편집토론기록

사용자:Goldgrape/연습장: 두 판 사이의 차이

< 사용자:Goldgrape
편집 요약 없음
편집 요약 없음
1번째 줄: 1번째 줄:
{{번역된 문서|en|Indian Reservation}}
{{번역된 문서|en|Indian Reservation}}
<!-- {{정보상자
|이름              = 인디언 보호구역
|지도                = [[File:Indian reservations in the Continental United States.png|330px]]
|형태          = 자치행정구역
|위치          = [[미합중국]]
|시작 년도        = 1658 (포화탄족)
|현재 수    = 326<ref name="Department of the Interior">{{cite web|url=http://www.bia.gov/FAQs|title=Frequently Asked Questions, Bureau of Indian Affairs|publisher=Department of the Interior|accessdate=8 August 2015}}</ref> (해당 지도는 1996년 5월이 기준이며, 310개가 표시되어 있음)
|인구  = 123명(최소) ~ 173,667명([[나바호 자치국]])<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nec.navajo-nsn.gov/Portals/0/Reports/NN2010PopulationProfile.pdf|title=Navajo Population Profile 2010 U.S. Census|publisher=|accessdate=7 October 2018}}</ref>
|면적 = 최소 5341 제곱미터(핏리버족의 공동묘지) ~ 64,750 제곱킬로미터([[나바호 자치국]])<ref name="Department of the Interior"/>
}} -->


== 개요 ==
== 개요 ==

2019년 10월 27일 (일) 05:33 판

Wikipedia-ico-48px.png이 문서에는 영어판 위키백과의 Indian Reservation 문서를 번역한 내용이 포함되어 있습니다.


개요

인디언 보호구역 혹은 원주민 보호구역은 미국 연방정부가 인정한 아메리카 원주민 부족들이 BIA의 허가 아래 주의 통치를 받지 않고 일정한 자치를 누리는 공간이다. 326개의 원주민 보호구역이 존재한다.[1] 현재 미국 내에는 567[2][3]개의 부족들이 거주하는데, 이들이 모두 원주민 보호구역을 할당받는것은 아니다. 어떤 부족은 한개 이상의 보호구역을 가지고 있는 반면, 어떤 부족은 다른 부족과 보호구역을 공유하기도 한다. 게다가 아메리카 원주민들의 유목적인 전통을 금지하고 정주문명을 강제한 도스법(Dawes Act)로 인해서 많은 보호구역들은 부족, 개인, 그리고 사유지 등으로 파편화 되어있어 월경지가 발생하기도 한다. 이러한 사유지, 공유지, 부족소유지 등의 혼용은 행정적, 정치적, 법적 어려움을 야기하고 있다. [4]

인디언 보호구역의 총 면적은 227,000 제곱킬로미터로,[1] 아이다호주의 크기와 맞먹는다. 대부분의 인디언 보호구역은 크기가 작지만, 이중 12개의 보호구역들은 로드 아일랜드주보다도 크다. 가장 면적이 큰 보호구역은 나바호 자치국으로서, 웨스트 버지니아주의 크기와 맞먹는다. 보호구역은 미국 곳곳에 불규칙하게 퍼져있으며, 대부분은 미시시피강 서쪽에 있거나 이전에 조약 등으로 아메리카 원주민들에게 할당된 땅이다. [5]

이러한 보호구역들은 제한되어 있지만 부족 주권을 가지기 때문에 주변 지역이랑 법령이 차이가 날 수 도 있다.[6] 이러한 원주민 보호구역 자치 법령은 관광객 유치를 위해 카지노의 건설을 허용하는 등, 미국의 다른 지역과는 법을 달리하는 경우가 많다. 부족 협의회는 지역, 혹은 미국 연방정부와는 다르며, 보호구역 내의 사법권을 가지고 있다. 법령은 보호구역마다 차이가 있으며, 보호구역 외부의 정부 형태를 공유할수도, 아니할수도 있다. 대부분의 아메리카 원주민 보호구역은 미국의 연방정부에 의해 할당되었으며, 미국 역사 초기에 주에서 인식한 원주민 부족이 그 시초다. [7]

"Reservation"이라는 명칭은 미국 헌법이 비준될 당시 원주민들을 독립된 주권을 가지고 있는 존재로 인식한 데에서 기원한다. 따라서 미국 건국 초기에 아메리카 원주민 부족들이 넓은 면적의 영토를 미국에 할양한 평화조약들은 원주민들의 영토를 독립된 주권을 가진, 원주민들에게 부여된(Reserved) 땅으로 보았다. 이것이 굳어져 원주민들이 영토가 "Reservation"이라고 불리게 되었다.[8] Reservation을 한국어로 의역하면 "보호구역"인데, 이 명칭은 원주민들이 미국 정부의 통제 아래 제한된 자치권을 누리는 어감이 강한 반면, 원어의 Reservation은 원주민이 독립된 주권을 가진 부여된 영토라는 어감이 강하다. "보호구역"이라는 의역이 사용된 이유는 Reservation이라는 용어가 이후 연방정부가 원주민 부족들을 강제로 이주시키고, 원주민들에게 제한된 주권이 부여된 오늘날의 보호구역 체제를 성립하고 나서도 사용되었기 때문이다. 본 문서에서는 Reservation을 모두 "보호구역"으로 번역하나, 미국 초기 역사의 보호구역과 오늘날의 보호구역은 개념이 다르다는 것을 먼저 알아둬야 한다.

