Talk:Guainía Taíno Tribe

Recognition

@User:Yuchitown and @User:CorbieVreccan The article says that this group "was recognized by Governor Albert Bryan of the US Virgin Islands". What does tribal recognition mean in the context of a US territory? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this source...Usually proclamations by a government official aren't the same as state or federal recognition. But I'm not familiar with the laws of this jurisdiction. The act/law they cite is the Revised Organic Act of 1954, amended and the text is, "recognized by the Governor "as an indigenous American Indian Tribe of the Virgin Islands, for the purpose of assisting this tribal entity in establishing eligibility for federal health benefits, federal education benefits, housing benefits, job training, land use, and the right to engage in traditional religious practices and ceremonies."

And then there's this odd bit in the same source:

Phillips, who defines herself also as a Christian, is now sending out a call to others who think they might have Taino ancestry to join the tribe. “We’re having open enrollment in the month of June,” said Phillips. “The first step is to have your DNA tested. I don’t care about the percentage of Taino DNA. Some people only have oral stories.”

So are they taking people based on self-id? It's unclear from the sources. The proclamation of Indigenous Peoples' Day just seems to be a standard thing, saying they're descendants of the Taino, so not really useful. I'd look up the specifics of that law. Because right now, there are internal conflicts in these sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tribal recognition

@Lewisguile Reverting something as "likely to be" POV pushing is lazy and defamatory. Did you even both to look into the veracity of what I wrote? Obviously not, per your own admission. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I did read your additions, but they are wording changes which don't appear to be well sourced. Can you point to a consensus among RSes who support the wording you implemented? I'm happy to discuss the edits if so. The sources in the article themselves use very different language.

I agree that Governor's proclamation doesn't count as "recognition" in any formal sense, so I would support rewording that. But the language and content should be otherwise informed by RSes. Lewisguile (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile This corporation is registered in the USVI and Puerto Rico as a non-profit. It is not a tribe. A tribe is a sovereign nation with citizens. This non-profit is not a sovereign nation. To describe it as a tribe is a falsehood. Wikipedia should be factual and neutral, rather than promoting organizations and their claims. Whether it should or should not be recognized as a tribe is an opinion. Whereas, stating that it is not a tribe is a fact. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some guidance on verifiability over WP:TRUTH which is relevant here. We should rely on verifiable statements by RSes on the topic, rather than inserting our own WP:OR or stating our own opinions/interpretations.

I appreciate there is a distinction between a tribe as a legal entity in the US and its usage in common language. But we are not enforcers of US law and readers will not necessarily care about US legal distinctions.

The issue is also complicated by the fact that Indigenous Caribbean communities (or people claiming they're related to such groups) aren't necessarily Native Americans in the way Americans define it—in which case, the distinction may not be meaningful to them anyway. Puerto Rico is in a weird space where it's both in the Caribbean and an American territory.

If you have some RSes who describe the organisation in specific terms, please can you share them? I am happy to discuss some revised wording with you. I also appreciate your good faith in raising the issue here on talk, and have gone through the prior edits and restored some of the content which was sourced, and tweaked the opening paragraph to strike a better balance between the two versions. See what you think and then let me know what other suggestions you have. Lewisguile (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As seen by the official site of the organization in Puerto Rico, they are NOT the same as the Tribe in the USVI discussed in this article. The other editor must've confused the two, as seen by that site's statement: "While mutually supportive and interconnected, Iukaieke Guainía, Borikén and the Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc. are separate entities." The non-profit organization mentioned by the site in Puerto Rico is separate from the community. They are not eligible for applying for federal benefits like the Guaínia Taíno Tribe in the USVI is- as noted above in the government document. They are from entirely different territories, neither of whose laws have jurisdiction over the other any more than a USian state's laws would over another one.

Territories do not operate the same as the US (Puerto Rico for ex. doesn't have a Two-Party system of Democrats or Republicans but several parties primarily distinguished by their position on the status of the colony i.e. whether they support Statehood, Commonwealth status, or Independence). In this case, the news article specifically notes that tribe in the US VI does NOT use BQ (just that you have some in general) and in the same article, notes that they are prioritizing those related to a specific family, in this case, Phillips'.

