I want to know Natives take on this concept of they maintain ownership however, research will still be conducted.

Although there could be an interest for all I do not think this overrides the importance of respecting others property.

I think although research can teach us a lot about the past and help with future research this is an arrogant way of thinking.

Once again Natives are being taken advantage of to only benefit Europeans.

Describing Natives as "very special people" or "our ancestors" does not make sense when they were once referred to as "savages" and only now people are interested in how they used to live. Using these phrases makes it seem as though they are trying to mask the racism that had occurred.

Human progress started with Natives so for them to be neglected in understanding race or considered ancestors of whites shows the threat Europeans may have felt when they first came to America.

Undermining the concept of race at this time did not help undermine what it meant to be white during this time period.

Not including race as a biological science did not stop these people from trying to tame these "savages" and implement this European lifestyle while repressing a Native one.

Interesting parallel how for some ancestry is known through stories being passed down and the other has to be researched with the help of science.

I can see how this started out as a game but then turned into a profit making business and as a result some negative outcomes occurred, but this is true with anything.

I understand with anything there will be negative effects however, with benefits such as running water, I do not see the negatives outweighing the positives.

Generalizations mask the real reason criminal activity is occurring.

I did not realize how much gaming benefits Natives and I do not see why it is only discussed in a negative connotation when it is providing some with running water and necessities.

This is never talked about and I believe it is true that no one ever wants to discuss genocide even in an academic setting.

Police killings are a popular topic in the media but no one ever talks about Natives being killed at a high rate.

I think many are trying to profit or benefit themselves so regulation of Native gaming to prevent crime is only a cover up to not make it not seem racist or as if there is not another agenda.

Even when it is proven gaming is not increasing crime rates it will always be twisted and blown up to be something else.

I wonder how much is true or if people are trying to slander Natives reputation for their own benefit.

States always want control even when it does not directly involve them.

I think it is interesting how something that benefits Natives such as gaming is given such a negative connotation. Although addiction can be controversial, gaming shouldn't only be associated with Native culture.

I think it is a generalization to think all Natives are benefitting from gaming. However, even those tribes not directly related may be benefitting from donations from others.

Making broad accusations such as it is "unconstitutional" is usually how certain politicians try to cover up their true feelings on the matter because it makes them appear more "credible" when their beliefs might just be ignorant.

This would be true in any jury. It wouldn't make sense for a U.S. citizen to be asked to sit in on a Native jury just because a U.S. citizen is being prosecuted.

This powerful statement emphasizes that this is a human rights issue and this is not a Native issue but an issue that encompasses everyone especially women.

This is important because issues pertaining to native women should be brought to light rather than legislation being made for what people think the problems are.

It is not surprising that issues that receive media attention become priority in being resolved.

Improving lives of Natives and for women is the ultimate goal. To eradicate rape all together is also the main goal however, this does not occur overnight and taking steps to get to this goal are necessary. Through Violence Against Women and the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 these issues will hopefully be minimized and ultimately be eradicated eventually.

Having the mentality of what can realistically be accomplished instead of what is needed is important because wanting to create change is arguably more important than what is needed. This is true because there needs to be a balance of what is needed but also a realistic expectation so any positive change can occur rather than nothing at all.

If the U.S. is brought to help on this issue it might make them feel as though they have power to infringe on other issues as well and blur the lines of native sovereignty and "helping" natives.

I understand the catch-22 in that Natives wanted to fix the problem, however by allowing the U.S. government to infringe on their own legislative process may make the U.S. think they are needed and that Natives could not achieve the same end goal alone.

I can see how one would at first say Natives are "shielding" sex offenders however, knowing the context this is false. The actual context is no evidence shows this system prevents predatory actions, but more importantly this was about state regulatory actions and whether Natives should allow intrusion by the state onto their own political agenda and system.

I think this is true regarding some issues. However, I believe until something is enacted and we see the results it is hard to judge if the the legislation made a positive impact, no impact, or if it made the situation worse.

I think this is the right way to view anyone in power because one should always question motives.

Being far from anti-government, yet dedicating his life to education proves he must have much to say regarding his skepticism towards the government.

Again, using the emotions of the United States and their leaders does well in questioning their morals and what they value in trying to achieve what Natives want.

This statement does well in describing the hypocrisy of the United States claiming they are free people when it is the Natives who were first yet are being denied so much.

Using the credibility and honor of the United States as leverage as an attempt to seek help is a smart tactic because this seems to be something the United States values.

Natives were more concerned for morals while Americans did not seem to have the same values at the time.

This is not even a fair comparison when one was owned first and then Natives are told they must pay for what was rightfully theirs first.

This was violated with allotments like we talked about earlier in lecture and then with boarding schools.

Free exercise of certain rights is what is law today. This was not even an acknowledged or a respected value for Natives back then.

Should Congress have any say in Indian affairs?

Equal opportunity is deemed important in United States law however, history proves this right is always violated.

Congress can take action however, if in tribal status they are deemed separate?

It is interesting how Natives must stay in tribal status and not enjoy citizens rights but they were technically declared citizens in 1924.

I still don't see how any of the United States comments such as granting natives the same rights is justified. They came here and dealt with tribes who already had a system of government and decided their system of government was better and then forced natives to be apart of it.

