Tribal College Journal just published a rave review of my book.
http://www.tribalcollegejournal.org/themag/current.html

“In Native America, Discovered and Conquered Robert J. Miller explains that Manifest Destiny was based on the Doctrine of Discovery and was the legal basis, under American and European law, used to obtain title to the land in the Americas. The Doctrine of Discovery states that Europeans who “discover” new lands have the sole right to negotiate with the Native inhabitants for the legal title to that land. Miller provides the reader with a thorough analysis of how the founding fathers of the United States based their right to negotiate for Native American lands on this ethnocentric European belief.

This is an easy-to-read, informative, and well-researched book. Miller manages to describe a complex international doctrine in layman terms and keep the readers’ interest along the way. It will be enjoyed by those studying legal, U.S. or Native American history. I recommend this book for purchase by tribal college libraries.

James Thull holds a Master of Arts in History and a master’s of Library and Information Sciences from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He currently works as a reference librarian and assistant professor at Montana State University-Bozeman and has been the assistant coordinator of the Tribal College Librarians Institute since 2005.”

A remote tribe in the Amazon is using technology to protect its land from illegal miners and loggers.

The Surui Tribe is using video cameras, GPS devices, and the Internet to track encroachments on its 600,000-acre reservation.

“Since the Surui and other indigenous people were given training tools by Google, our land has received more visibility,” Chief Almir Surui told The San Francisco Chronicle. “All the information is shedding light on the invasion of our land . . . and giving our people the responsibility for their own future.”

The tribe came into contact with outsiders in 1969. Though the Brazilian government established a reservation, illegal mining and logging remains a problem.

Google breaks Amazon tribe’s isolation (The San Francisco Chronicle 7/3)

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) is still hopeful that Congress will pass a resolution to apologize to Native peoples this year.

Brownback first introduced the resolution in 2004. It passed the Senate earlier this year as part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

The House has yet to take up the measure. But Brownback says Canada’s recent apology to former students of Native residential schools puts pressure on the United States to take action.

Harper’s apology to natives puts pressure on Bush (The Globe and Mail 7/2)

Indianz.com agrees with me, as I have written, that the Supreme Court recast the Plains Commerce Bank case it decided June 25 to fit it within the test it has devised to withhold tribal court jurisdiction over cases that arise on reservations.

The Court skewed the factual setting and considered a case that was about an off-reservation bank dealing with on reservation Indians about lands lands they owned on reservation, into the later in time act by the bank of selling the land to non-Indians.

Indiaz.com states: “The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday limited tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians in a 5-4 decision that was split along conservative and liberal lines.

In the eyes of many in Indian Country, Plains Commerce Bank v. Long was a contract dispute between two members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and a non-Indian bank. Since Plains Commerce Bank in South Dakota voluntarily entered into an agreement with Ron and Lila Long, tribal advocates believed the case would withstand scrutiny.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts recast the dispute in a way that precluded tribal jurisdiction. Writing for the majority, he said just everything about the case was non-Indian in nature.

“This case concerns the sale of fee land on a tribal reservation by a non-Indian bank to non-Indian individuals,” Roberts wrote in his opening.

By noting that the Longs mortgaged fee land to the bank, Roberts was able to rely on Supreme Court precedents that limit tribal jurisdiction over lands that are not held in trust.

“Our cases have made clear that once tribal land is converted into fee simple, the tribe loses plenary jurisdiction over it,” Roberts noted. . . .

The more liberal justices sided with the Longs in upholding tribal court jurisdiction. In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the characterization of the case as one over fee land.

“Resolving this case on a ground neither argued nor addressed below, the court holds that a tribe may not impose any regulation — not even a nondiscrimination requirement — on a bank’s dealings with tribal members regarding on-reservation fee lands,” Ginsburg wrote.

But even if the case were about the sale of fee land, Ginsburg said tribal courts are the proper place to resolve a dispute involving a non-Indian bank that voluntarily entered into a business agreement with tribal members. “Sales of land — and related conduct — are surely ‘activities’ within the ordinary sense of the word,” she wrote, citing some of the same precedents that Roberts relied on. . . .

The decision means the Longs are not entitled to a $750,000 jury verdict awarded by a Cheyenne River Sioux court. With interest, the judgment would have to about $870,000.”

