I find this clause contradicted with the clause stated earlier in the treaty that no other should be permitted to pass over or settle upon the marked territory. When building railroads, it is expected that the workers and all who involved in the project would have to live there for months if not years. Why even proposed such terms in the first place when you would ultimately violate it?

All these toxic byproducts are resulted from efforts to improve "civilization", and yet these same radioactive waste has the impact to destroy the health of people in local areas for decades to come.

This is the reality of war. One side would always gets the honor while the pain and despairs of the defeats being forgotten. It is sadden when thinking about how this exact scenario is being applied today as well. Our country has engaged in wars with foreign troops so decades and many lives on both sides had been lost. Yet, we always cared more about our pain and forget that people on the other side also endured great losses as well. I guess it just the tragic truth of wars.

He quickly adapted to the capitalism ideology that the U.S thinks so highly of. I guess in this sense, Sitting Bull is truly an America who knew how to capture the market to seize capital.

It is frustrating to see how persistent the U.S government was on forcing Natives to assimilate into Western cultures. Besides, I find the logic behind the thinking incredibly funny. If Natives were confined then they would not have to socialize or interact with others which eliminate the purpose of them needing to become "whites".

I know this is not related but I cannot help but see the parallel between the split in voting percentage of the Osage voters to that of the American voters in the 2020 election. Regardless of the issues presented in these two voting matters, both came out with incredibly closed race. I think when voting result like this happened, the result signified that the community, whichever, is divided. Some desire changes while others just prefer things to be the same ways. The cynicism sentiments emerged because in the case of Osage people, the older generation experienced changed in their time that did not improve their life but only made it worse which prompted them to back away from it. The younger generation with little experience and little at stake to lose want to gamble for a better future.

In short, the U.S government should take over the lands immediately upon signing while enforcing that the Cherokee leave promptly. I at least have to applaud the audacity of these treaty makers to out-rightly stated their intentions "These lands shall belong to me and my descendants to do as we fit and we will make sure that you, the Indians, to never set your foot back here".

In my opinion, this clause only bring in suspicion and conflicts between tribes. Every tribe signing treaties with the United States will automatically think that other tribes have the intention of harming them which was why the U.S had to provide the clause to protect them against "wars between the several tribes".

I do not support this move by tribal nations or in this case, the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Smoking has serious health consequences that should not be promoted or being use to make money off. There is a reason why smoking is so highly taxed and regulate so that people would be discourage to pursue such negative hobby. The health consequences of smoking not only affect the smokers but others around them too and, to me, that make smokers accountable for the public health impact.

I understand the need to maintain tribal sovereignty and tribal nations in general. However, the citizens of the tribes were and are still suffering because tribal governments could not function properly without the ability to tax or raise revenue otherwise. Instead, these tribal governments were taking income from citizens living them living in property. Unless there could be a change on how these tribal governments fund themselves, I think it would be better to accept the idea of fully assimilation to modern society.

It is funny how suddenly Americans demanded equal rights for all Americans when for centuries, some Americans, namely colored Americans, have been excluded from the Constitution.

This would ensure that the money would be used appropriately. Also, tribal governments would be able to determine which agencies were essential to their area and allocate the funds accordingly.

I do not support the disbandment of the Cherokee Nation but I think it is right for the annuity payment made directly to individuals. National account is a requirement to sustain a nation but it is also a source of corruption. Often, only those governing the nation receives the monetary benefits that belonged to all citizens. It would be best to give annuity payment to individuals and collect taxes/fees on other justified accounts.

How can there be "ethnically plural" nation when one ethnic is being excluded?

It is funny how the Natives did to Blacks what had be done to them, denying citizenship. I guess this whole circle is why racism and racial oppression still persist in this nation to this day.

It is a good news that slavery was abolished in Native lands but in reality, slavery still exist but in different forms and different terms.

