Treaty rights

Last updated

In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States the term treaty rights specifically refers to rights for indigenous peoples enumerated in treaties with settler societies that arose from European colonization.

Contents

Exactly who is indigenous is understood differently across the New World, and not all indigenous groups have signed treaties. Therefore the concept of "treaty rights" operates very different in context. As of 2021 no such treaties exist in Australia, and the discussion of treaty rights there is speculative, based on future agreements that may be signed. For the other English-speaking settler countries, well-established legal regimes decide who is eligible for what legal protections based on treaties. Treaty rights of one kind or another apply to most Alaska Natives and Native Americans in the United States and many but not all First Nations in Canada. [1] The concept of treaty rights also applies to a smaller number of Inuit and Metis in Canada, who have entered into treaties. By extension, a "treaty Indian" is a Canadian legal term for a person who has inherited such rights.

Treaty rights are not the only rights claimed by indigenous peoples. Indigenous people claim inherent rights to self-determination, which implies that they be recognized as rights-bearing groups (called "tribes", "bands", or "nations" - depending on place and time) capable of self-determination and cultural survival. [2] In the British constitutional tradition operating in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, once the Crown or the government recognizes that there is another body corporate with legal personality capable of making binding agreements on behalf of its members, negotiations can begin for mutual exchange and aid, resulting in a treaty. [3]

By signing treaties, indigenous peoples have traded claims over vast amounts of land and resources in exchange for (for example):

Critics of the treaty relationship commonly claim that a state may grant special rights to indigenous people because of their racial status. Defenders of the treaty system argue that governments do not give treaty rights to anyone but that Native people reserved such rights when they signed treaties in an inter-governmental relationship. [4] [ citation needed ]

The early treaties between European colonial powers and the various indigenous peoples of the Americas were generally similar in manner to military alliances between peers. With the expansion of European settler colonialism in the Americas, treaties increasingly involved the cession of land from indigenous peoples for the purposes of colonial expansion. [5]

In the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the British Crown forbade white settlers from settling past a defined boundary in North America and stipulated that all land purchases with indigenous peoples could be done only by agents of the Crown, which could then be redistributed to individuals.[ citation needed ] That principle, which was adopted by both Canada and the United States upon independence, and became the legal impetus for all subsequent treaties during the period of westward expansion.[ citation needed ] A similar system operated in New Zealand and resulted in the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

In Australia and British Columbia, by contrast, a different legal principal of terra nullius was invoked by white settlers to justify occupying land without consulting indigenous peoples living there.

In British India, the precedent of the Pratt–Yorke opinion on 1757 meant that India is one of the few common law jurisdiction that has rejected the doctrine of aboriginal title and so treaties did not needed to be signed before British companies could enter into land purchases in India. Therefore, indigenous treaties of the North American type do not exist in Burma, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Continuation to present

Because Article Six of the United States Constitution declares treaties to be the supreme law of the land, treaties are just as valid today as they were the day they were signed, and treaty rights are still legally binding as well. Likewise treaty rights were enshrined in Canada under section 35 by the package of constitutional reforms of 1982. [12] [13] [14]

United States

Between the years 1778 and 1868, there were 373 treaties between the United States government and various Native American groups, including peace settlements and land exchanges. [15] Over the years, many of these treaties went to court and help define the term treaty rights. In more recent years, the United States Senate has attempted to clarify the rights granted to Native Americans living on reservations. The field remains complex. [15]

Navajo Reservation in Utah. 00 5891 Monument Valley. - Navajo Indian Reservation.jpg
Navajo Reservation in Utah.

The central underpinning of treaty rights is that Native Americans are sovereign people living under their own laws, which exist alongside current United States law. [16] It is the balance between these two systems of law that create issues and require frequent interpretation by the United States court system. One such case is the Crow Dog habeas corpus case.