Indigenous People in the Caribbean and other territories do NOT share the same political relationship Northern Nations in the so-called US have with the settler state and the experience of Northern Natives should not be equated with theirs or as a standard for recognition in entirely different regions. As a person whose Nativeness comes South of the continent it is beyond annoying to see people continue to use Northern standards as the litmus for them. If this person has a reliable source proving that the statement of a governor granting them legal rights as a tribe recognized by their territory to pursue federal rights - something none of the other cultural groups in Puerto Rico have - is false, then they are more than welcome to prove it. Mwatuangi (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted that either, but thanks for the clarification. Lewisguile (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously whether they're considered a tribe in the US federally is a different matter, but in the USVI they are defined as one. It isn't a "lie", especially when they are called a tribal entity and the non-profit is explicitly noted on their very website to be something created separately to assist them and not the tribe itself, no different than other organizations tribes in the US have made to assist them, like this one. Were tribes that only recently gained federal recognition like the Monacan, Chickahominy, and Rappahanock "organizations" prior too? Was it a lie to say they were tribes recognized by their states? Certainly not according to the NCAI last year, which validated the rights of state-recognized tribes after a debate on the matter. Opinions insinuating they aren't really tribes based on Original Research solely because the federal government doesn't currently recognize them have long-reaching consequences. Mwatuangi (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile The source mentioned citing the states and Alaska does not state anywhere that it is impossible for unincorporated territories with tribes to be recognized federally. Therefore, it is not an appropriate source for this claim and constitutes Original Research. It does not distinguish unrecognized tribes in states from unrecognized tribes in territories when it says: "The Act defines the term ‘Indian tribe’ as meaning any Indian or Alaska Native tribe that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe. The list is to be published by the Department of Interior annually and the Department cannot take a tribe off the list without an act of Congress. The only ways for a tribe not on the list to become federally recognized are through an act of Congress, a decision by a federal court, or by successfully going through the lengthy and expensive acknowledgement process established by Department of Interior regulation (25 CFR Part 83)."

The US Constitution, according to Article IV Clause II on States' Relations specifically says: "In the territories, Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which a state legislature might act.325 It may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof,326 which will then be invested with all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress.327"

Also, there is already a precedent demonstrating Congress' power to do this with a resolution introduced from a politician in an unincorporated territory (Guam) requesting Congress to pass legislation to recognize its Indigenous population as a tribe to resolve a legal dispute between the CHamoru Land Trust Commission and the Dep't of Justice in a prior lawsuit. Discussion of this resolution did not -as shown in the article - involve questioning the ability of the federal gov't to designate them a federal tribe, but the consequences of them being designated so due to the effect recognition would've had on lands designated as held "in trust" by the gov't and whether it would involve informed consent of the CHamoru: "In a letter to Sen. Michael San Nicolas, the author of the resolution, Bordallo stated that granting tribal recognition would come with advantages and disadvantages. For example, the designation of tribal land would involve the federal government taking into trust lands currently owned by the Chamorro Land Trust," Bordallo stated. Thus, while the Chamorro Land Trust — or newly established tribal entity — would continue to manage all aspects of this tribal land, the land would effectively be held in trust by the federal government for the Chamorro people,". The legislation makes this request under "25 U.S.C. and to recognize the Chamorro Land Trust lands administered under Guam Public Law 12-226, as amended, as Chamorro tribal lands." It's demonstrably false to claim that communities in unincorporated territories cannot be federally recognized as tribes.

The other source discussing federal recognition issues talks about the arbitrary difficulty of ensuring rights for Indigenous People in general regardless of whether they are federally recognized or not and does not limit this discourse to territories. It doesn't state that it is outside of the federal gov't's ability to do so, and even cites state-recognized tribes as an example of this failure in addition to territories and former territories: "For instance, on October 13, 2017, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), which will transport natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia and North 7 Carolina.9 In approving the ACP, the US refused to even consult with Indigenous Nations in the direct path of the pipeline, including the Lumbee, Coharie, Haliwa-Saponi, Rappahannock Tribe, and Monacan Indian Nation.10 The US has withheld consultation on the basis that these Indigenous Nations, although state�recognized, are not federally recognized." Shall we now interpret the US' failure to recognize the rights of state-recognized tribes as claimed in the report as something that is legally impossible as well? (EDIT: Also adding that the Taíno community in Puerto Rico, unlike the Guainía in the US VI discussed by this article, are not formally recognized by the local gov't. The Guainía in the US VI, however, are acknowledged as a tribe, and through legislation introduced to Congress would be eligible to apply for federal benefits if it was passed. This is once again, a conflation of two entirely different groups who do not share the same status in these territories.)

I kindly ask that a Reliable source proving that the Federal gov't cannot exercise the ability to recognize tribes in unincorporated territories be demonstrated, because none of the sources that were posted state it and we have more than enough evidence demonstrating that the federal gov't can acknowledge their rights if it wishes. It may seem like I'm being pedantic, but as shown by this article's edit history, basic facts have been skewed and/or misrepresented previously to say things that weren't true about this tribe and other Indigenous communities in lands the US currently controls. We need sources that explicitly claim the things said to show that editors are not merely assuming them when posting. Mwatuangi (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a couple of things here:

• Recognition and federal recognition are two different things. I don't dispute that the governor of the USVI has recognised certain groups as tribes, for instance.
• As you point out, Guam had to request legislation to have its indigenous people recognised as a tribe. I.e., there was no prior way for this recognition to occur without a change in the law. Puerto Rico and the USVI are in the same boat.

