Some Native leaders and activists criticized AIM because they argued that apart from offering temporary visibility in the media, their methods did not resolve deeper issues between Native people and the United States.
This is something very commond. Sometimes doing everything right is not the answer. This also occured iwth Black activist the panters.
We have not asked you to give up your religion and beliefs for ours. We have not asked you to give up your language for ours. We have not asked you to give up your ways of life for ours. We have not asked you to give up your government for ours. We have not asked that you give up your territories to us. Why can you not accord us the same respect?”
They have a very good point for native they only ask for respect and for their culture to be left in peace. They did not ask to be ginnie pigs for being a true or similar American. They did not took anything from the American but the Americans were not satisfy with equality.
“He feels very strongly that we need to show more heart, and that we care about people, and thinks the Indian problem is a good area
This shows how the government can be the problem and then they try to fix what they cause to the Native people
Although in theory termination was supposed to save the government money, it ended up costing much more because state and local governments now had to provide funds for schools, welfare, and roads.
Why did the government procede with the termination policy if it cost more money to them?
they were subject to state laws and taxes, and their land was no longer protected by federal trust status.
That was a horrible law becuase the minimal protection they had was lost to help the America gain land
eaply. The Bureau should do nothing for Indians which Indians can do for themselves and we should lean over backward to help them learn to do more things on their own.” [4]
This remind me of something my mom use to say when we saw people asking for food. If you help them with money you are actually making the problem worst. This is the similar idea, white Americans were trying to help native be more independent but when you have an entire civiliation that has being oppress is extremely difficult to survive in a world where the agressor has the upper hand.
“The real tragedy is that many whites then and now still cannot comprehend that Indian people could want anything other than a white existence."
Like being american was their only aspiration
Native land!
That is an issue that many minorities can assimilate. Example Hawaii, Mexico, Latin America and labor of the African plus the native land are many examples on how the U.S. governemnt takes advangtage of their neighboors.
"ideal" American family and work behavior. Also...what else became "unencumbered" by the government through termination? Native land!
In the beginning when the U.S was verly emplamenting their rules and government, the native people were describe as the people that could be good savages. Meaning they could never be true american but they can mimic the American people. If the government had allow them to folirsh and gave them an oportunity they would most likely be similar to the white people.
Termination policy aimed to dismantle tribal governments, dissolve tribal land holdings, and end federal services to Native people.
I do not understand in what way was the U.S respecting native soverignty in the first place. Termination was in a way hw the U.S. government justify themselves to the new harshment that these people will face.
term of !ve years,unless sooner disposed of by them. A census of these persons shall be taken under the direction of the President and the selectionsshall be made so as to include the improvements of each person within his selection, if the same can be so made, and if n
basically the natives are given away their land and are entitle of five year period to used a land for them.
most rapes in the United States are never reported to law enforcement.
Women are faced with shame and by knwoing that becuase of their ethnicity they will not have any help form police enforces why would they tell their story if no one ever listens.
The National Institute of Justice has found that more than half of American Indian/Alaska Native women (56.1 percent) have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime. More than half (55.5 percent) have experienced physical violence by intimate partners in their lifetime. The vast majority (96%) of American Indian/Alaska Native victims of sexual violence experience violence at the hands of a non-Native perpetrator. (You’ll read more about this in the interview with Sarah Deer assigned for Week 3).
This is confusing becuase supostelty the natives are inferior to whites but yet their women can be rape. If someone is racists wouldnt it have the opposite reaction that by raping an indian women one is allowing their unworthy flesh with an American?
These restrictions were partially lifted in 2010, through the Tribal Law and Order Act, which authorizes tribal courts to impose sentences of up to nine years in certain situations. [13]
it is sad to learn that it has taken so much time for natives to get some rights and acknoelegde that their treatment should change.
Termination policy sought to abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs, dissolve the trust relationship between tribes and the federal government, and bring Native people under the jurisdiction of the states.
They will be tried as a member of the U.S. but with out any saying or any rights.
s murder and rape, many will wait until a declination from a federal or a state prosecutor before proceeding with an official tribal response.
so does murder, rape and kidnapping are jurisdiction of the natives or can the U.S. get involved?
As Harring notes, during the nineteenth century, thousands of Native people were tried in local courts and sentenced to prison or to execution
If natives did not had any rights and were not consider americans how could they be sentence by the whites?