It is sad to see how the racism agenda divide minorities in the United States. It is simply an illusion that not being African Americans meant you are better and have a higher standing in the social ladder. People of minorities should have think that blacks or browns, we are all being suppressed and oppressed in this society by the whites. They should be united instead of tearing each other down further because in the end, it helped no one. The notion of white supremacy still reigns above all in this country.

I chose "racial definitions" because Natives inherently divide themselves among different tribes and nations. Natives themselves do not want to be view the same and their respective cultures and laws hold significant meanings to them. I think this is why Natives do not willingly accept freedmen into their tribes because they are already critical about their peers let along considering total strangers.

White Americans introduced the concept of evil and inhumanity to Native Americans in the name of making them "civilized". It is funny to me because when thinking about the concept of demeaning and slaving others as the measure of personal wealth and status, it reminded of the long forgotten history of barbarians living in Europe. These Americans called others savages in fact only reveal their truth barbaric natures.

The deep rooted sexism in these so called founders. Why am I even surprise?

The image with the pile of clothes reminded me of the horrific images of skulls and bone remains of Holocaust victims. I am not sure if the clothes belonged to those who died or from some donation but it made me feel guilty all the same. We as a nation do not pay attention to Natives people and focus on petty fights when real people are dying.

This statement is so funny to me because of the stupidity imbedded in the wordings (excuse me for the unscholarly language). Navahos are not dying of starvation but of malnutrition? What is the difference between the words, really? The Natives are malnourished because they are starved and how would a person receive any nutrition if they do not have food to consume. I do know that people eating on the regular basis could also be malnourished but there was no telling if it would be the case because the Natives did not have even junk food to test the theory.

When I read about information like these, I got angry and could not help but being cynical about the institution of government. For a nation that prides itself on being a Christian nation, for putting faith and God in their policies, the Congress sure needed to revisit lessons from Sunday schools. As a Christian myself, I just could never comprehend how someone could be so cruel to others because they do not look like them or share their belief when the same person was taught to "love thy neighbors" regardless of differences.

I was surprised yet pleased when reading about the terms offered to Indians earlier in the treaty. Now I understood that the reason why the government seemed to suddenly provide benefits and resources to Native people. The government offered Natives pieces of bread in return to gain access to their gold vault, lands to build railroad.

Another example of the culture of sexism and misogyny embedded in American society along with racism. This example also showed the lack of recognition of tribal sovereignty from the state governments.

This is an example of how religion is being used as weapon for political agenda. There are many instances, even in our current Congress of 2020, that politicians, especially White politicians used God to hide away their racism and discrimination against others.

Again, this act of Congress only reaffirmed my point that the government only wanted to save its reputation as being the just, kind, and friendly uncle who went around the world to save the miseries.

I guess it is a human tendency to look for problems of outsiders and provide help. The U.S government still is just a human enterprise with human tendency to overlook the problem at home but offering help to the outside to keep up with the façade that everything at home is fine. It is also a human tendency to gain recognition from outsiders about the supposed outstanding characters and values.

This statement is ridiculously funny to me for its irony. Many wealthy and elites Americans who fortified their wealth by passing money and estate down generations. It is almost a norm for Americans to set up inheritance and trust fund for their heirs yet they prohibited Indians to do so. Much of the nation wealth at the time and now is contributed to old-money of financial titans in the history that, frankly, their heirs did not work for a day in their life.

Reading about haft-way through this selection of text, I honestly either feel conflicted or have no thought at all. It seems to me the issue raised in this story is sexual abuse. However, the main concern thing to me is how women were so willing to overlook the abuses men of their race made against other women in the name of defending racism but sacrificing the need to combat sexism.

It seems to me that the U.S government only intended to make treaties with Natives to make sure they did not ally with the British government. This perhaps explained why the treaties were almost absolutely disregarded by the U.S government because they already established their goal. The British backed off from the lands of the U.S which gave no further reason for the U.S to honor the terms in treaties with Natives.

