Educating governments and the public that Tribes are sovereign governments is the modern legacy, urgent need and first responsibility of tribal leaders.

Sovereignty is not a word the average American uses everyday. Nor is it a word most people get terribly excited about. Sovereignty, however, is a word Indians take seriously and get very excited about. There’s the dictionary -- the official -- English definition of sovereignty. Then, there’s the Native American belief in sovereignty that goes beyond the word, to the power and history behind it.

The dictionary defines “sovereignty” as: supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or a sovereign state; complete independence and self-government; a territory existing as an independent state.

Indians adopted the word “sovereign,” even though it’s an English word, and hold it sacred based on the United States Constitution and related Supreme Court cases that protect our right to exist as distinct cultures and self-governing people.

Sovereignty is both the law and the theory that lies at the heart of America’s trust responsibility to Indian tribes. It’s also the foundation for a unique body of law and political precedent without comparison in world history or governments.

Indian sovereignty continues to be a source of confusion and friction between tribal and state governments and the federal government. Whenever Indians clash with state and local governments, it’s usually about something called sovereignty. Whenever Congress attempts to change the rules and pass legislation affecting tribal rights, Indians rally, because the battle is usually about the “sovereignty thing.” For Indians, sovereignty contains the memory of our past independence. It’s the vision that gave our ancestors the strength to defy extinction and to struggle to reclaim our freedom.

Sovereignty is the hope, based on promises that Europeans made to Indians that we would continue to have sovereign self-rule on our reservation lands and thus, survive as a people. It, along with our lands, is the legal and historical reality that gives us the means to protect our religions, culture and language.

Americans have never been educated and very few are familiar with the price American Indians paid for this last vestige of our former freedoms. This country long ago forgot that our sovereign rights to govern our reservations were bought at great sacrifice, but Indians have not.

We gave up our lands, indeed, the whole continent, and 2 out of 3 of our ancestors died of European spread diseases, hunger, displacement, war and genocide. In return, we retained the right to govern our own communities and land set aside through treaties or Congress.

Throughout American history, Indian sovereignty has been assumed, negotiated, denied, limited, reappraised, and occasionally encouraged, depending on the public mood, economics and desires of competing non-Indian special interests.

Beginning with acknowledgment of tribes as nations and European’s dependence on the Indians for survival and allies, the tribes on the East Coast were generally recognized as equals from 1492-1828. Then came Indian Wars and Manifest Destiny bringing policies ranging from extermination, forced removal, relocation, allotment and assimilation.

Policy shifted to the more humane period of the Indian Reorganization Act under President Franklin Roosevelt, from 1934-1953. Tragically, this period came to an abrupt end with the disastrous period of terminating tribal governments from 1953-1968. Then another drastic shift in federal policy took place when President Richard Nixon denounced the termination policy in 1970.

Over the past 30 years, every succeeding president and Congress has reaffirmed tribal government sovereignty through policy and statutes that encourage tribal self-determination and economic development. Tribal sovereignty has grown stronger during this 30-year era. Our governments are still fragile and vulnerable. Too many of our people live in Third World Conditions of poverty and isolation.

But, many tribes, thanks mainly to revenues from Indian gaming, have developed the economic resources and political, legal and public relations savvy to expand, explore and exercise sovereign governmental responsibilities and rights. Today, an increasing number of American Indian governments have the best chance we have had in over 200 years to participate in and influence our destiny.

The issue of tribal sovereignty as seen through the Supreme Court of the United States dates back to the landmark 1832 Worcester v. Georgia case.

Worcester decided the question of whether the state of Georgia could impose its laws on the Cherokee Reservation, located within the state’s borders. In holding that Georgia could not extend its laws onto the reservation the court stated:

“Indian Nations are distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States...”

The Court went on to say, that, “Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities and retain their original rights, as undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial.

“The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia have no force, and the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with acts of Congress.”

The Worcester doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty has undergone changes over the years, but the basic premise remains the same: an Indian tribe is a distinct political territory-- a government endowed with sovereignty like states enjoy.

The historic foundational principles of Indian law were known as the Chief Justice Marshall Trilogy. Stated simply the three precepts are:

1) Tribes are sovereigns

2) Tribes became subject to legislative power of the United States and lost external sovereignty, but retained internal sovereign jurisdiction over tribal territory.

3) Retained tribal powers can only be qualified by congressional legislation or treaties.

The Marshall Trilogy recognizes that Congress has the authority to limit or even abolish powers of tribal governance, making tribes limited or dependent domestic sovereignties.

But the courts have long abided by the doctrine that absent congressional action, a tribe retains its inherent right of self-government, and no state may impose its laws on the reservation.

The late Felix S. Cohen, the leading expert on federal Indian law explained it this way: “Perhaps the most basic principle of all Indian Law, supported by a host of decisions…is the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather, inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished.”

So let’s talk about California. A new arrival to our planet, reading today’s newspapers might believe that Indians are attempting to take over California and are purposely defying the state’s authority.

The alien visitor could be forgiven this impression, because he or she would not be aware of the context of the newspaper stories. With American Indians, context and history are important, because that is how we judge current situations.

On the other hand, the body of operating history and identity that non-Indians bring to tribal laws and relationships is at sharp contrast with the Indian point of view.

Understanding and respecting our view of the past, is important to working with tribal governments in the present. And, it’s the past that gives tribal sovereignty its profound significance to Indians, whether in California or Connecticut.

California Indians experienced a particularly devastating period of conquest. The circumstances so weakened tribes, that our return to a place and time where we can discuss our futures with optimism and truly exercise our sovereignty is even more of a miracle than it might seem. Tribal nations in California were subjected to three conquerors, beginning with the Spanish in 1769. They established what was to be the precedent of evicting the Indian people from our villages and homes and taking the best land and natural resources for themselves.

Spanish militia regularly scoured the countryside, rounding up and randomly enslaving native people to provide the labor to maintain the missions, militia and Spanish land claims to California territory, as well as to fulfill the Catholic Church’s other mission: to convert and civilize the natives.

When Spain was overthrown during the Mexican revolution in 1822, the Mexican government turned the mission lands into private rancheros for Mexican loyalists. New land grants given to Mexican nationals led to further eviction of Indians from native home sites and villages. While the colonizing governments changed, the native people simply exchanged one form of slavery for another, reduced to peons, and conscripted into servitude for the landowners.

Then came the Americans. In many areas of California, they were welcomed as the invader that might finally recognize the rights of the native people.

My people, the Kumeyaay, lived in Southern California for more than 10,000 years. When the Spanish came there was an estimated Kumeyaay population of 30,000. There were only 3,500 when the Americans took over the territory in 1848.

Unfortunately, when California became a state in 1850, treatment of Indians went from imprisonment, abuse, slavery and death from disease and poverty, to extermination. The State distinguished itself in its inhumanity and desire to “take care of the Indian problem” by adopting an official policy of extermination. The state refused to sign 18 treaties drawn up by the federal government to protect 8.5 million acres of tribal lands.

As a result of pressure from human rights and religious groups, the first reservations were created by executive order of the president of the United States, over the objection of the California Legislature and local citizens.

These small plots of arid and rocky lands were never intended to provide a place for Indians to thrive or self-govern, but to protect those that remained from total extinction, by removing us from the rest of the populous.

In 1850, California’s first governor, Peter Burnett, announced the state’s official position of genocide, “as the only solution to the Indian problem.” The state funded both the bullets for the voluntary militia, and $10 to $25 for proof of executed Indians – scalps, heads, hands, or bodies.

California’s first bond of $400,000 was issued in 1854, to fund the bounty on dead Indians and the costs of extermination. Also in 1850, the state passed a law, ironically named the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, giving the state authority over Indians, including land settlements and denying even the federal government any trust role or authority to negotiate treaties.

This act was not created to protect Indians, but deny us the rights guaranteed new citizens under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which transferred the California Territory to the United States. Among other things, this act legalized the indenturing of Indian children by granting custody for males until age 18 and females until 15 years old.

Children were often seen being driven to market where the boys were sold for $50, and girls double the amount. Thousands were made legal wards of Anglos, seeking a cheap and steady supply of labor. An advertisement, inviting new settlers to California boasted free land and free Indian labor.

There was a growing problem with displaced and homeless Indians, as natives were being forced from villages and mission homes at an alarming rate. Arresting Indians without proof of work solved this for 10 days. After being jailed, the Indians were auctioned off as laborers, on courthouse steps by sheriffs. It worked this way. Anglos placed bonds in return for which so called “vagrant” Indians were forced to work for a period of time and pay established by their "benefactors."

California Indians, through a succession of laws and the state’s refusal to grant the federal governments trust responsibilities, lost all rights to own property and civil rights, including the right to bear arms, testify in court on our behalf, or attend public schools.

Laws and imprisonment were imposed for practicing religious rites and ceremonies and speaking the native language.

During this time, the former New York Century newspaper wrote, “In the Atlantic and Western states Indians have suffered wrongs and cruelties at the hands of the stronger race, but history has no parallel to atrocities perpetrated in California.” Chauncey S. Goodrich, in his thorough analysis of the legal status of California Indians concluded: “The swift economic development of California was bought at a certain cost of human values. It was the Indian who paid the price.”

The Twentieth Century was a little better; we won a few court cases protecting water rights, and received some compensation for the millions of acres lost by the unsigned treaties of 1850. California Indians came under state criminal jurisdiction and survived federal Indian policies of assimilation and termination, but just barely.

In 1960, when federal policy shifted for the fourth time in 100 years to self-governance and economic self-determination, the tribes were able to work and plan for more than simply survival.

The wise saying, that “those who do not remember history are bound to repeat it,” is particularly relevant to Indians. We cannot allow American policy to repeat its past injustices -- practices that brought us to the brink of extinction. To prevent this, we must take our place as governments and protect our sovereign and constitutional rights of self-rule.

The heart of what sovereignty means to tribes is the right to self-government.

Even those who have limited economic resources to truly exercise self-sufficiency – like tribal nations in South Dakota, the poorest people in America-- are avid defenders of this principle. It’s because of the failed history of America’s commitment to this right of self-government that tribes guard it so zealously.

Education about Indian governments is almost non-existent and rarely taught in schools. Indians are usually addressed in a historic, not contemporary role. Thus the assumption often made, that we are anachronism of the past, either extinct or about to become extinct.

Little was known about modern Indians until gaming and related political issues brought media interest.

Today, there are 567 federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. Tribal governments derive our governing authority from our members. We are part of the governing framework of the United States.

We have dual citizenships. American Indians are citizens of the United States and citizens of tribal nations. Indians were not granted American citizenship until 1924.

There are the only three sovereign governing entities that form the federation known as the United States of America. These are the federal government, tribal governments, and state governments. Cities, municipalities, counties and special districts come under the authority of the states in which they are located.

Democratically elected tribal governments exercise government authority over reservations and people living within the boundaries. Just as states and cities govern within political and geographic jurisdictions, Indians govern through elected representatives. Tribal government representatives have the authority to represent the wishes and rights of our constituents in dealings with the federal, state and local governments, on a government-to-government basis.

Like states and local governments, tribal governments function within the parameters of federal law, under the umbrella of federal policies of civil and democratic rights.

Tribal governments have the authority and responsibility to protect tribal property, persons and to promote our common good. We have the primary responsibility for nurturing employment and economic opportunities, as well as social well being and maintenance of the environment and infrastructures on reservations.

Over the past 20 years, Indian tribes have increasingly asserted our treaty and statutory rights. The result has been the development of economic opportunities for some tribes. However, the majority of tribes still exist as Third World countries with the worst of all human statistics of poverty, suicide, addiction, lack of education and early death rates of any group in America. These tribes are the victims of America’s failed Indian policies and practices.

As governing bodies within the hierarchy of United States’ governments, tribes are the recipients of federally budgeted programs and grants, ranging from law enforcement, health care, education, housing, transportation and other infrastructure allocations, in the same manner as states, counties and cities.

These, along with the Bureau of Indian Affairs budgets, have never been adequate, or flexible enough to serve the needs of the majority of tribes or individual priorities on reservations. The ability to generate our own government funds, either through taxes or other typical government functions, has in the past been severely limited.

This is also why good roads, adequate housing, electricity, phone services, water, sewage, garbage, fire and many other improvements and services end at reservation boundaries. Due to the location and geography of reservation land, poverty, high unemployment, no access to investment capital and lack of commercial enterprises on reservations, revenues for a fully operational government do not exist.

Under the current federal policy of encouraging self-sufficiency and independence of tribal governments, strengthened by economic resources, tribes have been developing our ability to provide for our people the programs and services other taxpayers take for granted. By giving Indians control over our future and the tools to prosper, we are beginning to free ourselves from the past dependency on federal funding and exercise our inherent sovereign rights.

A major change in the prospects for many tribal governments in California came with casino gaming, as a means to generate government revenues. Without funds, it’s pretty hard to operate a government.

We know how state officers felt this year with the state’s multi-billion dollar deficit. Tribes have operated under a deficit for so long, we didn’t even know what being in the black meant. Gaming, in many cases, bolstered by the Cabazon Supreme Court decision of 1987, has proved to be one of the few commercial enterprises actually marketable on reservations. Gaming revenues have revitalized tribal culture and governments.

