For each female over 12 years of age, a flannel shirt, or the goods necessary to make it, a pair of woollen hose, 12 yards of calico, and 12 yards of cotton domestics. For the boys and girls under the ages named, such flannel and cotton goods as may be needed to make each a suit as aforesaid, together with a pair of woollen hose for each.
This really highlights the perspective of gender roles at the time.
The US soldiers massacred between two and three hundred men, women, and children. Many of the wounded were left to die in subzero temperatures.
What was the point of killing everyone?
Ghost Dancers hoped to restore their world by dancing. The movement itself was peaceful. However, non-Natives became alarmed by reports of warriors performing a strange new dance which would supposedly result in the disappearance of whites. Government agents working with the Lakota began to see the dance as a preparation for an uprising. They sent increasingly intense warnings to Washington, expressing fears of an impending war with the Lakota. In response, President Benjamin Harrison mobilized troops and ordered them onto the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations in South Dakota.
Interesting how simply seeing Native organized together in a peaceful movement is enough for the government to take military action.
The federal government reasoned that the educated leadership of the Cherokee Nation (many of them mixed-descent) “could not be trusted to act in the best interest of monolingual full-blood Cherokee people.”
This is literally so racist. Gatekeeping a community to which they aren't even a part of and denying them autonomy based on some weird obsession with blood.
McKennon enrolled applicants whom he believed were half white and half Choctaw, but rejected those who appeared to have African American parentage, regardless of their claims to Choctaw ancestry.
Especially ironic that someone who is not a member of either community gets to dictate who "counts."
e original enrollees of a tribe who were counted on Census rolls
I can see how this can be an issue just from a census-taking stance, since not everyone would be counted on a census.
The ragged f amily who live in this hut of timber and_~ typify the primitive life of some 60,000 other Navah
Really generalizing to call 60000 Navajo ragged and primitive, not to mention demeaning.
“Dead end—or a chance?”
That's literally just a picture of a baby!
Native families were deemed to be inherently “unfit.”
I think it's especially ironic considerng it was the BIA who came up with this.
it promoted the placement of Native children in non-Native adoptive families
It's interesting how non-Native families are prioritized, rather than any family that could fulfill the child's needs.
sked (reluctantly) whether she thinks Native people have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or whether the problems are sociological,Karen all but shouted, “I don’t care.” The answer is “irrelevant to me.
This is an important distinction. So many people are caught up on "genetic predisposition" when the main issue is that people are suffering and that it is an epidemic. I've read accounts of Native people being dismissed as drunks because of this "genetic predisposition" as a stereotype.
This relationship isn’t violent, heis violent
I definitely have noticed how this language partially absolves the perpetrator of blame. It communicates that both of the aggressor and the victim share the fault since a relationship takes two parties, and it communicates that "domestic violence" is simply a dynamic.
The white kids could never understand anyone but theirparents sending money.
I find that of all the cultural differences in our diverse world, its that communal vs individualistic cultures have the hardest time understanding each other. I think part of it is that the values of our individual cultures are so ingrained in how we perceive the world that many people don't even recognize individualism or communalism as cultural.
took it upon himself to break free of the tradition of unilateral decision making: “He decided to consult the Indian people on the legislation, and called a series of Indian congresses around the nation.”
This is such an important step in recognizing Native self-determination. It's particularly necessary in such a controversial and delicate decision like this legislation.
ItwillbenotedthatnotasingleIndianactuallysignedhisname--withoutexceptioneachmadehis"mark"
This is a throwback to the previous text we read about how "X" used to sign treaties that were typically under duress or some other type of manipulation.
practice of targeting the “Indian bars” for weekend arrests on “drunk and disorderly” charges
This reminds me of the controversial "stop and frisk" practice used by NYC cops.
According to Menominee leader and social worker Ada Deer, “The hospital and the roads were closed. Our land became subject to taxation. A whole new county, Wisconsin’s poorest county, was created as a result of this.”
It's ironic that the formerly self sufficient Menominee tribe was forced into such a state by the "good intentions" of people wanting to see Natives become more successful by white standards. Their prosperity with the lumber business only turned out to be an invitation for the federal government to kick them down.
al qualities of transmission." In so doing, they coerced Indian craftspeople "to make a material perfor- mance of their
Commodification at its finest.
-were not to be amended by further removing indigenous peoples from their lands and cultures
It's great to see someone advocating for native intersts to this extent.
lood, and its endless supplies of degree and no- tions of authenticity, expedites the administrative and legal processes of enrollment, and so disenrollment, that maintain and normalize the state's power to govern indigenous people
It must be really disheartening to have your own bloodline and culture governed to such an extent.
se to $1 billion
I wonder how many nonnatives also profited from the commodification of nonnative culture.
