Guest column: True retribution for Native Americans is overwhelming, uncomfortable
McGirt v. Oklahoma and succeeding court cases have recently brought up conversations of retribution and even decolonization. Yet when the term “retribution” comes up, most speak of monetary reparation and general tribal expansion through labeling fragments of land as Native American. The world often lacks a clear definition of retribution, though a concurrent understanding of the word would take us miles further in the fight for justice for the tribes.
The reason “retribution” is manipulated lies in its inherently chaotic promise. Retribution is defined as a reward for the victim and a punishment for the perpetrator. The United States was founded on the dispossession of Native Americans. The damage inflicted onto tribes was/is so enormous that any true retribution must be as colossal, measured not only in money but in power.
We cannot undo death, cultural loss and generational trauma. Retributive justice means handing over power and letting go of settler privilege, a condition that has gone on far too long. This justice threatens not only how the nation functions, but the very ideals upon which it was founded. Retribution threatens all authority that Americans place so much faith in.
Another uncomforting side to retribution is admitting guilt. Specifically, Native American decolonization forces all “others” to admit guilt and sacrifice accordingly. “Others” include everyone, whether or not our ancestors actually colonized in the 18th century; “others” encompass immigrants. All American land is stolen, and thus all American citizens are settlers on Native American land. No one can be rid of their guilt by superficial advocacy and allyship,an idea most “others” constantly struggle with. No one can be innocent, but perhaps there exists a future of justice.
Colonialism presents persisting struggles so omnipresent that achieving justice is overwhelming. Any attempt at retribution must offer a restoration of land and life. Land is still the greatest measure of American wealth, but it is also a tangible commodity that settlers stole and unjustly keep from Native Americans. With the return of land comes sovereignty.
As of now, tribal lands still answer to federal rule, a reminder of the constant limit to tribal independence. Labeling certain fragments of land as Native American without giving up settler power and legislative authority is a move sufficient only for ridding the settlers of guilt while not actually sacrificing any material wealth. In order to give space for tribes to regain a former way of life — one untouched by the suffocating imperial influence — American supremacy justified by law must be redressed.
Attempts at retribution through legislation remain insufficient, as nothing the United States has decreed/will decree may admit our guilt and hand over pure sovereignty once more. America’s duty rests in retaining authority over tribes, and thus pure sovereignty remains an improbability. Even Chief Justice John Marshall proclaimed long ago that no matter how a judge personally feels, one must judge through power obtained from a colonizing nation, and that his/her job lies in maintaining that power (referring to Native American removal in the 1820s and 1830s).
Legislative retribution is thus a paradox, but positive change can be made through it. One way to grant Native American sovereignty is through treating Native land as independent nations using the law. McGirt v. Oklahoma, before the cases that followed it, upheld Indian law to assert that tribal land is sovereign land, at least in the context of American law. Because the land within the Muscogee Nation was under tribal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled that for the crime committed, McGirt could only be tried by the federal court, not the state courts. Indian law was respected, and it comprises a step forward, but is this retribution? Perhaps the Muscogee Nation was labeled sovereign on paper, but the federal government actually enacted justice for the crime committed on tribal land. The very nature of Indian law is to confine tribes under ultimate federal jurisdiction. McGirt v. Oklahoma was a fair hearing in terms of the law, but perhaps Americans should not be so quick to feel noble or historically fair in its outcome. True retribution will make us feel much more uncomfortable because the goal is to give back to others. The material weight of true retribution will be felt by everyone.
Esha Venkataraman is a senior at Heritage Hall in Oklahoma City currently researching Native American history and law.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Why Americans shouldn't feel noble for McGirt case outcome in Oklahoma
