Transcripts For CSPAN2 In The Light Of Justice 20131228

No questions . [inaudible question] is there a question here . [applause] there was a question. My question is what is the best story you did . The best story i didnt print, i think all the good ones are in there, i got to tell you. Good question. Anyone else . I have to start dying my hair after all this was over. It was really fun to be in kansas. Earlier today we talked about preserving the voices of elders and that was important and i was so happy i got to do that. It is up part of what you grew up with. Really an honor. [applause] booktv is on facebook. Like us to interact with booktv guests and viewers. Watch videos and get uptodate information on events, facebook. Com booktv. 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books continues on cspan2. Walter echohawk talks about the u. S. Governments adoption of the un declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and discusses what needs to be done to implement it and create a more just society for native americans. This is about an hour and 15. I have to thank you, i couldnt ask for a more wonderful and generous, kind introduction. I came here to say all of that. I am very pleased to be here at the Sandra Day Oconnor school of college of law. I appreciate the invitation to speak. I especially want to thank greg hill, the executive director of the indian legal program, darlene master and Patty Ferguson for inviting me to be here. I am so fees, so glad and honored to once again be here at the college of law, to be part of this lecture ceres. I have to say at the outset the Indian Law Program. I have to say at the outset the Indian Law Programseries. I have to say at the outset the Indian Law Program. I have to say at the outset the Indian Law Program is certainly well known nationally as a National Leader in the field of indian law. I have very much valued my opportunity to work with the esteemed law professors here in various matters. Professor soc, Professor Bob klansman, bob miller, professor miller, professor kevin over atr miller, professor kevin over at the smithsonian. Patti ferguson, and thank you for an allstar lineup of indian professors as part of the faculty of this meeting, ranking law school. I am glad to be here. I have been inspired by the scholarship, the innovation and the leadership provided by this Indian Law Program at the university. Therefore, i personally feel it is very, very fitting to present my First Law School book lecture in support of my new book in the light of justice here at this law school. This book is fresh off of the press. It was released last month in august and we have done a domestic book launching event in june for it in new mexico as well as an International Book launching event in fiji in the south pacific. I am now on a National Book lecture tour in support of this book and beginning right here at the great hall as it should be. But this book is about a brand new Legal Framework for defining native American Life in the United States. Examines the landmark un declaration on the rights of Indigenous People which is an International Instrument that creates a comprehensive human rights framework, a comprehensive human rights framework for indigenous rights of Indigenous Peoples worldwide. This declaration was approved by the un in the year 2007. It was endorsed by the United States in the year 2010. So today there are 150 nations around the world that have endorsed this un declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is the new order of the day it seems to me and so my book basically examines this un declaration, the nature and its contents and goes on to compare these un human rights standards with existing u. S. Foreign policy, to see how our lot how well our laws and policies in the United States stack up against these un standards. And then finally this book urges our nation to undertake a social and Legal Movement to implement these un standards into existing laws and policies so that all of our why is and policies comply with your comport with each and every one of these u. N. Standards. I have to say at the outset of that this book, i am very indebted to law professor as james anaya , from the university of Arizona College of law for riding the forward to this book. As you know, this brilliant indigenous lawyer is currently serving at the un special rapid tours on the rights of Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations and in that capacity, professor anaya is the un official primarily responsible for interpreting this un declaration and assisting u. N. Nations around the world in implementing them. When he agreed to write the foreword i would have to do a good job. What i would like to do in this book lectures this evening is to cover three areas with few. First, i would like to look at why or explain why i wrote this book about the un declaration. Secondly, i would like to describe this un declaration for you. Who has read this declaration . Raise your hand. By golly, that is a pretty substantial fraction. I want to briefly describe this declaration, its principal features and the key humanrights framework that it creates for Indigenous Peoples, not only are around the world but here in the usa. Thirdly, i would like to discuss some of the issues that are addressed in this book, some of my findings