If it requires a change in law, it is currently legally impossible. The current wording is As the USVI and Puerto Rico are considered non-sovereign territories and not states, the Guainía Taíno have struggled to obtain federal recognition as a tribe. Does this adequately cover the grey areas or would you prefer something more concrete? E.g., As the USVI and Puerto Rico are considered non-sovereign territories and not states, the Guainía Taíno have struggled to obtain federal recognition as a tribe without federal legislation.Lewisguile (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Guam had to request legislation in order for its tribe to be federally recognized, and that underscores my point. As the source originally cited stated, and as federal law states regarding the authority of the Constitution over territories, it has absolute sovereignty over them and can pass legislation affecting them in the same manner it can re: states. I've already cited an example where the ability of Congress to do so re: federal recognition was directly invoked through federal US Code. San Nicholas' resolution did not call for Congress to create a law making it legal for CHamoru to be recognized as a federal tribe with "tribal lands"; it called for Congress to use the process that currently exists to do so, because it already was legal for them to pursue recognition through it. If it wasn't legal, then it would've been impossible.

That's the problem with the language. They aren't currently recognized federally, true, but they can be with the proper action. It's not exclusive like the lede claimed, using language that is not present in the source re: Alaska Natives cited, which I have asked to be referenced explicitly and have yet to see reciprocated. It doesn't mention the eligibility of tribes in unincorporated territories, let alone any of the Taíno tribes.

The 2019 report does not specifically discuss the Guainía Taíno Tribe in the US VI - neither does the article that mentions Taínos in PR and the Jíbaro. The US VI is an entirely different territory, which holds a different position on the status of Taíno tribes in their region and Bryan's statement cited by the US VI tribe's website notes that the US VI's recognition of it will assist the tribe in pursuing federal benefits. What that means for the tribe beyond what was reported is outside of our scope. If the sources actually cited the US VI tribe's journey toward pursuing recognition in the context of the territory's status, then it would obviously be relevant to include, but they don't. For me, I think it's easier to simply say they aren't currently federally-recognized re: legal status and emphasize - as the section you typed does - their political position on those issues. Mwatuangi (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with this. I am happy for more explicit wording (or less explicit as the case may be) to be included with RSes, if you have suggestions. Feel free to edit the lede and body with your suggested text – I've left it vague for now.

On looking into it today, you're right that none of the current sources seem to explicitly say this. The only thing I can find is a Facebook post by a PR Taíno group who say they were told they had to be in a U.S. state (one of the lower 48), and that PR didn't count. I can see lots of references to Native Americans being from the lower 48 and Alaska (which only implies those from other territories aren't included), but nothing specific.

I think you're right to remove this for now and we can look for more specific sources detailing how the political status of Puerto Rico affects such processes if necessary. I think this was something suggested on talk a while back by someone with an interest in Taíno matters. Sorry for any confusion! Lewisguile (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem and glad to have been able to have this discussion! Yeah this is one of those cases where the history of these territories prior to the US gaining control of them just throws a wrench into conventional discourse, and why I think approaches to discussing recognition in these articles needs to be more nuanced and clear, because being a "US tribe" has not been the sole criteria used to discuss whether Indigenous communities in territories and former territories can legally gain the same federal rights as one -as seen with the discourse re: possibly recognizing CHamoru as one years ago and even the "government-to-sovereign" relationship Kanaka Maoli have that is distinct from the current model of federal tribal recognition. Mwatuangi (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree on the US-centric nature of some of these articles. I initially added the suggested material when I was archiving old posts from the Taíno article (IIRC) because it seemed like the "not recognised so not Indian" discourse of earlier drafts was heavily skewed towards favouring US federal law and a narrow model of federal recognition which didn't seem applicable to the Caribbean. (My personal view is that Caribbean groups probably shouldn't be included in things like the List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes because they're Indigenous Caribbean, but I didn't want to rock the boat too much. I also freely admit to not understanding the intricacies of US state/federal/territory law – I stumbled into this topic via an interest in the Caribbean – so I appreciate your explanations here. I think I've got a bit of a better understanding now. Lewisguile (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you were rocking the boat at all. If Editors are going to try to use language that defines "Native American" in legal terms as being either "Alaska Native and/or of the lower 48" then they are obligated to follow through by not including groups who wouldn't apply under said-policy and aren't claiming to be in said-article and at least cite sources that explicitly state the claims they're making. That whole can of worms though is something I want to avoid myself. Mwatuangi (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In fact, could you also take a look at the whole article? It still mentions both Puerto Rico and the USVI in the lede, body and infobox, so that may all need updating to clarify the difference between the tribe and the organisation? Likewise, the infobox is about the non-profit. Lewisguile (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Guainía Taíno Tribe does have representatives in both places on its council - Phillips is the kasike of the tribe in the US VI, while Múkaro is the kasike of the Guainía tribe in Puerto Rico that is seeking recognition by them, so that may be where that confusion comes from as they are organized together under the collective name. Then of course, there is the non-profit in Puerto Rico that's named after the tribe which is separate. Mwatuangi (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit muddled. Lewisguile (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)