White people wouldn't have at all believed any Native-centric rhetoric, because they consider Native people as sub-human.

What a ridiculous line, but it's one that I feel still resonates with people today. White people are constantly debating the humanity of brown bodies, and if they're worth humane treatment.

"this rubs me the wrong way" is kind of an understatement, we know that police are corrupt and any interaction with people of color is bound to turn out worse for them.

I still think that this was the real goal, and that most white people could care less what Natives got up to, as long as it wasn't on their new land.

The nuclear family is a strategy of creating more industrious workers. By controlling who is having children (Married man and woman) they create a "stable" place to raise children who will become efficient members of the industrial machine. This carries over easily into colonialism, just with a new group of people to teach how to be "industrious" with the added benefit of being able to racialize them and see them as less than human.

Colonialism is always a capitalist strategy for profit !!

They weren't vanishing, they were being eradicated and erased.

If they don't survive, they have no chance of passing their stories down (which are the keys to their survival), and then they really die.

I wonder if part of the reason theres a believe that the Clouds were ultimately against "being Native" is because whites pushed a narrative that the Clouds were becoming very civilized, if only because they were really playing the field.

This being considered a "lower" mentality by whites is really interesting, I wonder how much they understood of it being a resistance to colonialism. It would make sense that they would still consider that a lower mentality, because they believed in anglicizing the Natives regardless.

Remaining connected to your tribe seems like a main way to be considered Native, especially since the connection to their ancestral homelands is mostly lost. They don't have nearly as much land connection as they do to their kinship systems now.

The idea that being Native meaning you can't be modern is strange. Theres a BIG difference between being colonized and being progressive. I would also say that it seems like they're using modern tools in order to fight for a stronger Native identity.

This doesn't surprise me at all, Native history is and has always been very undervalued and underrepresented in historical canon.

Really common goal to be able to write family histories, calling back to traditions of passing down stories generation to generation.

This is what history education is all about babee!!!! The past informs the present and future of our peoples!!!

The stories are both the way they came into a place and the reason they are allowed to be in that place.

As mentioned earlier, they are on equal footing and both necessary to bringing life to the clan.

I wonder if Americans thought it was just a straight forward thing to understand how to prepare these new foods, or if this was an intentional method of eliminating those Natives who showed that they "couldn't assimilate"

Even though they were invited to speak to the President...

Interesting, even though many aspects of their lives are still retaining their original culture, white people have declared it a success. Maybe the Navajo are putting on a show?

I love watching this continuation of women being in diplomatic roles even after colonization has taken such a strong hold on their culture.

Another reason why passing down these stories is so important. Everyone knows the intricacies of their relationship, how to interact and what to avoid so as to not repeat the same mistakes.

It definitely helps that all the people there understand the importance of recording the stories already, so it adds to the faith that this is an accurate retelling.

I like that there is such a dependence on the grandmother's word. She is the authority on where they come from, so everyone can easily take this as the truth.

I wonder if every clan can trace their lineage back to one of the original clans in a very clear way, or if theres argument about if they are related in this way or another way.

Native people are ALWAYS the instigators in American histories. Anyone with prior connection to white people is considered less savage.

I don't know, but I feel like I trust the Navajo oral history here that puts a lot of emphasis on where their people come from.

I feel like I keep repeating myself but it's just so interesting how directly these stories translate to practices. It's definitely a strong way to reinforce the oral tradition so that it's not just things you know and remember, but practice every day.

From their role of lifegiving and caretaking in both agriculture and nurturing, they have the authority to speak on those things and make important decisions with regards to how the tribe will continue (although there is a pretty clear answer in most situations because of this strong collective memory, I believe)

These stories translate directly to cultural practices.

One is not above the other in the making of life.

Immediately a direct connection to their ancestral homelands, its importance on the same level as First Man, First Woman, Bluebird, and Coyote.

As we were discussing in class, maybe then the strength of grandmothers is just another link to this centering of female deities. They have that strength BECAUSE of those deities and in order to pass on that strength have to pass on the stories as well. A source of power, maybe.

I really relate to this statement, my family having really created a strong culture of not asking questions about things that may have been traumatic in our family, especially my mom being an immigrant and lots of my family having been erased from our lineage.