I have a mixed reaction toward this statement. If Natives demanded total jurisdiction over their lands and themselves then, I think, it would be best for them to not be involve in the political process of the nation. It would create dissent if Indians wanted to participate in state and local politics but expect to not contribute in the form of tax. Still, I understand the issue is much more complicated.

I think it was a good political move for Indians to demand the U.S to withdraw jurisdiction over Indian affairs in writing because time and time again, the government gave promises of self-governance to Indian tribes only to backtrack later.

At least the Department of Interior had the decency and audacity to admit that they made mistakes in handling the affairs of Native Indians. However, the excuse they gave for their shortcomings were unacceptable because while no one could manage anything perfectly, that ought to at least learned some the prior mistakes as they had point out because thousands and possible millions of people were suffering due to their incompetence.

The news media at the time probably slammed the decision to use the ex-prison facility as the headquarter for Natives activism.

It is common in the history of this nation to witness how to news media coverage degraded the acts of minorities protesting or assembling to demand rights/ justice. When minorities, initially, tried to appeal to lawmakers in civil ways, no one listened to their miseries. When they had no choice but to demonstrate, people called them disruptors of peace.

It is still a problem today. The government of the United States worried too much about the wellbeing of other nations, though it is a good thing, that they neglect and ignore taking care of the living conditions of their people.

This statement brought so much anger within me partially because I am reminded of a similar statement made by Don Trump Jr stating that "Blacks people must want to succeed for them to succeed." People of minorities, in any point of history, must be given the same access to federal resource such as education and civil rights like others for them to same a fair chance of succeeding. The problem is not the lack of will, it is the lack of tools.

From his wordings, I assumed that Butler viewed termination policy as a way to finally give Natives the same rights as all citizens in the United States. However, I could not help but notice the irony that for Indians to be treated as equals, they must abandon their identity and culture to adopt Western's practices. Natives were not being offered rights just like anyone else, for simply living and being born on the lands of the United States. Their rights were given on conditions.

This reminds me of the images of children being put into cages along the Southern border of the United States during this current administration. Some people, not all, take satisfaction in the fact that children were taken away from their families and being treated like animals/criminals.

They wanted to essentially creating slaves and puppets.

I answered "Citizens of sovereign tribal nations" applying the logic behind the 14th amendment. Natives were born in Native lands from Native parents thus they would automatically be citizens of Native tribes.

The U.S. government did not intend to treat Indians as the equal party represented in the negotiated treaties. These treaties resembled more of slave contracts where the master could "alter" terms and conditions as they deemed fit.

This is a way for Congress to prevent Indians from obtaining citizenship that they were promised. Or even if Natives receive citizenship, they would always be second class citizens because they were "deemed" as deserving as the first class.

I think it is legitimate that the NAAA demanded galleries to publish enrollment status of artists because others who claimed to be Indians could misrepresent the culture of Indians. When the general public and opinions about Indians were not generally positive, it would only bring more advantageous to Indians in politics if they were misrepresented.

Not only did the government under-compensate the Indians monetarily but they also control how Indians could spend their money.

There was no mention about whether the tribes gave up voluntary or not. In the case of voluntary, it is a surprise for tribes to give up lands because the gesture also equivalent to giving up sovereignty.

This is sad but it is the reality of America. No issue is worth paying attention to unless some White people think that they are. Unless protests pf causes include White protesters, those would always view as un-lawful assemblies.

I agree with the state's effort and position on conservation. However, I also think that the State could handle dealing with Indians in a different way. Overall, I did not agree with the intentionally defiance actions done by Indians when it was actually bringing harm to nature.

I find this detail to be extremely ironic and ridiculous. The government, mainly white, for centuries forced Indians to become Whites saying they were savages, not suddenly denied people as being Indians because they had been "white-washed". Shouldn't they be happy that their racism practice had been proven to be a success?

The fear stemmed from historic oppressions and suppressions of Native people done by the government when they did not agree with the agenda the government imposed on them.