The Cherokee Nation hired a Georgia law firm, Underwood and Harris and the Baltimore firm of William Wirt
I cannot imagine how new was everything to the natives. The amount of things they had to adaped and learn was facinated.
sixteen thousand Cherokees died. The government officially recorded only 424 deaths along the way.
recording all the deads was going to cause the government to look bad and in this time apperance is everything to the U.S.
Trail of Tears occurred in these camps
one might think if they are forcing them out the least the u.s governement can do is to provide a good or similar home and diseant food but the natives were not important to the U.S.
Despite efforts by Cherokee leader John Ross, who spent months in Washington lobbying senators to reject the Cherokee treaty, the Senate ratified the Cherokee removal treaty, the Treaty of New Echota by a vote of 31 to 15—just above the two-thirds requirement. In the spring of 1838, Georgia and federal troops began to gather Cherokee people for the trek west
This is not unusual the U.S. had already predictated the future of many of the indian tribes. They were going to be remove no matter what.
Creek families could also sell their land, which many, in dire economic straits, did. Squatters also moved into unoccupied half-section
This is ironically when ever the governement pleases the natives have power over their land to decide to sale it but when it comes for them to have rights over the land the whites are trying to steal the native is incapable of understanding such complex idea.
to press the federal government into protecting their land from incursions by white squatters and state laws in Alabama.
This might be a long shot but this makes me think that the U.S. had created the problem and the naitves were asking from protection of the abuser when in the first place they were the onces that cause the oppresion in lands.
Treaty of the Week
who wrote the treaties and did Natives trully understand the consequence of signing the treaties ?
They agreed to sell their land, signing the first removal treaty of the Five Nations in the Southeast.
Did the native nations ever had the oportunity to refuse the agreement of seeling their lands?
he remaining members of the council that if they did not agree to remove, the president would declare war on them and send in the army. They agreed to sell their land, signing the first removal treaty of the Five Nations in the Southeast.
This is a great point. No matter the countless time natives meet in secret meetings at the end of the day. The land had an owner and the owner was not a native bother but a greedy white.
Choctaw women were especially vocal about their resistance to remova
This is one of the key points that I like about the reading. It shows that not all Natives keep in silence while the U.S stole their land.
ndian savagery, they function as signs taken for wonders in the Supreme Court’s Indian law deci
If Court decisions be question or put on the stand once again why hasnt the natives fight in court again to demand a well examine of the desions of racist judges of those times?
racist judicial precedents from the early nineteenth century in their present- day opinions on vitally important questions of Indian rights to property, self government, and cultural survival.
Did the supreme court had always an agenda on how to side on cases or could did ever happen in a diffrent racial enviroment.
Steadfast beliefs in white superiority and Indian savagery can in fact be identifi ed as central organizing principles in the Court’s fi rst set of landmark decisions on Indian rights.
The judges that were put in place to protect the citizens living inside the U.S. had an obligation to used their supreme pwer and grant Natives those rights that were deny so much since the country started.
propriated by the Western colonial imagination, the idea of the Indian as hostile savage was received and perpetuated by the Founders through a diverse and infl uential set of sources, texts,
I cannot speak for the Natives but I can do for my minority group. I cannot comprehended hw the Natives stay so passive and quiet about the abuse of the whites.
George Washington’s Indian policy paradigm of “the Savage as the Wolf,” refl ected the continuing force of a long- established language of racism in America
We have to remember that important American figures also were part of several problem of Natives being discriminated and opressed for so many decades.
Until the pleasure of Congress be known, respecting the ninth article, all traders,citizens of the United States, shall have liberty to go to any of the tribes
Did the Natives capture innocent Americans? this sounds like a prevention from revelious acts or war.
CHEROKEES,
What did the Cherokees do in this specific times to get some what protection from the U.S.? Why did this favors were not granted to all tribes?
ARTICLES of a TREATY, Concluded at HOPEWELL, on the KEOWEE, betweenBENJAMIN HAWKINS,ANDREW PICKENS, JOSEPH MARTIN and LACKLANM'INTOSH, COMMISSIONERS PLENIPOTENTIARY of the UNITED STATES ofAMERICA, of the one Part, and HEAD-MEN and WARRIORS of all the CHEROKEES ofthe other.
I am very confuse of all the promises , traties, deals the Americans had with Natives becuase I cannot comprehend how the government of the states can not follow throguth their promoses.
The United States do allot to the Shawanoe nation, lands within their territory tolive and hunt upon, beginning at the fourth line of the lands allotted to the Wiandots andDelaware nations,
The U.S. clearly should nto have power to allow them to live in land but as they do state it is a symbol of power.
