國立高雄大學圖資館 |

登入

回首頁

Political principles and Indian sovereignty.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Political principles and Indian sovereignty.
作者:	Hester, Thurman Lee, Jr.
面頁冊數:	173 p.
附註:	Chair: Edward Sankowski.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 60-05, Section: A, page: 1599.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International60-05A.
標題:	Philosophy.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9930841
ISBN:	0599309261

Political principles and Indian sovereignty.
Hester, Thurman Lee, Jr.

Political principles and Indian sovereignty.[electronic resource] - 173 p.

Chair: Edward Sankowski.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Oklahoma, 1999.

<italic>Political Principles and Indian Sovereignty</italic> starts by examining the connection between the well being of Indian people and the sovereignty of Indian Nations. External “locus of control” turns up consistently as a potential cause of problems in Indian health and welfare. Native American people statistically do not feel that they are in control of their own lives. An examination of the history of law and policy concerning Indians shows that United States law and policy have reduced independent nations to dependent citizens over whom the U.S. exercises a “guardianship” which has often served to further limit freedom. Thus it would appear that U.S. policy is an indirect cause of problems for Indian health and welfare. The policy history is done as an uninterrupted narrative, told using extensive quotations from prominent U.S. officials. In this way, many of the contradictions of Federal Indian policy are revealed. In addition, the narrative shows how the U.S. people are the <italic>direct</italic> cause of many of the problems faced by American Indians, as well as hinting at some of the motivations for U.S. policy. Though current law and policy once again recognize the sovereignty of Native American nations, they do so within the framework of a plenary power doctrine that blunts the positive effect that sovereignty might have. In addition, the current legal doctrine of Indian sovereignty cannot make sense within the framework of U.S. political principles, particularly that of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty and the rhetoric of U.S. law recognize that American Indian sovereign power is derived from their own sovereign authority and thus cannot be limited or even truly accounted for within the framework of U.S. law. Thus, it is argued U.S. plenary power over Indian nations must be ended if the government truly wishes to improve the lives of Indian people. More importantly, the U.S. must give up this power if it to be true to its own political principles.

ISBN: 0599309261Subjects--Topical Terms:

176573
Philosophy.

Political principles and Indian sovereignty.
LDR:03023nmm 2200289 450 001 154958
005 20021105151510.5
008 230530s1999 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 0599309261
035 $a 00087483
035 $a 154958
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 0 $a Hester, Thurman Lee, Jr. $3 212528
245 1 0 $a Political principles and Indian sovereignty. $h [electronic resource]
300 $a 173 p.
500 $a Chair: Edward Sankowski.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 60-05, Section: A, page: 1599.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Oklahoma, 1999.
520 # $a <italic>Political Principles and Indian Sovereignty</italic> starts by examining the connection between the well being of Indian people and the sovereignty of Indian Nations. External “locus of control” turns up consistently as a potential cause of problems in Indian health and welfare. Native American people statistically do not feel that they are in control of their own lives. An examination of the history of law and policy concerning Indians shows that United States law and policy have reduced independent nations to dependent citizens over whom the U.S. exercises a “guardianship” which has often served to further limit freedom. Thus it would appear that U.S. policy is an indirect cause of problems for Indian health and welfare. The policy history is done as an uninterrupted narrative, told using extensive quotations from prominent U.S. officials. In this way, many of the contradictions of Federal Indian policy are revealed. In addition, the narrative shows how the U.S. people are the <italic>direct</italic> cause of many of the problems faced by American Indians, as well as hinting at some of the motivations for U.S. policy. Though current law and policy once again recognize the sovereignty of Native American nations, they do so within the framework of a plenary power doctrine that blunts the positive effect that sovereignty might have. In addition, the current legal doctrine of Indian sovereignty cannot make sense within the framework of U.S. political principles, particularly that of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty and the rhetoric of U.S. law recognize that American Indian sovereign power is derived from their own sovereign authority and thus cannot be limited or even truly accounted for within the framework of U.S. law. Thus, it is argued U.S. plenary power over Indian nations must be ended if the government truly wishes to improve the lives of Indian people. More importantly, the U.S. must give up this power if it to be true to its own political principles.
590 $a School code: 0169.
650 # 0 $a Philosophy. $3 176573
650 # 0 $a Law. $3 207600
650 # 0 $a Political Science, Public Administration. $3 212444
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0617
710 0 # $a The University of Oklahoma. $3 212527
773 0 # $g 60-05A. $t Dissertation Abstracts International
790 $a 0169
790 1 0 $a Sankowski, Edward, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 1999
856 4 0 $u http://libsw.nuk.edu.tw/login?url=http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9930841 $z http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9930841