Why was there a focus on remarrying after these events? Was it because of the new colonialist idea that a woman must be dependent on a man? Because I recall before us talking about women remarrying just because they could, not because of any particular reason such as this. This makes it sound like it was necessary for Navajo women to have a husband.

I like the way that she is making very clear how everyone is related to each other, and in what ways.

The land?

Very prevalent in many different tribes as we've seen. I wonder if this is due to their interactions with each other or if maybe its a shared belief of the land being their mother? Probably a combination of both, I think all these polleverywhere questions are making me want it to all be one or the other.

If their stories die, they die.

As in, boarding schools? White education trying their hardest to erase Native histories and culture?

Does this mean they are still responsible for this in their culture, or is this self-imposed? A combination of both? Do they tell only traditional stories or do they tell full histories of their people as they know it?

Passing these stories and events down to people and trying to relate it to this new land means that the stories lose their meaning, and the relationships that form because of them. This forms a new disconnect between your ancestors and yourself, which is a new form of generational trauma they had not quite experienced yet.

The land itself is like a mentor. Reminds me of the love your mother slogan I've been seeing on bumper stickers.

Even this new land "owned" by the Cherokee, it is still under the control of white people deciding they get to be there.

Them traveling to new land is just as much imposing themselves onto it as Euro-Americans imposed themselves on Cherokee land.

I've never really thought about the fact that this title is really unrepresentative of what was going on. It wasn't just sad, it was an act of extreme violence and genocide.

Going back means death, staying means death, and going forward probably means death. Theres no reason to have any positive outlook when their lives, literally and figuratively, were stolen from them by a government meant to protect their sovereignty.

Definitely an expected and intentional result on the part of the U.S. government. If they couldn't directly sanction genocide, the "accidental" deaths were much more bearable as "tragedy" but not the fault of the U.S. government, which was doing what it had promised to.

Earlier it said that this was a government funded removal but clearly not...

Treating them like criminals for occupying land they rightly own. Government sanctioned genocide :/

Capitalism kills! Such a clear case of all problems linking back to either capitalism or anti-blackness. Getting rid of the Natives so that slaves and the land can be further exploited to benefit rich white people!! I'm so angry !!!

Perhaps as long as they are resistent to change, the U.S. government will be even stricter about the conditions and it will end up even worse for them. In a situation where it is inevitable for their way of life to be uprooted (not for the first or the last time) it could at least work in the best favor of them? But then comes the problem that the U.S. government will have fodder to say that they're doing the right thing and that the Cherokee are happy with their new lives.

They.....had extensive territory before...and never get any of it back...

Ever heard of checks and balances?

What about the Cherokee republic's rights? They can't see that their own thought process is ridiculous in thinking that Georgia's land is being taken away.

such a universal experience for people of color

This seems really petty but in a really sick way. Love that.

Military alliance goes both ways

They really believed that the whole world does, or at least should work exactly the way they think it is in their own cultures and customs.

But not acceptance!

Everyone who participates in this day is accepting those people, giving enough commitment to them to want to build them a home and a place in their community.

The Hasinai ALLOW them to be there, they know they are strangers in this land and have the upper hand in negotiating at this time in history.

Why should family suddenly be less important than these strangers who want to completely uproot their kinship systems?

There is no reason to trust a group that has no connection to their people, and thus nothing keeping them there or loyal.

As in, they would know the land well and be able to share that information with the Spaniards.

As we've learned previously, the lack of women indicates that they are not a diplomatic party

If they are not conquered, then it can be seen as being a part of the Caddos customs of marriage being indicative of a political, economic, and military alliance. The Spanish want to conquer and convert them, not be their friends.

This is...so strange to me I would love to hear more about this.

Isn't that just how nations work? France has plenty of cities that all probably have their own identity, but they know they're French?

Was this a lower rank?

Yet another way of tying him to the settlement, having family there means he will likely not leave anytime soon.

Europeans see women as sexual objects, rather than people. The way this is worded makes it sound like the men change wives frequently, rather than the women changing husbands frequently. The serial monogamy CAN go both ways.

Was it a survival method to stay with the Caddo, or did the Frenchmen genuinely feel some sort of kinship. It is a very extreme way to be included, especially because you could never quite go back to French society and be fully accepted the way the Caddo did.