Paradoxically, the height of this collecting period also matched up with assimilation policies of the US government.
Ignoring the negative connotations of the term "vulture," this really does remind me of how vultures follow death. Could it be that the urgency of the collecting coincided with the aggressive assimilation policies of the US government because the fact that the government was trying to erase Native culture made it all the more rare and valuable?
pollution, river damming, and irrigatio
So he acknowledges the threat to salmon population as development and related industries, but how does it mean that Native fishing should be limited? I am under the impression that most of these things don't occur on reservations. Rather than take appropriate conservation measures within his own jurisdiction (ie limit his own consituents or do something about this pollution, river damming, and irrigation) the governor chooses to overstep his bounds.
he court gave regulatory powers to the state’s Game and Fish Department, arguing that state control over off-reservation fishing was both “reasonable and necessary” for conservation purposes. It did not matter that the defendant was a member of a tribe that had signed a treaty guaranteeing their right to fish at their usual places.
Interesting how they will also take away Native rights in order to develop land, fragment the ecosystem with trains/roads/highways, and mine, but no Lorax pops his head out then!
The Quinault tribe of Washington does not have a constitution in which the tribal council has delegated powers. They have bylaws which set up procedures for the tribal government, but any authority exercised by this government must be obtained from the tribal membership.
I wonder how many other tribes would follow pre-colonial self-government traditions if they were explicitly given more autonomy.
family unit
I'm assuming that "family unit" here is similar to a nuclear family that includes parents, children (and maybe dependent grandparents). Considering how this is such a sharp transition from the communal lifestyle of tribes, I wonder how many families (i.e. aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc) are actually broken up by the land allotment.
And not turning to Anglo- American jurisprudence for the solutions
I think it's incredibly important to not depend on European ideals as a default. I see many communities treat them as the best choice for everything, but it does not always work.
Perhaps the kitchen table is not so unlike a camp. After all, this space is circular, communal, and located far from cosmopolitan centers; it is pungent, warm, and slow; it is a space where people are nourished
This reminds me so much about how diasporic communities around the world celebrate their culture through food. Eating, cooking, and socializing around the table are cultural practices.
He was my great-great-grandfather, the first Lyons, and the first in my lineage to write in the English language. What he wrote was the letter X
This is both too tragic and too familiar. Often times in colonial history, the colonizers push their "civilized" practices on indigenous societies, but more often than not the native people do not benefit from this "superior" way of life at all.
An x-mark is a sign of consent in a context of coercion
Did this arise specifically within the context of Native affairs or is it in general a sign of coercion?
Oklahoma next tries to turn the tables in a completely different way
I feel like this is a common tactic to try to wriggle out of court rulings.
But this particular incursion has its limits—applying only to certain enumerated crimes and allowing only the federal govern- ment to try Indians. State courts generally have no jurisdiction to try Indians for conduct committed in “Indian country.
This distinction is important -- as we have seen in the case of Georgia, some states are much more aggressive toward Native communities than the federal government. However, it seems this distinction is only a paper symbol, since we know that crimes and transgressions against Native communities, whether they be by states or individuals, went largely unpunished.
no portion” of Creek lands [p. 2]“would ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State,” 11 Stat. 700, and that the Creeks would have the “unrestricted right of self-government,” with “full jurisdiction” over enrolled Tribe members and their property, id., at 704. Pp. 3–6.
Many broken promises mark US/Native relations.
sold for their bene!t as the President may direct.
I feel that this document gives too much freedom to the President. It doesn't outline how this land should be managed, nor does it define "benefit". What happens when the president believes that the orphaned Creek children would "benefit" more being removed, landless, or dead? Examples include Andrew Jackson and Theodore "I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth” Roosevelt.
Ultimately, the court found that the government with authority to respond to that homicide was that of the Lakota people.
Thankfully tribal jurisdiction was protected in this case. Hopefully it set some sort of precedent.
children of the forest
Infantalizing Native communities to create a rhetoric that strips them of the competence needed to "justify" their right to have tribal jurisdiction.
Caldwell v. State of Alabama
Was this the case that had no Native people present?
came to the opposite conclusion as that reached in Worcester
This this essentially nullify the conclusions reached in Worcester?
Muscogee (Creek)
What is the distinction between the two names?
In October 2004, the BIA withheld checks or information about allotments to the allotment owners, telling them (falsely) that it was a result of the Cobell litigation.
I really don't understand this reasoning.
one of herprojects.
It's incredible how much passion and ability this woman has.
Out of the 238,000 individual trusts his team located, 16,000 had no documents at all, and 118,000 were missing crucial papers. 50,000 didn’t even have addresses—meaning the money in the accounts never left the Treasury
How does this level of carelessness even happen within a government system?
