The chronic uncertainty of American Indian property rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Eric Alston ◽  
Adam Crepelle ◽  
Wilson Law ◽  
Ilia Murtazashvili
Keyword(s):  
Native Americans ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
American Indians ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
Political Autonomy ◽  
Tribal Governments ◽  
The Government

Abstract Property institutions should ideally provide economic actors with certainty that their local choices about investment will not be unsettled by shifting political economic equilibria. We argue that for this to occur, political autonomy, administrative and enforcement capacity, political constraints, and accessible legal institutions are each necessary. A comparison of the evolution of property rights for settlers and American Indians in the United States shows how political and legal forces shape the evolution of property institutions. American Indians, who had property institutions before Europeans arrived, could not defend their land from Europeans and later Americans due to lacking military capacity. Settlers' property rights were relatively secure because the government had sufficient autonomy and capacity to broadly define and enforce their rights, political institutions constrained the government from expropriating settlers' property, and legal institutions provided a forum for settlers to adjudicate and defend their rights in court. Native Americans, in contrast, had systematically inconsistent and often expropriative policy treatment by the government. Although tribes have technically been sovereign since the 1970s, tribal governments continue to lack sufficient political and legal autonomy and capacity to define and enforce property institutions in response to evolving local conditions.

Reverberations for American Indians, Native Hawai’ians, and Group Rights

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Minow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
American Indians ◽  
Religious Identity ◽  
Equal Opportunity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Traditions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The Individual

Usually left out of discussions of school desegregation, the historic treatments of American Indians and Native Hawai’ians in the development of schooling in the United States was a corollary of conquest and colonialism. As late as the 1950s, forced assimilation and eradication of indigenous cultures pervaded what was considered the “education” of students in these groups. The social, political, and legal civil rights initiatives surrounding Brown helped to inspire a rights consciousness among Indian and Native Hawai’ian reformers and activists, who embraced the ideal of equal opportunity while reclaiming cultural traditions. Between the 1960s and 2007, complex fights over ethnic classification, separation, integration, and self-determination emerged for both American Indians and Native Hawai’ians. Their struggles, crucial in themselves, also bring to the fore a challenging underlying problem: are distinct individuals or groups the proper unit of analysis and protection in the pursuit of equality? The centrality of the individual to law and culture in the United States tends to mute this question. Yet in this country as well as elsewhere, equal treatment or equal opportunity has two faces: promoting individual development and liberty, regardless of race, culture, religion, gender, or other group-based characteristic, and protection for groups that afford their members meaning and identity. Nowhere is the tension between these two alternatives more apparent than in schooling, which involves socialization of each new generation in the values and expectations of their elders. Will that socialization direct each individual to a common world focused on the academic and social mobility of distinct individuals or will it inculcate traditions and values associated with particular groups? Even in the United States, devoted to inclusive individualism, the Supreme Court rejected a statute requiring students to attend schools run by the government and created exemptions from compulsory school fines when they burdened a group’s practices and hopes for their children. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Court respected the rights of parents to select private schooling in order to inculcate a religious identity or other “additional obligations.”

The future of Indian Health Services for native Americans in the United States: an analysis of policy options and recommendations

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-414
Author(s):  
Tiffany Henley ◽  
Maureen Boshier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
American Indians ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Policy Window ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe passage of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has opened a policy window for the establishment of an independent Medicaid agency for the Navajo Nation. This article explores several policy options to improve health care services for Native Americans. Although there is a lack of scholarly research on the impact of healthcare reform and the effectiveness of current health care programs for American Indians, policymakers should utilize evidence-based research to inform policy decisions.

Native American Ethnicity: a View from the British Museum1

2000 ◽  
Vol 73 (182) ◽  
pp. 221-238
Author(s):  
J. C. H. King
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Native American ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
North America ◽  
American Indians ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Native Identity ◽  
Native North America ◽  
American Ethnicity

Abstract Identity in Native North America is defined by legal, racial, linguistic and ethnic traits. This article looks at the nomenclature of both Indian, Eskimo and Native, and then places them in a historical context, in Canada and the United States. It is argued that ideas about Native Americans derive from medieval concepts, and that these ideas both constrain Native identity and ensure the survival of American Indians despite accelerating loss of language.

scholarly journals Endogenous Institutional Change and Dynamic Capitalism

2010 ◽  
pp. 15-39
Author(s):  
Victor Nee ◽  
Sonja Opper
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
Poor Countries ◽  
Property Rights Protection ◽  
The Government ◽  
Formal Rules

State-centered theory asserts that political institutions and credible commitment by political elite to formal rules securing property rights provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for economic growth to take place. In this approach, the evolution of institutions favorable to economic performance is a top-down process led by politicians who control the state. Hence, in less developed and poor countries, the counterfactual is that if formal institutions secure property rights and check predatory action by the political elite, then sustained economic growth would follow. The limitation of state-centered theory stems from the problem that behavioral prescriptions - formal rules and regulations - that reflect what politicians prefer can be ignored. In contrast, we lay out the bottomup construction of economic institutions that gave rise to capitalist economic development in China. Entrepreneurship in the economically developed regions of the coastal provinces was not fueled by exogenous institutional changes. When the first entrepreneurs decided to decouple from the traditional socialist production system, the government had neither initiated financial reforms inviting a broader societal participation, nor had it provided property rights protection or transparent rules specifying company registration and liabilities. Instead, it was the development and use of innovative informal arrangements within close-knit groups of like-minded actors that provided the necessary funding and reliable business norms. This allowed the first wave of entrepreneurs to survive outside of the state-owned manufacturing system. This bottom-up process resembles earlier accounts of the rise of capitalism in the West.

scholarly journals The Journey to and After Alcatraz: The Legacy of the Occupation of Alcatraz for Native American Protest Movements

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Ly
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Government ◽  
Government Action ◽  
National Debate ◽  
The Government

The Occupation of Alcatraz was a movement in 1969, which sparked National Debate in the United States. The Occupation lasted from 20, November 1969 till June 1971 when 15 last occupiers were peacefully escorted off the island. The protest did not end with a change in government policy but inspired other protests and an activist group to be created for Native American rights. Reflecting on why the occupation at Alcatraz was ineffective, Vine Deloria, Jr. argued in 1994, “we want change, but we do not know what change.” Deloria was a well-known activist during the 1960s and was invited to the island of Alcatraz during its occupation. The Occupation of Alcatraz was seen as an unsuccessful protest because it did not spur government action to address Native American grievances. The occupation occurred at a time when tensions between minority groups and the government were rising due to the civil rights movement. Native Americans were forcibly removed from reserves due to relocation and assimilation programs, and land was being taken away for resources as well. The Occupation was a response to what seemed to be the continuous cycle of abuse from the American government. Termination and assimilation policies divided and separated families and tribes, which created disconnections among Native Americans, making it hard to unify against the American government. Though the Occupation did not end with government action or policy change, it started a collaboration of Native American protests, which revived Native American identities for many people. Native Americans’ reactions to federal suppression at the Occupation of Alcatraz led to a legacy of protests that changed Native American life.

Racism

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selena T. Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
Critical Race Theory ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
American Indians ◽  
Mexican Americans ◽  
Historical Trauma ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Social

Racism is pervasive, endemic, and historically rooted in systematic assumptions inherent in superiority based on race and requires the critical attention of all social workers. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has made strides in tackling racism as demonstrated by the social worker and civil rights activist Whitney Young Jr. (1921–1971), other pioneers, and more recently, the NASW zero-tolerance racism policy. Undergirded in empirical discussion, this article leads with the etymology of race(ism), followed by a discussion of Racial Formation Theory and Critical Race Theory. The article gives a historical sketch of racism, followed by examples of its contemporary indicators—throughout social institutions—in the United States. Racism is pervasive and impinges on micro-level and macro-level systems. It is, therefore, beyond the scope of this article to address how racism impacts each group in America. Social work scholars and other experts have provided extensive empirical documentation about the historical trauma and sufferings of other racial groups (e.g., Native Americans/Native peoples/American Indians, Mexican Americans) discussed elsewhere. Specifically, the racism endured by blacks in America is the emphasis of this article. Themes of “colorism” and historical trauma are provided to contextualize advances in national reform and encourage a broader conversation about the racism that blacks experience globally. In addition, this article highlights strides by the social work profession to eradicate racism. Implications for social work are discussed.

Dams, Cows, and Vulnerable People: Anthropological Contributions to Sustainable Development (The Distinguishedl Lecture)

1995 ◽  
Vol 34 (4I) ◽  
pp. 481-508
Author(s):  
Michael M. Horowitz
Keyword(s):  
Native Americans ◽  
The United States ◽  
Second World War ◽  
United States Bureau ◽  
World War ◽  
Ghost Dance ◽  
The Government ◽  
Second World ◽  
Field Of Inquiry ◽  
Development Anthropology

It is with considerable trepidation that I agreed to address so distinguished a gathering of development economists, theoreticians, and practitioners. I was enormously honoured when Professor Naqvi invited me to make this presentation, and at the same time impressed with my own temerity at having accepted. I am not an economist; at best, I contribute to the emerging discipline of economic anthropology, that subfield of anthropology that some have baptised as the “dismal science of the 20th century.” I locate my research within a subfield of that subfield, in a specifically development anthropology, making the claim that is still received in some quarters with only partial tolerance, that anthropologists–those curious people identified in the popular mind with the recovery and study of isolated people, bones, and potsherds–have also something useful to add to both the theory and praxis of development. As a self-conscious field of inquiry, development anthropology dates only from the last 20-25 years, though its roots can be found in the late 19th century, when scientists working for the United States Bureau of American Ethnology tried to understand the Ghost Dance, a great messianic movement that spread rapidly among subjugated Native Americans who were forced on to reservations by the government and in very large part deprived of the means of social and economic reproduction [Mooney (1965)]. Especially in Britain, a policy-relevant anthropology emerged in conjunction with its colonial service [Asad (1973)], and during the 1940s, some of the most prominent American anthropologists–including Margaret Mead, Geoffrey Gorer, Ruth Benedict, Robert Lowie, Alexander Leighton, and Conrad Arensberg–tried to apply an anthropology that had traditionally focused on tribal and peasant populations to the understanding of our Russian allies and our German and Japanese adversaries during the Second World War.

Japanese Trade Policy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Trade Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Trade Friction ◽  
The Government

This chapter examines Japanese trade policy to explain how economic interests and domestic political institutions have supported the resilience of free trade policies in Japan. The mercantilist ideas and the reactive state model of past years have been replaced by strong support of free trade and Kantei diplomacy to lead in setting rules for the trade regime complex. Once dependent on the United States and mired in bilateral trade friction, Japan has emerged as an active supporter of engagement with China and the pursuit of free trade agreements, alongside continued commitment to the multilateral rules. Japanese-style trade adjustment and the slow path to liberalization served to balance economic efficiency with political stability as the government has supported narrow interests along with long-term trade strategies for economic growth.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document