It has also thrown Indian communities, previously struggling just to survive, into positions of power and wealth. The Cabazon decision reaffirmed the right of tribes in states that engage or allow betting and gaming to raise government revenues through casinos on Indian governed lands.

It also gave the primary responsibility for regulation of gaming to Indian governments, not states. The federal law known as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988, created three classes of gaming and established the requirement of states and tribes to enter into a compact for all forms of Class Three Gaming.

History, sovereignty, the Cabazon decision, and IGRA, all contribute to tug of war some tribes and state officials are having over the California Tribal-State Compact. So here we are today, in California and throughout the United States, where two sovereigns -- without parallel, precedence and very little tradition of working together- are trying to forge relationships, create and interpret law. It’s going to be tough, given the history of tribes in many states and the nation.

It’s going to be tough because non-Indians do not really understand tribal history and sovereignty. Or, the extent to which tribes, given the resources, will fight to protect and strengthen it. The rub about sovereignty is that many well-intended officials of local and state government, and even newspapers publishers, honestly support tribal sovereignty. At least they support the concept.

But the devil is in the details. When the rubber meets the road, tribal sovereignty is sacrificed to a “greater good” -- the needs and greater wisdom of the city, county or state, or other local non-Indian constituents.

Thus, we have local government officials and newspaper editors challenging the state to take control of “these tribes.” The underlying message is about who is in charge. And the provocation and historical precedent is to show that the state is in charge of tribal gaming, environment, taxes, and political contributions—areas that legally belong to tribes, as sovereigns.

As witnessed by the failed policies of the past, Indians and only Indians, can lead, speak and provide for Indians through our governments. Indians do not trust or want others to provide for our future and people.

When people who casually toss around the word sovereignty, truly understand the history, implications and tribal rights that are inherent in that word, the fundamental principles of tribal sovereignty, our rights will be recognized, respected and defended.

Every American student should graduate from high school with the basic lesson in civics that there are three independent sovereign governments in the United States legal and governance system.

Every educated adult should understand that these three historic sovereigns are: the federal government, tribal governments and state governments. When this happens, the shock that Indians are alive and have rights will not be so pervasive or difficult to accept.

There is no going back, many Indian governments are getting strong and gaining experience. Anyone who believes, or suggests the state has the right and obligation to “control Indians” or limit our authority over issues that involve Indian governments, has not gotten the sovereignty message. This is the first time in our history that tribal governments and the state government have attempted to work together on common issues as equals. It’s not going to be easy. My mentor, Elder Tom Hyde, once described the problems that we face with this story.

“Once, the Indians invited the Europeans to dine at our table of riches.” Soon the Europeans stole all the food and the Indians were pushed from the table, forced to accept crumbs from the newcomers. Then things changed again, as all things do, and the Indians began to take their rightful seat at the table again, it’s a small seat, as things go. Certainly small compared to the place we once occupied. Still it’s a share and it’s ours.

“However, to claim a seat at the table, Indians will have to make room by pushing others aside. This is the American way. This is not a good thing and those who have held the places of power and wealth at the table will not like to make room for us – even such a small space. Sooner or later, they will attempt to regain their former place at the table. We will have to be strong and vigilant.

Are tribes suspicious of the state government? You bet. Are we going to force states to fight for every inch of authority over what a tribal government may define as our sovereign government rights? Count on it. Are the tribes going to test our new found powers? You bet we are. Will it always be a fair and honorable fight between the parties? I think not.

One way to think of the tribes today is this. We are the oldest and newest stakeholders in the democratic contest of wills every government, group and special interest is struggling to win. We may be new to the contemporary political battles, but we have proved that we are survivors, and are here to stay.

It would be so much easier and honorable if there were room enough at the table for everyone. But those days are only a memory to American Indians, and a fantasy or myth in minds of those who changed our world.

Today, I am pleased to say America’s democratic faith and practice is healthy, because Indians are assuming our right to self-governance. It will create new challenges and friction, but also creates new opportunities and a chance to redeem a terrible stain on the integrity of America’s founding and conscience of the American soul.

The voice of Felix Cohen still rings true. Cohen still reigns as the preeminent source and scholar of American Indian law and the U.S. Constitution. And, I would ask if you take nothing else away from today, you remember his words written in the Yale Law Journal in 1953. I quote: “Like the miners’ canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere and our treatment of Indians…reflects the raise and fall in our democratic faith.”