Chelsie Baldwin: Tribes wage war between rhetoric and reality

RAPID CITY—Indian Country challenges are filtered through the prism of both activist and advocate. Most people do not understand the difference between the two, but both groups have contributed mightily to the betterment of tribal nations. Each brings passion and perspective essential to address the complicated issues and opportunities concerning 574 federally recognized tribes.

Many gifted and notable people can move between these two camps, having the respect and personality required, and Susan Harjo would be a prime example of this type of person. But most are either activist or advocate, by nature, as much by actions.

To sum it up, activists at their best skillfully promote their cause and their personality and receive worldwide attention and funding which can improve the lives of tribal members. At their best advocates work the system, understand how to negotiate the corridors of power, and leave behind a legacy of law and policy deeply impacting Indian Country.

At their worst, activists are grievance hustlers, excluding and marginalizing the principled advocate who threatens the grift.

At their worst, advocates are locked into specialized niches, and often refuse to step up, to support other advocates, in calling out what is clearly misguided, or duplicitous.

Natives offering services and counseling are a good window into the issues, and the differences between advocacy and activism.

One such entrepreneur is Chelsie Baldwin of Coppertop Consulting. Although an enrolled member of the Iowa Tribe, she has red hair and freckles, hence the title Coppertop. From her website: “Chelsie has spent over 20 years designing and delivering high-impact programs that transform communities. Her work spans grassroots organizing, federal grant acquisition, and sustainable program models that merge tradition with modern strategy.”

Back in February, Baldwin took a look at the “Top 5 most pressing issues facing Indian Country in 2025.” First up was “protecting Tribal Sovereignty and Jurisdiction.” Baldwin writes that, “Tribes work tirelessly to defend their sovereignty, strengthen law enforcement partnerships, and ensure their judicial systems are fully equipped to serve their communities.”

She then adds, “At the national level, sovereignty remains under attack through legal battles over land rights, taxation, and tribal jurisdiction…”

While Baldwin’s knowledge and skill are not in question, her understanding of tribal sovereignty is inadvertently compromised by aspirational rhetoric. Tribes are considered by the government to be “domestic dependent nations.” Congress has plenary power, meaning it can cancel any agreement with any tribe at any time for any reason or no reason and there is no legal recourse. This means no treaty is actually worth the paper it is written on and there can be no sovereignty when all tribes operate at the government’s pleasure.

Baldwin is correct to bring up McGirt v Oklahoma because tribes do have sovereign protection against the state, as outlined in the obiter dictum of the 1886 Kagama decision where Justice Miller wrote the deadliest enemy any tribe has is the state in which they live, One need look no further than the 1862 consequences of Little Crow’s War to have that monstrously demonstrated.

Tribes need to operate in reality, and in that reality, those not excluded by PL 280 in 1953, have sovereignty against state incursion. No tribe has sovereignty against the feds.

Baldwin addresses economic development next. She points out that tribes are looking beyond casino revenue and investing in renewable energy, tourism and cultural programs, agricultural and food sovereignty, and technological and digital infrastructure. She adds, “…tribes still face barriers such as limited access to capital, infrastructure deficits, and complex federal regulations that slow economic expansion.”

This sounds like it should be true, and in a specific situation it might be partially true, but overall, nothing stands in the way of tribal economy but tribes.

Flip two South Dakota locations, make Winner the rez, and Pine Ridge a Wasicu town. Pine Ridge will still build no economy, and Winner still will. The problem here is not opportunity, it is mentality. When you see yourself as a domestic dependent nation, all the aspirational rhetoric in the world will not magically make you economically motivated.

Next, Baldwin looks at the Indian Health Service. She writes: “The Indian Health Service (IHS) is historically underfunded, making it challenging to meet the growing needs of Native populations. Many tribes advocate for increased federal funding…”

You cannot win with a system designed to serve the interest of only the government. Rosebud tried. Yes, they took IHS to court, and they won! But they still lost. The Eighth Circuit ruled when it comes to health care on Rosebud, IHS “must do better.” But when pressed for specific language in the ruling, none was forthcoming. “Must do better” can mean as little as an extra box of surgical gloves. In this way the government sides with the tribe, while operationally siding with IHS.

Worse than that, tribal attorneys included in their argument that the health care was in compensation for land taken, but the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty was a peace treaty. The promise of health care was based on the cessation of hostilities not for land taken. But because the non-Indian attorneys did not understand this, in the future the government can point to their argument and say, “Look! Even you said it was for land taken!”

“The crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and People (MMIW/P) continues to devastate Native communities,” Baldwin writes.

It is no picnic to be a missing and murdered Indigenous man, either, In fact, the difference is only about a percentage point. More than that, most go missing and get murdered at the hands of another tribal member. So, tribes must do a better job on this issue, not the feds. That is when inadequately funded tribal law enforcement is not busy battling drugs, alcohol, violence, rape, incest, and murder.

The fifth and final issue is Language and Cultural Revitalization. Baldwin again makes good points but misses the fundamental problem that defeats the purpose of language preservation. Lakota language expert Francis Whitebird often points out that the danger is speaking English, just in Lakota. Phrases like Hihanni Waste, Good Morning, are an example of English being spoken in Lakota. Tribal languages are more than just words, they are a signature expression of a people’s history, ideas, and perceptions. When Lakota no longer expresses these things, it is no longer Lakota.

(James Giago Davies is an enrolled member of OST. Contact him at skindiesel@msn.com)

The post Chelsie Baldwin: Tribes wage war between rhetoric and reality first appeared on Native Sun News Today.

Visit Original Source