If any citizen or citizens of the United States, shall presume to settle upon the landsallotted to the Shawanoes by this treaty, he or they shall be put out of the protection of theUnited States
I do not understand What I am reading. It seems that the idea was that the Americans are offering protection?
“The Indians must conform to ‘the white man’s ways,’ peaceably if they will, forcibly if they must. They must adjust themselves to their environment, and conform their mode of living substantially to our civilization. This civilization may not be the best possible, but it is the best the Indians can get. They can not escape it, and must either conform to it or be crushed by it.” [18]
This is a very important part of the reading, Natives were force to adapt to the white man ways and if they refuse they will be seen as the enemy.
Policymakers and reformers reasoned that if Natives were forced to give up communal land ownership and assume individual property rights, they would become “civilized” and easily assimilated into the American citizenry. (We’ll return to the dynamics of allotment in Week 5.)
This is like saying that if they allow to be oppress later on with effort they could be civilized.
Marshall reasoned that the British Crown never claimed any right under the principles of the discovery doctrine to intrude “into the interior of [Native] affairs.” Because Georgia’s rights within its territorial boundaries derived from the Crown’s conquest under the doctrine of discovery, Georgia could make no claim to govern the Cherokees or interfere in their internal affairs either.
This sentence was very eye opening becuase I did not expect the British to be some what civilized in not trying to conquered the Natives.
an 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?”
The Native is savage and his world looks cautiotic and the white men lives a in wonderfull happy world full of happy people and liberty.
a race not admitted to be equal to the rest of the community…not yet entitled, and probably never will be entitled, to equal civil and political rights.” [
Also the white mens were very careful on the level they did provide some sort of libeties. by arguing that natives could have rights they also put in jerardy the slaves they had.
any white settlers argued that Native people, because they were not white, would never be able to integrate into white society on equal footing with other non-Native white southerners.
This is ridiculos the color of your skin has nothing to do with your level of intelligent. I wonder if there was ever a point were the white men actually knew that their thinking was full of nonsense or did always had this way of seeing the world.
“civilization” of Americans and Europeans.
Lets pause for a second and trutly think about the logic behind. Europeans can argue they were more civilized becuase they had farming, they had weapons and they were Christians. First of all everthing had to change for the Europeans becuase their land did not allow them to continue to be hunters and gathers, secondly they had weapons Bacuase they had more conflict and were less moral than natives and thridly is unfair to claim natives were savages since they did not believe in Jesus. But if they had their entire lifes without the knowledge of Christianity is a new concept they need to learn and later accept of deny.
Marshall justifies American ownership of Native land under this false anthropologic
I trutely believe Marshall change the supreme court for the better but even an enlightmen still has its false.
a racist worldview that assumed that Native people lacked civilization and Christianity, and that European willingness to “bestow” these gifts of civilization would
It is ironic that the American Christians allow racist to cloud their judgement.
—they did not have title to their land—that belonged to the US, but they did have the rights of use and occupancy.
It is sad to think and imagine how natives would had felt thet the land they knew for so many decades in a second belong to the arrival people, the invadors
It presumed that those who were already on that land were inferior to those who had “discovered” it. Since the US had acquired land from Great Britain in the Revolution
The Natives were not inferior, the clasicications they are constently given are by their oppressor, the U.S. so is imposible to argue that they were inferior base on the defitions of the whites
This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.” [3]
How does that work? How can Natives be other than the discoverers since they were first here? Did the Natives had the power to give land away or only the Europeans?
“doctrine of discovery.” The doctrine of discovery has two components, one international, and one domestic. The international component specifies that whichever European nation got to a portion of the “New World” first, they had “prior claim.” The Court stated:
Maybe I am spectucal about the government but usually when they are face ina controverisal issue they bring up terminology to support their case or decision.
lands pursuant to the Treaty of Greenville, after defeating the Illinois and Piankeshaws, who were among a confederation of tribes who had united against American expansion into the Ohio River Valle
Having we learn that treaties are a symbol to listen the oppress and the governemtn never follows their promises throught.
Basically, the question came down to did Native people have the right to give a title to land to a private individual and have that title hold up in Court?
I think my questions is did these treaties had valid power since the U.S did not ratify the articles of Confereation but did a new constitution?
the trust relationship is all about land and money.
The relationship we have had with the indias has being always about land and money.
unrecognized by the federal government.
Why does the U.S. governement does not recognized all tribes?
federally recognized tribes.”
If I were a Native I will feel betrait to be an American becuase simply becuase the U.S recognized you does not erase the story behind it and does not give our people our land.
tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect
Then Why does white man take advantage of the protections given to Natives?
