Here is a thesis for the book, the argument of the author. That the social construction of race in America is best understood in the competition between marginalized groups, especially in the context of the united states 'Western Frontier' and settler colonialism, especially with the nascent white nationalists using legal structures and extra-legal violence to oppress and suppress non-whites.

Here is the original question again, but elaborated.

Is this question answered in the passage?

Possible rhetorical response to termination policy, which was opposed by Indian movements. Taking the term termination and cleverly re-applying it, transforming the concept.

Reminds me of blood quantum racial thought, but applied to pan-Indian movement, and more broadly applied outside the United States! Inclusive, rather than exclusive.

Using a current event as an example to prove their point. Linking current issues to American history to influence policy decisions.

Explicitly framing the issue of sterilization as being consistent with an underlying motivation of genocide, based on a persistent dynamic of Native American destruction that predates the use of the term genocide, but fits the definition.

I wonder if framing the problem as human rights issues is related structurally in any way to post-Vietnam war era rhetoric about the Nigerian civil war...

Interesting position title, about self-determination through governance of tribes by members, for positions such as judges.

This, as well as DRUMS, are examples of creative acronyms that are easily recognizable and gain media attention in this era. One negative example coined by opponents is CREEP, for re-electing Nixon.