Conclusion::

The recent developments within federal Indian law and policy have shown a concerted move, by government, away from earlier policies of active termination and assimilation of Indians, to policies affirming tribal self-determination. In part, this situation has evolved due to the considerable and increasingly sophisticated lobbying techniques and activities of Indians themselves. Tribal governments and organisations have become more assertive in recent decades in their demands for greater tribal autonomy. Such lobbying has heightened Indians' sense of cultural and political identity - both tribal, and supratribal - and has served to focus public attention onto treaty rights and issues of tribal sovereignty.

Indian activism has taken the form of marches and takeovers, Indian-initiated litigation, Indian news media, Indian organisations with both regional and national political agendas, and increased Indian involvement in conventional politics.

Court victories have also served to bolster Indian demands for greater self-determination, and have, in turn, resulted in increased public awareness of and sympathy towards Indian issues. In all, increased Indian lobbying has greatly influenced the direction of federal Indian policy.

Indians have found themselves locked into a contradiction, however. For many tribes, poverty means that economic dependency on federal government still remains a reality. Many tribes seem unwilling, or unable, to give up the federal benefits accrued to them as trustees. Moreover, the government's definition of 'self-determination' remains narrowly-drawn. For Nixon, for example, "self-determination actually meant self-administration of federal programs within indigenous territory" (Morris 1988-9:7).¹ Self-determination hasn't meant that Indians have the right to determine for themselves their own political and economic affairs. And so long as government maintains its plenary, trust-ward relationship toward Indians, full tribal autonomy will remain unrealised.

Some commentators also observe that the legal avenue for redress is no guarantee of justice for Indians. This is due to an inherent flaw within the legal system that is based on two tiers. The two-tiered nature of federal Indian law means that, although on one level Indians have the right to sue government for treaty abrogations or to fight for their basic civil rights as US citizens, and be supported in their claims by Court, another level exists through which Congress ultimately has overall power to choose to abide by Court rulings or not. At the end of the day, argue Shattuck & Norgren, "courts defer to the plenary power of the legislature to decide whether to respect or nullify Indian rights" (1991:193).² The authors state that, "wherever courts protect Indian rights in land or sovereignty they do so on the premise that these rights exist only so long as the government permits" (1991:193). In such a way, the authors conclude, the best Native Americans can hope for in terms of legal justice is "partial justice" (1991:13).

Notes::

• 1 - Glenn T. Morris. 1988-1989. "The International Status of Indigenous Nations within the United States" in Critical Issues in Native North America, Ward Churchill, ed., pp. 1-14. Copenhagen: IWGIA Document 62.
• 2 - Petra T. Shattuck and Jill Norgren. 1991. Partial Justice: Federal Indian Law in a Liberal Constitutional System. New York: Berg.