Historically, Aboriginal People have had little influence on the development of Native policy from within government. As a result, national, provincial, and regional Native political organizations have developed to lobby government on Native Peoples issues. Joe Sawchuk defines the various native groups in Canada and examines the origins of the organizations that represent them. He examines the structure of the organizations, their relationship with government, how the organizations fit within the context of the larger society, and the way in which power is consolidated within the organizations themselves. Many non-Native structures pervade Native, and especially Metis, political organizations. Using examples from his experience as director of land claims for the Metis Association of Alberta in the early 1980's, Sawchuk illustrates how Aboriginal organizations set their political agendas, and how federal and provincial funding and internal politics influence those agendas. The record of Native political organizations in Canada has been impressive. The questions continue to be are how their structures affect their ability to represent an Aboriginal point of view, whether government funding blunts their effectiveness, and how decreases in funding might affect them in the future.

In the “tribal moment in American politics,” which occurred from the 1950s to the mid- to late-1970s, American Indians waged civil disobedience for tribal self-determination and fought from within the U.S. legal and political systems. The U.S. government responded characteristically, overall wielding its authority in incremental, frequently double-edged ways that simultaneously opened and restricted tribal options. The actions of Native Americans and public officials brought about a new era of tribal-American relations in which tribal sovereignty has become a central issue, underpinning self-determination, and involving the tribes, states, and federal government in intergovernmental cooperative activities as well as jurisdictional skirmishes. American Indian tribes struggle still with the impacts of a capitalist economy on their traditional ways of life. Most rely heavily on federal support. Yet they have also called on tribal sovereignty to protect themselves. Asking how and why the United States is willing to accept tribal sovereignty, this book examines the development of the “order” of Indian affairs. Beginning with the nation’s founding, it brings to light the hidden assumptions in that order. It examines the underlying deep contradictions that have existed in the relationship between the United States and the tribes as the order has evolved, up to and into the “tribal moment.”

Indigenous peoples all over the world find themselves part of political systems that are not their own but created and defined by governments with alien rules and led by politicians. Over the last centuries, indigenous peoples have gained experience in dealing with these imposed systems of politics and with hitherto unknown social structures. The experiences are very diverse and the reactions to political systems vary. This book gives an impression of and some ideas and inspiration on the issue of involvement of indigenous peoples in national politics. It may be seen as the beginning of a process that will hopefully lead to further discussion and co-operation within the regions but also at an interregional level. The book is a compilation of articles initially written for a number of workshops on Indigenous Peoples' Experiences with Political Parties and Elections. The workshops took place between 1999-2000 in different regions of the world.

Traces the growth and evolution of native self government in Alaska since the granting of statehood.

In Speaking for the People Mark Rifkin examines nineteenth-century Native writings to reframe contemporary debates around Indigenous recognition, refusal, and resurgence. Rifkin shows how works by Native authors (William Apess, Elias Boudinot, Sarah Winnemucca, and Zitkala-Ša) illustrate the intellectual labor involved in representing modes of Indigenous political identity and placemaking. These writers highlight the complex processes involved in negotiating the character, contours, and scope of Indigenous sovereignties under ongoing colonial occupation. Rifkin argues that attending to these writers' engagements with non-native publics helps provide further analytical tools for addressing the complexities of Indigenous governance on the ground—both then and now. Thinking about Native peoplehood and politics as a matter of form opens possibilities for addressing the difficult work involved in navigating among varied possibilities for conceptualizing and enacting peoplehood in the context of continuing settler intervention. As Rifkin demonstrates, attending to writings by these Indigenous intellectuals provides ways of understanding Native governance as a matter of deliberation, discussion, and debate, emphasizing the open-ended unfinishedness of self-determination.

Self-determination is on the agenda of Indigenous peoples all over the world. This analysis by an Indigenous feminist scholar challenges the United Nations–based human rights agendas and colonial theory that until now have shaped Indigenous models of self-determination. Gender inequality and gender violence, Dian Million argues, are critically important elements in the process of self-determination. Million contends that nation-state relations are influenced by a theory of trauma ascendant with the rise of neoliberalism. Such use of trauma theory regarding human rights corresponds to a therapeutic narrative by Western governments negotiating with Indigenous nations as they seek self-determination. Focusing on Canada and drawing comparisons with the United States and Australia, Million brings a genealogical understanding of trauma against a historical filter. Illustrating how Indigenous people are positioned differently in Canada, Australia, and the United States in their articulation of trauma, the author particularly addresses the violence against women as a language within a greater politic. The book introduces an Indigenous feminist critique of this violence against the medicalized framework of addressing trauma and looks to the larger goals of decolonization. Noting the influence of humanitarian psychiatry, Million goes on to confront the implications of simply dismissing Indigenous healing and storytelling traditions. Therapeutic Nations is the first book to demonstrate affect and trauma’s wide-ranging historical origins in an Indigenous setting, offering insights into community healing programs. The author’s theoretical sophistication and original research make the book relevant across a range of disciplines as it challenges key concepts of American Indian and Indigenous studies.

Presidential Rhetoric and Indian Policy explores and analyses the dynamics of presidential rhetoric on Native peoples and issues from Nixon to the present. Covering Presidents Washington through Johnson in an overview before turning to focus on the modern era of self-determination, Anne Flaherty offers a systematic analysis of 700 presidential statements that mention Native issues from 1969 through 2020 to evaluate whether presidents in the modern era have used their rhetorical platforms to bring attention to Native issues and to support this coherent strategy of self-determination. Flaherty provides evidence that rhetorical themes vary by administration and seem to either rely on more symbolic, historical language or to connect more clearly to the dominant platforms and messages of the president in question. The book then moves to incorporate an analysis of key outcomes compared across the administrations. The data and analysis show that federal spending, legislative outcomes, and Supreme Court decisions have not consistently supported self-determination policy over the past 50 years. This book is a must read for scholars and students interested in indigenous politics, Native American Indian Politics, US presidency and rhetoric.