143 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2020
    1. “After the massacre, Grandmother Earth covered them with a white blanket; everything was covered with snow. Those frozen bodies lay there three days and they  [the soldiers] just pick them up and throw them in that trench over there, and nobody didn’t even pray or anything; not even a pipe carrier come aroun

      Wow this is so powerful and heartbreaking

    2. Sitting Bull’s arrest had been ordered by the Indian agent because the agent wrongly believed that Sitting Bull was the driving force behind the Ghost Dance. During the course of his arrest, there was a gunfight and he was killed.

      There was no reason for them to think this, and it resulted in his death! Shocking and sad

    3. Sitting Bull led his forces to sanctuary in Canada in early 1877. On May 6, 1877, the Lakota leader Crazy Horse surrendered with over 1,000 of his follower

      I remember learning the story of Crazy Horse in Middle School. It has always stuck with me, and it's interesting to learn the historical impact of it now that I am more educated about Natives and what they have gone through

    4. The government envisioned that once they were confined to isolated reservations, Native people could be taught to live in houses, become farmers, and speak, read, and write English.

      Why is learning English seen as this huge thing that defines a groups success?

    5. In order to resolve the conflicts—and clear Native people out of the way for the development which would come with the railroad—the commissioners set out to relocate Native nations in two reservations.

      This is resolving the issues for both groups, or just a way to get them out?

    1. “There are lots of ways as a member of the Osage Nation that you can expect to benefit from this government.”1

      I feel like this is kind of oversimplified; the government is not what is used to be before colonialism, so who is to say it will offer the same benefits?

    2. fter twelve years of U.S. Court of Federal Claims trust accounting and trust management lawsuits, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia trust accounting case, and extensive discovery, motions, and rulings, the Osage Nation and the U.S. government negoti-ated an agreement on October 14, 2011, for $380 million to compensate for mismanagement of tribal trust funds that occurred between 1972 and 2000.

      Is money enough to compensate for everything they went through though?

    1. The principal chief sent out material that painted the Freedmen as new-comers, as persons who are trying to access services, benefits, only that they had no Indian blood.

      Ohh okay I see; this shift is very interesting to see

    2. Cornsilk self- identifies as a “by- blood citizen” of the Cherokee Nation and lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma

      Is there such thing as a member of a tribe that is not 'by-blood'? This is interesting

    1. Provided, The Cherokees residing in said district shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of other Cherokees who may elect to settle in said district as hereinbefore provided, and shall hold the same rights and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as those who elect to settle in said district under the provisions of this treaty;

      But can they 'elect' to live there so easily? What are the requirements?

  2. Nov 2020
    1. These photos are so powerful, they really help me wrap my head around the current situations Natives face on reservations. There is such a contrast between the beauty of the pride and deep routed history that these photos portray, and the poverty, loss and suffering they show. I really liked the image of the two photographs in one frame. I also really appreciated the image of the man on the horse in the basketball court; it really brings together the past and present.

    1. They have a separate religion a nd a separate language. Children· come to school that have never seen a chair . never slept on a raised bed, never climbed stairs or been on a second floor, never turned o n a water faucet or used a flush toilet. Navaho background is really primitive

      At this point anything different from American standards or ideas of living is considered 'primitive'

    2. Perhaps th e Navajo Service should have a separate budget within the Indian Bu reau such as that set up for Alaska.

      That seems like it would be beneficial, but I wonder how much of the analysis of need is taken directly from the Natives and what they themselves feel they need, instead of what America wants to impose onto them

    3. The 10 year rehabilitation plan for the Navaj o Service p r o-poses f ull educat ion, th e same as a ny ot h er American gets. Any cutting of it will simply d oom tha t many Navaho children to a fu t ure li f e of ignorance, ill i teracy, and disease.

      This is frustrating, the only reason they 'need' an American education is because Americans destroyed their own way of living and learning

    4. School teachers on the Navajo Reservation are paid less than those in the surrounding states, although their ta s k is more difficult because of the great lan-guage and cultural barriers.

      This definitely makes it so more experienced teachers are not motivated to go there, it is so so unfair

    5. These people are acting as the Indian·s· legal representatives in Wash ington-in fact, the Indian's only representatives. as he cannot vote.

      This is ridiculous, of course legislation is not going to work in their favor if they cannot vote for what they need!