Although this act really returns sovereignty to Native people, much of the damages such as selling "surplus" native lands to Whites could not really be undone. Well, at least, the government had the courage to admit its fault. This is the reason why having honest and empathetic leadership in the government so important.

This action only reaffirms the culture of misogyny embedded deep into the history and foundation of this country. Women has always been view as inferior and have no importance in any aspect of family or society.

I imagine this process of "blood quantum" created tension and segregation within the Natives community. Suddenly, Natives, perhaps, question their neighbors of whether it was legitimate for them to own/inherit the lands if they were not "full blood".

The norm in the U.S is to ignore that rape even existed; therefore, they do not provide trainings on how to procure evidences for rapes.

Reading this statement makes me both angry and devastated that the world thinks so little of my sex. I am fortunate that I did not and am not growing up in these conditions but to imagine that I could be one of those victim terrify me.

The injustice towards rape victims is not exclusive to Natives women but to all women in the U.S, whites include. This, again, just reaffirms the culture misogyny in the United States.

I admit guilty for thinking that only Natives living on reservation lands and no non-Natives would inhabit the surrounding area. It is disgusting to see these non-Native men purposely visit the bars to essentially pick out their preys because they know how the laws will work in their favors.

The state by trying to argue that the boundaries of reservation no long exist exposed the flaws of the government. The state unveils the hypocrisy behind the words written in treaties made between the U.S and the Indians when the U.S times and times assured to provided more protection to the Indians but instead they exploited the Indians more each treaty.

This directly invalidates the argument made by the state of Oklahoma saying that the land where the crimes occurred no longer reservation land. Since the Creeks are still living there, the lands assigned to their territory would always belong to them.

This means even without lands, the tribes still have some sort of sovereignty over their "lands". In this case, it is rightful that the trial took place in tribal court.

This power dynamic is often seen in negotiations between two parties with an unbalance power. The U.S. with its powerful army and deadly weapons essentially forced the Natives to sign treaties to move out further West. Formally, there were terms on the benefits the government would provide for these Natives but, in my opinion, it was obvious even to the Natives that the U.S would not honor the terms in the treaties. They certainly knew about the unfair treatments ahead but they had no choice but to sign the treaties anyway.

These wordings painted the picture that the Creeks would be treated generously if they were to give up their land and emigrate. The reality is most of the Creeks did not receive any assistance from the government on their move or any benefits after successfully moved out West.

It seems like after centuries, Native people are able to gaining back some sort of sovereignty.

This rationale only gives rise to more Natives getting raped and murdered because others know that they could get away with the crimes.

This also means that Natives had completely lose their sovereignty because not only they did not have ownership over their lands but also did not have any jurisdiction over themselves.

These details remind me of the conditions Jewish people experienced in ghettos before moving to concentration camps during the reign of Nazi Germany.

This is a similar tactic as applied with the trust money discussed in Week 2. The government, whether state or federal, always removes documents of Indians if they are not happy with those documents.

The carelessness on the handle of these important documents shows how little the Department of Interior though of Indians. They knew that Indians could not read the paperwork or understand the system so they never even thought about keeping records of the papers.

This complication also allowed the system to miscalculate the interests and compound rate because no one would really know since a piece of land divided up to too many people.

It was to be expected as the U.S. set out since the beginning to take over lands of Indians. The government knew from history that it could not outright take ownership of the land therefore the government created the elaborate scheme to legitimate everything. The government knew that Indians did not keep records of their lands as well as knowing about the actual wordings that went into the Dawes Act.

It is ironic to me that the U.S. granted tribes their sovereignty and laws yet withheld their finance, an important aspect of maintaining autonomy.

I remember learning about John Marshall in my AP U.S. History class during high school. There was an emphasis on the importance of his decisions and how as a judge, he made many credible landmark rulings that shaped the history. Now I learn that his rulings indeed shaped history but not in a positive light. Instead, he is still continued to set American society back into a racist nation.

This clause seems indented to create tension between Indian tribes. The Congress, perhaps, hoped that this would break up the united strength of Indian tribes making it easier for Congress to not meet their demands.

