.

.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angie_Debo

I suppose I may be a bit biased, being a "Warren" college student. ; ) In all honesty however it is likely that it is the high profile nature of the claim, and the intense politicization that brings so much publicity to this particular case.

Wow! such a shame :(

What more can Elizabeth Warren do to placate the Cherokee? It looks like this might seriously hurt her campaign, and if she does become president, then this could simply sour relations between the United States and the Cherokee. Some have accepted her apology, and “understand that she apologized for causing confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and the harm that has resulted,” Julie Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the tribe said. “The chief and secretary of state appreciate that she has reaffirmed that she is not a Cherokee Nation citizen or a citizen of any tribal nation.”

But others are still not satisfied. “This still isn’t transparent,” said Twila Barnes, a Cherokee genealogist who has been critical of Ms. Warren’s claims of native ancestry since it became national news in 2012. “She needs to go public and say she fully takes responsibility and that the DNA test was ridiculous. There is still something about this that feels off.” It seems that only time will tell in this case. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-cherokee-dna.html

I believe the precise term to be used here is Anthropometry, or human measurement, which was a key aspect of pre-genetic Eugenic ideology, and continues today in genetic biology, under more 'subtle' labels such as euthanizing, sterilizing, or preventing intermarriage between people with 'genetic diseases.' http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/6.html (I mean i'm not saying I am denying genetic disease research and treatment is based on science, but so was eugenics back in the day, it's just science has 'improved' since then... or has it? Maybe, but it is policy that is more important in these regards.)

What does this mean exactly? This is extremely important and I don't know exactly what is being articulated here.

This isn't really subtle at all. Most of the public I speak to outside of my family and college seem to view Native Americans as a racial classification that receives certain government benefits as reparations based on past discrimination. Reservations tend to be spoken of as segregated zones, rather than sovereign nations. Public misconceptions by Non-Natives seem to inform the issue.

This statement is vague because it does not clarify what the misunderstanding is, and what it means to weigh in, and precisely what kinship means. Ethically, what is the distinction here? Did Warren make an ethical violation when she publicly claimed to have Cherokee ancestry, without first notifying tribal authority? What constitutes as kinship, versus ancestry. It seems to take the power away from individual identity, and grant it to institutions. It is an opportunity cost of self-determination. What would be the proper course of action for Warren to take afterwards? Make a public apology, or publicly make a statement denying kinship?

Based on this Rhetoric, she sounds sincere, but what is so controversial about this statement? Are there other statements where she made different kind of claims?

Assimilation and 'whitewashing' could indeed produce a large number of un-enrolled people who are of Cherokee descent, and also produce false accounts where people genuinely believe they have some Cherokee ancestry but are mistaken based on an old family story. What is implied here is that there is a malicious, intentional fabrication of Native Ancestry to advance one's own personal agenda. There is a fine line between a claim that should illicit the response, "Really? How neat, what an interesting heritage story," and "I see under race/ethnicity you put down 'Cherokee' on your application. That is very serious claim, do you have any documentation?" I think there is a difference. How harmful is it for someone to claim 'unofficial' or unverifiable ancestry, and what problems does this present? How should these be viewed/enforced differently.

Only a fraction of a percentage of Americans claim to be Cherokee, but high profile cases make a big impact. "In 2000, the federal census reported that 729,533 (0.26%) Americans self-identified as Cherokee. By 2010, that number increased, with the Census Bureau reporting that 819,105 (0.26%) Americans claimed at least one Cherokee ancestor" https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/cherokee-blood-why-do-so-many-americans-believe-they-have-cherokee-ancestry.html

About 300,000 Cherokee are enrolled, so that is under half of all Americans who claim to be of Cherokee descent. In other words, there is about 3 Americans who claim to be Cherokee for every 2 enrolled Cherokee. It is difficult to say how big of a problem this really is; it could be a minor inconvenience, or it could be a catastrophic threat. It is difficult to say how this should or can be enforced. It could be that a simple fine could dissuade people, or even a public service announcement, or this may be a breach of freedom of speech. Maybe only in instances where fraud is involved, for financial gains or in high profile cases? It is hard to say.

This seems to be at the heart of the issue. Indian gaming can best be viewed as an exercise in self determination, and an important asset on the road towards economic self sufficiency.

In the readings, this seems to be a recurring theme. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, no magic bullet solution that will work for all tribes, which are highly diverse in values, economy, and needs.

This is a really epic story. The theme of butterflies makes sense because of butterfly migrations through the region.

They are rather spectacular. https://dgomag.com/contents/get-outta-town-bisti-badlands-near-farmington-nm-2751

That might be a good opportunity for someone studying Native American History to pursue! It seems like an exciting topic to research.

Can this be considered defamation? It must have had a substantial monetary impact.

"The California Genocide refers to actions in the mid to late 19th century by the United States federal, state, and local governments that resulted in the decimation of the indigenous population of California following the U.S. occupation of California in 1846.

