Final answer:
Debates on whether Native Americans are justified in claiming they are entitled to be treated as sovereign nations involve historical treaties and self-governance, as well as their current status as U.S. citizens and the complex legal recognition of their sovereignty by the federal government.
Step-by-step explanation:
Are Native Americans justified in claiming that they are entitled to be treated as sovereign nations? There are arguments made for each position. On one hand, Native American tribes have a long history of self-governance and have signed numerous treaties with the United States, which could justify their claim to sovereignty. Notably, treaties signed historically were meant to acknowledge and perpetuate their status as self-governing entities.
On the other hand, Native Americans are also citizens of the United States, implying that they should follow federal laws like any other citizens. This dual-citizenship casts complexities on their exact legal status and rights. Despite the historical abuse and institutionalized disenfranchisement, Native American tribes today are recognized as sovereign entities by the federal government, with land held in "trust" and the power to govern themselves and their territory to some extent.
This matter is further complicated by the fact that the U.S. government has not always honored treaty obligations, contributing to ongoing disputes and legal struggles. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 and subsequently, the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 codified some rights and recognition of tribal governance, yet instances of environmental damage and other issues illustrate how sovereignty can be challenged. Additionally, the rights to vote and to be federally acknowledged tribes have been contentious issues. Thus, the question of sovereignty touches not only on historical legitimacy but also on contemporary legal and political landscapes.