This should not be within the US's purview.

It's important to contrast their views from the U.S. narrative of events.

It's interesting to specify this as direct vs indirect attention.

This feels unfair to leave it to one individual's discretion.

This is interesting to have conversations around mixed descendants, and that some mixed descendants are treated better than others in accordance to the old laws.

It is interesting to note the willingness to have language that is more inclusive of freedman.

It's like pity mixed with guilt. Sympathy rather then empathy. There is action, and then there is intention.

The U.S. always has a trend for giving military number its top priority. And not even, a percentage, it takes up a majority of the U.S. holdings. Native lives aren't even on the list of priorities.

I don't think there has been a single time that the U.S. has ever followed this particular promise for Natives.

These are very intense photos that speak of culture, poverty, and oppression. There is a lot of beauty, and there is a lot of pain, and they stand side-by-side.

I hate how the way laws were made to separate familities.

The Anglicized version didn't really give justice to the meaning of the name.

I suppose the United States would seem to default to violating these treaties, and to not do so would be apparently of great effort.

I feel like they should expand more on what is considered more comprehensive or more broadly-inclusive.

They could have learned prior, but they did not care to distinguish which group held which land. All were the same.

I feel like back then, these records weren't considered value, and the preservation of these documents were underprioritized.

Love the allyship.

A lot of Native-initiated policy never makes it up to presidential command. Where does it stop?

This is an interesting way to put it, distinguishing control from concern and support.

At the end, it's use of force.

I wonder what led to this conclusion.

It's interesting to note the diversity of responses. I feel like this is another pivotal x-mark moment.

Termination does not take in account the effort that needs to placed in transition.

Not sure what that would entail.

Native Americans were already expelled from a majority of their lands. Not sure if this means "integration" or minimizing reservation size any further.

I suppose there is a kneejerk reaction to respond to guilt as quickly and painlessly as possible - in the sense that the less they have to think about it, the better.

It's interesting, because I feel you don't really think about sovereignty until you feel that the right to sovereignty is threatened or at-risk.

Kinship obligation is fascinating because it's contrary to American ideals of self-sufficiency.

I think it's laughable that state officials believed they had the ability to make these "civility" signposts.

Because of how arbitrary blood is in terms of identity politics, it can be easily twisted to perform a number of different functions for any sorts of political motivations, good or bad or otherwise.

The way blood is used in politics is rather arbitrary. Also, it poses for further justification to split races between solid lines, similar to how skin color and the shape of people's eyes are used, etc., etc.

Right, there isn't a universal qualification list for who is part of what race. We know our own.

For all that the US aims for paternalism, they don't actually provide much services to the Native tribe. Definitely not to the same extent as their own citizens.

Continuing the pattern of paternalism the U.S. refuses to break today.

I wonder how they decided the borders for this land.

This is a very different assumption than the ideals that were conveyed in our Great Migration reading. Honestly, certain Native tribes certainly embraced change more than the U.S.

As useful as it is to have an ally, there is a reason why an ally can't spearhead a movement. Rather, they'd be better off building a platform for those who don't have a platform in the current society. They have to step aside to let the people represent themselves, or it all becomes slightly misconstrued. Such as in this instance.

I'm a little motivated to read up on John Collier because I'm interested in what were his influences to go against the tide of forced Native assimilation.

This is pretty invasive and also mildly traumatizing for the family.

I think one of the main problems here is that each tribe obviously has their own standard, but the feds were expecting something more homogenous because they inherently view all Natives as the same.

This is an amazing perspective, and I feel both tribal law and U.S. law benefit from that. There have been many narratives where women have pulled away from cases out of fear or trauma.

I am actually interested in what the LGBT community looks like for Native Americans.

I feel like they do, but they also don't have as many platforms to voice their opinions on the matters. Or be heard, really. I think providing those platforms are going to have to be one of the responsibilities allies must take.

If it was a non-Native defendant and Native victim, I feel that U.S. laws will be biased towards the non-Native. Victims of rape are already face enough difficulty in trial, so the extra barrier must make it assuredly harder for non-Native victims of rape or sexual assault to win the trial. I wonder what the statistics are in terms of court cases.

That's something I didn't think of: distance. Federal prosecutors are centered else. Even though technology allows for long-distance communication, the victim or defendant may not necessarily have access to internet services.

I think this is interesting as tribal laws differ among different tribes. I suppose that option is available if the crime occurred in a tribal reservation that the defendent was not a part of. Although this places more pressure on Natives to be aware of other tribal laws while non-Native Americans can simply be aware of state/federal law while disregarding tribal law.

Perhaps Congress wasn't motivated to handle smaller crimes that wouldn't make it past local news.

It's the first time I've heard this exact phrase, but it rings true.

I feel like this ties with our other reading, which mentioned that Natives were viewed by Europeans as "uncolonizable," obstacles, people who needed to be erased rather than "reformed/civilized"

Just to clarify, that would mean the land these non-Indian settlers acquired would still count as reservation land? Or upon acquisition, it would become State property?

If the allotments are not reservations, as States suggested, then the promise of the original treaty is ultimately violated. It seems like the Creek Allotment Agreement was not an amendment of the prior treaty, but it's own additional pact that stands alongside it. Furthermore, there were still pre-existing town sites that were not individually owned on the reservation. Lastly, for the States to suggest this and dictate the relationship between the U.S. and Native tribes, would this not be overstepping their boundaries with federal powers?

I don't think this would have been a successful argument as it would have set a precedent that would allow other States to act on behalf of the feds regarding federal crime.

It doesn't feel right without Native input, which there is about none in Congress. However, this also means that state powers are unable to make decisions regarding reservations coinciding with state lines.

I'm curious when Congress rejected this argument regarding allotments and reservations. Was it for a different case?

I suppose that is one thing that is often miscontrued. People assume that Natives are simply striving to return to old ways, perhaps pre-colonial, but Natives are looking both ways, backwards and forwards. Time did not stand still for them.

It is important not to put distinct borders between "white" and "Native" philosophies or ways of thinking. There are some great differences, but there are things that are shared, and the concern of which group founded these concepts first should be left alone.

I feel that Natives who signed these treaties were more approachable to change in general, and saw opportunities in some of these treaties.

I can see how incongruous this concept of private property, or rather private land, was to Natives who traveled among the Great Migration.

I wonder, with our current border on reservations, how confined these tribes must have felt.

I think one thing that is remarkable about this concept is how gentle it is. It's a very kind perspective of change that understands difference and embraces it.

In some ways, it feels like the antithesis to colonization. Colonization does not embrace the new or the old. It consolidates. It demands one is chosen over the over. It seeks competition across cultures.

Before the treaty era, the x-mark had likely different implications. It had more direct intentions, but the treaty era muddled it.

Essentially they operate under their own laws until the U.S. decides to intervene.

This was a part of the treaty that was severely neglected.

This appears to be a very small compensation versus everything the Creeks are relinquishing for this treaty.

To be honest, I feel like that is a better priority in judicial processes. Mainly because the focus is what can be given or provided to victims, rather than how much shall the other person be punished for punishment's sake.

Because of this perception of Natives being "uncivilized," the Alabamans forced their laws over the Creeks not only as an attempt to "civilize" them, but because they feared being under their "wild" laws.

Holding the title to the land is an arbitrary argument. A document can be procured by any person. But whether it is acknowledged by others is what is important, and as we learned in the previous week, Europe had no interest in acknowledging Native right to self-govern. However, we now know that European countries do not have the right to determine that. Self-determination is an established human right.

Was this deliberate foresight, or just a complete disregard of the many deaths that occured?

Although a treaty was signed, for these Choctaw migrants, it is important to acknowledge that this is still a form of forced displacement, especially when Eaton made use of threats during negotiations.

I recognize how individual allotment weakens the protection of tribal land. Through individual allotment, you erase the distinct border between territories. When encroaching past the territory border, the entire tribe or nation responds. But when encroaching on the border of a parcel of private land, it becomes the sole responsibility of the single family that owns it.

It is interesting that Eaton waited until a majority of the Choctaws left. How differently could the Choctaws respond to this threat as a full audience?

It sounds like Choctaw women have more of a definitive leadership role than U.S. women did in society. It makes sense that, if men are traditionally warriors that are away from home, that women would be the most familiar with the state of affairs of their land.

It's should be time to eliminate the government's role as a trustee, and let Native Americans handle their own funds.

Rather than leftover, it seems just like a quiet seizure of "unclaimed" land. This is a huge grievance.

I didn't think about how Native tribes manage money, but now I see how important it is that they seize control of their of their own financial services.

It's good to hear some more Native perspective on the BIA. Our previous readings have mentioned them, but haven't expanded on their relationship with Native tribes.

When we think of apartheid, we think of S. Africa, but the Native apartheid in the U.S. is so well-hidden it's disturbing.

I really dislike how hard it is in our current justice system to dismantle previous precedents set in law, especially ones as old and antiquated as these.

I actually would like to know the unfolding process for international human rights bodies to actually begin acknowledging that. This is pretty monumental!

So, Europe would rather acknowledge an upstart Britain offshoot as soveriegn to North America than its original inhabitants.

I feel like they are kind of worshipping this book like some sort of religious scripture. Something that is too divine to be questioned.

This is such a strangely-bound concept that still hounds the US today. For me, it seems like white racial identity has been constructive on negatives. By that, I mean, "not Indian," "not Black," "not savages." It is so focused on what they can exclude rather than what they can include in this identity.

