U & D

News:

“Carcieri v. Kempthorne (Salazar) : which involved the Narragansett Indian Tribe’s petition to have land placed into trust by the Secretary of Interior.” (Turtle Talk, Feb. 24)

“The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the authority of the federal government to transfer land in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes.

The decision is a victory for states seeking to prevent such transfers in an effort to control development on Indian lands.” (http://www.wickedlocal.com/middleborough/archive/x999917322)

This type of ruling attacks the core of what we are, and that is sovereign governments that should have the opportunities to do for our citizens what every other government does. (Penobscot Chief James Francis quoted in Indian Country Today)

Ok, so what does this all mean? The non-Native teacher will have some difficulty understanding the importance of and meaning of: “Tribes that weren’t under federal jurisdiction in 1934 cannot follow the land-into-trust process of the Indian Reorganization Act “ (http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/supreme.htm – the link may be outdated by the time you read this post).

High School teachers especially should strive to understand the meaning of “trust lands” and “land-into-trust process” to the Native-US-Maine relationship. This is one of those legal terms that can be overly simplified, misunderstood, and misrepresented

What then, does “trust lands” mean from the point of view of the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet and Mi’kmaq?

Federal Recognition dates are important (this article from the Abbe Museum will help you to understand what Federal Recognition means).

Penobscot – 1975

Passamaquoddy – 1975

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians – 1980

Aroostook Band of Micmacs – 1991

None of the Wabanaki nations were federally recognized in 1934; the new Supreme Court decision applies to them all. Tribes seeking to purchase lands and place them in the Department of the Interior trust system, or to transfer existing lands into trust, may not be able to do so (as I understand commentary, the ruling will not affect tribal lands already in trust). What will they lose by this?

Federal trust lands are explained in this article from the American Indian Policy Center. It is further explained here, but from the point of view of a non-Native citizens’ rights group. Placing lands in trust has been a way for Indian tribes to secure their lands from exploitation or sale by and to non-tribal concerns (for development, timbering, recreational sports, etc.). In reality, these “concerns” were often the state or state supported agencies, such as lumber companies. Land Claims Settlement land and funds were placed in federal trust. Federal trust lands are exempt from taxation, the reason this process is also call fee-to-trust.

As the American Indian Policy Center article points out, the system has never worked well; the government accounting of lands, disbursements, and income has been sloppy at best, to the detriment of the tribe or nation whose land it is. The process of handling fee-to-trust requests is greatly backlogged. In fact, the system is so poor that the National Congress of American Indians has proposed, in Resolution PHX-08-008, that it be significantly reformed.

Further, as the Citizens’ Alliance site should make clear to an alert reader, mistrust and bias against Natives can center up Native use of trust lands. This is a point of view that can result in denial of fee-to-trust transfers if local and state governments have a larger say in the decision-making process. That is something very real to worry about in Maine.

The trust lands system, the transfer of additional lands into federal trust AND the sale of those lands or the income from those lands, will be even more cumbersome and full of legal red tape as result of this court decision. This outcome is contrary to the expectations of the plaintiffs in another pending case, the Cobell class action suit, which seeks to improve the DOI accounting and management of income from trust lands (and other funding).

Finally, a decent, honorable and ultimately expensive settlement may be in sight for Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, who filed suit in 1996 on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans.The elemental issue is the failure of the U.S. government to be responsible stewards of oil, gas and timber receipts and other royalties held in trust from Indian lands as far back as 1887. (”Settle the Botched Indian Trust Case“).

There is a good timeline of the development of the trust lands system contained in “A Betrayal of Trust.” If you read this article, you will come away with an overall sense of the muddle in the Department of the Interior – and of the often disastrous economic effects of this muddle on Indian nations and on individuals within those nations.

Basically, the “trust” inherent in the process as first conceived by the federal government has been neglected and abused. As well as lost lands, the tribes have lost income from those lands and sovereignty over the use of those lands for income-producing activities. They are now losing access to the limited benefits of the trust system.

It would seem that the current decision provides the federal government with a partial “bail out” on their trust responsibilities. Given the history of Maine state acquisition of, sale of, and attitude toward what few lands are left to the Wabanakis, and the state’s economic condition, there is reason for serious concern.

Which is another reason why the teachers of Maine’s current k-12 students must take implementation of LD 291 seriously. It will be our students who eventually have ownership of the non-Native side of the state-tribal partnership – or not. Learning about the Wabanakis is the only path for Maine to take if it is to regain the trust of the Wabanakis through respectful and informed political and economic actions.