    6. Personally, I fee} The ragged f amily who live in this hut of timber and_~ typify the primitive life of some 60,000 other Navah{_ l that anyone who contributed to Navaho N!lief will have wasted ha contribution unless he follows it up by a letter to Congn,u.

      Is that because it is unofficial?

    7. The Navahos were given no other means of makipg a living to replace the lost sheep.

      This is really just insane. They were giving them no chance of surviving

    1. I£ bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredationto be given up to the ' • • 1·nited state,, etc. upon the person or property of any one, white, black, or Indian, subs ject to the authority of the United States

      What about a 'jury of ones peers'??

    2. the Government will pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of said commission­ers to be a chief or head-man of the tribe.

      This also doesn't seem fair; they are allowing themselves to infringe in the little land tribes have, and then offering a small sum of money as if that makes up for it

    3. n mu o a sums o money or o er annu1 ies prov1 e Duty of agent, schooihou,.-, 'rnd teachers. Seeds and agricul­tural Implements. Delivery of articlesin lieu of money and to be paid to the Indians herein named under any treaty or treaties annuities. heretofore made, the United States agrees to deliver at the agency-house on the reservation herein named, on the first day of September of each year for ten years, the following articles, to wit: Such articles of clothing, goods, or raw materials in lieu thereof, as C10thing, etc. the agent may make his estimate for, not exceeding in value five dol­lars per India

      Why wouldn't they give money as well? Simply giving basic supplies isn't enough, people have other expenses that come up

    4. ere tim er an water may e con­venient, the following buildings:

      This makes me think of the ongoing issue in Flint Michigan, where so many Native Americans are unable to gain access to clean water

    5. H bad men among the whites, or among other people subject to the and punished. authority of the United States, shall commit any wrong upon the per­son or pi·operty of the Indians, the Unite<l States will, upon proof made to the agent and forwarded to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at Washington City, proceed at once to cause the offender to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States, and also to reimburse the injured persons for the loss sustained.

      This is kind of vague... I think for something as important as this point, specificity and covering all your bases is important

    1. These Indians are our responsibility--we took every thing away from them and pushed them out on reservations so arid that it takes 10 acres to graze one sheep, and expect them to eke out an existence…Now I do not know to whom to appeal for help, but it should be forthcoming. We have sent millions to Europe to feed the destitute and now we should send aid to our fellow Americans who are just as hungar

      !!!!!!!

    2. There are a number of Indians on the reservation that are able to earn a living who have refused to perform labor for rations for themselves and their families, and I have refused to issue rations to such people. Those who do not have enough to live on can blame themselves.”

      I never understand when people make this kind of point. Why is 'laziness' the first thing one goes to when considering why someone is not working? And why is not working so heavily punished, when there could very well be other circumstances at play?

    3. The Indian is like the white man in his affection for his children and he feels keenly the sickness and the loss of his offspring.

      The fact that they have to say this is terrifying to think about; did people really see Natives as so much less than other people?

    4. “Some people assert that the Indians prefer to live as they do; that they are happier in their idleness and irresponsibility

      Live as they did before, as they did after they were 'colonized'?

    5. the authors of the report made it clear that the suffering on reservations was not the fault of Native people.

      Atleast they did this I guess... but what is the action that will follow this aknowledgement?

    6. n overwhelming majority of the Indians are poor, even extremely poor, and they are not adjusted to the economic and social system of the white man.”

      They were adjusted to their own way of life and social systems!

    1. It was okay, but it was a hardship on my parents. Even though I had a schol-arship, the transportation they had to pay for

      There is so much that one has to think about when it comes to these types of pressures

    1. The dam, which flooded much of the land protected by the Pickering Treaty, was allegedly “the price of keeping Pennsylvania in line for John F. Kennedy at the 1960 Democratic convention.”

      This is ridiculously unfair

    2. the effectiveness of this sixteenth-century doctrine at jus-tifying the seizure and occupation of Indian lands was so thorough, as evidenced in the complete aggrandizement of the Western Hemisphere, that colonial Americans did not think twice about assuming its power of expropriation.

      When was this though- before the treaties were signed?

    3. A tribal government which successfully performs the duties assumed by it will find itself taking over more and more of the authority which in the past was exercised by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and his agents.”

