1. White sovereignty and indigenous sovereignty are different. They kritik white sovereignty, which means no link.
Forsythe, 12 (Ruth. "Understanding Indigenous Sovereignty." Independent Australia. 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 26 July 2015.)TB
“Aboriginal Sovereignty is not about power over others. We don’t want to be like the system, to govern over men (Government) and end up sitting around table like white-fellas. What the elders want is for there to be true protocol in the Law. There has been a breaking of the three laws of refraining from lying, stealing and killing, given to us by the three brothers. The shame is every community has broken these Laws. The key to sovereignty is maintaining our culture. Traditional life is about the custodian’s role of caretakers of the rocky outcrops, desert plains and sacred mystical waterways that belong to the people of the Seven Wonders of the World”.
2. Sovereignty is not a western notion. It predates the colonizers.
Cobb 6 (Amanda J Cobb, June 2006, American Studies Journal, Kansas University, pp. 118-119, Accessed 7/19/15, https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/view/2956/2915) CH
At base, sovereignty is a nation's power to self-govern, to determine its own way of life, and to live that life—to whatever extent possible—free from interference. This is no different for tribal sovereignty, which by and large shares the attributes and characteristics of sovereignty as contextualized above. Native nations are culturally distinct peoples with recognizable governments and, in most cases, recognizable and defined territories. The sovereignty of Native nations is inherent and ancient. For Native nations within the boundaries of the United States, the underscoring of the inherent nature of sovereignty is critical because of the colonial process—a process that continues to dramatically diminish our ability to fully exercise tribal sovereignty. As David Wilkins (Lumbee) and K. Tsianina Lomawaima (Creek/Cherokee) have argued, "Tribes existed before the United States of America, so theirs is a more mature sovereignty, predating the Constitution; in that sense, tribal sovereignty exists 'outside' the Constitution."15 Kidwell and Velie agree that sovereignty "is held to be an inherent right" but emphasize that "its political effect depends upon its recognition by other sovereigns."16 Inherency and recognition are characteristics of sovereignty for all nations; however, the recognition and respect necessary to exercise sovereignty fully has not been consistently accorded Native nations by other sovereigns, particularly the United States. In fact, "[f]rom 1775 to the present, federal and state intentions toward tribes have changed direction in various ways. One could argue that indeterminacy or inconsistency is the hallmark of the tribal federal relationship."17 Because of this inconsistency, Native nations must constantly endeavor to exercise their sovereignty "under negotiation with states, in federal courts, and with the Congress of the United States."18 That dynamic is virtually inescapable for tribal peoples on one level or another. The recognition and exercise of tribal sovereignty is complicated by the power imbalance between the United States and Native nations. The American nation-state is so powerful, so hegemonic, that its cloak of sovereignty becomes almost invisible. The United States is so used to looking through the lens of its own powerful sovereignty—and, importantly, to having that image reflected back to it by other nations—that the United States, including its citizens, too often cannot recognize that what is looked through is merely a lens. Too often, the United States falls into the trap of mistaking that lens for its eye. As Alfred has pointed out, "the Western view of power and human relationships is so thoroughly entrenched that it appears valid, objective, and natural."19 In other words, United States sovereignty has become normalized to such an extent that it rarely questions or is even conscious of any limit to its own sovereign power
3. Perm sever the reps – all the aff is saying is that we probably shouldn’t be assaulting natives.
4. Perm do both – this would function as doing the aff without mentioning sovereignty.
5. Sovereignty good – helps make concrete political change on behalf of natives.
D'Errico, 2k (Peter. Peter d’Errico is a consulting attorney on indigenous issues. He was a staff attorney in Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe Navajo Legal Services from 1968 – 1970, and taught Legal Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, until 2002."SOVEREIGNTY." A Brief History in the Context of U.S. "Indian Law" 2000. Web. 26 July 2015.)TB
The concept of sovereignty, however convoluted and contradictory, remains an important part of federal Indian law. Tribal councils established under the Indian Reorganization Act are regarded as vehicles of "tribal sovereignty"; they act as governments and not just as corporations, though they are often limited by federal funding and authority. Indian hunting and fishing rights have been protected against state and local regulation, though an ultimate authority has been reserved outside the realm of tribal sovereignty. Indian nations are regarded as immune from suit without their consent, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," yet their power over non-members of the particular nation is sometimes severely limited. In short, the idea that indigenous nations have at their roots some aspect of their original, pre-colonial status as independent nations operates -- sometimes directly and sometimes by implication -- throughout federal Indian law today. This idea is accompanied by the colonial legacy of superior authority claimed over indigenous nations by the federal government. Both these ideas have been part of federal Indian law from its inception, and are the reason why Chief Justice Marshall could say, in formulating the foundations of this law in the Cherokee Nation case, "The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence."
