MODULE 10

CONCLUSION

Key Concepts:
self-determination
sovereignty
indigenous peoples
World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP)
The International Decade of the World's Indigenous People
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Intellectual Property Rights
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Reading Assignment, Text: Chapter 12, "Conclusion," pp. 417-426

Indigenous people define self-determination as a return to full local political, economic, and cultural autonomy. This does not necessarily mean isolation from the larger, more technologically developed world, but rather that indigenous peoples are allowed to control affairs on their own terms within their own territories.

The relationship between the United States government and Indian tribes is unlike that between the government and any other group in the United States. Indian tribes are sovereigns which makes the relationship between Indian tribes and the United States a government-to-government relationship. However, Indian tribes are limited sovereigns because they do not retain those powers of sovereignty that have been removed by treaty, federal law, or by natural implication as a result of their dependent status.

Often overlooked in discussions of human rights is the distinction between ethnic minorities (who no longer lived in their homeland), and indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are the original inhabitants of a region who, by virtue of their aboriginal ties to the land on which they live, have an inherent right to ownership and control over the land and resources of their heritage. Many governments, especially those of newly independent countries, fear that tribal loyalties may take precedence over national loyalties, and, in an effort to undermine their legitimate claims to local autonomy, designate tribal peoples as "national" or "ethnic" minorities when they are really indigenous peoples.

Although indigenous peoples were never passive victims of imperialist expansion, today they are mobilizing politically on a much larger scale, with regional, national, and international organizations. The rapid dissemination of information through the electronic mass media has also made it increasingly difficult for countries to hide human rights violations. Representatives of indigenous organizations from 19 countries attended the first general assembly of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) in 1975. The WCIP has the official status as a nongovernmental organization of the United Nations and has since expanded the scope of its organization to include more indigenous groups in various parts of the world. When the United Nations declared 1995-2004 to be the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, it approved a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a complex document with 45 articles endorsing the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and control over territory and resources, and condemning all forms of ethnocide (the destruction of a culture) and genocide (the destruction of a people) against them.

Loss of political autonomy means the loss of control over cultural as well as environmental resources. Many tourist organizations exploit native cultures as exotic attractions while ignoring the actual quality of life that the people in that culture are experiencing, including discrimination against them, loss of land, unemployment, underemployment, and lack of educational and economic opportunities. Often Native Americans and other indigenous peoples find that outsiders appropriate their cultural resources for economic gain. Such cultural knowledge, especially including information about plants, medicine, and arts, has commercial value. According to the concept of indigenous intellectual property rights, each group has the right to determine how this knowledge and its products should be used and the appropriate level of compensation for such use. Nonnatives are using their stories, designs, and rituals; this kind of exploitation in the fine arts is exemplified by German-born artist Sibylle Szaggars, who uses post-abstract expressionism to interpret Hopi katsinam, earning as much as $23,000 for each of her canvases.

State and local governments resent federal protection of such Indian rights as the ability to tax, to control subsistence resources, and to generate income through casino gambling. Indian gaming has ignited considerable conflict between tribal and state governments, primarily because state governments are afraid of losing revenue from their lotteries to Indian-owned casinos. The struggle began in the 1980s, when the federal government began to cut back severely on funding to tribes. Tribes, especially those without natural resources or sizable tax bases, such as the Cabezon Band of Mission Indians of California, began to sell tobacco at cheaper prices and set up bingo enterprises. In response to court action against the Cabezon from neighboring Anglo communities, the federal government eventually enacted the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Designed to mediate between the economic interests of tribes and states, this act allocates regulatory jurisdiction over different classes of gaming among tribal, federal, and state governments. Although Indian gaming is not a permanent or complete solution for tribal economic independence, it does continue to stimulate economic growth in many tribal communities, where gaming revenues are being used to create economic ventures that will become self-sustaining or where gaming revenues are being used to improve housing, education, and medical care. Indian gaming has made possible the continuation of federal programs that the government has cut as well as the creation of tribal scholarships, nursing homes, new housing, and cultural centers.