that are made, some of the conclusions i made from my comparative legal analysis, and especially i want to talk about the need to implement these u. N. Standards in our own country here into our u. S. Law and social policy and identify some of the implementation challenges that lie ahead for this generation. After i cover these areas i will have time for questions and answers and i will be available to sign a few books after we are done thanks to the campus bookstore. Before i begin i want to lay out the general premise of this book. And that is that this is truly a historic time for federal indian law and policy and of course federal indian law is our current framework in the u. S. For defining native american rights, a property rights, cultural rights and civil rights as native americans, defined by principles of federal indian law. We know very clearly that federal indian law, it has been our experience during the modern era of federal indian law that this Legal Framework had basically two sides to it. On the one side, it has very protective features that are protective of native american rights. It stems from or arises from the tribal sovereignty, inherent tribal sovereignty doctrine and the related protectorate principles that were laid out by the Supreme Court in worcester vs. Georgia. In these protective features of federal indian law in the last two generations, we have literally witnessed the rise of our modern indian nations that we can see now around the country and within this framework we have witnessed a very stirring cultural renaissance as well as we look around the country. But on the other side of federal indian law we had this dark side of federal indian law that was implanted by the Supreme Court in the Nineteenth Century that has a very distinct anti indigenous function. This arises from a number of nefarious legal doctrines, numerous unjust legal fictions, notions of racism that were built into federal indian law many decades ago. This dark side of federal indian law holds us back. It makes us vulnerable. It keeps us for. But today we can clearly see two Legal Frameworks for defining native american rights. One x is our old framework of federal indian law with its good and bad sides to it. And second, out on the horizon, we can see coming our way, a brandnew framework. Looking at abstract principles of justice or morality when defining native american rights. And this has produced a body of law that is essentially amoral, that contains an amazing prevalence of unjust cases. And we can look at the four corners of this jurisprudence, and you cant find any judicial discourse about human rights. No human rights precepts, ask no human and no human rights principles. So today we stand at a crossroads, it seems to me, between these two Legal Frameworks. And the book asserts that our challenge of this generation is to, basically, save the very best from our old framework and merge it with this new human rights framework to synthesize these two frameworks into a seamless, strengthened, more just body of law for the 21st century. And i believe that that is the challenge for the current generation. And it may take the work of a generation to do that. So let me turn to the areas that i wanted to cover here. Why did i write this book . In thinking about the reasons, i was motivated basically by three reasons. First, is the need to strengthen central indian law. We have witnessed a gradual weakening of federal indian law since 1986. Court observers tell us that we have, Indian Tribes have lost over 80 of their cases before the u. S. Supreme court. That high court is on a very clear judicial trend towards trimming back our hardwon fative rights of the native rights of the last generation. That problem in the law is very frightening, and its compounded, it seems to me, by the dark side of federal indian law that i have mentioned earlier. We have our, some of our leading legal scholars have studied this dark side of our Legal Framework, have looked at the nefarious, traced the roots of some of these nefarious legal doctrines back to medieval europe. Folks like professor rob williams of the university of Arizona School of law, Professor Bob miller here looking at the doctrine of discovery. And in my first book here looking at the ten worst cases on the dark side of federal indian law. And this scholarship, this body of scholarship has really identified, um, nefarious legal doctrines, internal tensions within our body of law that do render our legal rights vulnerable, ever vulnerable today. And the existence of this unjust side of federal indian law is not questioned in any serious way at this point in history. And i think that our litigators of the past two generations have basically lived with this body of law. We took it as we found it. We tried to emphasize the protective features and coax the courts into applying the most protective features of in the framework of this framework. And living with the dark side of it. We never mounted an effort to overturn the dark side of the law, the plessy very Ferguson Plessy v. Ferguson type of cases, the dred scott cases that are still the law today in johnson v. Mcintosh and that ilk of cases. But we live with that. And so, um, this trend towards gradually weakening the law, federal indian law has led many troubled legal scholars and tribal leaders