Political principles and Indian sovereignty.
| dc.contributor.advisor | Sankowski, Edward, | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Hester, Thurman Lee, Jr. | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-08-16T12:30:33Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-08-16T12:30:33Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1999 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Political Principles and Indian Sovereignty starts by examining the connection between the well being of Indian people and the sovereignty of Indian Nations. External "locus of control" turns up consistently as a potential cause of problems in Indian health and welfare. Native American people statistically do not feel that they are in control of their own lives. An examination of the history of law and policy concerning Indians shows that United States law and policy have reduced independent nations to dependent citizens over whom the U.S. exercises a "guardianship" which has often served to further limit freedom. Thus it would appear that U.S. policy is an indirect cause of problems for Indian health and welfare. The policy history is done as an uninterrupted narrative, told using extensive quotations from prominent U.S. officials. In this way, many of the contradictions of Federal Indian policy are revealed. In addition, the narrative shows how the U.S. people are the direct cause of many of the problems faced by American Indians, as well as hinting at some of the motivations for U.S. policy. Though current law and policy once again recognize the sovereignty of Native American nations, they do so within the framework of a plenary power doctrine that blunts the positive effect that sovereignty might have. In addition, the current legal doctrine of Indian sovereignty cannot make sense within the framework of U.S. political principles, particularly that of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty and the rhetoric of U.S. law recognize that American Indian sovereign power is derived from their own sovereign authority and thus cannot be limited or even truly accounted for within the framework of U.S. law. Thus, it is argued U.S. plenary power over Indian nations must be ended if the government truly wishes to improve the lives of Indian people. More importantly, the U.S. must give up this power if it to be true to its own political principles. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | v, 173 leaves ; | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11244/5824 | |
| dc.note | Chair: Edward Sankowski. | en_US |
| dc.note | Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 60-05, Section: A, page: 1599. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Political Science, Public Administration. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Indians of North America Social conditions. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Indians of North America Legal status, laws, etc. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Indians of North America Government relations. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Indians of North America. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Sovereignty. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Philosophy. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Law. | en_US |
| dc.thesis.degree | Ph.D. | en_US |
| dc.thesis.degreeDiscipline | Department of Philosophy | en_US |
| dc.title | Political principles and Indian sovereignty. | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |
| ou.group | College of Arts and Sciences::Department of Philosophy | |
| ou.identifier | (UMI)AAI9930841 | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1