very interesting parallel to place Native American lives by the American war veterans' lives! Shows that they are just as worthy of respect and honor!

It's interesting how this departs from the traditional view of museums. I think it just goes to show the differences in the perspectives of "oppressed peoples" and those who are the colonizers. While the colonizers seek to preserve and highlight their own history, the "oppressed peoples" seek to disrupt that narrative by building up their own.

Is this another way of trying to "cover up" the colonization narrative?

I think this could be viewed as a form of tribal sovereignty, getting to decide how they want their history to be represented.

Is this shared authority necessarily equal, though?

This is probably the biggest benefit to Indian gaming--that it contributes to the sovereignty of Indian nations.

While it does pull them out of poverty, in many ways it is harmful because of the damage it does to the perception of Native Indians in the US.

I myself have visited Morongo several times with my family, and remember my parents telling me about how rich Native Indians are. This seems to be the common perception of them nowadays.

This is important to note because the common narrative is that Native people before American colonization were savage and filled with disorder.

how do such allegations spread so much to the extent that they are seen as truth?

I feel like this is a very sweeping statement that doesn't necessarily encapsulate the condition of most Native Americans.

I find it interesting that Indian gaming is the first thing I came to know about Native Americans personally. Maybe that says something about the perception of Native Americans as greedy and wealthy today?

What was so impactful about her story in particular?

I don't know how I feel about this statement. While I see the truth behind it, I think that people hurting is not a factor that incapacitates tribes from gaining their own sovereignty. In every nation, there are always people who are hurting, but it does not take away from complete sovereignty.

Does this outcome outweigh the rights and lives of the women who have experienced sexual violence? Do the two necessarily have to take away from each other?

seems to be the perception of Native people as a whole, not just Native women

Displays a narrative of Native women not being prioritized in this nation and as being seen as not "fully human".

Was there no help given by the federal government? But also, would this help have been welcomed?

I think it's also really interesting how, in this text, they seem to give the American government specific instructions as to how they are to proceed from here. In past texts or past speeches, they seem to leave the solution more vague. Serves to show their frustration even more.

Interesting how this common oppression has caused the American Indians to unite together under the banner of the word "our", whereas before they seemed to see themselves as separate and individual nations.

Resonant of the Double V Campaign

repetition of "promised" really drives in this point and shows the frustration that they so strongly feel

You can really tell that they are very angry--contrasts greatly with a lot of the other texts or speeches that were made in the past where they tried to mask their anger in order to appear more civilized and persuasive by Anglo standards.

seems to be such a dramatic military response to such a small march.

I find this conclusion to be very interesting, but am wondering what they hope to gain from American understanding and recognition? Is it so that Americans will not mistreat them in the future? In some ways, I almost agree with the more radical Native Indians that this Declaration was not forceful enough or strong enough. It all seems to build up by pointing out American wrongs against Native people, but then feels anticlimatic when all they ask for is understanding.

Shows a difference in values. Americans value capitalism and the forces of the market, while Native Americans seem to value more tradition and legacy.

Again, they are trying to negotiate with the US government on their terms.

I like how this document uses very strong words such as this that really show how Native Americans really feel, instead of trying to appeal to Americans in order to claim whiteness.

Seems to be a recurring theme when it comes to the relationship between the US government and the tribal nations.

references the American Declaration of Independence! Shows that they are trying to appeal to the white people's own sense of justice.

reminder that they are human, which speaks to the dehumanization of them as a race

I find it really interesting that Indians were pushing for a structure modeled after this program, as it seems to reflect the idea behind Indian Boarding Schools and the "model homes" that were present on reservations.

Interesting way to end the speech, but also can be seen as strategic. Seems to want to appeal to the Americans, and shows that it is still the white people that have all the power and authority in the US.

Very interesting word choice. Depicts white people as very temperamental and disloyal, which goes against the very "loyalty" they are calling upon for this war.

I feel like this is, in part, because white Americans tended to justify their acts of racism through things like the "white savior" complex or the fact that they believed their actions were benefitting the groups that they discriminated against.

Reminiscent of how Japanese Americans were being called to fight while facing internment at home.