With each generation, the number of people with interests in an allotment would multiply
I feel like this design is intentional to make the individual Native person powerless within generations.
the United States decided that individual ownership of land would convince Indians to abandon their tribes and their cultures, and thereby provide the magic cure for the “Indian problem.”
This is genocide
Traditional banks also are often unwilling to deal with the potential of tribal jurisdiction. The difficulty securing loans, Cobell thought, was a big obstacle to Indian success
Another example of systemic racism against Native people.
The officials told her she should learn to read a financial statement
How is this type of interaction allowed?
That one room exposed her to theworld outside the reservation
It's so easy to take for granted the opportunities we have at the expense of others. While public schools in the US have bussing systems and multiple storeys, the original inhabitants of the land these very schools are built on have much fewer resources.
In denying Georgia jurisdictional power over the territory of the Cherokee Nation, the Court’s holding recognized the federal government’s exclusive colo-nial supremacy and control over Indian affairs under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
If only this power were enforced in the case of Georgia and their overstepping state laws.
Stripped of their tribal citizen-ship and lands, individual Cherokees would be subject to the onerous, racially discriminatory legal regime imposed by Georgia on all “free persons of color” within its sovereign borders.
Really no options for a good life at all.
European policy, numbers, and skill, prevailed.
White supremacy is dripping from this excerpt.
stereotypes and imagery of Indian savagery
I wonder how many Native people Marshall actually met and spoke with in his lifetime.
Indians weren’t even represented
How many pivotal, culture-uprooting decisions occurred behind closed doors from the Native perspective?
As used in Marshall’s model of Indian rights under U.S. law, this language served to justify the legal imposition of the white racial dictatorship
What I hate about the reverence given to the founding fathers is that people blindly uphold their words like the bible, ignoring the completely different social context of 200 years ago compared to today. Of course, the Constitution and other documents that shape our country are incredibly important, but it's worth analyzing how things may be different today.
People are so reluctant to question the founding fathers, and thus refuse to believe the country can be reformed. It's clear that Chief Justice Marshall was racist and these views shaped US policy toward Natives. White society at this time was likely no less racist, but this policy in itself is systemic racism. Even if certain individuals may not be as willing to rob or displace Natives, the policy of our nation essentially encouraged it.
ight to send a deputy of their choice,whenever they think fit, to Congres
Does this deputy have powers of representation at all? Or do they simply serve as a witness to whatever proceedings are occurring in Congress?
Art. 6. I
Is this essentially extradition?
and bepunished accordingly
Sounds like they want to leave as many opportunities to justify attacking Natives as possible. When certain settlers attack Natives, does that mean they are justified in going to war with the entirety of the US? I doubt this document protects both parties equally.
gaps in the document record.
Inexcusable how little accountability there was for decades. How much was done under the table? How many billions of dollars circulated everywhere except to the Native communities that rightfully held claim?
Congress had the right to abrogate existing treaties with tribes
Effectively nullifying all preceding treaties? Not to mention all the lives, land, and resources that went into forging them.
“Citizenizing” indigenous people was a complex and multivalent task, requiring the deconstruction of Native languages, religions, cultures, and family structures. This process of “citizenizing” was undergirded by a threat of violence if Native people did not comply.
"Citizenizing" more like "genocide"
which is marked by increased government surveillance, education, and supervision of Native people
Interesting how this is eerily similar to countless dystopian novels, where big government subjugates and controls the common people.
The state continued to do what it was doing
No enforcement of the ruling
it has often been used by the federal government as a “sword” against the tribes to advance its own agend
Again, this is unsurprising. What a convenient imbalance of power!
powers of self-government.
Does this mean that the Georgia laws preventing Cherokee participation in govt are illegal?
r treaty history with the United States.
Clever take! It is clear from previous negotiations that the Cherokees were not considered a US state, even if those previous negotiations may have not had the best results, they have writing from the federal government proving their sovreignty.
thers would just loot Indian homes—if only Native people witnessed the crime, they were able to get away with it.
So Native people had absolutely no protections at this point.
In 1832, they passed a law which prohibited the functioning of Creek national government.
The Creek were not even allowed to organize their own people?
doctrine of discovery
The doctrine of discovery explicitly denounced Native land rights, which set an incredible precedent for decades of land theft from the tribes.
he country in the immediate neighborhood of agriculturalists became unfit for them. The game fled into thicker and more unbroken forests, and the Indians followed.”
This wording in itself is just so racist, and implies that Natives are "unfit" for white society, likening them to the fauna whose habitats the white men also destroyed.
To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.