Ex Parte Crow Dog

In this case, Crow Dog, a Native American, shot and killed another Native American on a reservation. [17] The reservation police turned him over to the army, who tried him in Dakota Territorial Court. [17] The court sentenced him to death for the murder. [17] Crow Dog appealed the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States. [17] He argued that because he committed the crime on a reservation, and his family had made amends for his crime in accordance with tribal law and custom, the United States had no right to try him. [17] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Crow Dog in 1883, stating that the district court could not impose a punishment on a Native American for a crime committed on a reservation against another Native American. [17]

Williams v. Lee

As Native Americans became more integrated into American culture, more non-Native Americans began working and living on the reservations. This gave rise to the question of whether or not tribes had the legal authority over non-Native Americans who commit crimes on their land. In 1959, a case surrounding the rights of a tribe to regulate the civil activities within their reservation went to the Supreme Court. In Williams v. Lee, a non-Native American merchant, who owned a general store on a reservation, sued some of his Native American customers in Arizona State Courts. [18] The Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona court system did not have legal authority over reservations. Stating that the tribes had legal jurisdiction over both criminal and civil cases. Including those between non-Native Americans and Native Americans on the reservation. [18]

Oliphant v. Suquamish

The Supreme Court case Oliphant v. Suquamish attempted to settle this issue once and for all. [19] This case centered around the question of if Native American law applied to non-Native Americans living on reservations. The Supreme Court ruled that non-Native Americans living on reservations were not subject to the rulings of the tribal courts. [19]

Canada

Treaties are used to establish the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian Government and define the rights Indigenous peoples are entitled to. Treaty rights within Canada are set out in either a historic or modern treaty agreement. These rights define specific rights, benefits and obligations which are recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. [20]

These agreements were made between the Crown and Indigenous peoples where Indigenous nations agreed to share some of their ancestral lands in return for various payments and promises. These promises have been broken over the years and have subjected Indigenous peoples to poor living conditions in attempts of erasure.

Treaties are understood differently between the Canadian and Indigenous nations. For Indigenous peoples, the character of treaties is found in what was said at the time of negotiations. Contrary to this, the principles for treaty makings were to establish the constitutional foundations of Canada and what was said was not reflected in the treaties signed. Verbal commitments made to the Indigenous leaders not included in the written treaties became a common source of discontent and remains an ongoing issue of dispute and discussion. Following complaints from affected communities, many of these promises are not honored.

Canada only recognizes the 70 historic treaties signed between 1701 and 1923 and 25 modern treaties (also called comprehensive land claim agreements) since 1975. Together, these treaties have provided [20] inconsistent protection to traditional ways of life, vague participation in land and resource management decisions, and Indigenous ownership to about 600,000 km2 out of the 9.985 million km2 of land that makes up Canada. [21]

Historic treaties promised Indigenous peoples reserve land, the government paid schools and teachers on reserves, hunting and fishing rights on unoccupied Crown land, and one-time benefits (such as farm equipment and animals, ammunition, and clothing). [20]

The most notable historic treaties include the Numbered Treaties 1-11. These were used as political tools to secure alliances and transfer land ownership. Differing interpretations of the treaties have led to disputes between the federal government and First Nation groups. The concept of territory and ownership differ amongst European and Indigenous world views, where Indigenous peoples interpreted the treaties as promises to share, rather than own, the land and natural resources with the colonizers. [22] The long-lasting legal and socioeconomic impacts of the Numbered Treaties on First Nation peoples, such as the creation of reserves, schools and other instruments of assimilation, have affected Indigenous cultures, customs and traditional ways of life. [23]

These treaty presentation copies are held in the Bruce Peel Special Collections at University of Alberta Library. Each is printed on parchment with text in black and red and a blue and red border.

Contemporary treaties began in 1973 after the Supreme Court of Canada's decision which recognized Aboriginal rights for the first time. Aboriginal rights are the collective rights entitled to Indigenous peoples as the first inhabitants of Canada. These treaties addressed Indigenous rights to ownership of lands, wildlife harvesting rights, financial settlements, participation in land use and management in specific areas, and self-government. [20]

Section 35

Section 35 recognizes and affirms the treaty rights and Aboriginal rights of the Indigenous peoples in Canada. [20] The Constitution does not define Indigenous rights under Section 35, but they can include Aboriginal titles, rights to occupy and use land resources, self-government rights, and cultural and social rights. Section 35 varies depending on the vast cultures, customs, practices, and traditions of each group. [22]

Significant court cases

Some inherent Indigenous rights are not recognized by the Crown, as the Constitution does not define specifics. The Canadian government stipulated that these rights were to be defined in the courts on a case-by-case basis. There are several significant cases that recognized Indigenous rights in the Canadian court, such as R v. Sparrow, R. v. Van der Peet, and R. v. Powley.