to ask, is federal indian law dead . Have we stalled out on the very doorsteps of true selfdetermination as thats defined by modern International Human rights law . And it may be that our indian nations have come as far as they can under this existing Legal Framework. I think that theres an axiom that a race of people can only advance so far under an unjust legal regime. Ask and to advance further, they have to attack that legal regime and reform it to go further in their aspirations. So these problems in the law have deeply troubled me, and i believe many of my colleagues as well. And its led me to believe for the past few years that federal indian law is in deep trouble today. That it needs a lifeline. And i feel like this u. N. Declaration may with that lifeline may be that lifeline. And so i felt it was worthwhile to study this declaration. Secondly, the second reason that motivated me to write this book is that if you look around Indian Country, our tribal communities, well see that there are numerous hardtosolve social ills in our tribal communities. There are shocking socioeconomic gaps between native americans and nonindian neighbors this terms of life expectancy, poverty, housing, medical care, violence, suicide, unemployment. These social ills have linger ored for so long lingered for so long this our tribal communities that theyre seen as normal, and they threaten to become permanent. How do we account for these shocking inequities that exist to this very day, that stalk our tribal people in people . Social science researchers tell us that these are unhealed wounds that have been inherited by our tribal communities. Historical trauma that has been handed down into the present day from our legacy of conquest here in the United States. The dispossession, the subjugation and the marginalization of native americans have left these marks in our tribal communities today. The end products of our existing law and social policies. And if we look at this u. N. Declaration, we can see that its specifically designed to address these social ills through a human rights framework. To rid us of the inherited ill effects of a legacy of conquest and colonialism. Thats what the u. N. Designed this declaration to do. And so i think its warranted to study this possible antidote to these hardtosolve social ills that have been with us despite our best efforts to overcome them. The third reason why i wrote this book is that the u. N. s approval of this landmark declaration in the year 2007 surprised america. It caught us with our chaps down, pretty much. Even though this landmark declaration was in the making in the u. N. For over 30 years through very open and transparent u. N. Processes, it was pretty much unheralded by the rest of us here at home, Indian Tribes and their attorneys were naturally focusing on federal indian law to meet our needs here domestically. And so when it was approved by the u. N. In the year 2011, the tribes and our tribal attorneys and the general public were pretty much unaware of it. And so since that time, Indian Country has begun studying this u. N. Declaration trying to fathom its possibilities. And so as were educating ourselves about this few Legal Framework new Legal Framework, i felt that there was a need to provide some baseline information about the declaration, to look at some of its implications ask some of its possibilities, to begin thinking about how to go about implementing these comprehensive standards into our laws and social policies, to assist Indian Country perhaps and the rest of the nation to understand the native american situation through a human rights lens. And so this book attempts to provide this information and analysis, and its written for a general reading public. As we try to study and fathom the possibilities of this deck deck declaration around the country and here at the college. Just last spring the Indian Law Program hosted a conference here about how to implement this u. N. Declaration. So these are the reasons why this book was written. Id like to turn next to what, basically, what is in the u. N. Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and its new human rights framework for defining native american rights. Basically, this declaration is an International Human rights instrument. It sets forth minimum human rights standards for protecting the survival, dignity and well being of Indigenous Peoples worldwide. And that would include native americans in the United States. American indians, alaska natives and native hawaiians. This declaration, as i mentioned earlier, was approved by the u. N. In the year 2007. It was endorsed formally by the Obama Administration in the year 2010. And as i mentioned, today 150 nations around the world have endorsed the declaration. It contains the authentic aspirations of Indigenous Peoples because Indigenous Peoples wrote this document and negotiated through the u. N. It took them almost 30 be years to do it 30 years to do it, but they did. And if you read this declaration, the 46 articles and the whereas clauses at the gunning of it, youll see at the beginning of it, youll see that it reflects our native american aspirations, all of the issues and concerns that we have as tribal people, as tribal leaders, as tribal attorneys, law professors. All of our issues are addressed in some shape or tomorrow in