I think this really means the fullest acceptance into their community. Not only will the people who know them by face and name will know they belong, but any Caddo and even those of other tribes who understand the tattoo custom will know where they "come from" and who their kin are.

A win-win situation I guess, because the French keep their ally who is supposed to translate for them, and the the Caddos get a member of their family returned to them.

Noticing this is a really common theme, trying to leave children with tribes and likely expecting them to remain fully loyal to their homeland.

Interesting that civilization is in quotes here, because I don't believe that the Spanish saw Caddos as a civilization.

Those people can't really be established with a strong kinship bond to the Caddoans.

Using their own goals and ideas, rather than the goals of the foreign nation they hail from. Interesting because I've never really considered them being different things, but I supposed it is in this period an individual decision to come to the Americas.

I looked this up to be sure, but squaw valley is named after this word, really strange for them to name a valley after what became a slur for Native American women. However, I believe theres a history surrounding the difficulty of traversing Squaw Valley....

Do you really think this Irish sailor had any idea what the Native language was supposed to sound like?

After killing the Native Roanokes' chief, funny how that works that as soon as they need help they're not afraid anymore.

That's a victim complex if I've ever seen one

So perhaps everyone had a sense of their identity as a survivor, or as someone who needed to adapt, but they did not particularly fully believe in the ideas of their current world.

It's like a reverse mission trip, perhaps because children are more impressionable than adults then they can keep those ideas(of Catholicism) for the rest of their lives, then pass it on to their children.

I really could not figure out what this meant in this context. It means "overthrown" in Portuguese, like something that has been repealed, but I don't understand this here.

Were they simply using Paquiquineo to try and covert the other members of Paspahegh? Did they see him as some sort of object to be controlled, and got frustrated and entitled as soon as he didn't want to 100% conform anymore?

He was never quite one of the Spanish, intending to return to his family from the beginning perhaps

It only takes one ill-informed report to create generations of historical trauma

I feel like theres something here about connection between "discipline" and colonialism? Did the English see those children in their "dark and dangerous" stage of life as on the same level as the "savage" Native Americans. Maybe I'm making too many assumptions here, but clearly theres something behind putting children with the same group of people you are colonizing.

They are willing to fight even though they DON'T have those same freedoms, showing a commitment to really make their relationship with the country work.

It makes me so angry that Natives are considered less American, considering they have lived on this land for so much longer have probably spilled the most blood for it.

Maybe its not an inferiority complex and more something along the lines of....decades of oppression ?

The government has historically now had a lack of responsibility for its actions against Native peoples, even as they pretend to try and fix the problems that they are causing, they blame the issues on Native "idleness" instead, when the taking of land is a direct result of government policies.

Collier never actually listened to how Native people actually wanted to progress and live their lives, he just wanted to return them to his own romantic notion of the way that they used to live prior to white arrival.

This is part of that survival strategy, given that Native Americans are being interpolated by the government as simply "Indian" they are forced to be political at every turn to ensure that their identities are not completely erased.

They have to jump through such a ridiculous amount of hoops to be recognized as the people that they already were.

If they are recognized by the federal government then they can maybe have some power in being acknowledged as peoples, and at least gain some benefit from that.

They had land taken away from them by two other countries agreeing that this is where the border will be(on an arbitrary line, nonetheless), completely disregarding the people who were already there and assuming that they will just follow the new rules.

It seems like it's more about tribal kin than it is about religion. The religious ceremonies are just a means to congregate with tribal kin that they otherwise may not be able to officially say a reason to see them because of this border separation that has been imposed on them.

All of a sudden they would have to talk to an entirely different federal government in order to continue using the land they already owned?

This is such a weird assumption considering how many other ways the Plateau Indians have undermined the federal governments authority, why submit now when they already have such strong territorial boundaries of their own? Why was this assumption made in the first place?

They needed to work together because of the different access to resources they had, but they were also distinct tribes and that needed to be respected amongst themselves as well. This is very different from the way the US wanted to go about, simply moving all these tribes onto the same territories while attempting to remove the intertribal kin-based relationships.