R v Sparrow

R v Sparrow (1990) set out criteria ("the Sparrow test") to determine whether government infringement on Aboriginal rights was justifiable. [24]

R v Van der Peet

R v Van der Peet (1996) was pivotal in further defining Aboriginal rights in Section 35. It established criteria that are used to determine whether an Aboriginal right is protected as an “existing” Aboriginal right under the Canadian Constitution. [25]

R v Powley

R v Powley (2003) was the first major Aboriginal rights case concerning Métis peoples. It created “the Powley Test", which addressed the criteria that defines Métis rights, and who is legally entitled to those rights. [26]

Violations

Many Native nations have reserved rights to hunt and fish in their accustomed places, which are often lands that were given up at the treaty signing, or "ceded land". This leads to conflict with sports and commercial hunters and fishers, who are competing for the same limited resource in the same place. Things like dams and logging have huge effects on fish and wildlife populations. In Canadian law, the government has a court-mandated "duty to consult" indigenous peoples regarding the management process of these lands and rivers. In the United States, no such mandate exists.

Spearfishing in Northern Wisconsin

Beginning in the 1980s and extending into the early 1990s, Northern Wisconsin was rife in protests against Ojibwe spearfishing. [27] [28] The Voigt decision in 1983 [28] had reaffirmed that the treaties made in 1837 and 1842 still stood. [27] These treaties gave the Ojibwe the rights to hunt, fish, and gather off-reservation, which was not subject to state regulation. [28] [ citation needed ]This heralded a backlash of non-Natives, who believed the Ojibwe had been granted special rights. Spearheaded by groups like Stop Treaty Abuse (STA), [27] often violent and racially discriminatory protests against spearfishing covered boat landings across northern Wisconsin. [28] [ citation needed ] This led to the case Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin. [27] This case culminated with Judge Barbara Crabb upholding the Voigt decision and many members, donors, and politicians distancing themselves from the STA, which many believed was racist. [27]

Whaling in Washington

The right to hunt North Pacific gray whales has been a contentious issue for the Makah people in Washington state. [29] [30] [31] The Makah people ceded much of their traditional lands in the Treaty of Neah Bay in 1855 but retained the right to whale. [30] The tribe voluntarily gave up this practice in 1915 because of decimated gray whale populations, but once the species was taken off the Federal Endangered Species List in 1993, the tribe sought to continue whaling. In 1999, they killed one whale but faced immediate backlash from environmental groups and animal rights groups. [30] [31] The International Whaling Commission (IWC) believed that the Makah tribe’s quota of harvesting up to five whales a year would not hurt the recovering population. [31] Because of a number of new studies garnishing evidence for and against this practice, the issue has been tied up in court since 1999, with the tribe being unable to exercise the right given to them in the Treaty of Neah Bay. [29]

Annexation of Hawaii

Throughout the 19th century, the United States made several treaties with the then Kingdom of Hawaii, the last being in 1887. [32] These treaties recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii as being sovereign and independent. [32] In 1893, John L. Stevens, US minister assigned to the Kingdom of Hawaii, led a group of non-indigenous people to overthrow Queen Lili‘uokalani, which was backed by the United States naval forces. [32] They established a Provisional government, which then declared itself the Republic of Hawaii. [32] In 1899, the US annexed Hawaii. Many Hawaiian sovereignty activists feel that because of the treaties mentioned above, Hawaii should today be its own Nation instead of part of the United States. [32]

Dakota Access Pipeline

The Lakota people of Standing Rock reservation in North and South Dakota believe that the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which runs near their main source of water, could contaminate that source of water should it leak. They also cite the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868, which promised the land that DAPL runs through to the Lakota's land. [33] Lands were seized in 1877 [34] and 1887 with the Dawes Allotment Act that broke up reservations. [35] Some call for these treaties to be reinstated and enforced today, which would put the course of the DAPL straight through Lakota lands.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Makah</span> Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest Coast

The Makah are an Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest Coast living in Washington, in the northwestern part of the continental United States. They are enrolled in the federally recognized Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, commonly known as the Makah Tribe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian reservation</span> Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An American Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a U.S. federal government-recognized Native American tribal nation, whose government is autonomous, subject to regulations passed by the United States Congress and administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not to the U.S. state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This intersection of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Métis</span> Mixed Indigenous ethnic group of Canada and the US

The Métis are a mixed-race Indigenous people whose historical homelands include Canada's three Prairie Provinces extending into parts of Ontario, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the northwest United States. They have a shared history and culture, deriving from specific mixed European and Indigenous ancestry, which became distinct through ethnogenesis by the mid-18th century, during the early years of the North American fur trade.

