OCR Text |
Show We have concluded in our earlier discussions that a knowledge of the law that has been developed to guide the interactions between Indians and European-Americans is necessary to an understanding of Indian history. I once made that statement to the seminar on the historiography of the Indians of the Americas, and a colleague, an Indian and a historian herself, responded thus: "Yes, but Indian history is also necessary to an understanding of Indian law." The members of the seminar readily agreed that each is necessary to the understanding of the other. The librarians for law libraries meeting to discuss "Sources of American Indian Law," (Law Library Journal, Vol. 67, p. 497) also expressed their respect for these ties between Indian law and history: Indian law and Indian history are truly a seamless web, two sides of the same coin. Indian history defines Indian law, and Indian law dominates Indian history. Decisions relating to Indian law and policy rest in a peculiarly historical setting. The dominance of historical questions in Indian law and policy is indisputable. If you question the importance of historical material for real world Indian legal problems, I refer you to the Indian Claims Commission Decisions where hardly a page passes without elaborate historical analysis-much of which would do the history Ph.D. proud. I can testify from my personal experience that a key factor in the successful litigation of many Indian tribes has been an intricate knowledge of tribal history possessed by tribal counsel. An example of the dependence of each on the understanding of the other is the attempt we made yesterday to comprehend relations |