There are times when it's more beneficial to be a larger group to petition the government, but it is also important to keep that sense of self-identification as both a way of combatting full assimilation and preserving their histories and identity.

It's an interesting tactic, because I feel as though the US government would have concern over creating larger groups under a common identity, which together may have consequences such as acting against the US government together. However, I think that the more important part is destroying (or attempting to destroy) their sense of self-identification, because their new government that has forced themselves on the tribes refuses to acknowledge what they have known themselves as for generations.

There isn't a sense of harsh property lines like the ones that would be later imposed on them.

Their survival depended on sticking together this way.

They still made many attempts to retain their cultural heritage, and perhaps studies that say that they lost that are the result of the assimilation policies saying so, even if it wasn't entirely the truth. If you say something loud enough and enough times, then maybe it can become the recorded history regardless of the real story.

This kind of humiliation was part of the dehumanization of them, as government officials were seeking to only do the task they were assigned rather than do anything to help the Cherokee.

The agents did not care how they self identified if it did not line up with the white ideal, and they meant to destroy their cultures anyway.

It really seemed as though the government was very close to explicitly using military force to control their daily lives, seeing as they were already using military force to control their movement and the places where they were allowed to stay.

If the Allotment process could give less people land, it would through this process. That created more surplus that could then be sold off to the people who have been trying to get it for years. This process to determine who was Indian enough to deserve land is another method of taking land away.

Yet another attempt here to fit Cherokee into Anglo-American ideals, boxes that do not at all fit the reality of their histories.

Many were also given "white" names through the allotment process.

This is something that the Cherokee, and all Native Americans deserve but have been denied from the very beginning.

I feel like people still say and claim that they are "1/16 Cherokee" or similar, but do not have any real connection to the Cherokee other than a birth record from three generations ago.

For example, the splitting up of family units in ways that did not at all line up with reality that created a story on paper that was not representative of the humans and their relationships to each other.

Repairs still need to be done over 100 years after the Dawes Act begins, showing a continued lack of real care by the government for their actions against Indigenous peoples during this time.

People are taking advantage of the Cherokee as soon as they no longer have protection on their own land.

It is never about trying to make the Native Americans productive members of society, but more about giving their land to the people that have both been attempting to take it for years(by making it legal) as well as to those who the government believes will be able to use the land to its fullest potential.

It is much easier to break the cultural heritage of people once you have separated them from their families and the people who will continue to keep their culture alive.

Two goals: Put the American Indian down, then force them to become U.S. citizens, or at least accept a place in U.S. society rather than their own.

Kinship is what allowed the Cherokee to survive, as the author explains in later sections of this introduction.

Was there ever any intent from the U.S. government to really follow through on these treaties, or was the intent to always eventually take back the land anyway?

The government never intended for them to really excel on this land, they only meant to keep them subsisting and be separate from each other so they can not group together and be a threat to the government anymore.

Very important for maintaining their culture throughout this process of allotment and assimilation

Anglo-Americans refused to acknowledge the culture of the Cherokee, and thus did not even begin to try to understand it or treat it as valid practice, only trying to force them into their own preconceived notions of what is correct in a family structure.

She seems to feel a responsibility to carry on their memory and legacy, likely because of the history of a downplay on the Native American genocide and specifically this massacre.

They are proud for "defending" against an attack against the "savage" everyone hears about during this time, when they really were just people desperate to live their lives.

This makes me so sad, the dead were never respected initially and now they can only hope that their prayers can be answers and they can rest so late after their deaths.

Ironic because this land was her ancestor's land before, shared with the United States government.

There was no respect for the dead, the Lakota were just enemies in their eyes that needed to be removed from U.S. land one way or another.

They wanted to provoke him to attack them, and maybe they were trying to get the gun to go off knowing during this time that guns just do that sometimes, it had supposedly happened the night before too after all. Now they have cause to attack the whole group for being "hostile"

Big Foot knew what would happen if they got mad, and wanted to do everything he could to avoid it, while the soldiers seem to be trying to do everything to provoke them.

So clearly a group of people that was already suffering, not eating, hardly sleeping, and then they were attacked by the seventh calvary.

Massive part of her and her family's history, to the point where it is genuinely painful to her even though she did not personally know anyone who was lost there.