Indigenous land rights are the rights of Indigenous peoples to land and natural resources therein, either individually or collectively, mostly in colonised countries. Land and resource-related rights are of fundamental importance to Indigenous peoples for a range of reasons, including: the religious significance of the land, self-determination, identity, and economic factors. Land is a major economic asset, and in some Indigenous societies, using natural resources of earth and sea form the basis of their household economy, so the demand for ownership derives from the need to ensure their access to these resources. Land can also be an important instrument of inheritance or a symbol of social status. In many Indigenous societies, such as among the many Aboriginal Australian peoples, the land is an essential part of their spirituality and belief systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Makah Reservation</span> Indian reservation in Washington, US

Makah Reservation is an Indian reservation of the Makah Native Americans located on the northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula in Clallam County, Washington, United States. The northern boundary of the reservation is the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The western boundary is the Pacific Ocean. It has a land area of 121.451 square kilometres (46.892 sq mi) and a 2000 census resident population of 1,356 persons. Its largest community is Neah Bay.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribe (Native American)</span> Formal Native American tribe recognized by the American federal government

In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe, or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, or nation of Native Americans in the United States. Modern forms of these entities are often associated with land or territory of an Indian reservation. "Federally recognized Indian tribe" is a legal term in United States law with a specific meaning.

The discovery doctrine, or doctrine of discovery, is a disputed interpretation of international law during the Age of Discovery, introduced into United States municipal law by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823). In Marshall's formulation of the doctrine, discovery of territory previously unknown to Europeans gave the discovering nation title to that territory against all other European nations, and this title could be perfected by possession. A number of legal scholars have criticized Marshall's interpretation of the relevant international law. In recent decades, advocates for Indigenous rights have campaigned against the doctrine. In 2023, the Roman Curia of the Vatican formally repudiated the doctrine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian Aboriginal law</span> Canadian law regarding indigenous people

Canadian Aboriginal law is the body of law of Canada that concerns a variety of issues related to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Canadian Aboriginal Law is different from Canadian Indigenous law: In Canada, Indigenous Law refers to the legal traditions, customs, and practices of Indigenous peoples and groups. Aboriginal peoples as a collective noun is a specific term of art used in legal documents, including the Constitution Act, 1982, and includes First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. Canadian Aboriginal law provides certain constitutionally recognized rights to land and traditional practices. Canadian Aboriginal Law enforces and interprets certain treaties between the Crown and Indigenous people, and manages much of their interaction. A major area of Aboriginal law involves the duty to consult and accommodate.

R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43, commonly called the Powley ruling, is a Supreme Court of Canada case defining Métis Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Native American self-determination refers to the social movements, legislation and beliefs by which the Native American tribes in the United States exercise self-governance and decision-making on issues that affect their own people.

Pan-Indianism is a philosophical and political approach promoting unity and, to some extent, cultural homogenization, among different Indigenous groups in the Americas regardless of tribal distinctions and cultural differences.

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying water rights of American Indian reservations. This doctrine was meant to clearly define the water rights of indigenous people in cases where the rights were not clear. The case was first argued on October 24, 1907, and a decision was reached January 6, 1908. This case set the standards for the United States government to acknowledge the vitality of indigenous water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of indigenous people.

Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the United States</span> First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

<i>Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut</i> 18th century indigenous land rights case in Great Britain

Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1705–1773) was the first indigenous land rights litigation in history in a common law jurisdiction. James Youngblood Henderson, professor of law, calls the case "the first major legal test of indigenous tenure." Robert Clinton calls it the "first formal litigation of North American Indian rights."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in California</span> Land rights of indigenous peoples

Aboriginal title in California refers to the aboriginal title land rights of the indigenous peoples of California. The state is unique in that no Native American tribe in California is the counterparty to a ratified federal treaty. Therefore, all the Indian reservations in the state were created by federal statute or executive order.

