There seems to be an awareness that there would be resistance to future projects.

So, they basically said they could go back on their word once the time of 30 years was up? Did this sort of stipulation help when they were unable to or refused to send these sorts of obligations? They always seem to make it a right to just change the treaty without actually letting those affected dictate terms.

It was already bad enough that the signs were not even readable, but this sign doesn't even say why use is "discouraged." How were people to know that there had been serious, deadly contamination of their crucial water supply?

It seems like this mine could produce over $3 million in profits a year for the company, while only paying royalties of somewhere about $200,000 a year (of course, it's also important to take into account that this was the 1960s, so it would be valued different now).

Why would they even think this?

It's clear from this that the US saw all Lakota as enemies. It did not matter to them if they starved families who were just trying to hold on to their homes and communities.

I think one aspect that I've noticed from this class is how often the topics we have discussed intersect. It always seems like when a resource is discovered that can be exploited the government takes control over that land in either direct control or through shadier means like the trust system.

One thing I found interesting about this map are the two dark pink locations labeled neutral strip and Greer County (disputed between Texas and Indian Territory). I wonder what the history was behind these two areas.

This just seems so ridiculous to me. Why even have a vote at all if you are going to exclude your own Osage peoples? It seems like the case of the Pamunkey where in resisting the federal government they took measures that were just as terrible.

I wonder about which concern was more important: the money or political control. I know it was a combination of both, but still this is interesting to consider.

It seems like self-determination as a group and as individuals is crucially tied to money and economics.

It always seems like there is some addition of schools in these treaties. It shows how important education was for tribes (while also being often out of their control).

This seems like quite an odd addition to make on the part of the US. I wonder what they really mean by allowing them to make use of this land.

This seems to be similar to what happened with the Pamunkey of Virginia. They only recently were granted federal acknowledgement and are planning to open a casino in Norfolk, Virginia. As a part of the agreement with the city of Norfolk and the NAACP, they are going to hire at least 50 percent of the workforce from local minority communities and will reinvest money to fight food insecurity in this area. If you want more information you can check out this source: https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/norfolk/norfolk-naacp-and-pamunkey-indian-tribe-met-to-discuss-race-relations/291-b2f4b9fc-79bd-46ad-84c6-28b0bd6ccf80

Looking at it now, it basically seems like these critiques are completely unfounded. Also, I find it extremely ironic in the video where Trump says he wants to compete on equal footing, but he essentially is a rich mogul bolstered by family money and influence. His testimony was so stupid and infuriating.

This basically seems to have left them with no choice of where to turn. Even if they could tax their own people it would be quite difficult to gain enough revenue to support existing operations of government and then future plans to help make up disparities that exist in terms of healthcare, schools, and overall welfare.

It seems they are treating Native fishing as a means to survive not to make money, so it can be adjusted as population size changes. This is really strange to me since most of the actual fishing was done by larger companies and fishermen who didn't have the same restrictions put into place and most rules that did exist seemed to still enable them to deplete fish for their own capitalist benefit.

I think this argument is ridiculous. It often seems Native peoples weren't really asking for more. They were asking for the existing rights and claims to land to be recognized as in the cases of the Fish Wars.

This makes me so angry that this was so recent, but also this was being discussed at the same time when there were so many issues that tribes faced like the child removals and unfair adoption practices. This just stood out to me as a major connection because non-Native people would often say that by giving priority to adopting kids into Native families that somehow non-Natives were actually the ones who were "losing rights" and that it was "racist" and "unfair" against them. It's just so infuriating to think about non-Natives claiming they had to combat "legalized racism."

It seems odd that they believed the Cherokee Nation ceased to exist while also signing a treaty with them. Normally, when I think of treaties, it's not signed between individuals and the government, but rather a nation or collective group.

This argument places the recognition of citizenship as a much broader fight to retain sovereignty, which does seem like a convincing move to persuade those who do not hold the same belief.

What was the reasoning behind this? Was it a fear of who would be a citizen or who would receive benefits?

Broken treaty promises on the part of the US are once again to blame for harming people and their rights.

I still don't quite grasp this backwards logic.

I wonder what prompted or informed the Confederates to take more immediate action.

This division had a lot of features that I noticed. It seemed odd that the different nations were all concentrated in the eastern part of Oklahoma while the ceded land was in the middle of the map. It just appears as if this was a planned way to eventually gain the territory in the east by claiming territory in the center. I do wonder how they defined no man's land as.

I am still a bit unsure on the emphasis on roads and the connection between standards of living and roads themselves.

This notion of guilt and blame on the US seems to pop up quite often in this article, but their vision of Native agency is limited and not actually informed by Native needs in their own words.