574 federally recognized Native nations.
It is shoking that so many nations have being recognized since we constanlty see how the U.S. has abused Natives from their rights
. It was in fact intended as analliance of the Indians against the encroachments
I totally agree, the U.S. has a tendency of moving people for their own personal gain.
For the better security of the peace and friendship now entered into by the contracting parties
This line is very hypocric becuase the United States was fighting for peace and to secure the lives of people in the U.s. territory and it seems that they forgot that natives were also here and were part of the people they were suppost to save and protect.
n to give, in the most convenient place, and advantageous situation, as shall be agreed on by the commanding officer of the troops aforesaid, with the advice and concurrence of the deputies of the aforesaid Delaware Nation, which fort shall be garrisoned by such a number of the troops of the United States, as the commanding officer can spare for the present, and hereafter by such numbers, as the wise men of the United States in council, shall think most conducive to the co
As for my understanding this is basically given power to the U.S to enter land of the indigenous f is necessary by the U.S.
And whereas the United States are engaged in a just and necessary war, in defence and support of life, liberty and independence, against the King of England and his adherents, and as said King is yet possessed of several posts and forts on the lakes and other places
But whose life, liberty and independence were they fighting to concerve.
That a perpetual peace and friendship shall from henceforth take place, and subsist between the contracting: parties aforesaid, through all succeeding generations: and if either of the parties are engaged in a just and necessary war with any other nation or nations, that then each shall assist the other in due proportion to their abilities, till their enemies are brought to reasonable terms of accommodation: and that if either of them shall discover any hostile designs forming against the other, they shall give the earliest notice thereof that timeous measures may be taken to prevent their ill effect.
for the most part any document that the U.S. signs with a minority or people of color is constaly broken by the U.S.
That all offences or acts of hostilities by one, or either of the contracting parties against the other, be mutually forgiven, and buried in the depth of oblivion, never more to be had in remembrance.
This article my hyposis is that it will illustrate why the U.S. had to make so many dificult and morally decisions and their justification against the naitives.
ymbol of failure — failure to teach well, failure to test well, and failure to have any influence at all on the intellectual lives of students”
This makes me think that as a teacher, one needs to decide wheather they will be a good teacher of grading, like by student or maintain the prestigue of our institution.
If grades are based on state standards, there’s particular reason to be concerned since those standards are often too specific, age-inappropriate, superficial, and standardized by definition (
This is how California university allow students to enter their premises, base on the SAT, standadard Academic Test.
pass other people’s tests without strengthening their capacity to set their own assignments in collaboration with their fellows”
Student never expand or experience their capcities of learning if they are only given a guideline of pasing a class.
say, a workshop approach to teaching writing — and a depressingly standardized assessment tool like rubrics
It is also unfair to give teachers more work of finding ways to teach that also does not effects students feelings, thinking and grades.
whatever your goals or curriculum may be. The result is that teachers may become more adept at measuring how well students have mastered a collection of facts and skills whose value is questionable — and never questioned.
Can this be the idea that teachers are trap in a system they cannot change or break for students?
system of rewards
This is funny to think but I do this idea with my dog. I teach her and she gets a bone as reward. In a way we are like a non stoping cycle of we want to do a good job not to increase our own knowlegde but to get a reward, a grade.
Then 20 years,” the master responded. Surprised, the student asked how long it would take if he worked very, very hard and became the most dedicated student in the Ashram.
I think the more we focus on grading, the more we loose on learning.
For example, a grade-oriented environment is associated with increased levels of cheating (Anderman and Murdock, 2007), grades (whether or not accompanied by comments) promote a fear of failure even in high-achieving students (Pulfrey et al., 2011),
I think we should invent a way of combining grading and non grading together.
success matters more than learning.
Success matter more than learning is a true statement and then my question is. When are we not being grade by ourself or by others and trutly are enjoying what we are learning?
Grades tend to diminish students’ interest in whatever they’re learning. A “grading orientation” and a “learning orientation” have been shown to be inversely related and, as far as I can tell, every study that has ever investigated the impact on intrinsic motivation of receiving grades (or instructions that emphasize the importance of getting good grades) has found a negative effect.
This is true becuase if a student is intrested in learning a specific subject but they dont get a good grade, in their mind they stop learnng whatever they are doing wrong or getting a bad grade.
Why tests are not a particularly useful way to assess student learning (at least the kind that matters), and what thoughtful educators do instead, are questions that must wait for another day.
