Limited Sovereigns: An Analysis of the US Federal Government’s Actions Towards Indigenous Sovereignty Through a Rhetorical Imperialistic Lens

Limited Sovereigns: An Analysis of the US Federal Government’s Actions Towards Indigenous Sovereignty Through a Rhetorical Imperialistic Lens

Yoel Gonzalez

Rhetorical imperialism is defined by Scott Richard Lyons as “the ability of dominant powers to assert control of others by setting the terms of the debate,” a process that is enacted heavily and repeatedly by the US federal government when in “debates” with Indigenous peoples. This paper analyzes actions taken against Indigenous nations to see how their inherent sovereignty is limited and changed. Supreme Court cases and federal laws were linguistically analyzed to see how Indigenous sovereignty and peoples were being defined and redefined. Additionally, a literature review of anthropological, legal, and linguistic sources was also done to gather more information and evidence regarding the issue. In such “debates” held with the government, Indigenous nations are defined in dichotomous ways which influences how they outwardly express their sovereignty. By simultaneously being the “other” and being like a dominating power, Indigenous nations are constantly in a battle to express their inherent powers and their own identities, a battle that was ignited through various federal actions that mark them as nations within a nation. Further inquiries into this topic may address the role that indigeneity plays within sovereignty, of how such concepts become part of individual identities, and how reclamations of Indigenous languages effect expressions of sovereignty.