13

Some people (e.g. here) accuse USA of supporting other countries' independence movements (Kosovo/Palestine/Tibet/Taiwan, depending on your definition of "support") as being in conflict with the fact that Native Americans don't have a sovereign state of their own.

However, such an accusation can only be genuine if there is an actual popular desire in modern continental Native American population to have a fully sovereign state.

Is there such a popular desire, as backed up by polls/surveys?

NOTES:

  • I'm only interested in poll/survey results, not opinions.
  • I don't care if the answer is scoped to all Native Americans in US or one specific tribe, as long as scope is clarified
  • The question doesn't have anything to do with how the CURRENT political arrangement between Indian territories and US Federal Government work
  • Movements to take some chunk of USA and reconquista it back into Mexico doesn't count - that would not lead to independent soveregnity
Improve this question
7
  • 1
    I am pretty sure most of them prefer the status quo where they get full benefits of US Citizenship and protections of the government with basic autonomy on their tribal lands. Do you have any evidence that there is a desire for this among the Native american population?
    – SoylentGray
    Commented Aug 11, 2013 at 14:47
  • 5
    @Chad, that is what this question is attempting to answer? (At least the way I read the question?
    – user1873
    Commented Aug 11, 2013 at 16:28
  • 2
    perhaps tangentally related: State of Sequoya (historical) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah Nunavit (Canadian neighbors) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut
    – user1530
    Commented Aug 13, 2013 at 4:27
  • 1
    @Dale how would becoming more independent from the US result in their having to give up their casinos?
    – phoog
    Commented May 30, 2018 at 15:18
  • 2
    The massive misconception here is that American Indians are one unified group. Nothing could be further from the truth; as of 2015 there were 566 distinct tribes recognized by the US government. (Per Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… ) These tribes have (or had in the past) many different cultures, and spoke hundreds of different languages. Moreover, many of them were/are hereditary enemies.
    – jamesqf
    Commented May 30, 2018 at 17:38

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
9

A Google news search for the past 25 years, as well as a BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs, the agency which negotiates Native American issues with the US government) news search has not uncovered any news "Native American independence" groups or movements.

A group calling itself The Lakota Freedom Delegation exists and is seeking a "Republic of the Lakotah" (i.e. a Lakota nation) under the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty. This group does maintain a web site; although it does not seem to have been updated in at least the last 18 months (as of January 2014). Nor do they seem to be putting out regular press statements or policy papers.

It can be surmised that this is a fringe group, as it calls for the rejection of all currently recognized federal tribes in the US. Since their support who have to come this base to begin with, it is uncertain how or where they believe they will be able to lobby enough support to increase the size and scope of their movement.

No other large-scale Native American independence groups seem to exist.

Reference:

http://www.republicoflakotah.com http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0594.htm http://www.bia.gov/News/index.htm

Improve this answer
0

In modern world the anti-governmental, revolutionary and separatist movements are usually very weak or non-existent in the absence of external support. As such one has to wait for a foreign power to be interested in supporting separatism in the USA before such movements could gain prominence.

But most of foreign countries that may be potentially interested, have their own issues with separatism, so they are unlikely to support such movements in the USA.

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    Uh? Russia didn't have ANY problem with separatism in South Ossetia:)
    – user4012
    Commented Jan 2, 2014 at 4:36
  • @DVK If you meant Russian support of separatism in Georiga is contrary to Russian long-term interests (especially the recognition of the new states), I would fully agree with you. The recognition was made by then-president Medvedev who conducted the pro-US policy in any field, following the US-suggested deal (we recognize Kosovo, you recognize Ossetia). The deal is not an equal exchange and favors the US strategical interests. Note that both Belarus and Kazakhstan, traditional allies of Russia refused to follow the case.
    – Anixx
    Commented Jan 2, 2014 at 16:03
  • 2
    I'm highly skeptical that Medvedev ordered lunch without approval from Putin, never mind decided major foreign policy
    – user4012
    Commented Jan 2, 2014 at 16:08
  • @DVK actually Medvedev did multiple things favoring the US ideology or interests, many of which were later (partially or fully) reverted by Putin. Examples include call for buying foreign planes instead of Russian-made, de-criminalization of slander and changing punishment for bribery from prison to fine (the both criminal code articles were restored later under Putin), so-called "de-Stalinization" campaign, Skolkovo project where foreign companies were allowed virtually free access to Russian technologies, multiple pro-Feminist measures, including anti-pedophile histeria, and many other.
    – Anixx
    Commented Jan 2, 2014 at 16:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .