Sovereignty Refers to Autonomous Control - Essay Example

Sovereignty refers to autonomous control over all aspects of decision-making pertaining to an individual or group; whereby, freedom persists preventing any external forces from setting restrictive measures aimed at impeding sole autonomy. A glance into history helps to shed light on how the concept of sovereignty relates to Contemporary Native Americans. Moreover, it aids in the understanding of past and present states of the relationship between the USA government and the Native American government.
As showcased in the American Tv series We Shall Remain (2009), it is evident that through the US constitution, the US government continues to respect the sovereignty of the Native American government. This was first seen in 1638 when the European settlers signed the Treaty of Hartford with the Mohegan tribe recognizing their sovereignty (Council 1). In the 1830s, the U.S. Supreme court passed rulings that recognized Native American tribes as distinct, autonomous political communities that were capable of managing and governing their own legal and political affairs internally. This paved the way for both governments to establish relationships on legal or political fronts. In spite of the drawbacks that sought to undermine Native Americans’ sovereignty such as the unfair resettlement programs; for example, Trail of Tears, the U.S government has and continues to effect constitutional changes that seek to re-establish Native Americans’ sovereignty. The Indian Reorganization Act (1934) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1940) are examples of such constitutional changes seeking to empower Native Americans on a political and financial front respectively. Therefore, it is in my opinion that these changes are helping in the eradication of stereotypes held by natives from both groups, which emanated from the previously existing tumultuous relationship (Council 3).
2.
The politicization of science is a phrase used to describe the manipulation, abuse, or misuse of science by entities such as governments, corporate organizations, or religious groups among others for political gain. In order to sway their opponents, these entities resort to using scientific facts to strengthen their arguments in spite of the credibility of the facts. In some cases, their influence dictates the parameters of science rendering external input unfavorable; for example, the science curriculum taught in schools has defined parameters that exclude unsanctioned, additional information. Judgment Day 2007 documentary best showcased the politicization of science within the society by reenacting the court proceedings between Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The plaintiff included teachers from Dover Area High School such as Cristy Rehm who refused to comply with a policy requiring them to issue a disclaimer when teaching the evolution theory to students. The disclaimer discredited Darwin’s evolution theory and instead mandated teachers to offer intelligent design as an alternative theory in spite of the theory’s underlying religious connotations. This led to a public outcry with many people stating it was a violation of their freedom of religion. The case sparked the interest of different entities further politicizing the issue. In the end, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff maintaining that the separation between the church and the state takes precedence (MacMacter & Johnstone Scene 6).
Science endorses the use of proven factual information, which is not necessarily the case for religion. Therefore, bringing religion into the science equation means the negation of all things factual and the acceptance of inexplicable religious beliefs as an explanation of different phenomena. Moreover, it results in the infringement on people’s freedom of religion which is a violation of their constitutional rights. Each person has the right to choose the religious faith they follow without fearing discrimination from those who do not agree with their faith. For example, the Dover Area High school teachers who refused to comply with the discriminatory policy had the constitutional right to do so (MacMacter & Johnstone Scene 2). Read More