Vol. 15 No.6 (June 2005), pp.560-562

SOVEREIGNTY, COLONIALISM, AND THE FUTURE OF THE INDIGENOUS NATIONS, by Robert Odawi Porter.  Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2004. 816pp.  Paper. $75.00.  ISBN: 0-89089-333-0.

Reviewed by Catherine Lane West-Newman, Department of Sociology, University of Auckland, New Zealand.  Email: l.westnewman@auckland.ac.nz .

SOVEREIGNTY, COLONIALISM, AND THE FUTURE OF THE INDIGENOUS NATIONS has a clear purpose: to be a resource in teaching respect for the law and sovereignty of Indigenous nations. It is an educational tool for “preserving for Indigenous Peoples the right to decide for themselves such things as the applicability of American law to their lives” (Porter 2003-4:1631).

Although the book consists almost entirely of secondary material, the imprint of the author/editor is everywhere in this extensive collection, whose purpose is specific, and clearly articulated at the outset. If you are faintly daunted by the size – 816 pages – and wondering if you really want to go there, then begin with the three page section headed “The Purpose of This Book.”  If you are looking for specific information, then turn to the index of broad headings and extensive page references. Primarily, though, this is a reader that brings together a wide range of documents, presented in three sections dealing respectively with conceptions of, threats to, and the realization/strengthening of indigenous sovereignty.  The materials are chosen to encourage student inquiry and discussion and include speeches, testimony, policy statements, legal cases, statutes, newspaper reports, and scholarly analysis. Each section is introduced with very brief commentary and a set of questions. The book is clearly designed for teaching purposes and the way in which this purpose has been conceived has, from my point of view, determined both its virtues and limitations.

The author, Robert Odawi Porter, is Senior Dean for Research, Professor of Law and Dean’s Research Scholar of Indigenous Nations Laws at Syracuse University, and former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians. This description, drawn from his article, “The Inapplicability of American Law to the Indian Nations” recently published in THE IOWA LAW REVIEW, is a guide both to his stated purpose in creating this book and to the way in which he has shaped it.

First, he intends to enrich and extend the understanding of both Indigenous peoples and others on the concept of Indigenous sovereignty, which, he believes, has been variously defined and misunderstood to a point where the key word “sovereignty” is in danger of being abandoned.  Taking a Wittgenstinian position that language – what can be said – delimits the boundaries of our world, he sees a profound significance in recuperating its denotative power so that which it connotes – substantially largely lost for many – is retained within consciousness to be available as a potential political force.  This purpose is, [*561] indeed, a key to the whole enterprise – the (re)assertion of the sovereignty of Indian nations (and therefore citizenship within them) in the face of centuries of U.S. governmental policies of assimilation.  “Indeed, it is the fact of this historic relationship that leads me to believe that we protect our sovereignty best by strengthening it where it originates – in our people – and not the American political system” (Porter 2002: 637).

(At this point I should note that it is both interesting and frustrating for this non-Indigenous reader that the three page explanation of purpose gave me so little of the author’s distinctive and persuasive position on the matter of indigenous sovereignty.  Moved by a sense that there was more to be known that was directly relevant to reviewing the book, I then went to some of his recent articles; and it is from these that I quote here to illustrate the positioning of this book.)

Second, he believes that this extensive collection of documents, taken together, reveals how processes of European colonization in many parts of the world actually effected the displacement of Indigenous peoples. And this, in turn, explains why “Indigenous sovereignty has been undermined and in some cases completely eliminated in the minds of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples” (p.xx).  Together, these elements demonstrate the role of forced assimilation into the colonizing society as a process that subordinates and even perhaps ultimately eliminates Indigenous populations as consciously cultural entities with distinctive beliefs, practices (including those of governance), language, and identity.  They also explain why he is concerned that assimilation has proceeded to the point where many Indians accept that their “sovereignty” is actually enfolded within US legal provisions.

To many Indians . . . being a “domestic dependent nation” sounds pretty good. But as any serious student of the federal Indian control law knows, this doctrine, as well as the others, are judicial fiction, made up on the spot by a Supreme Court hell-bent on preserving the upper hand for America at the expense of those poor sap Indians foolish enough to sue, or unlucky enough to be sued, in America’s courts. It is an especially limited notion of sovereignty, flexible enough so that, if necessary, the United States can bend it to its advantage (Porter 2002: 638).

European colonization has created a cultural divide between the Ongwehowehmeaning the “real people” in the Seneca languageand the “Native Americans”the people who are the descendants of the Ongwehoweh but who are now assimilated into the colonizing nation and who think of themselves politically as citizens of the United States (Porter 2002: 639-40).

The central rationale for this book is signalled in the author’s third and final purpose: to provide a “preliminary research tool” for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. And again I needed to turn to his IOWA LAW REVIEW article to discover just why this is important.

[A] complete and proper analysis of the powers of the Indian nations looks not just to the laws of the United States that purport to regulate them, but to the laws and governing documents of the Indian nations themselves. Thorough lawyers, judges, and scholars presented with [*562] Indian law questions will begin their analysis of an Indian nation’s powers by examining the written and unwritten customary law, documents, and treaties that are the roots of the Indian nation’s own legal traditions. Invariably, however, this analysis is trumped by a secondary analysis that looks to American federal law as the definitive source of controlling legal precedent. In this way American federal law is thus assumed to be the only relevant source of law for determining the source and scope of tribal governmental powers. The consequence of this analytical approach is that those who practice and write about Indian law concede far too much authority to the United States at the expense of the Indian nations and their inherent sovereignty (Porter 2003-4: 1598).

Here, the word preliminary is used advisedly, for he goes on to warn that the materials have been heavily edited and citations and footnotes largely removed to the extent that these materials “should not be cited or referenced for research purposes” (p.xxi). Such a strategy is, of course, a clear statement that the book’s purpose is, above all, political and therefore its approach to the conventions of scholarly purpose tailored accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that in a teaching tool of the kind intended here. But it does mean that the stand alone quality of the material is compromised for scholars who might then only use it as a preliminary screening of potential research material.

In short, the book is a teaching rather than a research resource.  But this too troubles me a little.  Its very size seems might prove difficult for most  undergraduate teaching in law, history, political science, or sociology – all of which might well benefit from its general positioning and approach to this important subject.  In other words, I regret that source materials for a powerful argument are in a form which lessens the likelihood of the wide dissemination this work deserves.  Perhaps what I am really asking here is for the author to offer also a shorter book in which he combines the ideas pursued in his recent articles with some of the key source material reproduced here. Such a book could serve as a valuable teaching tool in more general courses on politics, law, and indigenous peoples.  In the meantime there is still much here to engage the attention and interest of scholars as well as students.

REFERENCES:

Porter, Robert B.  2002. “Two Kinds of Indians, Two Kinds of Indian Nation Sovereignty: A Surreply to Professor Lavelle.”  11 KANSAS JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 629-656.

Porter, Robert B. 2003-4. “The Inapplicability of American Law to the Indian Nations.”  89 IOWA LAW REVIEW 1595-1632.

*************************************************

© Copyright 2005 by the author, Catherine Lane West-Newman.