Their bitterness and resentment is justified because this language being used makes it seem as though they were not already granted these rights before. It also is ironic to use the language to say "restore rights Americans already enjoy".

I can see how removing the language "and Indian Tribes" would seem like it meant equality in that it would just expand to all people. However, critics are correct in that some are not even considered citizens so removing this language legally doesn't protect natives and leaves room for them to be unfairly excluded.

Asking for fair treatment when they deserve much more is extremely upsetting. They have every right to be asking for much more and they only want to be treated fairly. I cannot imagine the frustration they must have felt but understand why they wanted to be only treated fairly, it would have been much worse if they asked anything more.

Its upsetting that they have occupied the same land for 30-40 years and were only allowed tentative selections. Not allowing expansion when they were there first is frustrating. It also doesn't make sense for them not to be added to the final roll but were on the first.

What was the point of confirming rights yet then denying them in practice?

In class we talk mostly about how allotment is seen as a negative consequence of the United States colonizing. It is odd to see how it also may have been a way to establish citizenship when natives were there first.

I agree that the United States should have restored to undo the wrong done to Hawaiian people, however, I do not think this was plausible at this time with how much the United States gained.

It's interesting people would associate as Hawaiian but American at times that would benefit them in other instances. I wonder if this sparked anger in some who associated on both sides.

I also believe while she was imprisoned still stating loyal to her nation and expressing her patriotism is a powerful move that inspired her people and is still celebrated today as a form of patriotism and defiance.

If she was promising more rights to her people I wonder what arguments were brought against this. She promised little and wanted her people to gain back rights.

It is surprising the United States felt so entitled to do what they believe was best for others. They used their power to control others when they had no legitimate reason to do so.

I wonder if Natives will ever gain back control over the mainland. Understanding and learning about the historical context in how certain territories were taken over one would think rights would be given back at this point in time.

Despite the circumstances the fact that parents were able to keep in touch with their children is inspiring and is important to be shared. Boarding schools not only forced assimilation for a colonial way of life but separated families.

It is sad to think about the double life Natives were living where they could only be themselves at home.

How is the sterilization related to boarding schools and not just an overall form of abuse and way for Americans to control Natives as a whole.

Sadly, maybe boarding schools came after most of the traumatic experiences of assimilation and they were just the next step for some and some Natives just started to accept that this is what was going to happen next despite their distaste.

It is interesting that he never complained yet he still has these memories forever imprinted.

I think even if Natives had a positive boarding school experience a lack of choice in giving up their current life and forced to assimilate will still leave a negative legacy.

Was the difference between Natives experience purely their attitudes and willingness to embrace this new way of life? Or was is the treatment at these different boarding schools?

Why did some children flourish in the boarding schools atmosphere while for others boarding schools leave a legacy that only represent repression.

I wonder why there was such a change in the level of strictness in repressing Natives language because before it would have not been allowed at all.

Could one infer that boarding schools may have been a means to get by during the great depression in that some experienced adequate meals compared to others who had nothing during this time.

I wonder if this statement is referring to boarding schools alone or if this is a general statement regarding how Native people were treated as a whole.

I agree that measures do not go far enough to make up for the past and a formal apology does little to make up for the abuse that Natives endured. "A Crime Against Humanity" is what should be taught throughout the U.S. and Canada regarding such matters to effectively depict the abuse that occurred.

It is surprising that these residential schools in Canada have lasted until the 1950's while in the United States boarding schools lasted through the 1930's. However, I think both have a negative connotation and boarding schools are not just a distant memory. This may depend on the educational experience in which people were taught about this education system but when brought to peoples attention there is no positive memory.

I think its interesting that some families would praise these boarding schools. It seems as though every family would oppose these policies especially when alienation from their former lifestyle occurred. A lack of choice in wanting to go to these boarding schools also seems to be a negative factor so its hard to believe some families would genuinely praise the boarding schools.

This statement makes sense in that people moved in and took power and rights away from Natives and made them assimilate into a lifestyle that they did not choose for themselves nor would have wanted.

I am curious if people believe other factors also contribute to this or if they believe boarding school was the main cause leading to these outcomes. It seems as though a multitude of causes such as allotment were also negative contributors.

I wonder if the soldiers were better fed and well protected compared to the women and children because they needed to survive to protect as many people as possible.

It is interesting they named this route "medicine root creek" considering they are talking about how sick and starving most of the people are at this point.

Are they saying through the visions they are listening to their past ancestors and interpreting that they should move on into this other world meaning death?

In the beginning I thought the "new world" was meant to signify change but this sentence makes it seem as though the new world is actually an afterlife. It seems as though they are saying their visions tell them to trust their ancestors who are dead and already in the "new world".

This seems to show some push back from the Wasichus and their feelings about the "ghost dances". In lecture we learn the ghost dance is a form of living in peace and restoring the world.

Are these visions a product of a ceremony that makes it seem as though these visions are real? Or could this be a dream?

It is interesting that many were in despair and believed a "new world" was coming however, in the opening paragraph it says many people were worried and the Wasichus were afraid of something. There seems to be conflicting views on this new world and if it was going to be better than before.

Is this related to the " Lakota Sun Dance" where they are trying to exemplify heroism? They may be doing this to show their heroism and commitment to their religion.