this comprehensive declaration. These, therefore, are very comprehensive in nature. They address the full range of native american issues and as rations aspirations providing a complete framework for looking at the content and nature of our property rights, political rights, civil rights, economic rights, social rights, culture rights, religious rights and environmental rights. At the core of this framework is the indigenous human right to selfdetermination which is the core principle of our tribal Sovereignty Movement here this s the u. S. , the right in the u. S. , the right of selfdetermination. These human rights are described by the declaration as inherent rights. That means that these are not rights that the u. N. Gave to native people, they are inherent rights that they already had. That they rise from indigenous cultures, indigenous histories, indigenous to languages and that all the u. N. Declaration does here is it pulls from a larger body of modern International Human rights law u. N. Treaties, customary International Law and it applies these treaty rights and norms in customary International Law to the unique situation of Indigenous Peoples. And tells us how to interpret that larger body of law in the context of Indigenous Peoples. So that we can have the same rights that the rest of humanity already enjoys under human rights law. The u. N. Declaration says that these inherent human rights and by with inherent, im talking about inalienable rights, rights that are indefeasible, rights that are larger than the nation are supposed to be interpreted according to this document, according to notions of equity, equality, justice, democracy can and good faith, a very Just Foundation for these inherent human rights. Much more just than the notions that give rise to the rights in federal indian law which arose from notions of colonial im, notions of race colonialism, notions of race and religious intolerance. These rights in the u. N. Declaration are not think are not new rights, they are not special rights for Indigenous Peoples. Rather, as i mentioned earlier, the u. N. Similarly applied in developing these standards look to the larger body of existing International Human rights law and pulled from that body of law standards that are tailored to the unique situation of Indigenous Peoples. And tells us, tells each nation how we should interpret that larger body of law in the context of Indigenous Peoples so that they can be accorded at long last the same kinds of fundamental freedoms that the rest of humanity already enjoys. In my book i found that these u. N. Standards are largely compatible with u. S. Law and social policies in many ways despite the dark side of federal indian law. We have here in the United States core human rights values. Our American Revolution was based on the human rights principle, the human rights rell rell principle is what birthed our nation. Furthermore, we have an indian selfdetermination policy that president nixon announced in 1970. And this indian selfdetermination policy is very compatible with, in respects, the selfdetermination framework of the u. N. Declaration. And thirdly, our legal culture here in the u. S. , um, at its very best and in its finest hour, um, seems to be compatible with these u. N. Standards. As we can see that in, say, the ten best indian cases ever decided. Religious freedom cases and so on and so forth are compatible with these standards. The problem is that our legal culture in its finest hour is sometimes very fleeting, and these cases have been eroded over time. And and our legal culture does not often rise to its finest hour. But in its finest hour, it demonstrates that our legal culture is compatible with these human rights standards each even though human rights are bereft in federal indian law. But at the same time, my book with finds that our body of law contains many areas that do need improvement to make sure that our body of law and policy comply with these minimum standards. This u. N. Declaration asks each nation to implement these human rights standards in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, to go forward arm in arm in consultation, in good faith with Indigenous Peoples to provide funding to Indigenous Peoples and Technical Assistance to go about implementing these standards. And i think that if we look around the world, i think well see the rest of the world embarking on this implementation process. How was this declaration made . It was created in the u. N. Human rights framework through open and transparent processes. It wasnt negotiated by bigspending lobbyists as we see in the dark corners of congress, but in fair and open, the light of day proceedings over an almost 30year process as it moved step by step through the u. N. Human rights framework, nations and diplomats commenting, refining, negotiating alongside Indigenous Peoples. Pioneers who accessed the International Realm for the first time in 200 years. To participate in developing these standards. These work product, this declaration that eventually emerged is firmly fixed now as part of the u. N. Human rights system, the treaty system and its system of declarations that comprise the modern body of International Human rights law. So this declaration is landmark in many, many respects. Its landmark because it makes International Law accountable to