Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 11, Number 9, 1 September 1994 — Pueblo nations' dilemma: How far to push sovereignty? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Pueblo nations' dilemma: How far to push sovereignty?

by Deborah L. Ward For thousands of years, from lime beyond human memory, the Pueb!o Indian tribes have lived in the regions of Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. A people who farmed and gathered w ild planLs, their ancient security was shattered, first by Spanish conquests and massacres in the 1500s, then followed by subjugation under Mexico, and takeover by the United States. Despite centuries of cultural conflict, the Pueblo people have maintained their traditions and still conduct their religious ceremonies, keeping their language and traditional ways as a tight-knit community. Speaking recently in Hawai'i on the Pueblo model of sovereignty

was Verna Williamson-Teller, first woman to be elected governor of the Pueblo of Isleta Indian tribe of New Mexico, located ten minutes outside of Albuquerque. Williamson-Teller has been recognized with the Indian Women of the Year Award (1987), the

Secretary of the Interior's Achievement Award (1990) and the United Way/Cesar Chavez Award of Recognition (1993). She spoke in Honolulu, Kona and Hilo in August as a guest speaker for the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council (formerly advisory commission) summer educational series "Exploring Sovereignty." What is sovereignty like under a Pueblo lndian nation? Williamson-Teller first points out that in the pueblos, there is no separation of church and state, whieh plays a fundamental role in U.S. life. Most pueblos are still very traditional and use traditional governments. For the Pueblo people, all rules and laws eome as

a result of debate in the eommunity on how the laws will protect their traditional way of life. Williamson-Teller says, "We are a traditional people who want to live our traditional way." Eaeh of the 19 Pueblo villages considers itself a separate nation

and eaeh is very distinct. Their membership ranges from small nations of 800 to 1 ,000 members, to the largest Zuni tribe of 15,000 members, she said. The tribes select their govemment in different ways, from open elections where candidates run for office, to traditional appointment. In Isleta Pueblo, an elected tribal eouneil has the power to legislate, and the govemor enforces the legislation. Tribal leaders also represent their people in negotiations with the federal government. However, she said, in pueblo country, the traditional elders are the ones really in charge. In the wake of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, whieh allowed Native American tribes to formalize their governments with documents, only four Pueblo nations, including Isleta Pueblo, chose to adopt constitutions, adapted from the U.S. model. Other Pueblo nations have traditional tribal govemments but no constitutions or other legal goveonūnueā on page 18

Verna Williamson-Teller

Pueblo nations on sovereignty from page 5

erning documents, beyond a few resolutions. Enforcement is very traditional, rooted in culture and religion, something that an outsider might not understand, she explained. Discipline ean be harsh, says Williamson-Teller. For some infractions, flogging is

the punishment. She says, "Every pueblo respects how eaeh other carries out its laws. ... It's all tied in to spiritualism and ceremony. You don't get flogged without getting healed too." The Isleta Pueblo has 3,500 tribal members. Only tribal mem-

bers may own land on the reservation and live there. Non-Indian spouses of tribal members must get permission to live on the reservation and are subject to reservation law. However, they may be asked to leave the reservation during very sacred ceremonies, and when the reservation gates are closed for rituals, even tribal members may not enter. Sovereignty is a currently a big

issue in "Indian Country," explained Williamson-Teller. Some tribes are pushing for total sovereignty, while others feel they are not ready for this step. In Pueblo country, she says, there is no question that they are fighting to maintain a maximum of sovereignty. "How far are we able to push to protect our land, air, water and rights as human beings?" she asked. "To make our own laws and enforce them in the boundaries of our nation is asserting sovereignty. But for the federal government to say 'That's okay, to a point' leads to a strong debate," she says. In the 1950s when the federal government policy was to assimilate and "terminate," or no longer recognize Indian tribes as sepanate nations, many tribes found they were not prepared to go it on their own. For example, the Menominee nation in Wisconsin, said Williamson-Teller, struggled long and hard to get back federal recognition and to get the federal entitlements they believed they were due. The hardships of that termination period are still fresh in the minds of some tribes, she says. This makes them suspicious of recent federal approaches to tribal governance where tribes are offered lump sums and told they're ready and eapahle of spending the money themselves. There is a fear that the federal government ultimately wants to get off the hook for compensation to native peoples, she said. This puts Native Americans in a paradox, she said. Most tribes want to maintain their autonomy as a people, yet also feel there is a continuing federal trust responsibility to native tribes because of losses of land, resources and traditional ways that ean never be fully eompensated. So, she says tribal leaders are grappling with the question of "How far do we let go without being threatened that if we Iet go all the way we're not going to get our due?"

That is the "double-edged sword" of sovereignty she warns native Hawaiians to beware of. Gaming, or legalized gambling, whieh began on Isleta Pueblo reservation as eeonomie development, has now become a matter of sovereignty, Williamson-Teller says. While she personally opposed gaming as anti-Indian — "It takes away from our spirit" — the tribe went for it and gaming has taken off like wildfire. She says, "All this money is coming in to tribes that haven't had any." Seeing a lucrative source of revenue, New Mexico passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requiring tribes to make a eompact with the state so it ean regulate gaming, particularly slot machines, whieh the state of New Mexico does not allow. In the midst of the controversy, the FBI eame onto a reservation and eonfiscated 100 slot machines. Williamson-Teller says this is a violation of tribal sovereignty that they are still fighting. "We have the right to have any gaming we want." Gaming is presently an important source of ineome to the tribe, whieh does not have other types of eeonomie development. However, she notes that Isleta Pueblo is ripe for eeonomie development, with a river, railroad and two major freeways through their land, and access to a major city and international airport only ten minutes away. Blood quantum This is currently a very touchy, serious issue in pueblo country. says Williamson-Teller. In Isleta Pueblo, 50 percent blood quantum is required for tribal membership and services. Yet, she says, quantum is a very un-Indian idea. The federal government has said it will recognize whomever the tribe enrolls as a member. As more non-Indians marry into the tribe, this is requiring members to eonsider carefully who should be included in the membership.