Actions included encouragement of volunteers and militias to kill unarmed men, women and children.

Location California

Date 1846–1873 Target Indigenous Californians Attack type: Genocide, ethnic cleansing Deaths 4,500-16,000 Indigenous Californians outright killed, thousands more died due to disease and other causes Perpetrators: United States Army, California State Militia, white settlers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

This is problematic. Most scholars agree, but does the United States government? Does the American Public? Outside of Historians and scholars, do most agree?

Really? Wow, now that's hate speech. Fuck whoever sprayed that, seriously.

In other words, "They don't LOOK Indian." Whatever that means and who's the judge of that, other than their tribe?

This is an important statement. It is a commonly accepted narrative that must be challenged. It is considered 'common sense' to the average American that Indian gaming increases crime in America, because it attracts organized crime, or money laundering or some such narrative. Media portrayal is invariably consistent with this. James Bond would be less cool if he were gambling at a Casino and he WASN'T attacked by mobsters. Right?

While controlling criminal activity is important, doesn't it fall under jurisdiction of tribal law enforcement? Even organized crime?

I have always considered this term to have a sexual connotation, but did not associate it specifically with use by male visitors potential to encourage gender violence, especially in the context of Native American women.

This sounds like economic envy! What is the problem with these 'special privileges?' A sovereign nation can use its independence as it pleases, but this is a decision that they must make and assume responsibility for; what about Swiss banks? They have an international reputation for better or for worse.

It can sometimes be overlooked that Native American issues can have a drastic impact on the nation as a whole, the development of a massive gaming industry is an example of this, also natural resources such as fossil fuels and uranium.

Cheryl Redhorse Bennett is an author, as well as an "Assistant Professor in American Indian Studies at Arizona State University. Bennett is an enrolled citizen of the Navajo Nation and also descended from the Comanche Nation." And focuses on issues such as justice and violence against Native Americans and their communities.

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.

Wow, this is some important context... the industry is unequally distributed and doesn't help the less fortunate tribes!

The 'plight' rhetoric.

Same rationalization as in some of the readings!

In this context, the Tribes being unfairly barred from this new market is not so surprising, but how is this implemented, and by whom?

Casino failed, locals had to adapt.

Gambling -> Marijuana

This is interesting, and highly unexpected! Tribes not allowed to grow, but the rest of the state IS!

Example of gambling linked to marijuana as a concept of tribal different legal restrictions to federal law.

The wording here is not entirely clear to me... what is "Some measure of the adjustment they enjoyed?"

Here is the problem! "We ask" Instead of "We demand"

This document is a criticism of the Declaration of Indian Purpose, and seeks to re-analyse and re-examine how Indian Interests and rhetorical/political strategies have evolved in the past 20 years.

Calling out the opposition and it's motivation. Explaining where the challenges for Native Americans are coming from, and posturing politically.

Framing this 1961 document in relation to the previous 1944, canonizing these with a shared Native American History within an explicitly recognized narrative. This is the framework that the author chooses to present this message.

https://americanindianmovementehs.weebly.com/ "The Declaration of Indian Purpose is a book concerning the founding of the National Congress of American Indians in 1944. - 64 Indian tribes met in Chicago to emphasize "the right to choose their own way of life" and "the responsibility of preserving their precious heritage."

They mention brain-washing-Uncle-Tomakawkification ostensibly a reference to Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, or more specifically the characterization of portrayal of Blacks in media as a caricature of white stereotypes typical of blackface minstrelsy, at the expense of Black interests, in order to appeal to white audiences. Appropriating this to the stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans as savage, or primitive, but then they mention recognizable 'stereotypes' such as ancient wisdom, drums, sacred hoops, mother earth, tree of peace... At first glance this segment may appear to be a contradiction, but it is a self conscious reclamation of these: they take these universally recognized symbols of colonialism and elimination, and re-brand them to represent an enduring authentic Nativism, rejecting the negative stolen usage,

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/interpret/exhibits/tomming/tomminghp.html

" In the novel Tom is not an "Uncle Tom," which the dictionary defines as a black person who abjectly sells out the interests of his race to curry favor with the white power structure. Malcolm X's speeches and his Autobiography are probably most directly responsible for giving the term the rhetorical force it has today."

How accurate is this assessment? What basis or evidence is there that the Indian organizations failed? Were these not the organizations that EMPOWERED movements such as the United Indians of All Tribes in the first place? From a historical perspective, this seems to be the trend, but at the time, perhaps this was not what was perceived...

Vietnam War era president, Kent State Massacre, Kennedy Assassination; great social anxiety and fear of civil unrest, tumultuous time in American society and media-coverage of fears in America at the time.

Pan Tribal/Pan Indian Rhetoric. By taking the initiative, they seek to garner support from the momentum of the already growing Pan-Indian movement. Much of this momentum was hard won by political maneuvering and legal battles, and peaceful protesting such as civil disobedience through fishing. But this decisive, militant action is an expression of that prevously gained power, and a great risk!