오늘날 대부분의 아메리카 원주민과 알래스카 원주민은 보호구역 밖에서 거주하며, 주로 피닉스, 로스앤젤레스 등의 서부 지역에 분포한다.[9][10] 2012년을 기준으로 250만명의 아메리카 원주민이 있었으며, 이중 백만명 정도만이 보호구역 내에서 거주했다.[11]

역사

식민지와 미국 건국 초기

유럽인들이 아메리카 식민지를 만들기 시작했을 때, 그들은 종종 자신들이 점령한 땅 안에 있는 원주민들을 밖으로 내쫓았다. 이러한 과정은 조약을 통해서 이루어지기도 하였고, 강제로 추방되기도 하였고, 폭력을 사용하기도 하였으며, 아주 가끔 상호간의 동의 하에 자발적인 이주도 존재했다. 이러한 추방 정책으로 인해 원주민들은 생계 수단을 잃고, 농경지를 잃었으며, 이에 따라 부족간의 갈등도 심화되었다.[12]

첫번째 보호구역은 "브라더톤 원주민 보호구역"으로서, 1758년 9월 29일 뉴저지주 남부에 설치되었다. [13][14][15] 이 보호구역은 3284 에이커(약 13.3 제곱킬로미터)였다.[14] 오늘날 이 구역은 Indian Mills라고 불리는 마을이 되었다.[14][15]

1764년 "차후 인디언 상황 관리에 대한 계획"이 영국 상무청에 의해 발의되었다.[16] 해당 계획은 정식으로 받아들여지지는 않았지만, 이 계획으로 인해 대영제국 정부는 개인의 토지 구입을 막고 공공의 합의를 통한 식민지 정부의 토지 구입만을 허용하는 정책을 추진하고자 했다.[16] 또한 이후 식민지 정부가 원주민들과 경계를 지정할 때에는 원주민들과 직접 의논하여 결정하게끔 했다. [16]

이로 인해 개인이 원주민의 토지를 사들이는 것이 금지되었고, 대신 조약을 통해서만 원주민들의 토지를 얻을 수 있게 되었다. [16] 이러한 정책은 미국 독립혁명 이후의 신생 미국 정부 역시 채택하였다. [16]

1824년 3월 11일, On 11 March 1824, 존 C. 칼훈은 미국 전쟁부 산하 기관으로 인디언 사무국(Office of Indian Affairs)을 창설한다. 이는 당시 존재하던 원주민 부족과의 토지 문제를 38개의 조약을 통하여 해결하기 위함이었다. [17]

1850년 이전의 원주민 보호구역

미국 대통령의 원주민 보호구역으로의 편지 (1825–1837)

1825년, 미국의 대통령 앤드루 잭슨은 "인디언 사무와 관려된 조약, 법령, 그리고 규제"라는 문서에 서명했다. [18] 앤드루 잭슨은 "우리는 사회의 이익을 위하여 인디언 보호구역을 더 나은 주로 옮겼다"라고 말했다. [19] 이 편지는 아이작 셸비와 미국 대통령에 의해 서명되었고, 원주민 부족에 대한 규제들과 원주민 부족들의 외부로부터의 분리 정책에 대해 논의하면서 현재의 보호구역 시스템의 모태가 되는 체계에 대해 논의했다.

1837년, 미국의 8대 대통령 마틴 밴 뷰런은 등대를 건설하기 위해 사기나우 치페와 부족과 조약을 체결했다. 1850년 이전에는 미국 대통령이 원주민 부족과의 조약을 체결하는데 직접 관여했다. 마틴 밴 뷰런은 " 미시건주에 있는 그들의 모든 토지는 그들의 이익을 위해 공공 토지 기관에 판매되었으며, 실제 수익이 그들에게 지불되었다"라고 말하였다.[20][20]

1838년 미국 국무장관 존 포사이드에 의해 체결된 오나이다족과의 조약은 오나이다족 원주민들이 어디에 살아야 하는지를 규정했다. 조약에 따르면 이들은 미국의 보호구역 시스템 아래 살아가야 했으며, 사가나우 만 서쪽에 5년간 사는 것이 허용되였다. [21] 1850년 이전의 원주민 보호구역은 5년이라는 최대기간을 넘을 수 없었다. 해당 조약 2조에는 "아나가리스강과 라이플강 보호구역의 원주민들은 5년간 해당 지역의 용유권과 점유권을 가진다"라고 되어 있었다. 원주민들은 이렇게 5년이라는 짧은 시간 동안만 구역 점유를 허용받는 등의 제약을 받았다.

초기 버지니아 식민지의 토지 매매 (1705–1713)

학자 벅 우드워드는 주지사 윌리엄 H 카벨의 행정 문서인 "버지니아 안테벨룸의 인디언 토지 매입"이라는 문서 등을 근거로 하여 1705년 전후의 버지니아 식민지의 인디언 토지 매입에 대한 문제를 다룬다.[22] 벅은 "식민지 정부가 투스카로 전쟁의 결과로 맺은 1713년의 조약에서 노토웨이족의 토지 권리를 인정하였다"라고 주장했다.[22] The Indigenous peoples of America had Land Treaty agreements as early as 1713.[22]

미국에서의 원주민 보호구역 시스템의 태동 (1763–1834)

미국의 원주민 보호구역 시스템은 대영제국 정부가 원주민들의 토지에 있는 자원을 보존하기로 한 "1763년 왕정 선언"을 기점으로 시작되었다.[23] 이러한 원주민 보호구역 시스템을 더욱 확고이 한 사건은 바로 1830년 미국 의회가 "인디언 이주법"을 통과시킨 것이다.[24] 이에 그치지 않고 1884년 미국 의회는 문명화된 다섯 부족을 미국 남동부에서 추방시키는 비교섭법(Non-Intercourse Act of 1834)를 통과시켰다.[25] "1763 왕정 선언", "1830 인디언 이주법", 그리고 "1834년 비교섭법"을 통하여 미국은 현재와 같은 인디언 보호구역 제도를 더욱 공고히 하였다.[24]

1834년 통상 및 교섭법 (1834)