Many treaties have the error of sounding perfect on paper, but have the issue of never being concrete. Moralistic, but not ambitious enough.

If they were serious about maintaining that full confidence, this treaty would have expanded the means that US would ensure their promises among generations.

I feel like this is an example of paternalism.

The English still inherently practiced the "doctrine of discovery," so recognizing tribal independence was only done out of political strategem against the colonies. If somebody was to try to compare English-Native relationships and US-Native relationships, the English and US are both pretty horrible.

Being phrased "trust" relationship becomes much more bitter when the Natives can't afford to trust the US and the US has no intention of being worthy of trust.

Because they consider the Natives to be uncivilized, these Southern states probably supposed they could easily place their laws to "civilize" them and the land they were home to.

I looked up briefly "Walmart and Native Americans" on google, and also saw a number of articles describing an antagonistic relationship both in the past and recently. Not sure if this is a pattern along with BIA's relationship with Native Americans.

I feel like it would be more indicative if the respective tribe manages the land instead of the Bureau.

The Sequoyah Constution was a last-ditch attempt to protect the rights of their people to be seen as, well, simply people under the eyes of the U.S. laws, with certain rights given to them as people. Previous US interaction had them depicted and acted upon as practically non-humans. The Oklahoma Constitution goes a step further - it acknowledges them as a people, unified, with a cultural identity and a defined homeland.

I suppose the interpretation is that the state of Oklahoma's interests would always conflict with tribal self-governance as something that simultaneously existed on the land. But the Five Tribes did exist otherwise, and that is more than what was stipulated to many other Native tribes.

I wonder what motivated Congress to intervene.

I'll repeat this over again and again, but I am in awe at the gaping holes in my American-led education. I never heard of this until now, but it feels essential for me to know in this time and place.

This is so hard, because some governments really try to purposely miscontrue peaceful protest for riots to justify squashing them. I really dislike the ambiguity behind, "peaceful" that makes it so easy to be taken advantage of.

This is one thing that many governments have forgotten - their authority is their people.

Literally seize and capture. There was no reason to escalate.

It's nice to hear a genuine approach to political discouse. Vulnerability shouldn't be considered a weakness.

George Washington (Sho-ee-tat) of the Caddos appears to be appealing to the U.S. by trying to show how alike the Caddos are to the U.S. now, that they are trying to meet their strange standards of "civilized" to protect their place on the land. It is a protective act by him, a type of assimilation he urges his people to do so out of fear.

Note to self: not George Washington of the U.S. Revolutionary Army. This is George Washington of the Whitebeard Caddo band, a different person.

The rights that US citizens fear to lose in this case are not human rights. They are afraid of losing their privilege.

The fear of extinction of nationalities, identities, presence...all signs of American imperialism encroaching onto others.

This is a part of history that is constantly ignored in American education, personal intent. The American education system would frame these plunderers are selfless and advocates of freedom, when other perspectives would consider them to be advocates of tyranny and greed.

Strange that both parties would be involved. I would think that where or to whom the offender committed the crime would define which party would judge, rather than a joint party. These are two different parties with two different set of law after all.

It would have depended on the number of tribes that would have participated in it, and it would have to depend on ther relationships those tribes would have with one another.

The US said it would afford respect to the Natives as separate nations, but did not consider them as a "nation" by their definition. The promise would likely have been to consolidate enough power so that the US would have no choice but to reconsider those definitions.

This reminds me of the new Supreme Court ruling that half of the land in the state borders of Oklahoma are within a Native reservation. I hope this is something we can discuss in the future for this course.

It sounds like the US considered itself landlord, and respective Native tribes simply tenants they had the right to evict.

Paper treaties and the enactment of it are two very different things.

When you put in perspective the landowning interests of some of the key members of the Revolutionary War, I am jarred by this new image, which challenges the perspectives I was given as a child in the American primary education system. It no longer feels like a story of freedom, it feels like a story of greed.

What do the British forces consider as "peace?" What does each tribe consider to be "peace?" Was it simply peace for for some moreso than others? I feel like history describes peace in light terms... a period without warfare. However, the word is used for some dynamic situations, and in this case, peace simply feels like the establishment of a new status quo, where winners prevail and losers are silenced.

I think with students perceiving academic success correlates significantly with financial success, or for some, social success on a competitive level, leads to some destructive behavior. Genuine curiosity when these other motivations bury them.

I haven't read the rest of the article, but I think a part of American society leans to quantifying and ranking success. Perhaps this is a side effect of capitalism, where the numeric accumulation of wealth is indicative of personal success. Similarly, an "A" is the gold standard of academic success.

So, to conclude, our progress is likely slow because our current grading system is reflective of our socio-economic structure, which ties with education. After all, most people go to college to earn more money.