      Tribal governments worked great before Europeans/Americans interfered

    1. Represented as a "law enforcement" measure, PL280 robs Indian communities of the core of their governing authority and operates to convert reservation areas into refuges from responsibilities, where many people, not restricted by race, can take full advantage of a veritable vacuum of controlling law, or law which commands its first respect for justice by encouraging an absence of offenses

      This is so relevant to law enforcement issues today

    2. In addition, the law should provide that an Indian Nation, to protect its exercise of rights or the exercise of treaty or tribal rights by its members, or when engaging in new activities based upon sovereign or treaty rights, may issue an interim "Declaratory Opinion on Interpretation of Rights", which shall be controlling upon the exercise of police powers or administrative authorities of that Indian Natio

      But the main decision still goes to the Supreme Court? This sounds very practical and logical

    3. a joint session of Congress and the American people through national communication

      This is so important; let the American people hear from actual Natives, what they think will help, their experiences...

    4. We seek a new American majority - a majority that is not content merely to confirm itself by superiority in numbers, but which by conscience is committed toward prevailing upon the public will in ceasing wrongs and in doing right.

      This is so powerful, it shows what is possible to America embraced it's diversity and challenged its power dynamics

    1. he solidification of the rolls as legal proof of tribal identity by congressional ruling has facilitated the continued identification of trib- al peoples by them and, more particularly, by blo

      How can you prove your 'blood' heritage if you did not keep records the same way before?

    2. Since only legally identified Indians could receive individual par- cels, citizenship rolls were instituted to identify tribal members and ad- ministrate the issuance of land titles (patent

      'Legally identified' was very difficult for Natives to achieve

    3. , an Indian prod- uct, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or tribal organization, resident within the United States

      I feel like this goes in hand with the confusion of Native rights to citizenship and self governing... The lines are blurred

    1. Any substantial improvements heretofore made by any Indian, and which he shall be compelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, shall be valued under the direction of the President, and payment to be made accordingly thereof.

      Is this fair for the Natives though?

    1. Organizers gave speeches demanding change in Indian affairs, acknowledgement of treaty rights, the creation of an advisory board consisting of Native members, and a study of fishing in Washington’s rivers.

      As they should!!!

    2. warning against approving “individuals intermarried with white people.” 

      They wanted Natives to assimulate, but punished them for inter-racial marriage....

    3. All descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation. 

      What if they were displaced before?

    4. Collier felt that tribal members needed a process by which they could learn the democratic processes of government

      They had their own forms of government that were working perfectly for them before. What is with America and trying to force 'democracy' onto other nations/groups?

    5. as a signifier of maturity for men—women were grouped with their parents if unmarried, their spouse if married. But for the Cherokees, a set age wasn’t the marker of maturity, it was behavior. 

      This is so interesting, I wonder how this works? Like how is someone able to gage whether that person is ready?

    6. If the person did not claim to be “full-blood,” the official questioned them about their parents and grandparents. The interviewer established the person’s “blood quantum”: three quarters, one half, three eighths, so on. The number was recorded on the individual’s enrollment card. Once enrolled you were enrolled as a member of the tribal nation, but also enrolled as a member of a racial group – “full blood,” “mixed-blood,” or “negro.” 

      The fact that this is so difficult further proves how none of the US government officials had the well-being of actual Native people and their lives in mind or as a priority

  3. Oct 2020
    1. legal deconstruction of tribal justice systems can be linked to the Major Crimes Act

      They literally broke them down and made them follow a whole different system, and then expected them to be able to thrive within it

    2. efforts to extinguish tribal governments and commit ethnic cleansing and genocide,

      I would say the environmental and economic hardships placed on tribes today is a continuation of this

    3. Sarah Deer on Native Women and Sexual Violence 89assaults in Indian Country fall under the auspices of the federal government

      Exactly, it makes no sense!!

    4. When you look at the scholarly history, many times the gendered analysis is left ou

      This is such a great point; the language used is so so important for people first learning about something

    5. Sarah Deer: Well, I think a number of factors come into play, but I think the most obvious one is that colonial projects that from the get- go— from literally Columbus on— have viewed Native women as less that human, as rape- able: people that are, you know, non- people; people that didn’t matter; people that needed to be done away with.

      The wording here is so strong, and it makes a lot of sense that people have this view. If we view someone as less than human, they can do inhumane things to them easier

    1. that such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same.

      This is actually scary, why would they go extinct

    2. “[a]ny Indian who commits” certain enumerated offenses “against the person or property of another Indian or any other person” “shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

      It makes sense to me that Federal Laws should be followed, but what about fair trials? A garunteed jury of your peers?