1834년 통상 및 교섭법은 인디언의 영토를 규정했다.[26] 미국은 원주민 보호구역의 위치에 따라서 각각 법령을 적용했다. 이 법으로 인해 인디언들의 영토는 크게 줄어들었는데, 연방정부는 "미국-멕시코 전쟁에 군사를 보내고 오리건과 캘리포니아를 건너는 미국의 이민자들을 보호하기 위함"이라는 구실을 대었다.[27]

텍사스에서의 원주민 보호구역 (1845)

텍사스 공화국을 통해 나중에 미국에 합류한 텍사스의 경우는 자신들만의 독자적인 원주민 보호구역 정책이 있었다. 학자인 조지 D 하몬에 따르면 "1845년 이전에 텍사스는 자신들만의 독자적인 인디언 정책을 제정했다"고 한다.[28] 1840년 텍사스는 원주민들에게 아주 좁은 면적의 땅을 주었는데, 이는 백인들의 텍사스 구역 식민화를 추진하기 위함이었다.[28] 한편으로 1847년 3월에는 연방정부에서 텍사스 주로 요원을 보내 텍사스의 인디언 정책을 관리하고자 했으며, 결국은 연방의회가 관련 법령을 제정하기에 이른다.[29] 이렇듯 미국 정부는 식민화를 위해 텍사스 등의 주로 하여금 원주민들과 자체적인 조약을 체결할 수 있도록 하였다.

원주민 추방 정책의 태동 (1830–1868)

1830년의 인디언 이주법은 유럽계 거주민이 거주하는 지역에서 원주민들을 강제로 내쫓은 미국 연방정부의 정책의 일환이었다.

한가지 예시로는 문명화된 다섯 부족이 있다. 이들은 본래 미국의 남동부에 거주했지만, 인디언 이주법으로 인하여 인디언 준주, 오늘날의 오클라호마 지역으로 강제로 이주당한다. 이것을 눈물의 길이라고 부른다. 오클라호마로 이주당한 부족들의 영토는 인디언 보호구역이 되었다.

이어서 1851년 미국 연방의회는 인디언 세출법을 제정하여 오늘날 오클라호마 지역에서의 인디언 보호구역 할당을 공식적으로 인정하였다. 자원을 찾아 미국 서부로 몰려드는 백인들과 원주민들의 관계는 점점 나빠져 갔다.[30]

강제 동화 정책 (1868–1887)

1943년에 촬영된 뉴멕시코에 위치한 러구나 인디언 보호구역. 대부분의 보호구역들은 농업보다는 목축업에 적합한 서부 지역에 위치한다.

1868년 미국의 대통령 율리시스 그랜트는 "평화 정책"을 펼치며 무력 사용을 피하고자 하였다.[31] 이 평화 정책에는 인디언 행정에 대한 개혁을 포함하였는데, 이 개혁이라는 것이 원주민들을 자신들이 본래 살던 땅에서 끄집어내서 특정 토지에 정주시키고 원주민들에게 선교사를 파견해 기독교로 개종시키는 것이었다. 이중 퀘이커들이 가장 선교에 적극적이었다..[32]

당연하게도 이 정책은 시작부터 많은 논란을 일으켰다. 이 시기 원주민 자치구역은 대부분 미국 대통령의 행정명령을 통해 할당되었다. 하지만 대부분의 경우, 백인 개척민들이 몰려들어 땅을 빼앗아서 보호구역의 영역이 점점 좁아지는 일이 일상다반사였다. 1868년에 의회에 제출된 보고서를 보면 당시 연방 원주민 사무국의 부패를 흔하게 찾아 볼 수 있으며, 이주당한 원주민들의 삶은 시궁창이었다.

대부분의 원주민 부족들은 처음에는 이러한 이주 명령을 무시했다. 하지만 이내 미국 정부는 그들의 보호구역 이주를 강제하였고, 원주민들은 따를 수 밖에 없었다. 또한 원주민들의 전통적인 생활방식인 유랑생활을 금지하기 위해 미군을 투입하여 이들의 정주생활을 강제하였다. 이 과정에서 원주민들과 많은 충돌이 일었으며, 심지어는 전쟁이나 학살도 벌어졌다. 이중 가장 잘 알려진 분쟁은 1876년과 1881년 사이에 북부 평야에서 벌어진 수 전쟁으로, 리틀빅혼 전투 등의 전투가 벌어졌다.

1870년대 후반에 들어서 그랜트 대통령의 정책은 원주민과의 피튀기는 전쟁으로 희생자만 낳은 실패한 정책으로 취급되었다. 결국 1877년, 미국 대통령 러더퍼드 헤이스는 그랜트 대통령의 정책을 폐기하기 시작했다. 1882년까지 모든 종교 단체들은 원주민 보호구역에서의 권리들을 모두 연방 인디언 사무국에 양도했다.

보호구역의 개인화 (1887–1934)

1887년 의회는 도스 법을 제정하였다. 이 법령의 제정으로 미국의 원주민 정책은 크게 변화했는데, 기존에 부족 전체에게 보호구역을 할당하던것과는 달리, 부족원 개개인에게 작은 토지를 할당했다. 심지어는 백인 개척민들에게 "초과지"를 할당하는 방식으로 원주민 보호구역의 영역을 줄이기도 하였다. 이러한 개인 할당지 정책은 1934년까지 지속되었으며, 1934년 의회에서 인디언 재편법이 통과되면서 중단되었다.

인디언 뉴딜 (1934–현재)

1934년의 인디언 재편법은 "인디언 뉴딜"이라고도 불렸다. 인디언 재편법은 원주민들에게 새로운 권리를 부여해 주었고, 사유화된 그들의 공유지나 시설을 원주민 부족에게 돌려주며 부족 주권을 보장해 주었다. 또한 이 재편법으로 개인에게 할당지를 부여하는 방식은 천천히 사라져 갔고, 백인 정착민들에게 "초과지"를 할당하는 일도 없어졌다.

