“disenrollment”, a curious word that will evoke varied opinions – but if the go to is an argument favoring “colonial law” then tribes and the author need to look at the colonial nature tribal governments have been modeled after and express some concerns about that also
They also should take a long hard look at the lack of “traditional Lakota penal modes”, begin a discussion about that and encourage a return to that standard.
The author seems to overlook that life in the gulags is far from traditional, that enrollment on a registry has not traditionally been the norm and so it stands to reason that it’s counterpart “disenrollment” wouldn’t be among the traditional lexicon, anything less is smoke and mirrors to support a position.
I submit the equivalent word existed among every nation, and that word was banishment – which is very much a “disenrollment”.
CIE’s lack of knowledge related to any leaders having “disenrolled” tribal members or the historical reality isn’t a surprise to me, it speaks to a fundamental lack of understanding traditions or the value and implementation of them.
No such opinion piece as the one included in the link would be complete without the inclusion of references to the 14th Amendment, a part of the very colonial law railed against yet employed as a characterization of a nebulous at best violation related to”disenrollment”.
You can’t have it both ways if “sovereignty” is any part of the equation. If nations have the right to self determination and to adjudicate matters on a tribal basis.
It is long past time a proactive approach was taken to address and curb drug dealing on the rez – not just drug dealing but gangs and the incidence of the rape and abuse of women and children, if that marks a person as a candidate for “disenrollment” then so be it and something for each nation to determine on their own.
Personally I think after a few examples were made things would improve, if not at the least the number and influence of drug dealers may have been impacted.
I’ve blogged about this in the past and offered the opinion that banishing, which I am very much in favor in certain instances, would no doubt lead to a selective embrace of colonial law, that lawsuits would probably follow at some point if this became an approach – seems as though if the spector of colonial law and the 14th Amendment are to be invoked it won’t be long before some last real Indian decides to represent the banished/disenrolled or post some selfies portraying themselves a mediator.
I can see it now, a drug dealer standing before a judge saying they got kicked out for being a drug dealer but they “got rights”. Not only ridiculous but absurd in the bargain.
A reality is that in the times past if you were banished you were in fact completely disenfranchised. You were “disenrolled” – you became a person without a nation whose only hope was being adopted into another nation and you brought upon yourself.
One nations standards are no more an across the board standard for others than apples and bananas are the same, the Lakota standard is not universal, it is not the same as the Haida’s anymore than the cultural standard of the Seminole are the same as those of the Paiute.
Communal standards can vary within the same nation – an example would be the difference between the traditionals and the progressives among the Hopi , and now between Cheyenne River and other Lakota communities.
So whether or not one nation has a word for “disenrollment” becomes secondary to the course another will take, and I might add if an “authorative” opinion is sought CIE wouldn’t be my first choice, unless maybe it was about colonial law or AIM law.
The obvious question is should the “rights” of a drug dealer take precedence over that of the welfare of a community? The posting of photos with children holding signs to rid their community of drugs also begs the question do the “colonial” rights of a drug dealer take precedence over the rights and welfare of children?
The equally obvious answer to both should be a resounding no.
Perhaps an approach would be to offer a road back, you get kicked out, straighten up your act up and earn your way back or stay out.
Colonial law refers to that as probation or community service, if you want to adopt colonial law you might want to consider that.
I find it somewhat amusing and disingenuous to say a nation doesn’t have a word for this or that as though the mere statement assumes some higher ground of rebuttal – truth is as nations we didn’t and don’t have words for a number of things. Kind of makes wonder if nations had a word for penal?
Does that imply they don’t exist or what they represent has no validity?
The bottom line is as nations we need to cut the bs and employ some common sense and traditional ways.
If we we want to claim ownership of scared sites and land we need to begin with taking ownership of our communities – in the interim hopefully no one will suggest going to pe sla to pass that “grail” cast there among themselves as a means of arbitration.