It is clear that fear is a major motivation for the racist sentiments of US leadership, both then and now. The government feared Native retaliation, so much that it would be "impossible" to leave their land pristine, or to respect their distinct practices and therefore the US had to develop the land and subjugate the people.
The international component specifies that whichever European nation got to a portion of the “New World” first, they had “prior claim.”
Unsurprisingly, the US courts are extremely eurocentric. They keep pretending that other cultures simply do not exist when things are convenient, but let's not forget when the US was desperate for Native arms during the Revolutionary War.
The Court framed the issue in this way: “What is ‘the power of Indians to give, and private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the Courts of the country?’” The Court ruled that they had no such power.
I am assuming there was no Native representation in this ruling.
“opposition and hostility characterize many American Indian relationships with the BIA.”
If the BIA was supposed to maintain the trust relationship, why is there so much conflict? The wording above seems to make the trust relationship out to be something for Native interests. This is just another example of flowery promises on paper that are never carried out.
Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942
Since this federal Indian trust responsibility was not established until 1942, what standard did the US hold itself to when handling Native affairs before?
574 federally recognized Native nations.
While 574 seems like a lot, it's worth noting that there are many more tribes that were not able to achieve federal recognition for a plentitude of reasons. There are currently about 245 unrecognized tribes, and many are actively trying to petition for recognition (source).
, and finally sap the very foundation of our domestic gov-ernment.
There are so many risks to take for all parties involved at this time
hey have the best start of any of the Indians on the Washita.
"Best" from the perspective of the white settler. Before the cows, hogs, chickens, and ponies, the Natives had their own way of providing for themselves, but apparently that is not legitimate enough for white settlers.
The nature of their lobbying left no room for a dual existence between thenew state and the tribe
Thankfully it worked out, but it was only so clear in retrospect. The sad reality is how difficult it was for Natives to secure their rights from a goverment that had a history of going back on their word.
Two important provisions of federal and Oklahoma state law serve as cleardisclaimers against an intrusion into tribal sovereignty
This clear language protecting Natives is really important.
we may still be called barbarians by some, yeteven those who thus call us so, must themselves admitthat we are sufficiently civilized to know our weakness,in any armed resistance to the Great Government
This is a very good point. The US constantly tries to delegitimize the Natives, but still need their support against Britain.
wise men of the United States in Congres
It's interesting to note the reverent language describing US leaders, but no such language describing any Delaware individuals.
and for the better security of the old men, women and children of the aforesaid nation, whilst their warriors are engaged against the common enemy, it is agreed on the part of the United States, that a fort of sufficient strength and capacity be built at the expense of the said States, with such assistance as it may be in the power of the said Delaware Nation to give
Was this part of the bargain carried out at least? Did the vulnerable members of the Delaware community receive protection and resources?
it was difficult to have them removed.
What would be necessary to remove a white settler?
on
There is no guarantee that the US would respect the constitution and treat the unified tribes as a sovereign nation, considering they already made up their minds that Native people would conveniently be both "other" and their rights and land under US jurisdiction.
representation in Congress
It seems this representation only happened as the namesake of the state of Delaware.
they could expect land confiscation
It's interesting to note the power imbalance between the Natives and the colonists at this time. The Natives are speculating that the result of a conflict that they have no real part in could potentially uproot their communities, and they have few options to improve their current situation.
question
I am taking this class to become a more informed citizen living on ancestral Kumeyaay land. I realize that my education to date largely neglects US/Native relations and how little I know about Native communities.
only a few students receiving As
Many of my professors have mentioned that part of the reason for their rigor is to uphold the prestige of the institution here at UCSD, and how valuable that image is to future employers. However, I have always wondered how many students are sacrificed on the altar of prestige, and why we are pitted against each other on curves in order to benefit from this prestige. There is little mention of the students that do poorly, and therefore little incentive for remedial options for students who are struggling short of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or dropping this career choice.
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
Oftentimes the representatives that formulate the education standards are disconnected with how learning takes place in the classroom, putting pressure on both the students and the educators to conform to these benchmarks.
The recommended practices often seem prefabricated and mechanistic; the imperatives of data collection seem to upstage the children themselves and the goal of helping them become more enthusiastic about what they’re doing
Especially in secondary and higher education, it is rare to see a "students first" approach to teaching. Oftentimes, students and their needs, including their emotional wellbeing and enthusiasm for learning, are not prioritized in the classroom. You witness cases where students are unable to receive accommodations in response to personal emergencies and turmoil, and their grades suffer as a result. Poor accommodations reflect the assessment system being valued ahead of the students and their learning. Very rarely are students or their educators concerned that before the grades suffer, their learning is impeded. Educators are not incentivized to value individual students' learning if it threatens the integrity of the current grading system. If student learning was the goal of the educational experience, then these accommodations should be heavily prioritized.