Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States (1955)
Discussion | Summary
The Supreme Court ruling in Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States (1955) held that indigenous nations had no rights based on their original occupation of lands, despite earlier legislation like the 1884 Alaska Organic Act that acknowledged indigenous land use. This discrepancy highlights competing definitions of discovery and the ongoing struggle for indigenous land rights, influenced by historical and legal perspectives from as early as the 16th century.
Tee-Hit-Ton Ruling: Indigenous nations had no rights based on their original land occupation.
1884 Alaska Organic Act: Acknowledged indigenous land use but left title acquisition terms for future legislation.
Competing Definitions: Discrepancies due to different interpretations of discovery.
Historical Context: Debates on indigenous rights date back to the 16th century, with figures like Francisco de Vitoria arguing for indigenous dominion over their lands.
Ongoing Struggle: The ruling reflects the entrenched interests of conquerors and the impact of disease, dispossession, and poverty on Alaskan Indians.
Capitalism and Privilege: Highlights the influence of capitalism and white male privilege on judicial decisions affecting indigenous communities.
These points emphasize the historical and legal complexities of indigenous land rights and the ongoing impact of colonial and capitalist interests on indigenous communities.
Discussion | Full Text |
Fall 2016
As scholars Wilkins and Lomawaima note in their book Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law, the Supreme Court held in Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States (1955) that “[i]ndigenous nations had no rights based on their indigenous and original occupation of those lands.”[1] Referring back to the 1884 Alaska Organic Act, however, Congress explicitly states that “the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation…” (Section 8) There is, therefore, a distinct difference in attitude regarding aboriginal title by American lawmakers and jurists between the time of implementation of the Act and the ruling against the Tee-Hit-Ton, who sought compensation for the aboriginal lands stolen by mining corporations. Wilkins and Lomawaima state that this discrepancy was due to the “competing definitions of discovery”[2]
As early as the mid-16th century lawyers, theologians, and scholars were debating the rights of indigenous people, especially with regards to the Spanish conquest of the Americas. In his related work Of the Indians Lately Discovered, Francisco de Vitoria in 1532 exposited on these issues regarding discovery, determining that “the aborigines undoubtedly had true dominion in both public and private matters, just like Christians, and that neither their princes nor private persons could be despoiled of their property on the ground of their not being true owners. It would be harsh to deny to those, who have never done any wrong, what we grant to Saracens [Muslims] and Jews, who are the persistent enemies of Christianity.”[3] A fitful read fraught with racism, anti-Semitism, and cruel verbiage, de Vitoria nevertheless determined that although Spanish discovery seemed to grant title to indigenous lands in the Americas, in fact because indigenous people there were rational, organized, and possessed of dominion over their ancestral lands, it would be unlawful to unhand them of their ancestral lands as a matter of course.
Tee-Hit-Ton, then, seems to be the expression of conquerors long entrenched in their seized lands, handily extracting minerals in Alaska at great profit and no longer concerned with the natural law proscribed by European discoverers wrestling with the rights of indigenous men and women of America. In fact, by the mid-20th century Alaskan Indians had already weathered disease, dispossession, genocide, and poverty that has serious consequences in their communities today. In direct opposition to the curious exposition on the natural rights of indigenous inhabitants of the Americas by de Vitoria during the Age of Discovery, then, Tee-Hit-Ton represents the greed and avarice of a judiciary corrupted by capitalism, and the dark heart of white male privilege that ravages Indian communities in America today.
Bibliography
Scott, James Brown. Classics of International Law. New York: Oceana Publications, 1964. Reprinted January 7, 2011. https://fathertheo.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/francisco-de-vitoria-the-rights-of- the-indians-pt-i-de-indis-1532/. Accessed September 5, 2016.
Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001.
[1] Wilkins, David E. and others. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001, Page 23.
[2] Ibid., 22.
[3] Scott, James Brown. Classics of International Law. New York: Oceana Publications, 1964, Page 1.