The fifth week of TLAM broke a bit from the norm; because of historic demonstrations occurring in Madison, the class period was altered as our guest lecturers rescheduled for next week. We nevertheless adapted to the extraordinary times, met as usual, discussed our readings, and reflected on the topics we’ve covered so far.
It seems particularly appropriate that the tensions in Madison have erupted as we have been reading about American Indian law and tribal relationships to the US government; the readings this week have made me think a lot about the relationships between the various levels and forms of government in our country. As our focus has been on the Wisconsin State Capitol building this week, our academic minds have been examining the legal structure laid out for tribes historically and in the present.
We read two chapters from A Companion to American Indian History (eds. P.J. Deloria and N. Salisbury) to give us some background into the history of the three way relationship between Indian tribes, the US government, and individual states. Relationships between individual tribes and the US government have been varied and complicated, employing language to be reinterpreted at the convenience of the federal government and constantly whittling down the rights of tribes to the detriment of their members. If the relationships between tribes and the federal government are complex, the relationships between tribes and states are labyrinthine. Disproportionate formal study has been done on state-tribe relationships compared to federal, which is interesting given the history of conflict between tribes and states as each entity tries to coexist in a complicated political environment.
In our constant goal to connect history, politics and librarianship, the last article we read for this week dealt with the complexities of law librarianship in relation to tribal collections. Carter argues that law librarians should approach Indian law not just as another subject, but as a different paradigm; it is important to cover both the way federal law applies to tribes, as well as how internal tribal laws work. It is also necessary to keep in mind that this information will differ depending on the specific tribe, as each individual tribe has different internal laws and sovereign status. This segment of law has been previously neglected in law librarianship.
The take home message from this week, as far as I can see it, is this: law is complicated and history is messy. As we all consider our political stances and constitutional understandings, we should keep these two facts in mind.
-Rebecca Karr