This is an important economic context to note, because it establishes a certain legitimacy to Kalakaua in economic terms, but it is also important to consider what other consequences were such as sustainable polices. What specific changes exactly made things shift?

The way this is worded effectively and sensitively articulates the violence of the situation

This insinuates that during his development, his search for his identity was important, not an afterthought.

What caused this departure? Was it just that this was the next phase? Previous violence had effectively advanced the agenda to this point to allow 'mopping up' and consolidating the gains that had been won?

It might be a good idea to follow the link and read the Dawes act, just to get some perspective on what was the contents of this document. [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=50&page=transcript)]

This poetic description of 'dismemberment' is quite graphic and evokes images of slaughter and mass graves such as at wounded-knee. The act of land-redistribution was one of violence and it resulted in destroyed lives and culture as well as somewhat 'indirectly,' the literal death of inhabitants from economic factors as well as increase in crime, violence, alcoholism... I need to take a break and go to work, my objectivity is slipping, and emotion is powerful, but not the best historical lens, especially in an academic setting.

It is the isolation from traditional social networks and economic systems such as Buffalo that accomplishes this. I just thought of how I will go to food-service work in an hour and administer 'Buffalo Sauce' and the thought and association made me sick. That people's livelihoods were destroyed so they would be replaced by making practically extinct a magnificent species. And now I use that word every work-day in the context of a pungent smelling, spicy, cowboy/country-western themed hot-sauce condiment.

Here the wall of separation between church and state is explicitly broken. The reason is apparent: the federal government seeks allies among a variety of institutions to aid in the ultimate elimination of native peoples, and total control of land and residents.

Here is an effective form of collective resistance that allowed individuals such as Nannie to survive. Without this network, she very well may have perished in this harsh environment, no matter how independent she was. No person survives as an island, which is why Allotment policies seek to isolate and control Native peoples made dependent.

Both perspectives are authentic, and neither are mutually exclusive. This is a complex and problematic topic, perhaps it is best that it remains uncomfortable, unsettled, and unsettling, especially in an academic context.

Elevation in social hierarchy becomes equated not with resistance or talent within a traditional Cherokee context, but in the context of white cooperation and submission, with real economic incentives for following the program. Within Cherokee society this restructures the social hierarchy, and alters fundamentally the character and beliefs of the new generation of leaders. This creates division and social upheaval within the community.

Here wildness and skin color are consistently connected, but also notice evidence of equating the state of the hut to the inhabitant, compared to the whitewashed houses mentioned in the lecture, with pine floors...

The Cherokee identity is one that is meant to be eventually erased, so hypodescent is treated differently than that of African slaves. Blackness was considered a badge of slavery, so it was carefully portrayed as a contagious quality that one drop would grant an identity, so that it would persist despite intermixing and create a perpetual stock of potential slaves. This attitude persisted in the South even after slavery was abolished. The Cherokees were meant to eventually disappear, so in this case, whiteness was portrayed contagious in at least the sense it would 'erase' the Cherokee identity, if not enough to make them 'equal.'

Here the physical features between Anglo Americans and Cherokees are juxtaposed, and are tied to an essentialist view where the physical characteristics are ranked on a hierarchy that encompasses linked traits such as intelligence, morality, civilization, and spiritual purity. Having Cherokee students write material such as this promotes an internalization of racism, and a normalization of accepting their place within this hierarchy. Ostensibly there would be resistance to this, but resistance would be punished, and acceptance would be rewarded, leading 'clever' Cherokees to follow the least path of resistance and receive praise and be rewarded for submission, while the 'stubborn/backwards' Cherokees would 'fail to learn the truth' and be punished. This suggests an Orwellian dynamic of indoctrination and psychological manipulation.

It is important to put into context that the real destruction of Native Peoples was far reaching, and that the Boarding School institution did not exist in a vacuum. The real tragedy was a multifaceted, expansive process of genocide, elimination, and replacement... not just allotments and re-education. Context matters to view the Boarding School institution as an agent of cultural violence.

Here is a good explicit example of how race and culture are tied together in 19th and early 20th century racial paradigms.

The internalization of white racism by mixed-blood students represents one of the major consequences of the divisive nature of the boarding school dynamic. In-group/out-group division as different categories are arranged in proximity to whiteness, creating conflict to promote white interests and gain allies in Native destruction and subjugation in the late-game/end-game strategy.

A sense of entrapment, definite negative feelings, and involuntary attendance. This is someone who HAS to be here, they don't want to be.

This is an interesting way to phrase it. Did it create pride among many Cherokees, or just a select few? The narrative the federal government and the institution, and Indian Affairs would want to portray certainly suggests this, but is it wise to use this type of language today off hand, and is it historically accurate?

These names may be useful to remember for researching primary history documents.

The seminarian perspective is one that can be viewed as problematic or controversial, because it is wrong to deny their experiences and their unique perspective of individuals benefiting from boarding schools, but it is even worse to deny the tragedy and the cultural destruction inflicted by this institution.