A new essay by disenrollment-focused lawyer Gabe Galanda suggests tribes have much to do if they want to restore “relational sovereignty” as opposed to neocolonial, individualized, economic-focused practices, such as disenrollment and per capita payments.

The essay is being considered by Fulcrum Books for publication.

Abstract here:

This essay heeds Vine Deloria, Jr.’s inspiring call for the renewal of Indigenous kinship tradition and counsels for the development of relational sovereignty. The first part deconstructs the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 landmark decision in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez to expose its distinctly economic underpinnings. That case exemplifies a steady erosion of Indigenous reciprocity, and concurrent rise of tribal per-capitalism and neocolonialism. The second part suggests five actions that Native nations could take to restore inclusionary, duty-based kinship systems and rules. First, Native nations should replace blood quantum with alternative citizenship criteria rooted in traditional kinship principles. Second, Native nations should renew kinship terminology to eliminate neocolonial identifiers. Third, Native nations should outlaw disenrollment and bring their relatives home. Fourth, Native nations should lift enrollment moratoria and welcome their lost generations. Lastly, Native nations should — after pausing to understand the colonial legacy of federally sanctioned monetary distributions to tribal individuals — cease per capita payments and reinvest in community revitalization. By drawing on Indigenous traditions of reciprocity and shared destiny, Native nations should reconcile their peoples’ modern individual rights with their customary obligations and duties to one another. Through these strategies, Native nations can engage in a new paradigm of relational sovereignty, whereby Indigenous human existence is exalted and protected over individual power and profit.

Full article here.

Comment: Galanda’s effort will not be welcomed by casino-rich, small citizenship tribes that are deeply enmeshed in the disenrollment and per capita methods of tribal governance. If any such tribe takes his writing an an impetus for change sans some yet unknown intervening factor, I’d be mightily surprised. The status quo works too well for some tribal leaders and their families who argue that attacking the status quo is akin to attacking tribal sovereignty as a whole.

Some in the federal government likely knew this would be the case when it pushed in the 1970s for tribes to develop policies that would support now enmeshed governance systems that Galanda argues must be toppled. If one sees this as a problem, it is a problem that started due largely to the feds, so the feds may have to be the ones to press for and create change. How that would play out is unpredictable given our 3-branch U.S. system, so tribes may find it useful to address before that ever happens (if it is to happen, that is).

In the mean time, thousands of tribal disenrollees are left hoping that someone will heed Galanda’s words so that they can be restored to their rightful homes — both literally and figuratively.