41.Google Scholar
  37. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. Tribal Employment Separation: Tribal Law Enigma, Tribal Governance Paradox, and Tribal Court Conundrum. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 38 (2005): 273–343.Google Scholar
  38. Goldberg, Carole. “Individual Rights and Tribal Revitalization.” Arizorta State Law Journal 35 (2003): 889–938.Google Scholar
  39. Graham v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Citizenship, No. 2003–53 (District Court of the Muscogee [Creek] Nation, March 16,2006).Google Scholar
  40. Grand Traverse Band Code, vol. 6, § 104(c).Google Scholar
  41. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, 360 F.3d 920 (6th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
  42. Haddock, David, and Robert Miller. “Can a Sovereign Protect Investors from Itself? Tribal Institutions to Spur Reservation Investment.” Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 8 (2004): 173–224.Google Scholar
  43. Hopi Tribe v. Huma, No. AP-004-92 (Hopi Court of Appeals, January 13, 1995).Google Scholar
  44. In re Bridget R. 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507 (Cal. App. 1996).Google Scholar
  45. In re Santos Y. 112 Cal Rptr. 2d 692 (Cal. App. 2001).Google Scholar
  46. Joranko, Timothy, and Mark C. Van Norman. “Indian Self-Determination at Bay: Secretarial Authority to Disapprove Tribal Constitutional Amendments.” Gonzaga Law Review 29 (1993–1994): 81–104.Google Scholar
  47. Kennedy, Randall. Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003.Google Scholar
  48. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)Google Scholar
  49. Madison, James. “Federalist No. 42.” The Federalist Papers (1788). http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/.
  50. McNickle, D’Arcy. “Indian and European: Indian-White Relations from Discovery to 1887.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 311 (1957): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meara, Emmet. “MHRC to hear complaint against Micmacs Unity College.” Bangor Daily News. June 16, 1998.Google Scholar
  52. Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 105–43, United States Statutes at Large 111. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1997.Google Scholar
  53. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989).Google Scholar
  54. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 n. 24 (1974).Google Scholar
  55. National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 857 (1985).Google Scholar
  56. Native American Church, of North America v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 (10th Cir. 1959).Google Scholar
  57. Necklace v. Tribal Court of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation, 554 F.2d 845 (8th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
  58. Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001).Google Scholar
  59. Newton, Nell Jessup et al., eds. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2005.Google Scholar
  60. One Hundred Eight Employees of the Crow Tribe of Indians v. Crow Tribe of Indians, No. 89–320 (Crow Court of Appeals, November 21, 2001).Google Scholar
  61. Philip, Tom. “No Women, No Ride, Says Civil Rights Law.” Sacramento Bee. November 5, 1994, B7.Google Scholar
  62. Porter, Robert. “The Demise of the Ongwehoweh and the Rise of the Native Americans: Redressing the Genocidal Act of Forcing American Indian Citizenship upon Indigenous Peoples.” Harvard Black Letter Law Journal 15(1999): 107–82.Google Scholar
  63. Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790–1834. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  64. Riley, Angela. “Good (Native) Governance.” Columbia Law Review 107 (2007): 1049–1125.Google Scholar
  65. Riley, Angela. “(Tribal) Sovereignty and Illiberalism.” California Law Review 95 (2007): 799–848.Google Scholar
  66. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Election Board v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 439 F. 3d 832 (8th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
  67. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978)Google Scholar
  68. Schlosser, Thomas. “Sovereign Immunity: Should the Sovereign Control the Purse?” American Indian Law Review 24 (2000): 309–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shaffer, David. “Casinos Claiming Immunity from Basic Labor Laws, Status of Tribes Leaves Workers Unprotected.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, October 31, 1993, 1A.Google Scholar
  70. Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).Google Scholar
  71. Seneca Constitutional Rights Organization v. George, 348 F. Supp. 51 (W.D. N.Y. 1972).Google Scholar
  72. Swentzell, Rina. “Testimony of a Santa Clara Woman.” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 14 (2004): 97–104.Google Scholar
  73. Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896Google Scholar
  74. Treaty with the Ottowas and Chippewas,Statutes at Large and Treaties, vol. 11, 621–29. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1859.Google Scholar
  75. United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Effect of Fourteenth Amendment Upon Indian Tribes, S. Rep. No. 268,41st Congress, 3d Session (December 1870).Google Scholar
  76. Vann, Marilyn. “Loss of Cherokee National citizenship.” Indianz.com (accessed March 21, 2007).Google Scholar
  77. Washington v. Washington Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn, 443 U.S. 658 (1979).Google Scholar
  78. Weeks, George. Mem-Ka-Weh: Dawning of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Peshawbestown, MI: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, 1992.Google Scholar
  79. Wilkinson, Charles. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  80. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).Google Scholar
  81. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lovalerie King and Richard Schur 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew L. M. Fletcher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations