Silent Screams

Though the United States of America is a land priding itself on “insuring domestic tranquility,” in some areas of the nation, America has seemingly forgotten this founding value. One such example is the sovereignty dispute between U.S. and Tribal authorities, as whether crimes committed on Native lands or against Native peoples are within Tribal or U.S. jurisdiction is often called into question. States assert that their sovereignty governs, and claim that it is unconstitutional to privilege Tribal sovereignty over their own.  A critical issues arising out of the sovereignty dispute between Tribal and U.S. authorities is how crimes, especially those committed against Natives by non-Natives, are adjudicated. Importantly, violence against Native women by non-Native men is often a crime where jurisdiction is disputed, and this is reflective of the larger racial structures and injustice on a larger national scale.  The dispute between state and Tribal sovereignty relates to the larger racial and systemic issues in the United States.

Though it may seem consistent with the United States’s value that Tribal lands fall under Tribal jurisdiction, the individual states resist Tribal sovereignty. Many states propose that privileging Tribal sovereignty over sovereignty of the state is unconstitutional; and the notion that extending “Tribal jurisdiction is unconstitutional reveals the State’s  discomfort with the expansion of Tribal sovereignty, even when that sovereignty is limited to crimes perpetrated against Native people, on Tribal land” (Gurr, 116). The discomfort of states to privilege Tribal sovereignty over their own lies within the absence of discourse surrounding issues of inclusion of Native peoples and the crimes, such as domestic violence, committed against them. Moreover, the representation of Native peoples surrounding this discussion is limited due to a lack of inclusion of native peoples in the creation and maintenance of legislation pertaining to Natives. This is exemplified through Senator Chuck Grassley who stated, “under the laws of our land, you got to have a jury that is a reflection of a society as a whole, and on an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right? So the non-Indian doesn't get a fair trial” (Keyes, 2013). The attitude articulated through Senator Grassley’s statement discredits the process of Tribal courts through its implication that trials under Tribal jurisdiction for non-Native people would be unjust, calling into question the validity of the tribal law system and its practices in a national context.The act of privileging state jurisdiction over Tribal displays not only a discomfort with the sovereignty of Native peoples, but also allows for continued violence against native bodies by reinforcing the lack of consequences for non-Natives individuals committing the crimes.

The American government plays a salient role creating legislation regarding how crimes are prosecuted on tribal land; unfortunately, the passed legislation often leads to perpetuating injustice against Native peoples, as seen through the PL 280. PL 280 limits Tribal and privileges state jurisdiction in cases of violence against Native peoples by non-Natives, as the legislation “imposes regional state privilege in the prosecution of all violent crimes committed on Tribal land and restricts or prohibits Tribal jurisdiction, particularly against non-native perpetrators” (Gurr, 113). Violence against Native women is especially affected by PL 280, as the implicit ravaging of female Native bodies by non-Native men continues to be a major issue, as it is “non-Native men who commit over 67 percent of rapes and sexual assaults against Native women“ (Gurr, 116). Through privileging state and limiting tribal jurisdiction, effective prosecution of crimes committed against Native peoples remains restricted and furthers the vulnerability of Native women.

The need to engage in a national discourse over issues regarding tribal sovereignty, however, extends beyond violence against Native women. The dispute between U.S. and Tribal sovereignty relates to racial tension in America as well. In the United States, whites, although axiomatically willing to agree that racial tension exists, do not then take part in learning the process of combating racial injustices. This is seen through the state as [..] organizing access to care, safety, and justice is deeply reflective and reproductive of colonialist structures of domination, assimilation, and removal.” (Gurr, 118). These structures affect the safety and security of marginalized people, as seen through the increased risk for Native peoples to be sexually assaulted (Gurr, 105). Moreover, the Black Lives Matter movement, which stemmed from the mistreatment of African - American individuals. The continued strife over racial identity in the U.S. reveals the inequalities that negatively impact the safety of marginalized people. Furthermore, the U.S. government does not provide avenues for fixing this problem with the justice system, but instead mitigates the punishment  for the individuals who violated the law or committed the crime. U.S. courts exist within these unjust societal structures, and therefore are non-objective operators as well, as, "Our courts and juries aren’t impartial arbiters -- they exist inside society, not outside of it -- and they can only provide as much justice as society is willing to give." (Bouie, 2014).

These racial ideologies embedded into the structure of the American fabric are the result of white supremacist ideologies that have been historically driven. This leads to the need to think critically of racial tension and examine, on a national scale, the issues so we can contribute positively to the discourse. As a result, we can start looking towards the improvement of the country as whole. Through this discourse we can move towards making effective change and promoting fairness for each individual in this country.