I wonder how much of the population was affected by sterilizations and forced removal of children.

This point is so overtly ironic as the BIA seems to always steamroll and impose a singular set of standards.

In a sense, it seems like jurisdiction was used as a means to control people and put them under specific control while also excluding them in many ways.

There seemed to be a lot of overlap and communication between the BIA, state agencies and religious institutions in regards to adoption.

This is a really great thing to hear. I did not expect to see such a large number of schools open up.

I read Margaret Jacobs' book and one of the most important aspects that stood out to me was that larger popular blame wasn't often placed on the US government and those who pushed for boarding schools, but rather Native families themselves.

It seems like while the goals of law and policy seemed often to be aligned with different activist groups, there were many divisions between how to fight for change over the long term.

This is perplexing to hear that these restrictions were in place until the 70s, but how were they even made illegal in the first place?

This seems to be just one of many criticisms of the BIA. I found it interesting that this quote emphasizes that the BIA is the one that makes people dependent due to the institution's need to stay alive.

This emphasis on responsibilities and being subject to US laws reveals how the government really saw termination, which was as a way to expand their power and control over Native peoples politically, economically, and legally.

This seems really strange to me that you could be considered a citizen of a nation but not the state. As for being residents, would the allotment process factor into them being residents of a state?

This seems like one of the most pressing concerns. As we have seen before, the actions undertaken by Native individuals alone do not always turn out so great.

I found this image interesting for two reasons. First, I thought it was interesting the people they chose to recognize (like Columbus, Washington, John Cabot). These seem like figures that we would know from our own history classes back in elementary school and are maybe not the best individuals in terms of their actions. Also, this list included the Goddess of Night and Goddess of Liberty, which was a bit strange contrasting with the actual historical figures. Second, I noticed the names of the actual children, which tended to be European sounding for most of their first names at least.

How exactly does this count as a treaty if only one side can dictate terms and change it?

I wonder if most people did incur debts in general by following this individualistic economic model that the government was trying to push through.

Was it really protected by the government at this point? In the past, every time Native land was supposedly "protected" white settlers would just lie about who owned the land or would just claim rights to it as they "made the best use" of the land.

This was an interesting point to me as it shows that this collection and others like it were not representative of many tribes, but specific ones acquired by a limited number of outsiders.

This is super concerning and also makes me think of how this works in light of the discussion on jurisdiction last week (was this even allowed to be done at all?).

Why were they left out of the provisions?

One's 21st birthday seems so arbitrary and totally ignores the circumstances of peoples lives. The fact that this is only for men also speaks to how the US saw women as subordinate, even when they were clearly the ones with the dominant role over the household.

This seems to indicate that further rulings will be heavily influenced by the specific context of the treaties and their wordings.

This logic just seems so completely strange. I do not understand how they thought they could have so many odd and contradicting parts of their argument and win.

This reminds me of the Andrew Jackson quote where he conveyed that Marshall's decisions did not matter because he could not enforce them. It seems like there are often laws in place that are just ignored for the sake of the state or settlers.

The dissent seems to be intentionally leaving out important historical and textual details.

This seems to be one case where vague language or unwritten aims actually worked in a tribe's favor.

What examples in history is he citing?

What exactly does a nation mean?

This was a really important point to me. I figured that this would have future implications, but the past convictions being overturned must have been a big deal too.

This reminds me of the term used in week one of domestic dependent nations.

I always find it interesting to see which case(s) of the Marshall Trilogy that judges cite because it's often telling of how they view tribal sovereignty.

I think this was the guiding part that shaped state extensions of criminal jurisdictions over Native people and land. One example of this in action that stood out to me was the assumption that Native peoples were not "civilized" enough to have a judicial system that could deliver justice and a fair trial. This was just one line of justification, but was very telling of the racial assumptions that fed into state control.

Why was it so soon after that forced removal occurred? I wonder what sorts of consequences this had for the Creek peoples and whether they were given anything in response to this removal.

Why was it decided to take place over three waves? Were officials hoping that this would make the removal process easier or was this about letting the first group prepare before the rest?

Why would some Choctaws want to leave?

I am surprised that with the court in agreement the litigation still dragged on for a decade. It seems like there must have been years of just ignorance and mismanagement on the US government's part.

This feels like the very opposite argument that Marshall made in the first case where Americans would be delivering civilization, which would make up for lost land. In this case, it just seems like the US is clear on just straight up forcing out Native people from any part of American land and society.

It seems that this was one continuity throughout the history of the US where white people would take land and justified it as their right to do so.

I did not know about this at all. It seems like there was a lot of acts of diplomacy and the development of great coalitions undertaken between different Native nations.