Indigenous Peoples for the very first time. Its landmark because Indigenous Peoples were able to access the International Realm for the first time to participate in making this instrument. And i would predict that if all of the nations around the world that have endorsed this declaration implement its provisions, that it will change the world the way that the world looks at the some 350 million Indigenous Peoples around the world. And it promises to guide each nation, to steer us away from our inherited legacies of conquest and colonialism that stalk settler nations, some of our modern nations with inherited histories of colonialism. The status of this declaration, however, is its not as a declaration an International Law, its not in and of itself a legallybinding instrument thats enforceable in federal courts. However, there are provisions that might be ip indirectly enforceable to the extent that they constitute a norm in customary International Law which is part of our federal common law. Or a u. N. Treaty to which the United States is a signatory. But beyond that, its not a legallybinding instrument. Its one that we have to to we have to proactively implement in this consultation with the United States government. And in that regard weve had and since the Obama Administration approved it in the year 2010, weve had a Senate Indian Affairs Committee oversight hearing to begin looking at the policy ramifications of this. Weve had this declaration being the subject of indian conferences around the country, tribal leader forums, law School Conferences as we begin to educate ourselves about it. And then last year we had the u. N. Special rack on tour conducted an official visit to the United States to go into consultation with Indian Tribes and federal Government Agency agencyies. And he developed a report about the situation of Indigenous Peoples in the United States and their human rights. That assesses his findings and recommendations for implementing this declaration. So id like to conclude the rest of my time here by talking a little bit about the need for implementing this declaration in the United States. The threshold question before us, for all americans of goodwill including tribal people ask nonindians alike, is why do we need these u. N. Standards in the United States . Thats a legitimate question that folks naturally are going to ask us. After all, many wonder, you know, respect we the leading dem consideration arent we the leading democracy in the world. . Dont we have our own human rights heritage . And others may say, well, our nation was birthed on the human rights principle, and we may not have always lived up to it in our treatment of native americans, but do we have an obligation to heal a painful of past when we personally had no hand this committing in committing these appalling injustices against native people in the growth and expansion of our nation . Other people may ask, isnt International Law ineffective or unenforceable, which i think is a myth . Withbesides, a lot of people dot like the u. N. , and they dont want the u. N. To boss us around, and they dont want International Law to boss us around. Others may ask, you know, why cant we just use our existing law and policy to address any lingering inequities . We have a comprehensive body of federal indian law. Weve got the bill of rights. Why not just use the bill of rights and treat everyone alike and nothing more . So theres a lot of threshold questions, and my book tried to examine these questions and explore answers to these questions. Why do we need to implement these standards in our own land . And i came up with four reasons, four compelling reasons for implementing the need for implementing these standards in the United States. Legal reasons, political reasons, social reasons and environmental reasons. And i just want to go through them with you briefly. My first reason that i have for the need for implementing these standards in the u. S. Is the need to strengthen federal indian law and policy. And ive already talked about that. There is a need to reform the dark side of federal indian law, to root out the law of colonial ism, the doctrines of conquest, the jurisprudence of racism that carry these antiindigenous functions, a need to resolve the internal tension between the protective features of federal indian law and the antiindigenous features , to try to inject for the very first time the human rights principle into our amoral body of law. And this is especially true as we see the Supreme Court eroding many of our native american rights today. And so we have a strong legal reason here. And the declaration addresses each and every one of these concerns that ive just listed for you. It shows us how to root out colonialism and the dark side of federal indian law, how to resolve this internal tension, how to bring human rights principles and a framework for defining our rights. Secondly, when were looking at the legal reasons, my book found that u. S. Law and policy doesnt meet these u. N. Standards in many, many important respects, a although it may come closer than that of most nations. It still falls short. For example, the selfdetermination principle is seen by both the declaration and modern International Law as a fundamental human right. Worldwide. Yet in our own land, federal indian law doesnt see selfdetermination as a fundamental right of Indian Tribes. And federal indian law says that congress can terminate selfgovernment at will under the he their power plenary power doctrine. Secondly, another big principle in this declaration is the equality and nondiscrimination rell. Principle. And it condemns any form of discrimination including legal discrimination as unjust, morally wrong, scientifically false. But then on the other hand, if you look at federal indian law, youll see a very significant body of jurisprudence of racism in federal indian law. The way that the Supreme Court describes indians as being salve savages savages with inferior cultures, religions, ways of life in Supreme Court decisions, in johnson v. Mcintosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, montoya v. U. S. , sandoval v. U. S. , the case into the modern era leaves no doubt that federal indian law is heavily anticipated with notions tainted with notions of racism as that harsh term is defined by websters dictionary book, just reading the plain language of these opinions. And so i could go on and go through this. Our cultural rights, rights of survival to live free from acts of, any acts of violence, treaties, land rights, economic and social rights, the prior and informed consent standard of the declaration, the human right to make public media accountable to native americans. All of these rights are ineffective rights under our current law for reasons that are laid out in the book. Secondly, there are social reasons for, that argue for the need for implementing this declaration, and that is this inherited legacy of conquest that i mentioned earlier thats left these imprints and unhealed wounds in our society that are still seen and felt today, that can be clearly seen through the lens of historical trauma, seen in our legal culture and seen in these hardtosolve social ills. And, um, these social ills cry out for healing and reconciliation. And this declaration provides the antidote for this legacy of conquest. It shows us the pathway to provide remedies in a human rights framework to heal these wounds from a painful past and bring about a reconciliation to enable our nation to address and then move beyond our legacy of conquest. So it seems to me thats a very compelling social reason for the need to imelement these standards. Implement these standards. Then we have political reasons to implement the declaration. I think one of the most perplexing, confounding political questions that concern the United States is how best to incorporate native of americans into the body politic. This indian question has long perplexed our nation ever since it embarked on colonizing the tribes. What do we do with the indians now that our process of of colonization has run its course . This is a universal question that affects settler nations around the world with inherited histories of colonialism. What do we do with the native people the our new, modern, free and democratic societies now . And weve tried many approaches here in the United States, a series of zigzagging policies about how to wring our tribal people into the body politic. The worcester framework, removal, guardianship and enforced assimilation, selfgovernment, termination and thousand indian and now indian selfdetermination. The problem is that the normal mode for incorporating, say, immigrants into a nation just simply doesnt work in the case of Indigenous Peoples, because we already inhabit the nation. This declaration shows us how to do it, to bring native people into the body politic with their human rights intact. And it basically reaffirms our selfdetermination policy. Fourth, theres some very compelling environmental problems, reasons for implementing the declaration, because with i think it carries, its going to carry a very healthy byproduct here in the environmental realm. Because theres a congruency between recognizing and protecting indigenous cultures, indigenous habitat, indigenous ways of life and subsistence with developing a land ethic. And our nation sorely needs a land ethic in order to address this growing environmental crisis. And headache no mistake, we have a environmental and make no mistake, we have a environmental problem worldwide. Its seen in the mass extinction of animals and plants. The louis, exploitation pollution, exploitation, Climate Change leading to a concern among scientists about the failure now of the global life systems. And the scientists are sounding an alarm, but no one seems to be listening. And i dont think we can solve this environmental crisis. We havent been able to. Its gotten worse, not better. Without first getting a land and sea ethic. How do we comport ourself to the ocean . How should our modern society comport ourself to the Natural World . Without such an ethic, we cant solve this environmental crisis. Its too immense. It costs too much money. It requires too much change. And we lack the political will to solve this crisis because we simply dont have a value system or a clear and compelling ethic, land ethic. And we cant find one within the western tradition, the historical religions from the middle east provide us no guidance, nor does science or technology. Weve got to look to the Indigenous Peoples and their hunting, fishing and and gathering cosmologies and values systems. In that we find the ingredients for a