Everybody is theoretically "indigenous" to somewhere, and the very word is linked to the idea of location. It may even be the case that people are "indigenous" to multiple places, in the case of mixed ancestry. But for some, "indigenous" also defines a special class of people, who deserve different treatment from others, based on their association with a particular location for a certain timeframe.

Some have claimed that the U.S. Congress has recognized "indigenous" people in the United States as deserving of special privileges, and are using this rationale to justify the Akaka Bill. The Akaka Bill would put together a committee to decide who is and who is not Native Hawaiian ("indigenous" to the Hawaiian Islands), and then form a special government for that group. Their reliance on any definition of "indigenous" is problematic, however.

Federal tribal recognition has never been based on the idea of giving special rights to "indigenous" peoples. Tribes have not been recognized simply because their members are "indigenous," but because they have had some sort of pre-existing government to government relationship with the United States. This recognition has continued even after the tribe has moved to a new location (often times by force), and has included tribal members who do not have any "indigenous" blood (such as the Cherokee Freedmen).

Although one may justify giving special privileges to a group with a long history in a given place, this begs the question as to whether or not these special privileges should be transferable to other locations. Certainly with forced migration the question may be easier to answer, but it is still not simple. For example, one might consider the Saxons as "indigenous" to Europe, and based on that status, deserving of special privileges in Germany ‑Saxon-only schools, or Saxon-only tax benefits, for example. But one would hardly expect these "Native Europeans" to demand those same privileges in France, where the Gauls would be the ones with the "indigenous" claim.

Using a similar example across the Atlantic, it seems puzzling that the Oneida Tribe, "indigenous" to New York, would maintain special privileges once they moved into the territory of the Winnebago in Wisconsin. On its face, there is some justification (the Oneida were forcibly relocated), but it leaves open the question as to what the geographical limits of this translocation would be. Could the Oneida have been relocated to Hawaii and still maintained special "indigenous" privileges? Or could they have been relocated to the Philippines, and still maintained their "indigenous" status? Or would they be considered "immigrants" and "occupiers" of Hawaii or the Philippine Islands? Should they be considered today "immigrants" and "occupiers" of ancestral Winnebago lands?

Another puzzling question for determining where any given person is "indigenous" to is how far back to go. Any member of the Oneida Tribe may in fact have had ancestors who lived on the West Coast, or in Alaska, or Asia. Some Oneida may have roots to the Winnebago in Wisconsin, and others might not. Every human has ancestors from the origin of the species in Africa. But is it permissible for an Oneida tribal member to insist that they have "indigenous" roots all the way back to India, and therefore should have special privileges that a recent immigrant to Bombay who only has ancestry from Africa does not?

Just as everyone in Hawaii, "native" Hawaiians immigrated there from somewhere else. The most recent wave of colonization before Western contact was from Tahiti, and before that from the Marquesas. Can Native Hawaiians claim "indigenous" Marquesan rights? Can Native Hawaiians claim "indigenous" Tahitian rights? We can trace Polynesian migration to Tahiti and the Marquesas back even further, through the South Pacific, and back to Asia. Can Tahitians claim "indigenous" Indonesian rights? Can Marquesans claim "indigenous" Filipino rights?

As lobbying moves forward for the Akaka Bill, and proponents use the "indigenous" label to justify their positions, I’d like to pose them a question. When a Native Hawaiian takes advantage of special privileges bestowed upon them by the federal government, and gets an education grant to attend some college in New York which sits upon the ancestral lands of the Oneida, should the Oneida consider them as "immigrants" and "occupiers?" Should that Native Hawaiian be obligated to pay some sort of reparation to the Oneida they are complicit in displacing and exploiting?

Of course, the world is a lot simpler to deal with if we simply treat everybody as equal under the eyes of the law, no matter who their ancestors were. I propose that we create a new bill, called the "Native Human Government Reorganization Act," which will create a "tribe" out of all human Americans, and force the government to give all the rights that any one member has to all other members. If there exists a special federal education program for Native Alaskan humans, then all other humans in the Human Government will also be eligible. If there exists a separate government for all Native Hawaiian humans, then all other humans in the Human Government will also be allowed to participate. If there are special tax breaks for Oneida humans, then all other humans in the Human Government will also get those tax breaks.

It could very well be that the "Native Human Government" is the last new government we need.

-GIR-

Grassroot Institute member Jere Krischel is a volunteer historian and civil rights activist who has been discussing and studying the Akaka Bill and its historical basis online and in print since 2004. Born and raised in Hawaii, he attended Punahou and later graduated from the University of Southern California.