I think grading was a good idea because it can encourage student to see a score and do better on their job. However many students depend of a grade and that particual grade would change their life, it will determine who they married, where they go to school, their acceptance to university of choice ans so on. So I can see how we obssed with a grading rubric
“I remember the first time that a grading rubric was attached to a piece of my writing….Suddenly all the joy was taken away. I was writing for a grade — I was no longer exploring for me. I want to get that back. Will I ever get that back?”
I can relate to this on 100%. I am a history major and as much I want to take my time reading and anolazing a specific subject a grade is always given. This cause me to focus more on the grade than on my desire to learn more deaply on things.
Would a Native state, a political entity recognized by the US and devoted to tribal needs, have been the best way to safeguard tribal sovereignty?
No matter what the Natives would have done there ideas and concerns were not going to be heard by the U.S.
The new treaties had to include certain stipulations:Declarations of peace and friendship with the US and other Native nationsAssistance in maintaining peace with Native nations on the Plains
This makes me remember other issues the U.S. have had with other cultures. They are the ones that know how to play the game and they write the rules.
Native land was believed to ultimately belong to the United States, although it was also recognized that Natives occupied the land, and that they could cede it to the US without duress.Natives were considered to be culturally and intellectually inferior to whites.Native tribes must nevertheless be treated as nations capable of entering into diplomatic negotiations and making war. [15]
So when there was war the Natives were capable of decising who to side with but once the war is over there are onces again inferior to keep land.
White Eyes was killed a
who was White Eye?
“If we are conquered our Lands go with yours, but if we are victorious we hope you will help us recover our Rights.” [8]
If the Natives side with the British and they lost there was going to be consequence but if they side with the Americans they still would loose their land.
his dispute between two brothers. The quarrel seems to be unnatural. You are two brothers of one blood.” [7]
This was true in simple words the Americans were still British blood and the Natives state that these two brothers were having a conflict and everyone was getting effected by it.
orge Washington, who had bought thousands of acres in veterans’ claims to “bounty” land. Thomas Jefferson, who had participated in three different ventures that would have yielded him a total of 17,000 acres of land, were it not for the restrictions placed on the land from the Proclamation. Patrick Henry, who had joined in at least five land ventures between 1767 and 1773, and knew that his money would have been wasted if London had its way.In 1776, white land speculators from Virginia declared independence from Britain and adopted a state constitution which nullified the Proclamation of 1763.
well recognized white Americans did not want to loose their money. In the narratives of History, natives are never ask or consider how did they felt that their land was just a piece of profit to the whites and for the natives it was sacred land.
British coalition to include nations south of the Ohio River, including the Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, w
The British did not care of Native well being they just wanted people to join them to defeat the Americans
“paper barrier
is funny or ironic to think that Americans saw the policy as just a paper barrier but the constitution is also a paper and we have protected at all cost.
Proclamation of 1763, prohibiting further colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, reserving those lands exclusively for Natives. It also banned the sale of Native land to private individuals.
when did the policy got broken because the government continue selling and trading land.
the tribes faced difficulties replenishing their supply of ammunition.
we have to remember that natives did not invent guns.
pporters of Pontiac’s armed resistance found powerful, spiritual support for their movement through Neolin’s proclamation that the creator favored Natives and regarded white settlers as intruders. [4]
This reminds me so much of the same ideas the Americans did to convice their people that God were on their side. There is a famous painting were the Americans are being led by a angel to the new land. The Native use the same aspects of religion to change the argument that god gave them this land.
the Master of Life put Arms in our hands, and it is he who has ordered us to fight against this bad meat that would come and infest our lands.”
Is a little confusing when the text states "The Master of Life put Arms in our hands" in way makes me believe that the Americans put the arms in their hands so in a way they were the true gods?
“This land where ye dwell I have made for you and not for others. Whence comes it that ye permit the Whites upon your lands? Can ye not live without them? I know that those whom ye call the children of the Great Father supply your needs, but if ye were not evil as ye are, ye could surely do without them.
The story that a big power spoke with Neolin for me is not real. However the statement or prophet makes alot fo sense. Naives were welcoming to the foreign whites and as a result they have only bring badness to the pure land of Natives. Both can live peacefully in those land but the Americans are greedy and want more.
eceived from a spiritual being known as the Master of Life.
This is a simply comment. In every culture in every part of the world there is always someone that takes advantage of scriptures or religious belief to manipulate the young and naive.
Delaware religious prophet.
I think the only way natives were able to get angry about the policies and actions the Americans were doing was through the use of Religion. In History we constantly see that natives are very passive, head down lets be civil but once they start beliving their prophet everything chance.