I chose "No" because being wards forced Native tribes to lose their sovereignty over lands and laws. The roles of the U.S. as defined by the government are to save the natives from themselves and to lead the natives into becoming civilized. The natives had no say in the decisions made about them because those were made with the consideration for 'their' best interests.

The Johnson case set the standard and tone on all the rulings of the subsequent cases. In this first case, Marshall already singled out Natives as inferior beings that white settlers did not have to treat them equally. This notion carried on into the other cases in which because Natives were inferior so they should live in the society of the sophisticated Whites. Carried on with that inferior beings notion, Natives were savages so Whites people could not apply their civilized laws and rules to savaged beings.

My answer was No. A big part of tribal sovereignty is the rights to the lands of Indian people. Now, with the U.S basically taking control of the land, the tribes had lost their sovereignty because they could not do as they saw fit with their own lands.

I chose that the "doctrine of discovery" is the most significant document outlined how the U.S. treat the Native Indians. The doctrine already instilled in the mindset of settlers that they were superiors and all the lands they acquired rightfully belonged to them regardless of the people living on the land before their arrivals. The doctrine specifically established the superiority of Europeans over all other races so they only have to concede to other Europeans if they came later to the new land but not to "others" who deemed below them. The white supremacy notion explained how the United State government justified the act of forcing Native Indians to relocate because they were not the equals of white settlers and had the same status as "slaves" so they should clear out of the way for their masters to prosper.

This statement made by John Marshall established that the U.S. government is the rightful owner of the lands. Indians have claims on the lands but they cannot make private sales or negotiation without the consent of the government.

This would also mean the end of tribal sovereignty. Native tribes prided themselves on their traditions and rituals so having to not just only abandon their own authority but to obey the laws of the U.S. would have defeat their sense of self.

The need for more school house could be so more Natives have knowledge about laws and able to interpreted the documents the Federal government might sent them.

They worried that if Native people were given their own laws and jurisdiction that Native people would made deals with Europeans allowing new settlers to infiltrate onto "American" land.

The language itself placed Indians as inferior and less humans than Americans.

The treaty stated that both parties must assist each other to fight against the enemy but it did not prevent both parties to fight each other in the future.

If the State Sequoyah was admitted into Congress then Native people would have representation in the US government to voice out the needs of Native people. Also, Native people would gain more recognition in which they could use to gain support on rights that protect their lands and sovereignty.

The Okmulgee Constitution might have protect Native people from obeying the laws under the United States Constitution and the government. However, each nations of Native people have different trial laws and traditions and the Okmulgee Constitution would have forced all tribes to adhere one one set of laws under one sovereignty.

Land and Sovereignty. Native people value their lands the most and they did not want to live under the laws of the U.S government thus these objects might have been the promises.

Native people helped to create the United States because they had fought with the U.S. against British force.

The Natives were naïve to place trust in George Washington when he started the war after the British Empire made it illegal for speculators like him to expand their land. George Washington fought the war entirely for his own gains and not for the rights of anyone, especially the Natives.

This message intended to spread violence in my opinion. Rather than just telling the indigenous people to keep their traditions/ way of life, the message told people to fight against the "others" to be deemed worthy again.

The quote perfectly describes the college experience to people I know, myself included. For example, when writing a research paper, students often choose a topic covered in class and find sources that supported a narrative that students felt would likely be more supported by the graders. It is almost never that students deliberately take on a different outlook or interpretations that differed greatly from that of professors and teaching assistants to avoid the risk of receiving a low mark.

I personally identified with this statement as I often forgot everything I crammed the moment finals were over. Sometimes when I have a moment to ponder, I realize that I am no different than a robot or a machine that only store necessary information to function, in this case, to get a good grade and once the tasks are complete, data will be wiped clean and new programs will get installed.

I decided to take this course to satisfy my curiosity about the history of Native Americans and how their roles shape the United States that we are living in now.