November 20, 2018: Most content in the UA Campus Repository is not accessible using the search/browse functions due to a performance bug; we are actively working to resolve this issue. If you are looking for content you know is in the repository, but cannot get to it, please email us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu with your questions and we'll make sure to get the content to you.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorHershey, Roberten
dc.contributor.authorHiraldo, Danielle Vedetteen
dc.creatorHiraldo, Danielle Vedetteen
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-13T18:28:44Zen
dc.date.available2016-04-13T18:28:44Zen
dc.date.issued2015en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/605217en
dc.description.abstractContemporary events frequently call into question the status of state-recognized Native nations. For example, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) failed to pass a resolution dissolving state-recognized membership; and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported on the reality of federal funding being awarded to non-federally recognized Native nations. Although state-recognized Native nations are handicapped in their strategies and the availability of resources to assert their right to self-determine, some have persevered despite the inability to establish a direct relationship with the national government. Reconsidering federalism as it pertains to Native nations reveals opportunities for non-federally recognized Native nations to access resources and assert self-governing authority in alternative arenas outside the exclusive tribal-national government-to-government relationship. My research analyzes how two state-recognized Native nations, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and the Waccamaw Indian People of South Carolina, have operated as political actors; have maintained their communities; have organized politically and socially; and have asserted their right to self-determine by engaging state—and at certain times federal—politics to address needs within their communities. I used a qualitative case study approach to examine the strategies these two state-recognized Native nations have developed to engage state relationships. I argue that state-recognized Native nations are developing significant political relationships with their home states and other entities, such as federal, state, and local agencies, and nonprofits, to address issues in their communities.
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en
dc.subjectLumbee Tribe of North Carolinaen
dc.subjectself-determinationen
dc.subjectstate-recognized tribesen
dc.subjecttribal-state relationshipsen
dc.subjectWaccamaw Indian People of South Carolinaen
dc.subjectAmerican Indian Studiesen
dc.subjectIndigenous governanceen
dc.titleIndigenous Self-Government under State Recognition: Comparing Strategies in Two Casesen_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Dissertationen
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
dc.contributor.committeememberHershey, Roberten
dc.contributor.committeememberColombi, Benedict J.en
dc.contributor.committeememberCornell, Stephenen
dc.contributor.committeememberLomawaima, K. Tsianinaen
dc.description.releaseRelease 31-Aug-2016en
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen
thesis.degree.disciplineAmerican Indian Studiesen
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en
refterms.dateFOA2016-08-31T00:00:00Z
html.description.abstractContemporary events frequently call into question the status of state-recognized Native nations. For example, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) failed to pass a resolution dissolving state-recognized membership; and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported on the reality of federal funding being awarded to non-federally recognized Native nations. Although state-recognized Native nations are handicapped in their strategies and the availability of resources to assert their right to self-determine, some have persevered despite the inability to establish a direct relationship with the national government. Reconsidering federalism as it pertains to Native nations reveals opportunities for non-federally recognized Native nations to access resources and assert self-governing authority in alternative arenas outside the exclusive tribal-national government-to-government relationship. My research analyzes how two state-recognized Native nations, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and the Waccamaw Indian People of South Carolina, have operated as political actors; have maintained their communities; have organized politically and socially; and have asserted their right to self-determine by engaging state—and at certain times federal—politics to address needs within their communities. I used a qualitative case study approach to examine the strategies these two state-recognized Native nations have developed to engage state relationships. I argue that state-recognized Native nations are developing significant political relationships with their home states and other entities, such as federal, state, and local agencies, and nonprofits, to address issues in their communities.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_etd_14333_sip1_public_m.pdf
Size:
1.661Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record