"Pan-Indigenousism, formerly Pan-Indianism, is a philosophy and movement promoting unity among different Indigenous American groups in the Americas regardless of tribal or local affiliations."

What caused this departure? Was it just that this was the next phase? Previous violence had effectively advanced the agenda to this point to allow 'mopping up' and consolidating the gains that had been won?

It might be a good idea to follow the link and read the Dawes act, just to get some perspective on what was the contents of this document. [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=50&page=transcript)]

This poetic description of 'dismemberment' is quite graphic and evokes images of slaughter and mass graves such as at wounded-knee. The act of land-redistribution was one of violence and it resulted in destroyed lives and culture as well as somewhat 'indirectly,' the literal death of inhabitants from economic factors as well as increase in crime, violence, alcoholism... I need to take a break and go to work, my objectivity is slipping, and emotion is powerful, but not the best historical lens, especially in an academic setting.

It is the isolation from traditional social networks and economic systems such as Buffalo that accomplishes this. I just thought of how I will go to food-service work in an hour and administer 'Buffalo Sauce' and the thought and association made me sick. That people's livelihoods were destroyed so they would be replaced by making practically extinct a magnificent species. And now I use that word every work-day in the context of a pungent smelling, spicy, cowboy/country-western themed hot-sauce condiment.

Here the wall of separation between church and state is explicitly broken. The reason is apparent: the federal government seeks allies among a variety of institutions to aid in the ultimate elimination of native peoples, and total control of land and residents.

Here is an effective form of collective resistance that allowed individuals such as Nannie to survive. Without this network, she very well may have perished in this harsh environment, no matter how independent she was. No person survives as an island, which is why Allotment policies seek to isolate and control Native peoples made dependent.

Both perspectives are authentic, and neither are mutually exclusive. This is a complex and problematic topic, perhaps it is best that it remains uncomfortable, unsettled, and unsettling, especially in an academic context.

Elevation in social hierarchy becomes equated not with resistance or talent within a traditional Cherokee context, but in the context of white cooperation and submission, with real economic incentives for following the program. Within Cherokee society this restructures the social hierarchy, and alters fundamentally the character and beliefs of the new generation of leaders. This creates division and social upheaval within the community.

Here wildness and skin color are consistently connected, but also notice evidence of equating the state of the hut to the inhabitant, compared to the whitewashed houses mentioned in the lecture, with pine floors...

The Cherokee identity is one that is meant to be eventually erased, so hypodescent is treated differently than that of African slaves. Blackness was considered a badge of slavery, so it was carefully portrayed as a contagious quality that one drop would grant an identity, so that it would persist despite intermixing and create a perpetual stock of potential slaves. This attitude persisted in the South even after slavery was abolished. The Cherokees were meant to eventually disappear, so in this case, whiteness was portrayed contagious in at least the sense it would 'erase' the Cherokee identity, if not enough to make them 'equal.'

Here the physical features between Anglo Americans and Cherokees are juxtaposed, and are tied to an essentialist view where the physical characteristics are ranked on a hierarchy that encompasses linked traits such as intelligence, morality, civilization, and spiritual purity. Having Cherokee students write material such as this promotes an internalization of racism, and a normalization of accepting their place within this hierarchy. Ostensibly there would be resistance to this, but resistance would be punished, and acceptance would be rewarded, leading 'clever' Cherokees to follow the least path of resistance and receive praise and be rewarded for submission, while the 'stubborn/backwards' Cherokees would 'fail to learn the truth' and be punished. This suggests an Orwellian dynamic of indoctrination and psychological manipulation.

It is important to put into context that the real destruction of Native Peoples was far reaching, and that the Boarding School institution did not exist in a vacuum. The real tragedy was a multifaceted, expansive process of genocide, elimination, and replacement... not just allotments and re-education. Context matters to view the Boarding School institution as an agent of cultural violence.

Here is a good explicit example of how race and culture are tied together in 19th and early 20th century racial paradigms.

The internalization of white racism by mixed-blood students represents one of the major consequences of the divisive nature of the boarding school dynamic. In-group/out-group division as different categories are arranged in proximity to whiteness, creating conflict to promote white interests and gain allies in Native destruction and subjugation in the late-game/end-game strategy.

A sense of entrapment, definite negative feelings, and involuntary attendance. This is someone who HAS to be here, they don't want to be.

This is an interesting way to phrase it. Did it create pride among many Cherokees, or just a select few? The narrative the federal government and the institution, and Indian Affairs would want to portray certainly suggests this, but is it wise to use this type of language today off hand, and is it historically accurate?

These names may be useful to remember for researching primary history documents.

The seminarian perspective is one that can be viewed as problematic or controversial, because it is wrong to deny their experiences and their unique perspective of individuals benefiting from boarding schools, but it is even worse to deny the tragedy and the cultural destruction inflicted by this institution.