6. Discussing sovereignty is specifically k2 awareness of native issues. The alternative is silence, papering over discussion of indigenous peoples, turns the k.
LaForme, no date (Henry, Member of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, aboriginal judge. INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?, no date)TB
Sovereignty to most Indians is synonymous with the term, “self-government.” And, until sovereignty was the term used, rather than “self government,” nobody other than Indians ever really cared about the issue. That is, few Canadians ever really wondered what went on within Indian Reserves or how Indians actually made decisions, or what laws applied on Reserves. Few people cared whether Indian Band Councils (those governing bodies of Indian Bands established and auspicated in accordance with the Indian Act and defined by Section 2(1) of the Indian Act) could borrow money like municipalities, or how Indians made decisions about their children's education, etc. Indeed, most people never wondered if Indians even had a government, let alone how it was established or how it functioned. Now, however, because the term which is often currently applied is “sovereignty” rather than “self-government,” the ranks of those who are curious about Indians has grown ten fold. Today people want to know “what does it mean” “what will it look like” “will it protect minority rights” “will murder be allowed” and, “will it be a haven where fleeing criminals can escape prosecution?” And the reason many people want to know is so they can decide whether or not they will “allow” Indians the privilege of being “granted” the ability to exercise such rights.
7. We don’t defend the western notion of seovereignty – we defend indigenous sovereignty, or self-determination.
Gilio-Whitaker, 13 (Dina. Research Associate at CWIS, Freelance Writer and Indigenous Studies Scholar, MA University of New Mexico, American Studies, BA University of New Mexico, Native American Studies. "Indian Self-Determination and Sovereignty." Indian Country Today Media Network.com. 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 26 July 2015. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/indian-self-determination-and-sovereignty-147025)TB
In general there’s a huge difference between what the federal government means when it talks about Indian sovereignty and self-determination and the kind tribal nations mean. Although it can be said that the concepts probably vary from tribe to tribe, self-determination for Indian people overall is representative of the state of political independence that existed prior to colonization. The process of colonization has given a new meaning to the idea of self-determination for the colonized, and the process of decolonizing the relationships between tribes and the United States is, at least in part, about how we define the terms of “sovereignty” and “self-determination.” Self-determination and sovereignty have become concepts that colonizing states have defined for the colonized, and indigenous peoples worldwide have pushed back against those limiting and self-serving definitions, which is why it took 22 years to pass the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Self-determination and sovereignty for indigenous peoples is seen by colonizing states (especially the US) as “aspirational,” that which doesn’t really exist but may (or may not) at some point in the future. There is, however, an important difference between the concepts of self-determination and sovereignty, reflected in a growing and sophisticated body of academic literature by Native scholars. For example, we find that the roots of the concept of sovereignty (and the modern nation-state) are in feudal European monarchies, characterized by hierarchical power structures with profound religious overtones. Because these kinds of governing structures were typically foreign to indigenous peoples, sovereignty is said to be an inappropriate concept for Indian nations. Self-determination, on the other hand, is as the name implies the ability to be self-determining independent of an outside power. The problem is that in the context of a colonial relationship such as the one between the United States and tribal nations, self-determination is reduced to the ability of a tribal nation to be merely self-governing. There’s nothing innately wrong with tribes being allowed to govern themselves (as they have always done), but it leaves unaddressed a whole host of other problems that the colonial relationship presents, embodied in the system of domestic law that tribal nations are unconsentingly subjugated to, complete with its doctrines of discovery, plenary power, domestic dependent nationhood and trust. It is still a paternalistic relationship with tribes generally thought of as incapable, if not undeserving of the type of self-determination reserved for nation-states—despite their centuries-long histories of foreign relations with outside and international actors.