land ethic that we sorely need, the modern world has long forgotten and sorely needs. And so i think that by empowering Indigenous Peoples and protecting their human rights that relate to the environment, we can bring them to the table to help us fashion a Truly American land ethic which we sorely need. There are so at this time im running out of time. I want to just close by looking at a few implementation challenges. The u. N. Special rack on tours report on the United States from last year that we need new measures to try to come to some kind of a reconciliation, and this study, a landmark study. It lays out ten areas, ten big areas where we need to work on all three branches of the federal government; the courts, congress, the executive branch. It lays out a big challenge to our nation to implement these standards. And i think that the first step is a these for a focused National Dialogue in our country about the nature and content of human rights for native americans. And weve never had this dialogue in our country in the same way that we looked at the question of slavery and systematic discrimination against black america. Of i think weve got some inner demons from from our history of colonialism, what we did to the indians and how we built our nation that we dont even want to talk about. These are forces that have prevented a National Dialogue about human rights for native americans. But i think weve got to have, face these inner demons and come up with a National Dialogue. I think law schools will have a role, native american studies programs as well in such a dialogue. Secondly, i think we need to build a campaign for implementing these standards, building a National Campaign that will try to coax our nation into developing a National Land for implementing these standards. Im talking here about the mother of all campaigns. Weve mounted a tribal Sovereignty Campaign and a lot of different legislative movements in the last two general rations generations, but now we must stride towards this human rights rail to implement these standards. And its going to call on this generation to do that, the challenges that lay ahead. Thirdly, i think that another threshold thing is that we need to develop some very clear and compelling philosophical principles to motivate such a campaign and to guide this campaign into the light of justice. Define that floss philosophy. Its not rocket science, and we dont have to look far. We can look to our wisdom traditions of the human race. Those wisdom traditions that we have evolved there today one from day one. Ours has been a history of mans inhumanity of man, traumatic events, plagues, war withs, famines, injustice. And weve evolved ways to heal historical injuries. They come to us there the worlds from the worlds religions. And they tell us that, basically, theres three ways to respond to a historical injury. We can harbor hate and seek revenge. Thats the low road. We can cope with injustice and live with it indefinitely, but that doesnt solve anything. And the specter of injustice still sits before us. The third approach is simply to heal it through Restorative Justice and reconciliation. And our wisdom traditions over the millennia urge us to take that high road, and they tell us theres only five steps to doing it. First is an injury has taken place. Secondly, when youve injured someone, you must go to that person and apologize. Prostrate yourself and ask for forgiveness. In a genuine apology. Thats important ten to begin that healing step to begin that healing process. The third step is to accept that apology and forgive. Very hard to do. Very hard to do. And the fourth step then once that is done, has cleared the air, relieved remorse, burdens of guilt, shame, made peace, we come to the fourth step that our wiz tom traditions teach us wisdom traditions teach us, and that is acts of atonement. To pick amends, to make to make amends, to make things right. Thats whats provided by this declaration. And then the fifth step, all of the above brings us to a healing and a reconciliation. And so i think we can rely on these wisdom traditions. Theyve solved even the most grievous harm as sure as the rain must fall. They perform hi rack louse results my rack louse results and heal entire nations. They are sleeping until summoned, and i think a movement will have to summon them. So with that, concludes hi remarks on this my remarks on this book. I want to just end by realizing to you a last line or two from the book. It talks about this fifth stage healing and reconciliation, and it says that to be sure, reconciliation between the conqueror and the conquered is one of the most difficult to achieve. But whenever we witness the rise of human rights among our peoples, the power of Restorative Justice found in the law of man is invariably at work with a higher power, human compassion. And the amazing synergy thats produced produces the unforgettable moment that we experience when justice is at hand. Thank you. [applause] thank you. So i think were ready for a few questions as long as theyre easy ones. [laughter] sir . Hell elope. My name is sean hello. My name is sean. I have a couple questions in particular with that doctrine. My first question is its on the topic of hubris. Um, how would this in particular with the aspects may lead to a potential hubris with tribes when they deal with American Government and policies . Im sorry, im not understanding your question. Hubris . Hubris. You know, the arrogance of man . Hubris and the ideal of people in power or the idea of absolute power corrupts absolute . Hubris in the fact that this within the United Nations gives native americans a right of human dignity, respect and rights. Therefore, its coming back and [inaudible] the tribes that they can come back to the United States government and say im owed this, im given this, this is whats inherited to me through my bloodline. Yes. Im saying how does this prevent an arrogance among tribes when it deals with the u. S. Government . I think that were dealing with the most powerful nation on the planet, and we know that arrogance in high places cannot apologize, it cannot admit that it may have feet of clay. But on the other hand, we need to learn the language, i in this think, of human rights i think, of human rights and remind america of its own core values. These human rights principles that have animated our nation since the American Revolution to the present day. Its true that we havent always lived up to these core values, but at each turn where we made these torturous detours, these core values have always impelled us to selfcorrect. Even in, at great cost sometimes. And i think that we just need to resort to these core american human rights values. These human rights in the declaration, they may come to us from the international sphere, but theyre home grown as apple pie. And and i think that we need to remind america of its own core values and through the region of human rights and public discourse, hopefully, we can work together. But i think that im not saying this is an easy task, ask i think itll take the work of a generation. And i think it will take all sectors of Indian Country and all americans of goodwill to fully incorporate these standards into our modern policy. I have a second part to this, and this part deals with global policy. And, um, would this United Nations declaration, would this be be a factor in, um, the role of United States diplomacy when it comes to global humanitarian issues . Yes, i think its very pertinent, because an important part of our Foreign Policy is based on human rights. And as president eisenhower said, you know, whatever america wants in the rest of the world has to take lace in its own backyard has to take place in its own backyard. And so its very important that if we want to use human rights as a Foreign Policy tool, to take care of this legacy of conquest here at home. And, you know, each though a lot of people even though a lot of people like im there oklahoma and they dont like the u. N. There, they dont like International Law there, but as long as we are a Member Nation of the United Nations, we have of an obligation under that charter to promote human rights. And were always running to the u. N. Whenever we try to do humanitarian intervention such as or punishment such as the possible war against syria. We go to the u. N. And so were still a member, and i think that this declaration expects nations to aheed to it. To pay heed to it. I think thats the new order of the day, and ultimately, our nation is going to recognize and extend these human rights just like the world has abolished slavery and torture and piracy and genocide. Simply because its the right thing to do in a postcolonial age. Sir. And thisll be, ill take one more question after this. With the native american selfdetermination, what kind of level of selfdetermination do you, like, favor . Outright, straight independence or i guess kind of a lesser model of, like, relationships with the United States . The, both the selfdetermination principle of the declaration as well as our own indian selfdetermination policy indicate that the selfdetermination tribes would take place within the nation and run parallel to the sovereignty of the United States. The tech la ration places declaration places limits on these human rights. It says nothing herein shall dissolve the integrity of a nationstate. And so or, you know, tear apart its territorial integrity. So it con contemplates a robustf fission of selfdetermination definition of selfdetermination that is the right of Indigenous Peoples to control their own destiny through selfgovernment, through their indigenous institutions, through setting policies over their Indigenous Lands and tradition alter stories and traditional territories and habitats, through protecting their right to culture in the broadest sense of the word. But it doesnt extend to succession for those nations that recognize human rights. And thats, i think its pretty consummate with federal indian law in its finest hour. You know, the idea of the inherent tribal sovereignty principle being exercised under the protect rate framework laid out in worcester v. Georgia, you know . As domestic dependent nations with inherent sovereignty over their lands and peoples. But exercised within the under the protection of a stronger nation similar to these international protectorates. Okay. Well, with that, um, i want to thank each and every one of you. I hope that the great spirit will be at your side in your studies and your endeavors and thank you very much. [applause] youre watching booktv on cspan2, 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. [applause]