그 후 20년간 미국 연방정부는 원주민 보호구역의 인프라 시설, 보건, 교육에 투자하게 된다. 뿐만 아니라 연방정부는 약 8000제곱킬로미터의 땅을 원주민 부족들에게 반환하였다.

하지만 이후 10년 동안 연방정부는 또다시 정책을 급선회하였다. 새로운 인디언 위원회의 위원인 마이어와 에몬스는 "인디언 철수 프로그램"을 내세우면서 원주민들에 대한 연방정부의 책임과 개입을 종식시키고 원주민들을 강제로 동화시키기 시작했다. 줬다뺏었다

원주민들은 자신들의 영토를 잃는 대신에 보상을 받아야 했지만, 대부분 경우에는 보상조차 받지 못하였다. 이러한 정책은 원주민들의 불만과 사회적인 지탄을 받고 중단되었지만, 이 정책으로 인해 쿠샤타족, 우테족, 파이우트족, 메노미니족, 클라마스족을 비롯한 캘리포니아의 114개 부족이 연방정부의 원주민 인정을 받지 못하게 되었다. 그들은 대부분 도시로 이주되었다. 이후 해당 부족들이 다시 원주민으로서 인정받고 원주민 보호구역을 할당받은 후, 도시로 이주한 원주민들의 3분의 1은 원주민 보호구역으로 귀향했다.

Land tenure and federal Indian law

With the establishment of reservations, tribal territories diminished to a fraction of original areas and indigenous customary practices of land tenure sustained only for a time, and not in every instance. Instead, the federal government established regulations that subordinated tribes to the authority, first, of the military, and then of the Bureau (Office) of Indian Affairs.[33] Under federal law, the government patented reservations to tribes, which became legal entities that at later times have operated in a corporate manner. Tribal tenure identifies jurisdiction over land-use planning and zoning, negotiating (with the close participation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) leases for timber harvesting and mining.[34]

Tribes generally have authority over other forms of economic development such as ranching, agriculture, tourism, and casinos. Tribes hire both members, other Indians and non-Indians in varying capacities; they may run tribal stores, gas stations, and develop museums (e.g., there is a gas station and general store at Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho, and a museum at Foxwoods, on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Connecticut).[34]

Tribal members may utilize a number of resources held in tribal tenures such as grazing range and some cultivable lands. They may also construct homes on tribally held lands. As such, members are tenants-in-common, which may be likened to communal tenure. Even if some of this pattern emanates from pre-reservation tribal custom, generally the tribe has the authority to modify tenant in-common practices.

Wagon loaded with squash, Rosebud Indian Reservation, ca. 1936

With the General Allotment Act (Dawes), 1887, the government sought to individualize tribal lands by authorizing allotments held in individual tenure.[35] Generally, the allocation process led to grouping family holdings and, in some cases, this sustained pre-reservation clan or other patterns. There had been a few allotment programs ahead of the Dawes Act. However, the vast fragmentation of reservations occurred from the enactment of this act up to 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. However, Congress authorized some allotment programs in the ensuing years, such as on the Palm Springs/Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in California.[36]

Allotment set in motion a number of circumstances:

  • individuals could sell (alienate) the allotment – under the Dawes Act, it was not to happen until after twenty-five years.
  • individual allottees who would die intestate would encumber the land under prevailing state devisement laws, leading to complex patterns of heirship. Congress has attempted to mollify the impact of heirship by granting tribes the capacity to acquire fragmented allotments owing to heirship by financial grants. Tribes may also include such parcels in long-range land use planning.
  • With alienation to non-Indians, their increased presence on numerous reservations has changed the demography of Indian Country. One of many implications of this fact is that tribes can not always effectively embrace the total management of a reservation, for non-Indian owners and users of allotted lands contend that tribes have no authority over lands that fall within the tax and law-and-order jurisdiction of local government.[37]

The demographic factor, coupled with landownership data, led, for example, to litigation between the Devils Lake Sioux and the State of North Dakota, where non-Indians owned more acreage than tribal members even though more Native Americans resided on the reservation than non-Indians. The court decision turned, in part, on the perception of Indian character, contending that the tribe did not have jurisdiction over the alienated allotments. In a number of instances—e.g., the Yakama Indian Reservation—tribes have identified open and closed areas within reservations. One finds the majority of non-Indian landownership and residence in the open areas and, contrariwise, closed areas represent exclusive tribal residence and related conditions.[38]

Spring roundup of Paiute-owned cattle begins at Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, 1973.

Indian Country today consists of tripartite government—i. e., federal, state and/or local, and tribal. Where state and local governments may exert some, but limited, law-and-order authority, tribal sovereignty is diminished. This situation prevails in connection with Indian gaming because federal legislation makes the state a party to any contractual or statutory agreement.[39]

Finally, other-occupancy on reservations may be by virtue of tribal or individual tenure. There are many churches on reservations; most would occupy tribal land by consent of the federal government or the tribe. BIA agency offices, hospitals, schools, and other facilities usually occupy residual federal parcels within reservations. Many reservations include one or more sections (about 640 acres) of school lands, but those lands typically remain part of the reservation (e.g., Enabling Act of 1910 at Section 20[40]). As a general practice, such lands may sit idle or be grazed by tribal ranchers.

Disputes over land sovereignty

When the Europeans discovered the "New World" in the fifteenth century, the land that was new to them had been home to Native Peoples for thousands of years. The American colonial government determined a precedent of establishing the land sovereignty of North America through treaties between countries. This precedent was upheld by the United States government. As a result, most Native American land was "purchased" by the United States government, a portion of which was designated to remain under Native sovereignty. The United States government and Native Peoples do not always agree on how land should be governed, which has resulted in a series of disputes over sovereignty.