    3. In the alternative, Oklahoma contends that Congress never established a reservation but instead created a “dependent Indian community.”

      So don't you think giving them more power over themselves would help them be more independent?

    4. Oklahoma points to no ambiguous language in any of the relevant statutes that could plausibly be read as an act of cession

      Wait I'm confused; does this mean that the language should be ambiguous or not? Is strong language not better for something like this? (to prevent misunderstandings)

    5. Congress has since broken more than a few promises to the Tribe. Nevertheless, the Creek Reservation persists today. Pp. 6–28.

      If this were the other way around, there would be so many consequences for the Native Americans

    6. so long as they shall exist as a nation, and continue to occupy the country hereby assigned to them,”

      Why would they stop being a nation? This seems like a weird thing to include

    1. Bureau recorded no fewer than 87.4 percent of American Indians speak-ing heritage languages as first languages; by 1980 that had plummeted to 29.3 percent; and by 2000, only 18 percent spoke languages other than English at home.

      This is an actual erasure of culture and identity

    2. atives are twice as likely to die young as the general population, with a 638 percent greater chance of dying from an alcohol-related disease, an 81 percent greater chance of being murdered, and a 91 percent greater chance of committing suicide

      This is horrible! Are there programs in place to help stop this? This is truly horrifying

    3. But even before the era of colonization, migrat-ing had become a primary cultural value.

      I feel like this makes sense with most things I've read about Native groups, migration in order to follow resources

    4. Treaties led to dramatic changes in the Indian world: loss of land and political autonomy, assent to assimilation polices, the creation of quasi-private property on com-munal lands, and much else

      Of course they benefitted the people who wrote them

    1. nor shall any State orTerritory ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves, so far asmay be compatible with the general jurisdiction which Congress may think proper to exercise over them.

      This is so important, lays out the ways that Natives were part of a more sovereign nation

    2. migrate, they shall be removed at theexpense of the United States, and shall receive subsistence while upon the journey, and for one year after their arrival at their newhomes—Provided however, that this article shall not be construed so as to compel any Creek Indian to emigrate, but they shall be freeto go or stay, as they pleas

      This definitely took a turn for the worst

    3. excepting however from this provisionthose white persons who have made their own improvements, and not expelled the Creeks from their

      Again, who is going to make the decision on whether a circumstance is fair or not?

    4. And twenty sections shall be selected, under the direction of the President for the orphanchildren of the Creeks, and divided and retained or sold for their bene!t as the President may direc

      How does the President know what benefits them?

    1. They transported them to holding camps, where they were housed until enough people were gathered to make up a removal party. Many suffered from exposure, bad water, and inadequate food in these holding camps. Much of the death toll attributed to the Trail of Tears occurred in these camps before the march.

      I always get so surprised when I realize how much of the brutality of the US's past is ignored in American schools and classes

    2. Each time, they were met with the advice that they should just remove west of the Mississippi. They refused repeatedly.

      They kept trying and fighting for their rights, where so many others would have given up

    3. fter registering with an Indian agent they would supposedly receive land and citizenship in the state. However, the agent blocked the efforts of Choctaws who wished to remain, refusing to register those who asked or destroying registrations of those who signed up. In the end, only 69 Choctaw families received an allotment of land in Mississippi under the treaty

      The agent blocked this?? Why would they do that??

    4. f they did not agree to remove, the president would declare war on them and send in the army

      The use of force makes this such an unfair 'decision' making process; they did not have any choice

    5. “We therefore humbly petition our beloved children, the head men and warriors, to hold out to the last in support of our common right, as the Cherokee nation have been the first settlers of this land; we therefore claim the right to the soil.”

      They are the true owners of the land, the first people to have settled on it and had their roots their; there is no question as to who has rightful claim to the land

    1. The stereotypes of the Indian tribes on the frontiers of white settlement as uncivilized, war- loving, and irreconcilably savage enemies had been used by colonizing Europeans since their fi rst encoun-ters with the native peoples of the New World.

      I think that the 'savage' narrative was also way that some colonizers were able to justify what they were doing to innocent people, by separating them from others in their minds and making them into mindless, violent animals

    1. If any citizen or citizens of the United States, shall presume to settle upon the landsallotted to the Shawanoes by this treaty, he or they shall be put out of the protection of theUnited States

      Does this mean if someone moves onto the land, or if they join the tribe, or either? Is it just a land thing?

    2. manner any citizen of the United States who shalldo an injury to any Indian of the Shawanoe nation, or to any other Indian Indians residingin their towns, and under their protection, shall be punished according to the laws of theUnited States

      This seems super unclear and counterintuitive; if the point is to allow Natives more independence and keep the 'peace', they should be able to police themselves and keep decisions about members amongst themselves

    3. Library of CongressArticles of a treaty, concluded at the mouth of the Great Miami, on the north-western bank of the Ohio, the thirty-first of January, onethousand seven hundred and eighty-six, between the commissioners plenipotentiary of the United States of America, of the one part,and the chiefs and warriors of the Shawanoe Nation of the other part. http://www.loc.gov/resource/bdsdcc.18101of the United States, or any of them, that nation shall deliver such offender, or offenders tothe officer commanding the nearest post of the United States, to be punished according tothe ordinances of Congress;

      This doesn't make sense , aren't people supposed to be tried by a 'jury of their peers'?

    1. e Creator delivered to men upon his formation—be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it.”

      Now they think it's their divine right to conquer these people and their land? Where did that even come from?

    2. “Treaties were expedients by which ignorant, intractable, and savage people were induced without bloodshed to yield up what civilized people had a right to possess by virtue of that comment

      So many people seem to doubt treaties and their effectiveness, it's no surprise that the US did not keep their word when it came to many of them

    3. 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.

      'Wilderness' - this is a jab at their lifestyle, they say this 'uncivilized' life as a threat It's interesting to me that they mention how they could not govern Native people because they were 'brave and high spirited', and adamant about staying independent-- isn't this a sign that they should be left to their own methods?

    4. Native people lacked civilization and Christianity, and that European willingness to “bestow” these gifts of civilization would be “ample compensation” for any resulting loss of land.

      This is so important, it highlights how the Europeans were able to convince themselves that what they were doing was okay, bringing the ideas of civilizing the savages and the white savior complex that imperial/colonizing forces used to justify their actions for years (and continue to use)

    5. In this ruling, Marshall carved out an ambiguous middle ground for Native people—they did not have title to their land—that belonged to the US, but they did have the rights of use and occupancy.

      Natives essentially become tenants on their own land, under the control of the US

    6. discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or conques

      Wording!!! Purchase OR Conquest, same result

    7. should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves

      So the timeline of when the land was acquired and was declared theirs is what's important? Like who got there first?

    8. question came down to did Native people have the right to give a title to land to a private individual and have that title hold up in Court?

      It baffles me that they think addressing this after the land had already been through multiple shifts and changes in 'ownership' is helpful, especially when there is no choice given to Native people on whether they want to give away their titles

    9. “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.

      No power at all?? I'm not surprised, they just spelled out what was already happening anyways

    10. None of the original grantees to the land had taken possession of it, due to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Although they did petition Congress to confirm their titles to the land, Congress never confirmed their titles.

      'Original grantees' being who?

    11. descendants of a citizen of England who claimed title to a piece of land located in Illinois territory under a direct purchase from the Illinois and Piankeshaw nations.

      This seems so complicated, and the issues definitely start at the core issue of buying land that already belong to someone else, land where Natives had lived (and some still lived) and that was sold without consulting them

    12. In the interest of national unity, those states ceded their western claims to the central government, in order to ratify the Articles of Confederation in 1781

      Using this as a way to push for unity seems like a temporary solution, and it also completely disregards the Natives in this decision

    13. And… “moral obligations.” What is a moral obligation?

      Again, a little late for morality... this is extremely problematic. Morality is something different for everyone, and one group holding a different group to the moral standards is problematic

    14. So, the trust relationship, in the fewest possible words, the trust relationship is all about land and money.

      I feel like everything is about land and money in this case

    15. The BIA is the largest employer of Native people (Walmart is the second largest).

      I wonder how the connection with Walmart began, and how they got to this point

    16. It manages land (55 million surface acres and 57 million subsurface minerals estates), provides tribes with programs and services, and evaluates claims for tribal acknowledgement from tribes unrecognized by the federal government

      Why would the federal government not recognize any tribes if it's clear they exist. Why are they able to make that call?

    17. the bureaucratic arm of the federal government responsible for maintaining the trust relationship

      I wonder if Natives in this Bureau are able to/have the power to have a say in what they think is helping/hurting the trust relationship

    18. the Supreme Court has used language suggesting that it entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of understandings and expectation

      Little late for morality to come into the picture

    19. legally enforceable fiduciary obligation

      I guess the legal relationship between Natives and the US government is still not separated from the financial gain/greed that drove the US in the first place, even if they are trying to say they want to help

    20. Over the years, the trust doctrine has been at the center of numerous other Supreme Court cases, thus making it one of the most important principles in federal Indian law.

      Do cases that stem from instances that occurred on NA Reservations go to the Supreme Court? Is the law and approach to law enforcement different?

    21. “The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Indian tribes

      This is ironic, the U.S. keeps claiming to want peace and that it prioritizes the people's well being, but the government's actions do nothing to reflect this

    1. n fact, when Oklahoma had a window of opportunity in the 1950s to extend statelaw into Indian country through federal legislation known as Public Law 280,42Oklahoma failed to take advantage of the federal legislation based on the misconception

      It is important to make information like this readily available to people, simply allowing something to happen without informing Natives of the opportunity is just as bad

    2. Under immense pressure, each of the Five Tribes eventually entered intoagreements with the United States for the allotment of tribal lands, with theunderstanding that if the tribes did not consent to allotment, all three branches of thefederal government were aligned to force allotment without tribal input

      Again, no say!!! Also important to note 'immense pressure'

    3. President Theodore Roosevelt stated his preference thatboth Oklahoma and Indian Territory be admitted as a single state.11 Following thePresident's remarks, no action was taken in Congress with respect to Sequoyahstatehood.12 The majority adopted the single state option,13 and the Sequoyahmovement was defeated, paving the way for Oklahoma statehood in 1907

      I wonder what would have happened if the single state options weren't chosen?

    4. TULSA LA W RE VIEWfederal territory of Oklahoma to the west.Following the convention, the Sequoyah Constitution was presented to eligiblevoters3 and the measure was ratified by an overwhelming margin of 56,279 to 9,073.4Approximately 75% of eligible voters participated in the election, including citizens ofthe Five Tribes and other U.S. citizens residing within Indian Territory in 1905 that hadnot previously established tribal citizenship

      Natives really had no say in anything that was happening to them, they were completely stripped of their voice and power

    5. he modem tribal governments, asthe successors to the governments of the historic Five Tribes, stand much stronger todaythan they were on the eve of statehood, especially on the eve of the proposed Sequoyahstatehood

      Were the historic 'Five Tribes' as powerful before the Americans came to take over, or were they just the ones who survived and stayed the strongest after?

    6. For instance, free elections topopularly elect tribal officials remained suspended under federal law, not to be "allowed" by the federalgovernment until the passage of the Principal Chiefs Act of 1970.

      This is insane, they really just wanted complete control

    7. DEFEAT OR MIXED BLESSING? TRIBALSOVEREIGNTY AND THE STATE OF SEQUOYAHStacy L. Leeds*I. INTRODUCTIONAmerican Indian legal history is replete with stories of foreseeable consequences.Most of these stories involve the United States failing to uphold treaty guarantees. Ineach of these stories, the United States ignores the tribal diplomatic efforts of the time,engages in unilateral federal action, and tribal autonomy is forever diminished

      The US kept going back on their word, making empty promises and failing to keep them; this shows the inauthenticity of their wants for 'peace'

    1. In that fight, we again lost our property, but we will not give it up. This spring our people started their farms again, and if a favorable season, we expect to raise good crops. The young men are plowing; our people are purcha

      Shows their incredible strength and resilience

    2. We have about 500 hogs left, having lost about 2000 head during the hght last August, between the wild bands and the United States troops at the Wichita agency. We also lost some horses and a good many cattle

      They are suffering the consequences of a conflict that they were put directly in the middle of

    3. I belong to the Kaw tribe, and we came down here without an interpreter. I do not think I have learned all of your proceedings yet, as I think the acting interpreter does not take as much pains with us as he does with the Osages.

      So little help and access, they really did not want the Natives to succeed, even if the Americans did preach wanting 'peace'

    4. hey have tables and chairs. They wear citizen clothes, quit blankets. They think it best to settle and improve. We want a deed for our reservation, that our places may go to our chil-dren, when the old people are gone.

      This is chilling, the importance of the future and the children's lives and opportunities is at stake

    5. We have a good school at the agency and send all our children that can be taken care of. There are in all nearly 100 scholars ; they are improving fast, many of them can read and write and are fast learning to talk the language of the white people. We want more school houses

      I think it is important to see how Natives were told to assimulate, and when they tried to do just that they were not even given the support they needed

    1. Which means that under the liberal laws andregulations of the several Indian Nations,'whitepeople are being constantly admitted to citizenship.

      The irony of them giving citizenship to themselves over people who were already there....

    2. coveted country will be opened up to whitesettlement, under proper restrictions, by the Indiansthemselves, if they were permitted to go on in theirown way.

      It is so insane that in their eyes this is already American land, and that they have the fear of Natives, whose land this already is, allowing others to take it instead

    3. carried into effect would result inthe'establishment of a barbaric dominion within acivilized republic, subdivided into nearly twentydifferent nations, all speaking different languages,and each under its individual chiefs."

      Wording is so important here as well 'barbaric'

    4. The Okmulgee Constitution proposed the for-mation of a Territorial Government, the officers ofwhich should be chosen by the Indians from their ownrace, practically independent of the United StatesGovernment but operating under its sanction, withoutany modification of the tribal relations alreadyexisting among them. It was in fact intended as analliance of the Indians against the encroachments

      This is surprising, it is different than what I would think/have read that the Americans allowed for their 'conquered' groups. I wonder how much power these elected Native leaders actually had though

    1. Whereas the enemies of the United States have endeavored, by every artifice in their power, to possess the Indians in general with an opinion, that it is the design of the States aforesaid, to extirpate the Indians and take possession of their country to obviate such false suggestion,

      The wording here is strong as well. 'Possess', as if the people are something to be owned or conquered

    2. The mode of such trials to be hereafter fixed by the wise men of the United States in Congress assembled, with the assistance of such deputies of the Delaware nation, as may be appointed to act in concert with them in adjusting this matter to their mutual liking. And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither shall entertain or give countenance to the enemies of the other, or protect in their respective states, criminal fugitives, servants or slaves, but the same to apprehend, and secure and deliver to the State or States, to which such enemies, criminals, servants or slaves respectively belong.

      This method of dealing with 'criminals', or those that the American government saw as less-than, takes away all their purpose or hope to become a better person. This is scarily similar to how the US views 'criminals' today

    3. their enemies are brought to reasonable terms of accommodation: and that if either of them shall discover any hostile designs forming against the other, they shall give the earliest notice thereof that timeous measures may be taken to prevent their ill effect.

      The wording here is very strong and relevant 'discover' 'hostile' 'enemies'

    1. xtrinsic motivation, which includes a desire to get better grades, is not only different from, but often undermines, intrinsic motivation, a desire to learn for its own sake (Kohn 1999a)

      I have not felt an intrinsic motivation when it comes to school for a long time

    2. “In that case, 30 years,” the master replied.  His explanation:  “If you have one eye on how close you are to achieving your goal, that leaves only one eye for your task.

      This makes so much sense

    3. Grades create a preference for the easiest possible task

      So true, the necessity to finish something just to have it done or just to get that passing grade makes students do the bare minimum

    4. They remind us just how long it’s been clear there’s something wrong with what we’re doing as well as just how little progress we’ve made in acting on that realization.

      I love seeing this laid out, I really do feel like there is another, better way that we have just not explored

    5.   Collecting information doesn’t require tests, and sharing that information doesn’t require grades.  In fact, students would be a lot better off without either of these relics from a less enlightened age.

      Yes!!

    1. “That the principle of waging war for an object which may be obtained by a treaty, is justly to be questioned.”

      Why wouldn't a treaty be seen as something to be considered though? Counterintuitive

    2. In response to Pontiac’s Rebellion, officials in London issued the Proclamation of 1763, prohibiting further colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, reserving those lands exclusively for Natives. It also banned the sale of Native land to private individuals.

      This is interesting, though I do not think the intention behind this could be considered pure

    3. Smallpox had broken out already. When two Native leaders tried to broker a cease fire with the British, the British gave them “two blankets and a handkerchief out of the Small Pox hospital.”

      This is terrible, they directly (and it seems knowingly?) infected them. I always thought that smallpox spread was an accident

    4. They were united under Pontiac, an Ottawa chief, and follower of Neolin, a Delaware religious prophet

      Religious Prophet? This is an interesting mix