Kristen Carpenter

Kristen Carpenter and Angela Riley on Privatizing the Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen A. Carpenter and Angela R. Riley have published “Privatizing the Reservation?” with the Stanford Law Review (PDF).

Abstract:

The problems of American Indian poverty and reservation living conditions have inspired various explanations. One response advanced by some economists and commentators, which may be gaining traction within the Trump Administration, calls for the “privatization” of Indian lands. Proponents of this view contend that reservation poverty is rooted in the federal Indian trust arrangement, which preserves the tribal land base by limiting the marketability of lands within reservations. In order to maximize wealth on reservations, policymakers are advocating for measures that would promote the individuation and alienability of tribal lands, while diminishing federal and tribal oversight.

Taking a different view, this Article complicates and challenges the narrative of Indian poverty and land tenure advanced by privatization advocates. We focus on real estate and housing in Indian Country to make three points. First, we argue that the salience of Indian homelands as places of collective religious significance, socioeconomic sustenance, and territorial governance has been lost in the privatization debate, which also largely disregards issues of remedial justice associated with conquest and colonization. Second, we introduce to the legal literature new empirical data and economic analysis from the Native Nations Institute demonstrating that the current system of land tenure in Indian Country is much more varied, and recent innovations in federal-tribal housing and finance programs are more promising, than some of the calls for privatization would suggest. Finally, using specific examples from Indian Country, we highlight a model of indigenous self-determination and sustainability, rooted in the international human rights movement, that deserves attention in ongoing domestic policy debates about land tenure, and which has the potential to advance the well-being of humanity more broadly.

Kristen Carpenter & Angela Riley: “Privatizing the Reservation?”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen A. Carpenter and Angela R. Riley have posted their fascinating article, “Privatizing the Reservation?“, on SSRN. The article is forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review. Here is the abstract:

The problems of American Indian poverty and reservation living conditions have inspired various explanations. One account advanced by certain economists and commentators is now animating the Trump administration’s apparent desire to ‘privatize’ Indian lands, namely that reservation poverty is rooted in the federal Indian trust arrangement, which preserves the tribal land base by limiting the marketability of lands within reservations. Policy makers are advocating for measures that would promote the individuation and alienability of tribal lands, while diminishing federal and tribal oversight, toward wealth maximization. Taking a different view, this Article complicates and challenges the narrative of Indian poverty and land tenure advanced by advocates for privatization. We focus on real estate and housing in Indian Country to make three points. First, we argue the salience of American Indian homelands as places of collective religious significance, socio-economic sustenance, and territorial governance has been lost in the privatization debate, which also largely disregards issues of remedial justice associated with conquest and colonization. Second, we introduce to the legal literature new empirical data and economic analysis demonstrating that the current system of land tenure in Indian Country is much more varied, and recent innovations in federal-tribal housing and finance programs are more promising, than some of the calls for privatization would suggest. Finally, using specific examples from Indian Country, we highlight a model of indigenous self-determination and sustainability, rooted in the international human rights movement, that deserves attention in ongoing domestic policy debates with the potential to advance the well-being of humanity more broadly.

Ann Tweedy Review of Carpenter & Riley’s “Owning Red”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ann Tweedy has reviewed Kristen Carpenter and Angela Riley’s article, “Owning Red: A Theory of (Cultural) Appropriation,” forthcoming in the Texas Law Review, for JOTWELL.

An excerpt:

In a number of recent controversies, from sports teams’ use of Indian mascots to the federal government’s desecration of sacred sites, American Indians have lodged charges of “cultural appropriation” or the unauthorized use by members of one group the cultural expressions and resources of another. While these and other incidents are currently in the headlines, American Indians often experience these claims within an historical and continuing experience of dispossession. For hundreds of years, the U.S. legal system has sanctioned the taking and destruction of Indian lands and artifacts, bodies and religions, identities and beliefs, all toward the project of conquest and colonization. Indian resources have been devalued by the law and made available for non-Indians to use of their own purposes. Seeking redresses for the losses caused by these actions, tribes have brought claims under a variety of laws, from trademark and copyright, to the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment, and some have been more successful than others. As a matter of property law, courts have compensated – albeit incompletely – the taking of certain Indian lands and has also come to recognize tribal interests in human remains, gravesites, and associated artifacts. When it comes to intangible property, however, the situation is more complicated. It is difficult for legal decision-makers and scholars alike to understand why Indian tribes should be able to regulate the use of Indian names, symbols, and expressions. Indeed, non-Indians often claim interests, sounding in free speech and the public domain, in the very same resources. To advance understanding of this contested area of law, this Article situates intangible cultural property claims in a larger history of the legal dispossession of Indian property – a phenomenon we call “Indian appropriation.” It then evaluates these claims vis à vis prevailing legal doctrine, and offers a normative view of solutions, both legal and extralegal.

 

Kristen Carpenter on Interpretative Sovereignty

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kristen Carpenter has posted her paper, “Interpretative Sovereignty: A Research Agenda,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming from the American Indian Law Review. Here is the abstract:

In federal Indian law, the treaty operates as our foundational legal text. Reflecting centuries-old historical political arrangements between Indian nations and the United States, treaties remain vital legal instruments that decide dozens of legal cases each year. Yet, these treaties — originally drafted in English by the federal government, following negotiations with tribal representatives who usually spoke their own languages — present a number of ambiguities for contemporary courts. The dominant model of treaty interpretation is one in which judges interpret treaties in a manner they they believe to reflect Indians’ understanding of treaty terms and, more generally, to promote the interests of Indian nations. While this liberal approach to treaty interpretation has secured a number of important Indian rights in the courts, it does not necessarily reflect the ways in which Indians actually perceived treaty terms in their own languages and cultures.

Continue reading →