Black Hills land dispute

틀:Main The Federal Government and The Lakota Sioux tribe members have been involved in sorting out a legal claim for the Black Hills since signing the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty,[41] which created what is known today as the Great Sioux Nation covering the Black Hills and nearly half of western South Dakota.[41] This treaty was acknowledged and respected until 1874, when General George Custer discovered gold,[41] sending a wave of settlers into the area and leading to the realization of the value of the land from United States President Grant.[41] President Grant used tactical military force to remove the Sioux from the land and assisted in the development of the Congressional appropriations bill for Indian Services in 1876, a "starve or sell" treaty signed by only 10% of the 75% tribal men required based on specifications from the Fort Laramie Treaty that relinquished the Sioux's rights to the Black Hills.[41] Following this treaty, the Agreement of 1877 was passed by Congress to remove the Sioux from the Black Hills, stating that the land was purchased from the Sioux despite the insufficient number of signatures,[41] the lack of transaction records, and the tribe's claim that the land was never for sale.[42]

The Black Hills are sacred to the Sioux as a place central to their spirituality and identity,[41] and contest of ownership of the land has been pressured in the courts by the Sioux Nation since they were allowed legal avenue in 1920.[41] Beginning in 1923, the Sioux made legal claim that their relinquishment from the Black Hills was illegal under the Fifth Amendment, and no amount of money can make up for the loss of their sacred land.[41] This claim went all the way up to the Supreme Court United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians case in 1979 after being revived by Congress, and the Sioux were awarded over $100 million as they ruled that the seizure of the Black Hills was in fact illegal. The Sioux have continually rejected the money, and since then the award has been accruing interest in trust accounts, and amounts to about $1 billion in 2015.[42]

During President Barack Obama's campaign he made indications that the case of the Black Hills was going to be solved with innovative solutions and consultation,[42] but this was questioned when White House Counsel Leonard Garment sent a note to The Ogala people saying, "The days of treaty making with the American Indians ended in 1871; ...only Congress can rescind or change in any way statutes enacted since 1871." [41] The He Sapa Reparations Alliance [42] was established after Obama's inauguration to educate the Sioux people and propose a bill to Congress that would allocate 1.3 million acres of federal land within the Black Hills to the tribe. To this day, the dispute of the Black Hills is ongoing with the trust estimated to be worth nearly $1.3 billion[43] and sources believe principles of restorative justice [41] may be the best solution to addressing this century old dispute.

Iroquois land claims in Upstate New York

Fort Stanwix, NY

While the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution, addressed land sovereignty disputes between the British Crown and the colonies, it neglected to settle hostilities between indigenous people—specifically those who fought on the side of the British, as four of the members of the Haudenosaunee did—and colonists.[44] In October 1784 the newly formed United States government facilitated negotiations with representatives from the Six Nations in Fort Stanwix, New York.[44] The treaty produced in 1784 resulted in Indians giving up their territory within the Ohio River Valley and the U.S. guaranteeing the Haudenosaunee six million acres— about half of what is present day New York— as permanent homelands.[44]

Unenthusiastic about the treaty's conditions, the state of New York secured a series of twenty-six "leases", many of them lasting 999 years on all native territories within its boundaries.[44] Led to believe that they had already lost their land to the New York Genesee Company, the Haudenosaunee agreed to land leasing which was presented by New York Governor George Clinton as a means by which the indigenous could maintain sovereignty over their land.[44] On 28 August 1788, the Oneidas leased five million acres to the state in exchange for $2,000 in cash, $2,000 in clothing, $1,000 in provisions and $600 annual rent. The other two tribes followed with similar arrangements.[44]

The Holland Land Company gained control over all but ten acres of the native land leased to the state on 15 September 1797.[44] These 397 square miles were subsequently parceled out and subleased to whites, allegedly ending the native title to land. Despite Iroquois protests, federal authorities did virtually nothing to correct the injustice.[44] Certain of losing all of their land, in 1831 most of the Oneidas asked that what was left of their holdings be exchanged for 500,000 acres purchased from the Menominees in Wisconsin.[44] President Andrew Jackson, committed to Indian Removal west of the Mississippi, agreed.[44]

The Treaty of Buffalo Creek, signed on 15 January 1838, directly ceded 102,069 acres of Seneca land to the Ogden company for $202,000, a sum that was divided evenly between the government— to hold in trust for Indians— and non-Indian individuals who wanted to buy and improve the plots.[44] All that was left of the Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga and Tuscarora holding was extinguished at a total cost of $400,000 to Ogden.[44]

After Indian complaints, a second Treaty of Buffalo was written in 1842 in attempts to mediate tension.[44] Under this treaty the Haudenosaunee were given the right to reside in New York and small areas of reservations were restored by the U.S. government.[44]

These agreements were largely ineffective in protecting Native American land. By 1889 eighty percent of all Iroquois reservation land in New York was leased by non-Haudenosaunees.[44]

Navajo–Hopi land dispute

틀:See also The modern-day Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations are located in Northern Arizona, near the Four Corners area. The Hopi reservation is 2,531.773 square miles within Arizona and lies surrounded by the greater Navajo reservation which spans 27,413 square miles and extends slightly into the states of New Mexico and Utah. The Hopi, also known as the Pueblo people, made many spiritually motivated migrations throughout the Southwest before settling in present-day Northern Arizona.[45] The Navajo people also migrated throughout western North America following spiritual commands before settling near the Grand Canyon area. The two tribes peacefully coexisted and even traded and exchanged ideas with each other; However, their way of lives were threatened when the "New people", what the Navajo called white settlers,[46] began executing Natives across the continent and claiming their land, as a result of Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act. War ensued between the Navajo people, who call themselves the Diné, and new Americans. The end result was the Long Walk in the early 1860s in which the entire tribe was forced to walk roughly 400 miles from Fort Canby (present day Window Rock, Arizona) to Bosque Redondo in New Mexico. This march is similar to the well known Cherokee "Trail of Tears" and like it, many tribe did not survive the trek. The roughly 11,000 tribe members were imprisoned here in what the United States government deemed an experimental Indian reservation that failed because it became too expensive, there were too many people to feed, and they were continuously raided by other native tribes.[47] Consequently, in 1868, the Navajo were allowed to return to their homeland after signing the Treaty of Bosque Redondo. The treaty officially established the "Navajo Indian Reservation" in Northern Arizona. The term reservation is one which creates territorialities or claims on places. This treaty gave them the right to the land and semi-autonomous governance of it. The Hopi reservation, on the other hand, was created through an executive order by President Arthur in 1882.

