Why should indigenous peoples be accorded distinctive legal rights? On the one hand, the question seems to demand a simple answer: No special rights should exist provided that there are adequate protections for individual and human rights which indigenous peoples can utilize as readily as any others. If property rights are protected for all, if freedom of religion is genuinely honored, if the capacity to form associations of one's own choosing is not adversely affected by the state, then it would seem that no special status for indigenous groupings should be needed. Indeed, if native peoples link themselves to the same protections-of a constitution, Bill of Rights, or ordinary statutes-that protect the rights of all citizens, would they not possess far greater security than is available through special laws which, though fashioned on their behalf, could as easily be abrogated to their detriment? One might even cite in this regard the famous words of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe: