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.

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.

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...

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."

I took from this passage a sense of unity and wanting to help others, a sense of community even if they were from other tribes. Remembering the lecture from Thursday, the Indigenous people really looked out for each other and were willing to do what was necessary to help others in need.

Though it is not much detail, this bit of information gives insight as to what the battle was like that day. The soldiers shooting at the Indigenous people then running away I find interesting because it seemed like they had the upper hand and had many soldiers there. I am curious as too if this was a strategic plan they had? Or if they were overwhelmed by the Indigenous's peoples attack?

The authors description here of those who were murdered as they ran into a gulch is very sad to read. The hardships that the Indigenous people faced, even before this massacre, saddens me as these were senseless actions taken upon them. Also, women and children running away from the fighting, to get to safety, to be gunned down it is truly horrific. They did not deserve this. Also, I did not know what a gulch was and having looked it up added more context as to what was going on.

This section provides a good example of some conventions about how to present evidence, such as refering to numbered plates. It is also aknowledged what can and cannot be proven under sepecific circumstances, and narrates the historian's process of identifying Arrow as the protagonist of this self portrait.