A few years after the two reservations were established, the Dawes Allotment Act was passed under which communal tribal land was divvied up and allocated to each household in attempt to enforce European-American farming styles where each family owns and works their own plot of land. This was a further act of enclosure by the US government. Each family received 640 acres or less and the remaining land was deemed "surplus" because it was more than the tribes needed. This "surplus" land was then made available for purchase by American citizens.

The land designated to the Navajo and Hopi reservation was originally considered barren and unproductive by white settlers until 1921 when prospectors scoured the land for oil. The mining companies pressured the US government to set up Native American councils on the reservations so that they could agree to contracts, specifically leases, in the name of the tribe.[48]

During World War II, uranium was mined from their land as well though the companies and government neglected to inform the people of the dangers of radiation exposure. Some people had even built their houses out of mine waste. The companies also failed to properly dispose of the radioactive waste which did and will continue to pollute the environment, including the natives' water sources. Many years later, these same men who worked the mines died from lung cancer and their families received no form of financial compensation.

In 1979, the Church Rock uranium mill spill was the largest release of radioactive waste in US history. The spill contaminated the Puerco River with 1,000 tons of solid radioactive waste and 93 million gallons of acidic, radioactive tailings solution which flowed downstream into the Navajo Nation. The Navajos used the water from this river for irrigation and their livestock but were not immediately informed about the contamination and its danger.[49]

After the war ended, the American population boomed and energy demands soared. The utility companies needed a new source of power so they began the construction of coal-fired power plants. They placed these power plants in the four corners region. In the 1960s, John Boyden, an attorney working for both Peabody Coal and the Hopi tribe, the nation's largest coal producer, managed to gain rights to the Hopi land, including Black Mesa, a sacred location to both tribes which lay partially within the Joint Use Area of both tribes.

This case is an example of environmental racism and injustice, per the principles established by the Participants of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit,[50] because the Navajo and Hopi people, which are communities of color, low income, and political alienation, were disproportionately affected by the proximity and resulting pollution of these power plants which disregard their right to clean air, their land was degraded, and because the related public policies are not based on mutual respect of all people.

The mining companies wanted more land but the joint ownership of the land made negotiations difficult. At the same time, Hopi and Navajo tribes were squabbling over land rights while Navajo livestock continuously grazed on Hopi land. Boyden took advantage of this situation, presenting it to the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs claiming that if the government did not step in and do something, a bloody war would ensue between the tribes. Congressmen agreed to pass the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 which forced any Hopi and Navajo people living on the other's land to relocate. This affected 6,000 Navajo people and ultimately benefitted coal companies the most who could now more easily access the disputed land. Instead of using military violence to deal with those who refused to move, the government passed what became known as the Bennett Freeze to encourage the people to leave. The Bennett Freeze banned 1.5 million acres of Navajo land from any type of development, including paving roadways and even roof repair. This was meant to be a temporary incentive to push tribe negotiations but lasted over forty years until 2009 when President Obama lifted the moratorium.[51] Still, the legacy of the Bennett Freeze looms over the region as seen by the nearly third world conditions on the reservation – seventy-five per cent of people do not have access to electricity and housing situations are poor.

Life and culture

틀:See also 틀:Native American topics sidebar

Red Cliff Indian Reservation in Wisconsin during their annual pow wow

Many Native Americans who live on reservations deal with the federal government through two agencies: the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

The standard of living on some reservations is comparable to that in the developing world, with issues of infant mortality,[52] life expectancy, poor nutrition, poverty, and alcohol and drug abuse. The two poorest counties in the United States are Buffalo County, South Dakota, home of the Lower Brule Indian Reservation, and Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota, home of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, according to data compiled by the 2000 census.[53] This disparity in living standards can partly be explained by the difficulty that is faced by reservation governments when trying to access federal assistance programs.[54]

It is a common conception that environmentalism and a connectedness to nature is ingrained in the Native American culture. In recent years, cultural historians have set out to reconstruct this notion as what they claim to be a culturally inaccurate romanticism.[55] Others recognize the differences between the attitudes and perspectives that emerge from a comparison of Western European philosophy and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Indigenous peoples, especially when considering natural resource conflicts and management strategies involving multiple parties.[56]

Gambling

틀:Main In 1979, the Seminole tribe in Florida opened a high-stakes bingo operation on its reservation in Florida. The state attempted to close the operation down but was stopped in the courts. In the 1980s, the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians established the right of reservations to operate other forms of gambling operations. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which recognized the right of Native American tribes to establish gambling and gaming facilities on their reservations as long as the states in which they are located have some form of legalized gambling.

Today, many Native American casinos are used as tourist attractions, including as the basis for hotel and conference facilities, to draw visitors and revenue to reservations. Successful gaming operations on some reservations have greatly increased the economic wealth of some tribes, enabling their investment to improve infrastructure, education and health for their people.