Very similar to the other racial inequalities that were occurring with African American people, such as in the Jim Crow laws or the exclusion of African American children from schools due to Plessy v. Ferguson.

part of the Double V Campaign that many minority groups, including African Americans and Asians, were fighting for

Overall, this speech seems to be highly biased against Native Americans and ignores the fact that many of the problems discussed are ones that were caused by American intervention in Native American affairs. Cloud also seems to view Native people as a "problem" and has taken on the narrative of the "white savior". This potentially could be because of his own life, in which he was orphaned and saved through an American education.

Again, Cloud seems to ignore the fact that it is the US government that placed Indians in such a position that the government has a large say in their own affairs.

Interesting that he says this because it is the American government that split up the Indian tribes intentionally so that they could not band together to fight against them.

Interesting point, but he is excluding the fact that the taking of Indian lands is still "stealing"

seems to be very biased towards the "white man"

Might be important to note that Henry Roe Cloud was very "American" in the sense that he received an all-American education and was even the first Indian to go to Yale University.

I find it super interesting that she references Christianity in her conclusion. It appears she understands exactly what the perception of her people are by Americans, and is using their standard of justice and morality to ask them to change.

Here she is appealing to the American sense of pride and honor in order to get them to see things from her perspective.

It seems as if she is trying to appeal to the American audience here.

Shows that the United States would exploit Hawaiians and not honor their agreements/treaties -- which thus shows that they did not see them as a people to be respected

In a way, I feel that even this picture of her is meant as a form of her own activism. She is dressed like a European but her face has a look of defiance that almost shows her to be proud of her home culture.

Her monarchy leans further and further away from the American/European view of democracy and the republic.

I think the fact that the Queen sounds so highly educated in lines such as these shows that she is trying to appeal to the values of education that Anglo-Americans held. She is trying to show them through this speech that Hawaiians are not a "savage" people.

Here I feel like the "most enlightened part of the community" probably does not mean the educated Hawaiians, but instead the Anglo-Americans who resided in Hawaii or those who aligned with more Western values.

I think it can even be said that the fact that boarding school is remembered in this way speaks to the reclaiming of Native narratives by the Native people.

Is this limited to just boarding schools though? I feel the same could be said about the pipelines or allotment, or any other narrative of Native oppression.

Really interesting to keep in mind!

There seem to be a huge amount of factors contributing to the oppression of Native people in the US. Why are the boarding schools in particular heralded as their symbol?

Was this truly the general sentiment, or was it because resistance and discontentment were excluded from the narrative?

What are some of the ways both students and parents would resist?

I feel like this speaks back to the fact that teachers and Anglo-Americans genuinely thought they were doing a good thing. Even though the actions itself were very harmful, the intent was good.

While I can understand the term itself, I feel that this term goes back to the issue of creating a "blanket statement" or merely grouping the experiences of all American Indians together, instead of seeing them as their own individual tribes and nations.

again, I feel this is an unfair comparison.

link to colonialism

This might be an unpopular opinion but I feel it is not right to call it an "aboriginal holocaust" when the actual Holocaust was a complete massacre and genocide of Jewish people. This was not the intent or the outcome when it came to the Native boarding schools.

Why is this the case? Possibly could be because the US wants to propel itself forward as a "mixing pot" of different cultures instead of remembering the racism that continues to prevail in society today.

Could it still be considered a means of colonialism if it was "welcomed" by many of the Indian families?

This line made me feel sad because it shows how used to this treatment Native Americans seem to be.

This line further adds to the violence of the US Regiment by making the soldiers seem careless and reckless.

This man's death seems very romanticized--could be the author's way of trying to appeal to the audience, as she paints the Native Americans in a very nice light and the US Regiment in a harsh light.

The text doesn't really offer much of a reasoning as to why the Regiment decided to massacre them. Is this intentional? Is it possibly speaking to the fact that this author believes the violence to be without reason and unnecessary?

I feel like this is important because it speaks to histories of Native American people trying to keep the peace and can be used to explain some of the reasonings behind assimilation.

By calling this a "battle" rather than a "massacre", the US seems to be trying to diminish the harm that was inflicted upon the Lakota people by the US Regiment.