Indigenous or Aboriginal self-government refers to proposals to give governments representing the Indigenous peoples in Canada greater powers of government. These proposals range from giving Aboriginal governments powers similar to that of local governments in Canada to demands that Indigenous governments be recognized as sovereign, and capable of "nation-to-nation" negotiations as legal equals to the Crown, as well as many other variations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal recognition of Native Hawaiians</span>

Native Hawaiians are the Indigenous peoples of the Hawaiian Islands. Since the involvement of the United States in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, federal statutes have been enacted to address conditions of Native Hawaiians, with some feeling these should be formalized in the same manner of sovereignty as other Indigenous populations in the United States and Alaska Natives. However, some controversy surrounds the proposal for formal recognition – many Native Hawaiian political organizations believe recognition might interfere with Hawaiian claims to independence as a constitutional monarchy through international law.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ "SOVEREIGNTY, NATIVE AMERICAN | Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society - Credo Reference". search.credoreference.com. Retrieved 2019-12-07.
  2. ↑ AJI Report, Chapter 5
  3. ↑ admin. "Negotiating American Indian Treaties | Native American Netroots" . Retrieved 2019-12-07.
  4. ↑ "What are treaty rights?". arcbc.tripod.com. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  5. ↑ "Treaty Rights". www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca. Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Communications Branch. Archived from the original on 2011-10-14. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  6. ↑ Freeman v. Fairie (1828) 1 Moo. IA 305.
  7. ↑ Vaje Singji Jorava Ssingji v Secretary of State for India (1924) L.R. 51 I.A. 357.
  8. ↑ Virendra Singh & Ors v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1954] INSC 55.
  9. ↑ Vinod Kumar Shantilal Gosalia v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Ors [1981] INSC 150.
  10. ↑ Sardar Govindrao & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors [1982] INSC 52.
  11. ↑ R.C. Poudyal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors [1993] INSC 77.
  12. ↑ Joseph, Bob. "Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982". www.ictinc.ca. Retrieved 2021-01-20.
  13. ↑ "Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia". www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. Retrieved 2021-01-20.
  14. ↑ "ABORIGINAL & TREATY RIGHTS". www.ajic.mb.ca. Retrieved 2021-01-20.
  15. 1 2 Michelucci, Alessandro (2007), "Treaty Rights Struggle", Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice, SAGE Publications, Inc., doi:10.4135/9781412956215.n869, ISBN   978-1-4129-1812-1
  16. ↑ Harring, Sidney L. (2002), "Indian Law, Sovereignty, and State Law: Native People and the Law", A Companion to American Indian History, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp. 441–459, doi:10.1002/9780470996461.ch25, ISBN   978-0-470-99646-1
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Ex parte Crow Dog (Supreme Court of the United States December 17, 1883, Decided)" . Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  18. 1 2 "WILLIAMS v. LEE, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S. Ct. 269, 3 L. Ed. 2d 251(Supreme Court of the United States January 12, 1959, Decided )" . Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  19. 1 2 "Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe" . Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 Branch, Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Communications (2008-11-03). "Treaties and agreements". www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-03-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ↑ "Geography of Canada", Wikipedia, 2020-03-19, retrieved 2020-03-22
  22. 1 2 "Treaties with Indigenous Peoples in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia". www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  23. ↑ "Numbered Treaties | The Canadian Encyclopedia". www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  24. ↑ "Sparrow Case". indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  25. ↑ "Van der Peet case". indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  26. ↑ "Powley Case". indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 Pierson, Brian (2009). "The Spearfishing Civil Rights Case: Lac Du Flambeau Band v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin" (PDF). Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  28. 1 2 3 4 "Spearfishing Treaty Controversy - Indian Country Wisconsin". www.mpm.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  29. 1 2 "NOAA study could set stage for Makah whaling to resume". The Seattle Times. 2015-03-06. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  30. 1 2 3 Brand, Emily (2009). "The Struggle to Exercise a Treaty Right: An Analysis of the Makah Tribe's Path to Whale" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  31. 1 2 3 "Makah Tribe pursues treaty right to whale". Northwest Treaty Tribes. 2015-05-04. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 Van Dyke, Jon; MacKensie, Melody (July 2006). "An Introduction to the Rights of the Native Hawaiian People" (PDF). University of Hawaii at Mānoa. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  33. ↑ Schlecht, Jenny (November 10, 2016). "1851 Treaty Resonates in DAPL Discussion". Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  34. ↑ "Section 6: After the Battle of the Little Big Horn | North Dakota Studies". ndstudies.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  35. ↑ "Our Documents - Dawes Act (1887)". www.ourdocuments.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-26.

Works cited

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.