Law enforcement and crime

Serious crime on Indian reservations has historically been required (by the 1885 Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1153, 3242, and court decisions) to be investigated by the federal government, usually the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and prosecuted by United States Attorneys of the United States federal judicial district in which the reservation lies.[57]

Tribal courts were limited to sentences of one year or less,[58] until on 29 July 2010, the Tribal Law and Order Act was enacted which in some measure reforms the system permitting tribal courts to impose sentences of up to three years provided proceedings are recorded and additional rights are extended to defendants.[59][60] The Justice Department on 11 January 2010, initiated the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative which recognizes problems with law enforcement on Indian reservations and assigns top priority to solving existing problems.

The Department of Justice recognizes the unique legal relationship that the United States has with federally recognized tribes. As one aspect of this relationship, in much of Indian Country, the Justice Department alone has the authority to seek a conviction that carries an appropriate potential sentence when a serious crime has been committed. Our role as the primary prosecutor of serious crimes makes our responsibility to citizens in Indian Country unique and mandatory. Accordingly, public safety in tribal communities is a top priority for the Department of Justice.

Emphasis was placed on improving prosecution of crimes involving domestic violence and sexual assault.[61]

Passed in 1953, Public Law 280 (PL 280) gave jurisdiction over criminal offenses involving Indians in Indian Country to certain States and allowed other States to assume jurisdiction. Subsequent legislation allowed States to retrocede jurisdiction, which has occurred in some areas. Some PL 280 reservations have experienced jurisdictional confusion, tribal discontent, and litigation, compounded by the lack of data on crime rates and law enforcement response.[62]

As of 2012, a high incidence of rape continued to impact Native American women.[63]

Violence and substance abuse

틀:Further

A survey of death certificates over a four-year period showed that deaths among Indians due to alcohol are about four times as common as in the general US population and are often due to traffic collisions and liver disease with homicide, suicide, and falls also contributing. Deaths due to alcohol among American Indians are more common in men and among Northern Plains Indians. Alaska Natives showed the least incidence of death.[64] Under federal law, alcohol sales are prohibited on Indian reservations unless the tribal councils choose to allow it.[65]

Gang violence has become a major social problem.[66] A 13 December 2009, The New York Times article about growing gang violence on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation estimated that there were 39 gangs with 5,000 members on that reservation alone.[67] As opposed to traditional "Most Wanted" lists, Native Americans are often placed on regional Crime Stoppers lists offering rewards for their whereabouts.[68]

Governance

Native American Tribes have recently started to become considered federally recognized tribes that are capable of exercising rights of self-governance. These exercises include but are not limited to the ability to pass laws, regulate power and energy, create treaties, and have tribal court hearings.[69] In many ways Tribal governments are considered to be very much like State or Federal governments, but in the tribal system they are considered a sovereign government much like California or Canada where they are seen to be self-governing and have little to no connection to the State and Federal Governments.[70]

See also

International:

References

각주

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 인용 오류: <ref> 태그가 잘못되었습니다; Department of the Interior라는 이름을 가진 주석에 텍스트가 없습니다
  2. ↑ 틀:Cite news
  3. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  4. ↑ Sutton, 199.
  5. ↑ Kinney, 1937; Sutton, 1975
  6. ↑ Davies & Clow; Sutton 1991.
  7. ↑ For general data, see Tiller (1996).
  8. ↑ See, e.g., United States v. Dion, 틀:Ussc; Francis v. Francis, 틀:Ussc.
  9. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  10. ↑ For Los Angeles, see Allen, J. P. and E. Turner, 2002. Text and map of the metropolitan area show the widespread urban distribution of California and other Native Americans.
  11. ↑ "US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations". The Guardian. 4 May 2012.
  12. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  13. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 틀:Cite web
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 틀:Cite web 7 November 2010
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 Remarks on the Plan for Regulating the Indian Trade, September 1766 – October 1766, Founders Online
  17. ↑ 틀:Cite journal
  18. ↑ Andrew Jackson, “A letter by Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, Indian Treaties and Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs: To Which Is Added, An Appendix. Way and Gideon, Printers,” 1826.
  19. ↑ Andrew Jackson, “A letter by Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, Indian Treaties and Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs: To Which Is Added, An Appendix. Way and Gideon, Printers,” 1826, 580.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Martin Van Buren, President of the United States of America, ”Treaties between the United States and the Saginaw tribe of Chippewas,” 1837.
  21. ↑ John Forsyth, the Secretary of State On behalf of, President Buren, Martin Van of the United States. Martin Van Buren, “Treaty Between: The United States of America and the First Christian and Orchard Parties of the Oneida Indians,” 1838.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Buck Woodard, “Indian Land sales and allotment in Antebellum Virginia: trustees, tribal agency, and the Nottoway Reservation,” American Nineteenth Century History 17. no. 2 (2016): page number. 161-180.
  23. ↑ James E Togerson "Indians against Immigrants: Old Rivals, New Rules: A Brief Review and Comparison of Indian Law in the Contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada." American Indian Law Review 14, no. 1 (1988), 58.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 James E Togerson "Indians against Immigrants: Old Rivals, New Rules: A Brief Review and Comparison of Indian Law in the Contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada." American Indian Law Review 14, no. 1 (1988), 57–103.
  25. ↑ James E Togerson "Indians against Immigrants: Old Rivals, New Rules: A Brief Review and Comparison of Indian Law in the Contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada." American Indian Law Review 14, no. 1 (1988), 59.
  26. ↑ William J Bauer, “The Rise and Fall of Indian Country, 1825–1855,” History: Reviews of New Books 36, no. 2 (Winter 2008): 50.
  27. ↑ William J Bauer, “The Rise and Fall of Indian Country, 1825–1855,” History: Reviews of New Books 36, no. 2 (Winter 2008): 51.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 George D Harmon, "The United States Indian Policy in Texas, 1845–1860,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 17, no. 3 (1930): 379.
  29. ↑ George D Harmon, "The United States Indian Policy in Texas, 1845–1860,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 17, no. 3 (1930): 380.
  30. ↑ 틀:Cite book
  31. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  32. ↑ Miller Center, University of Virginia 틀:Webarchive, Retrieved 7 April 2014.
  33. ↑ Kinney 1937
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Tiller (1996)
  35. ↑ Getches et al, pp. 140–190.
  36. ↑ The Equalization Act, 1959.
  37. ↑ Sutton, ed., 1991.
  38. ↑ Wishart and Froehling
  39. ↑ Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988
  40. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  41. ↑ 41.00 41.01 41.02 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 41.09 41.10 틀:Cite journal
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 틀:Cite web
  43. ↑ 틀:Cite news
  44. ↑ 44.00 44.01 44.02 44.03 44.04 44.05 44.06 44.07 44.08 44.09 44.10 44.11 44.12 44.13 44.14 Treaty and Land Transaction of 1784, National Park Service
  45. ↑ 틀:Cite journal
  46. ↑ DeAngelis, T. (2004). The Navajo: Weavers of the Southwest. Mankato, MN: Blue Earth Books.
  47. ↑ Reidhead, S. (2001). Wild West.
  48. ↑ Mudd, V. (Director). (1985). Broken Rainbow [DVD]. United States: Earthworks Films.
  49. ↑ Pasternak, J. (2010). Yellow dirt: An American story of a poisoned land and a people betrayed. New York, NY: Free Press.
  50. ↑ 틀:Cite journal
  51. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  52. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  53. ↑ Johansen, Bruce E., and Barry Pritzker. 2008. Encyclopedia of American Indian history. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 156. ISBN 9781851098170.
  54. ↑ 틀:Cite news
  55. ↑ 틀:Cite book
  56. ↑ Goode, Ron W. "Tribal-Traditional Ecological Knowledge." News from Native California, vol. 28, no. 3, Spring2015, p. 23. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=102474325&site=eds-live.
  57. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  58. ↑ "Lawless Lands" 틀:Webarchive, a four-part series in The Denver Post last updated 21 November 2007
  59. ↑ "Expansion of tribal courts' authority passes Senate" 틀:Webarchive article by Michael Riley in The Denver Post Posted: 25 June 2010 01:00:00 AM MDT Updated: 25 June 2010 02:13:47 AM MDT Accessed 25 June 2010
  60. ↑ "President Obama signs tribal-justice changes" 틀:Webarchive article by Michael Riley in The Denver Post, Posted: 30 July 2010 01:00:00 AM MDT, Updated: 30 July 2010 06:00:20 AM MDT, accessed 30 July 2010
  61. ↑ "MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS WITH DISTRICTS CONTAINING INDIAN COUNTRY" Memorandum by David W. Ogden Deputy Attorney General, Monday, 11 January 2010, Accessed 12 August 2010
  62. ↑ "Public Law 280 and Law Enforcement in Indian Country – Research Priorities December 2005", accessed August 12, 2010
  63. ↑ 틀:Cite news
  64. ↑ "Study: 12 percent of Indian deaths due to alcohol" Associated Press article by Mary Clare Jalonick Washington, D.C. (AP) 9-08 News From Indian Country accessed 7 October 2009
  65. ↑ 틀:Cite news
  66. ↑ "Gang Violence On The Rise On Indian Reservations". NPR: National Public Radio. 25 August 2009.
  67. ↑ "Indian Gangs Grow, Bringing Fear and Violence to Reservation". The New York Times. 13 December 2009
  68. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  69. ↑ 틀:Cite web
  70. ↑ 틀:Cite news

Further reading

틀:Refbegin

  • J. P. Allen and E. Turner, Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern Californians (Northridge, CA: The Center for Geographical Studies, California State University, Northridge, 2002).
  • George Pierre Castle and Robert L. Bee, eds., State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1992)
  • Richmond L. Clow and Imre Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Resource Management (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001).
  • Wade Davies and Richmond L. Clow, American Indian Sovereignty and Law: An Annotated Bibliography (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009).
  • T. J. Ferguson and E. Richard Hart, A Zuni Atlas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985)
  • David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, 4th ed. (St. Paul: West Group, 1998).
  • Klaus Frantz, "Indian Reservations in the United States", Geography Research Paper 241 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
  • James M. Goodman, The Navajo Atlas: Environments, Resources, People, and History of the Diné Bikeyah (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982).
  • J. P. Kinney, A Continent Lost: A Civilization Won: Indian Land Tenure in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937)
  • Francis Paul Prucha, Atlas of American Indian Affairs (Norman: University of Nebraska Press, 1990).
  • C. C. Royce, comp., Indian Land Cessions in the United States, 18th Annual Report, 1896–97, pt. 2 (Wash., D. C.: Bureau of American Ethnology; GPO 1899)
  • Imre Sutton, "Cartographic Review of Indian Land Tenure and Territoriality: A Schematic Approach", American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 26:2 (2002): 63–113..
  • Imre Sutton, Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature (NY: Clearwater Publ. 1975).
  • Imre Sutton, ed., "The Political Geography of Indian Country", American Indian Culture and Resource Journal, 15()2):1–169 (1991).
  • Imre Sutton, "Sovereign States and the Changing Definition of the Indian Reservation", Geographical Review, 66:3 (1976): 281–295.
  • Veronica E. Velarde Tiller, ed., Tiller's Guide to Indian Country: Economic Profiles of American Indian Reservations (Albuquerque: BowArrow Pub., 1996/2005)
  • David J. Wishart and Oliver Froehling, "Land Ownership, Population and Jurisdiction: the Case of the 'Devils Lake Sioux Tribe v. North Dakota Public Service Commission'," American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 20(2): 33–58 (1996).
  • Laura Woodward-Ney, Mapping Identity: The Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation, 1803–1902 (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2004)

틀:Refend

External links

틀:Commons category-inline