08-05-2015, 05:34 AM
This article has a skeptical approach to the whole tribal concept. I don't know the author's qualifications, but he does at least quote federal administrative law and gives his source material:
http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2014...0705152502
Here's a snip from it:
Hawaii, then, seems to present a difficult problem for the Interior Department simply based on Hawaiian political and social history. It is not clear that Native Hawaiians would meet the stringent objective Part 83 criteria, among which are mandatory criteria relating to dealings with others as a unified political group while maintaining a large degree of cultural and social unity. (25 CFR section 83.7)
Such rigorous cultural and social criteria define the cohesion for a Native government and its political identity throughout Part 38. Federal acceptance of a Native government is no longer a matter of subjective testimony about individual identification.
For example, the following are indicative of “political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present” for a Native American community:
“(i) More than 50 percent of the members reside in a geographical area exclusively or almost exclusively composed of members of the group, and the balance of the group maintains consistent interaction with some members of the community;
(ii) At least 50 percent of the marriages in the group are between members of the group;
(iii) At least 50 percent of the group members maintain distinct cultural patterns such as, but not limited to, language, kinship organization, or religious beliefs and practices;
(iv) There are distinct community social institutions encompassing most of the members, such as kinship organizations, formal or informal economic cooperation, or religious organizations . . . “ (25 CFR section 88.7©(1))
I don't know enough to agree or disagree with his contentions, but he does give pause for thought.
http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2014...0705152502
Here's a snip from it:
Hawaii, then, seems to present a difficult problem for the Interior Department simply based on Hawaiian political and social history. It is not clear that Native Hawaiians would meet the stringent objective Part 83 criteria, among which are mandatory criteria relating to dealings with others as a unified political group while maintaining a large degree of cultural and social unity. (25 CFR section 83.7)
Such rigorous cultural and social criteria define the cohesion for a Native government and its political identity throughout Part 38. Federal acceptance of a Native government is no longer a matter of subjective testimony about individual identification.
For example, the following are indicative of “political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present” for a Native American community:
“(i) More than 50 percent of the members reside in a geographical area exclusively or almost exclusively composed of members of the group, and the balance of the group maintains consistent interaction with some members of the community;
(ii) At least 50 percent of the marriages in the group are between members of the group;
(iii) At least 50 percent of the group members maintain distinct cultural patterns such as, but not limited to, language, kinship organization, or religious beliefs and practices;
(iv) There are distinct community social institutions encompassing most of the members, such as kinship organizations, formal or informal economic cooperation, or religious organizations . . . “ (25 CFR section 88.7©(1))
I don't know enough to agree or disagree with his contentions, but he does give pause for thought.