The Augusta Georgia newspaper, The Metro Spirit, just reviewed my book today. It’s an excellent review. The reviewer really caught the essence of what I say in the book.

Among other things, the reviewer states: “Miller offers a poignant analysis of the justification of American expansionist policy” and “Miller has written an important book for the consideration of land rights in the United States.” The reviewer concludes that the book provides “a detail oriented approach to historical legal policy and theory, [and that] Miller’s argument provides a splendid starting block for introductory discussion of American expansionist policy.”

Get the entire review: http://metrospirit.com/index.php?cat=1993101070610360&ShowArticle_ID=11012506081159061

Wisconsin claims that the Ho-Chunk Nation owes $100 million under a disputed Class III gaming compact.

The 2003 compact authorized additional Class III games in exchange for a share of the revenues. But the tribe says it never installed more games due to litigation involving another tribe.

The state claims the Ho-Chunks must share revenues regardless and went to court to compel arbitration. On January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled the tribe waived its sovereign immunity.

A federal court has yet to determine how arbitration should proceed. Meanwhile, the tribe is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 7th Circuit ruling in Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisconsin.

Tribe misses deadline to pay state $72 million (The Madison State Journal 7/1)

Participants in the Longest Walk 2 are nearing their final destination of Washington, D.C.

American Indian Movement activist Dennis Banks, 75, is leading the walk, which began on February 11 on Alcatraz Island in California. It’s due to arrive in the nation’s capitol July 11, 30 years after the first Longest Walk.

Banks and his group arrived in Virginia on Sunday. Participants are calling attention to the environment and sacred sites.

Indian-rights activist Banks re-creates walk (The Richmond Times-Dispatch 6/30)

The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska is willing to pay gambling taxes to the state of Iowa, Chairman Larry Wright Jr. said in an interview.

Wright said the state will have to drop its opposition to the tribe’s proposed casino in Carter Lake. The state’s gaming tax is 22 percent of gross gaming revenues.

The state has filed a lawsuit against the National Indian Gaming Commission over the proposed casino. The state claims the land doesn’t qualify for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

In a December 31, 2007, decision, the NIGC said the land qualifies for an exception in Section 20 of IGRA because it was taken into trust as part of the tribe’s federal recognition. Congress restored the tribe to recognition in 1990.

Tribe: We’ll consider paying taxes (The Des Moines Register 7/1)

The five citizens of the Makah Nation of Washington were sentenced on Monday for hunting a whale without a federal permit.

Andy Noel and Wayne Johnson were given prison time for violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Frankie Gonzales, Theron Parker and William Secor were sentenced to two years’ probation and community service. All five men had pleaded guilty.

The tribe’s treaty with the United States guarantees it the right to hunt whales. The Nation engaged in a sanctioned hunt in 1999 but since then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has voided the Environmental Impact Statements that the U.S. drafted to allow further whaling. That court also ruled that the tribe must follow the MMPA and obtain a federal permit. The Nation is still pursuing that avenue.

2 Makahs to serve time for illegally killing whale (The Seattle Times 7/1)

A growing problem with some tribes is the “disenrollment” or removal of the citizenship status of current tribal citizens. The perception of many people is that some tribes that have gaming operations are doing this to increase the payout of casino profits to the remaining tribal citizens.

This is a very ugly issue if that concern is true.

In Washington, eight citizens were recently disenrolled from the Snoqualmie Tribe, including the sitting tribal chairman. The Tribe will soon open a casino near Seattle. The disenrolled citizens filed a law suit in federal court on May 29, 2008.

Another such incident is also in the news and in fact the Bureau of Indian Affairs appears to be stepping in. Usually the federal and state courts and governments will not get involved at all in citizenship or membership decisions of Indian Nations.

Indianz.com reports: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs is asserting authority over a membership dispute within the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians of California.

The tribe is moving to disenroll about 50 people, claiming they are not Indian. Some people have been fired from their jobs and face eviction from the reservation.

But James Fletcher, the BIA’s superintendent in southern California, said the tribe can’t take any action without the agency’s approval. He said he reported a potential violation of the tribe’s revenue allocation plan to the National Indian Gaming Commission.”

Tribe denies 50 members profits from casino (The San Diego Union-Tribune 6/28)