Reading Annotation 2.4

"Indeed, one of the effects of colonialism is that, in the United States, members of the non-Native privileged class cannot see or grasp the travails of Native peoples." In this vein of thought, I find that there are several subjects that this statement could be relevant toward in what stymies the path of self-determination and decolonization for the peoples in Indian Country. Anyone whom is outside of that privileged class is not going to appreciate the significance of how large the definition of sovereignty is. Sovereignty includes the language you use, the choice of faith, the right to eat and drink as you choose, and the right to pursue endeavors that reflect your own identity and values. As the inclusion of tribes in the Americas in the proliferation of technological advancements in regard to communication continues down the path of previous infrastructural advancements, it is of no surprise that broadband access for tribes is woefully short of their most basic of needs. Many people assume that it's just as simple as it would be to call a provider and have the service connected, without realizing that in many areas the infrastructure on reservation land may barely exist for decent land line phone service. This is where Duarte is able to crystallize this sentiment, as most of the "privileged" class in our country are unable to appreciate the extent to which Native American Tribes have been routinely marginalized. One such roadblock is demonstrable when she speaks of the trials of Red Spectrum Internet, serving the Couer D'alene tribe. There had to be proven a demonstrable demand, and also the feasibility, and also a number of other issues that demonstrated the sheer numbers and concrete institutions such as property titles to addresses, which could be problematic depending on the tribal customs regarding record keeping with respect to such things. "How do Native and Indigenous peoples utilize an array of broadband toward the furtherance of explicitly Native and Indigenous goals?" I found this rather interesting as a standalone question posed by the author, as it seems like she and others are already taking action in order to press the matter of self-determination in Indian Country. In one way that sovereignty has been able to be expressed thoroughly has been to make these services available where they can be, and also to have the conferences specific to the interests of tribes and the problems they face where access is concerned. The availability of information has allowed Tribes to contend with large companies thereby asserting their sovereignty, as the Couer D'Alene tribe did in 2005 by suing mining companies that had polluted the local watershed over a century of dumping, resulting in billions of dollars in settlements and ongoing clean-up efforts. As the information becomes more readily available, so do the opportunities of self-determination. King Mountain Tobacco company is another such endeavor where sovereignty has been determined and upheld, as they had faced fierce commercial opposition and gone through extensive litigation in order to produce tobacco products in the Yakima Valley. In the end, it was decided that it was an undeniable entitlement to the Yakamas that they could cultivate tobacco on the reservation. As it says on King Mountain's website; Due to the Nature of our Treaty language, King Mountain Tobacco takes an aggressive stand in exercising the right to travel and trade tobacco, "Border to Border – Ocean to Ocean." In 1855 Chief Kamiakin, when asked if Yakama’s wanted to trade for the non-indian tobacco he stated, "we the Yakama people have our own tobacco, and we shall reserve the right to trade our tobacco, and the non-indian tobacco fee-less." These Treaty rights have in recent times been reinforced by case law within the Supreme Court, as well as 9th Circuit District Court. I don't know if there's a stronger statement that can assert sovereignty than the ability to go to court with the Federal Government and Big Tobacco and win, and the awareness that will be available once information begins to flow more freely can ensure more of that to come; surely, it could be said that a little bit of "Manifest Destiny" can be reinterpreted through Indian Country as they see fit, with their own interests at heart.

Reading Annotation 2.3

I find the concepts that Marisa Duarte explores very compelling; in particular, she shares a caveat given to her by human rights activist and Tohono O’odham Nation member Mike Wilson, he cautioned her about lending too much credence to the idea of "Tribal Sovereignty". He has a unique perspective on Tribal matters, as he is an outspoken community leader that has been at odds with Tribal Government due to his tendency to leave gallons of water out for travelers crossing the desert into the United States, through reservation lands. I believe his assertion is a very real and tangible philosophy when it comes to any number of systems where Indian Country is concerned, as later evidenced by Duarte in chapter 4 when speaking about Myra Jodie whom had won a new IMac that she could not use due to having no phone line in her home. She tells of a media movement upon this discovery, which was noticed by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. The foundation had decided to engineer the tribe into the modern era, by way of installing the necessary network that would allow for internet access for the tribe. Before long, it was discovered by the engineers that their undertaking would require more than the simple planning and execution they had grown accustomed to; there were not just challenges in terrain that would have to be taken into account, there was the hard and real situation of a lack of many basic infrastructural regularities that were not present to make the feat feasible beyond what they would be willing to invest. This is the essence of the "Indian Problem" which she describes, and also central to why Mike Wilson had warned her about faith in the fragile specter of "Tribal Sovereignty". The Tribe can only be sovereign in ways that are approved of by the prevailing occupational government, and will only be able to define their means of self-determination under that same scrutiny of imperialistic approval. There is a thought process in the western thinking where people have blind spots when it comes to technology, likely assuming that equal access to technologies is available to all within the national borders and having no appreciation to the lack of attention and support that many marginalized receive; this is often expressed in certain societal enclaves as these same groups being less educated, less technologically inclined, or disadvantaged by somehow refusing to embrace advancements rather than wondering if these advancements were made accessible to them at any time or in any considerable measure.

