President Clinton neglected to include an American Indian on his special seven member commission to spearhead dialogue on race in America. The omission is particularly unfortunate, according to PNS commentator Joseph Giovanetti, because America's Indians have a unique history and a unique standing. Giovanetti is an enrolled member of the Smith River Rancheria of Howenquet Indians (CA) and a lecturer in federal Indian law at Humboldt State University.

EUREKA, CA -- A glaring omission marred President Clinton's recent address on race -- an omission that may say more about his view of inclusion than any number of townhall meetings.

Clinton announced the formation of an Advisory Commission on Race in America. The seven-person group, which will spearhead his efforts to promote dialogue and propose policy changes, includes two blacks, three whites, one Hispanic and one Korean. And no American Indians.

For many American Indians, this is consistent with a long record of denying the human needs of America's tribes.

Washington may argue that it is simply a numbers thing. Blacks, after all, have 27 million people, Hispanics 17 million, whereas American Indians account for only two million. Yet some 5.5 million more U.S. citizens claimed American Indian identity mixed with something else in the 1990 census.

The numbers carry special weight as the U.S. government has used eugenics codes to identify and disenfranchise millions of Indians over the last 110 years. These codes, first set out in the Dawes Act of 1887, specified blood quantum requirements for tribal allotments. They were used to wrest much of the 80 million acres taken from tribes between 1878 and 1934, and are now used to drastically reduce federal funding to tribes and individuals by declaring them ineligible for government services.

At least some American Indians are known to have reached out to Clinton. In 1992, the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee (a recognized tribe) offered honorary membership to Bill Clinton and Chelsea, according to Al Slagle, a sitting member of the tribal council and an expert on Indian law. Slagle said the council believes Clinton's ancestors were among the "Old Settlers," which is the Cherokee term for the first of their people to be moved to "Indian territory" in Arkansas under an 1817 treaty.

There was no response from the Clintons, according to Slagle, and the White House could not confirm the existence of a blood tie on Clinton's mother's side.

Certainly, the Indian contribution to any conversation on race would be outstanding. In 500-plus years of experience, Indians have learned more than a thing or two about the nuances of colonial governments and race relations.

While ethnic minority demographics in the areas of urban poverty, crime, health, housing, education and justice paint a bleak portrait of near-apartheid conditions in many American cities, they pale in comparison to the issues Indians could bring to the discussion.

Among the most compelling are the erosion of the federal government's commitment to fulfill its 210-year-old "trust" responsibility vis a vis the tribes, the failure to enforce the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the inordinately high levels of environmental degradation and ongoing pressure to store spent nuclear fuels on tribal lands.

Other items of concern include repeated assaults by states on the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, unemployment and the pending impact of welfare reform, and individual state's efforts to tax tribal lands. Many tribe members are extremely concerned about the survival of the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act. At least half of the Indian nations have no resources of their own which could attract investment capital to the reservation.

Perhaps by not naming an American Indian to the Commission, Clinton hopes to avoid closer scrutiny of these issues at home and abroad.

In theory, at least, Indian nations have an unassailable legal basis for demanding that these issues be included in a national discussion of race. Ours is a government-to-government relationship with the U.S., under which Washington acts as a protectorate to its weaker sovereigns. The relationship was not entered into lightly by either party but evolved through more than 370 treaties. Tribes traded lands in exchange for protection and guarantees of services from the U.S. Tribes, under principles of international law, retained limited sovereignty over their affairs on their lands.

No other "racial" group in the United States can make such claims.