repkowil at msu.edu
Tue Jun 5 19:31:17 CDT 2001
This message may help folks understand how we selected the list that we chose.
I am not suggesting the list is perfect ? I would love to hear suggestions
for new groups to add. But, this should shed some light.
In particular, I wanted to respond to Travis?s post, as well as a backchannel
that I received as to why the MSU paper did not include :
a) A Tribe from the Great Plains
b) More of the Shoshone splinter groups.
Let me say that we considered geography in the process of selecting tribes.
For instance, we wanted very badly to include one of the many, many
unrecognized tribes in California (I get that this is not the Great Plains ?
please bear with me)? We almost placed the Muwekma Ohlone (San Fran area) and
the Juanenos (Santa Ana area) on the list -- but chose not to b/c the lit
base for one was tiny, and the other had formed a series of splintered
organizations (This is fairly common. As tribes ?splinter? occurs, so too
does the specific literature base as it relates to each half of the
splintered petition)? In general, we found geographic diversity secondary to
the depth of literature and the prospective side bias?
A note on ?Geographic Fairness?
A few have asked ? can I research the MSU topic as well as, let?s say, the
Vermont debate team ? who is just a car ride away from the Abenaki?s ??
For one, I am not afraid to expand our literature base to creative areas. I
would hope several teams contact the tribes on our list. I do not think this
will happen as frequently with other wording proposals. Accordingly, I think
we will miss out on something.
For another, when we thought about how every team in a nation-wide debate
community would have to research this topic ? it was re-assuring to us that
we were gathering a lot of information on each tribe from a computer in
Michigan. Oddly, I think the elimination of our list, the Mancuso topic, and
the Rayburn topic all have a far greater chance of creating ADVANTAGE areas
for particular tribes that negative would never think to be prepared for
(Corey ? don?t start ? your "overhaul" does not preclude the Aff from running
a Apache advantage). Bottom line ? at least the Neg knows to look for Abenaki
evidence under our topic.
As it relates to the Shoshones (here is the reasoning):
1. Timbisha Shoshone Tribe seem to have the most literature about them ? in
part b/c of their involvement in a high profile case revolving around winning
access to a reservation that stood within the Death Valley National Park.
They are federally recognized ? however ? which is a big reason why their
lawsuit had a chance to succeed.
2. Timpanogos Tribe, a.k.a. The Snake Band of the Shoshone Indians, seem to
be an unrecognized group of Shoshones that could be included on the list. My
fear here is the size of the literature and the fact that they do not
presently have a petition before the BAR/Congress (the have threatened to but
have not done so as of 2/06/01. They are looking to the court system) ? which
seems to be a good standard for negative ground/literature base? But, I am
certainly open to having the list expand ? especially in reaction to
3. We also strongly considered the Lemhi Shoshone ? a tribe in Idaho? The
squad had a good long discussion about including this group? In fact, several
of the cards from the Kritik section are cut from a law review devoted solely
to an analysis of Foucault and Said?s work as it relates to recognition of
the Lemhi? We ultimately opted against including the Lemhis b/c there was an
aff law review article which on-point answered the article I referenced
above?. It would have been a storng kritik Aff ? with a small literature
base, that DID ACTUALLY have carded answers in the literature to the
prominent criticisms of recognition? We just felt it was the definition of a
what we were trying to avoid ? tiny cases with a large side bias?
4. Western Shoshones
Including this group could be very interesting ? as it stands to court the
Yucca Mountain debate . The problem is that many Western Shoshone splinter
groups are recognized ? it is just their tribal council that is not:
INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY January 4, 1999
The Western Shoshone National Council is the traditional government
of the Western Shoshone Nation whose jurisdiction spans the territory
outlined in the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley.
The National Council, however, is not a federally recognized tribal
council created by the Indian Reorganization Act.
And, I am unclear which of the Western Shoshone splinter organizations we
should include. The following are recognized:
-- a useful webcite for those exploring recognition questions)
Native American Tribes with Federal Recognition
Te-Moak Tribes of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands:
Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band)
In the end, including Great Plain Indians in the topic is tough because such
a high percentage are recognized, and those that are not lack a huge lit base.
Travis also spoke to the desire of intentionally including a splintered group
in the topic? The United Houma Nation ? a Louisiana tribe in the topic ? is
confronting this dilemma? The literature about how such splintering effects
their petition and relations should stand to fulfill such objectives?
repkowil at msu.edu
More information about the Mailman