Reading Annotation 2.2

Network Sovereignty, Ch.1 & 2; It seems as if Duarte is making the point that Indigenous peoples have been regularly denied access in all things considered markers of civilization. This is not just thoroughly factual, but routinely ignored. She drives the point home with an example of sparseness, in telling of someone on the Navajo Reservation having to drive their asthmatic mother into town due to an attack requiring medical attention. In this example, she illustrates the sheer lack of modern amenities available to the Indigenous peoples where they are. It is not surprising to hear of the lack of technology, but it is discouraging to know that the problems of the past 100 years are still very much the state of things in Indian Country. As it is, I remember when Toppenish finally got cable television in 1988. I also remember when dial-up internet became available to my uncle's house, right around 2001. That said, if you drive 10 miles out on Lateral A, there are still plenty of areas where housing is only accessible by dirt roads, and there may or may not be land line phones. What is very interesting is the thought that access to ICT's will be of a different use to various Tribes, Nations, and other Indigenous peoples. Whereas Westernized values will continue to use technologies for the proliferation of that school of thought, Tribes can begin to use these tools to reclaim identities and assert their own sovereignty by proliferating their own data, knowledge, and values and actively dismantling the avenues of colonial thought and influence. Many may find the notion difficult to grasp, but do not hold the perspective of what it means to be on the short end of cultural eradication. Many tribes have lost their languages, while others have only a few native speakers remaining. A reclamation of heritage, sacred practices, preservation of language and religion, stories, wisdom, and even the arts and skills that may only be lost through time is now possible for those on the brink of losing everything when so much has already been forcibly taken. It is possible, that is, as long as no one stands in the way of them gaining access to these systems. As of now, Google Translate has the ability to interpret any language into Yucatec Maya. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's website has their greeting written in the Lakota language. Hopefully, this trend is able to continue.

Discussion 2.1

I believe when it comes to the sovereignty of the Internet, there is no true way to govern. It is to me as John Perry Barlow said in his Declaration; there is no true way to govern in the real of Cyberspace. In his article, he illustrates how there is a true dichotomy between how governments are trying to impose traditionally styled regulations upon an entity which they cannot possibly hope to ever contain. The speed at which the virtual world has grown has far outpaced anything that could be contained by or monitored with known regulatory practices. It is essentially lawless and governed only by the users whom frequent it and fully grasp that significance, the true 'digital natives'. Personally, I find his view a bit idealistic. There have been large concerted efforts to impose control on the internet, and there has been little success. The innovation has come predominantly from businesses in the free market, large tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple have made many great strides in implementing safe web practices that have now become standard and do much more to protect the user. I do think, however, that people have allowed themselves to be spoon fed what is good for them when it comes to the net. I see it as next to impossible for a government protect or regulate anything on the internet; you may as well try to rope the sun. I find the thought interesting in Henry Story's conclusion regarding the "web of nations", where he concludes that governance of this entity can only be done if it is started at the lowest level through cooperation. It is very interesting that his conclusion is essentially where Francesca Bria states that Barcelona is standing firmly. In the adopted approach where citizens are taking control of web access as a utility, Barcelona is able to return a large portion of control to the people. She goes on to explain how embracing this approach is making transparent the functions of their local government, but also allowing the people to allocate when and where resources are used. This increases people's involvement in government exponentially, but also their level of responsibility. In the US, I'm not sure if anyone is ready to treat the internet as a public utility, as there seems to be a mindset of focusing nationally rather than locally. Not only does this model make it more affordable for everyone, but it allows much more flexibility in remaining fiscally solvent. Wilson, North Carolina is one of the few cities in the US to offer community owned Internet service, and provides this on an extensive fiber optic network. Another city doing this is Chattanooga, Tennessee, and both towns are offering high speed internet access at prices that are cheaper than private providers. Their main resistance has not been from the citizens, but from the large corporate service providers that are now having to compete with community owned entities. I'm all for the proliferation of smart cities. We might be able to begin talking to actual people on the phone again, rather than having to answer prompts for an hour with a 5-minute problem. Sovereignty would be returned to whom it rightfully belongs.