# data[].attributes.body
This interactive map shows how much land has been taken away from Native Americans by the United States. It begins in 1776 and goes to the present. This is a great visual to show students what has been taken from Native Americans and look at what now occupies the land.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This interactive map, produced by University of Georgia historian Claudio Saunt to accompany his new book West of the Revolution: An Uncommon History of 1776, offers a time-lapse vision of the transfer of Indian land between 1776 and 1887. As blue "Indian homelands" disappear, small red areas appear, indicating the establishment of reservations. (Above is a GIF of the map's time-lapse display; visit the map's page to play with its features.)

The project's source data is a set of maps produced in 1899 by the Bureau of American Ethnology. The B.A.E. was a research unit of the Smithsonian that published and collected anthropological, archaeological, and linguistic research on the culture of North American Indians, as the nineteenth century drew to a close.

While the time-lapse function is the most visually impressive aspect of this interactive, the "source map" option (available on the map's site) offers a deep level of detail. By selecting a source map, and then zooming in to the state you've selected, you can see details of the map used to generate that section of the interactive. A pop-up box tells you which Native nation was resident on the land, and the date of the treaty or executive order that transferred the area to the government, as well as offering external links to descriptions of the treaty and of the tract of land.

In the site's "About" section (reachable by clicking on the question mark), Saunt is careful to point out that the westward-moving boundaries could sometimes be vague. Asked for an example, he pointed me to the 1791 treaty with the Cherokee that ceded the land where present-day Knoxville, Tenn. stands. The treaty's language pointed to landmarks like "the mouth of Duck river," a broad approach that left a lot of room for creative implementation. When dealing with semi-nomadic tribes, Saunt added, negotiators sometimes designated a small reservation, "rather than spelling out the boundaries of the cession."

This vagueness benefited the government's purposes in crafting treaties and executive orders. "Greater legality and more precision," Saunt argues, "would have made it impossible to seize so much land in so short a time."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interactive Time-Lapse Map Shows How the U.S. Took More Than 1.5 Billion Acres From Native Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This interactive map, produced by University of Georgia historian Claudio Saunt to accompany his new book West of the Revolution: An Uncommon History of 1776 , offers a time-lapse vision of the transfer of Indian land between 1776 and 1887. As blue "Indian homelands" disappear, small red areas appear, indicating the establishment of reservations.

# data[].attributes.body
This cartoon is making a connection between how the colonists came to the Americas and undocumented immigrants coming into the United States. Like the meme, it is from the perspective of Native Americans, and it can be used to get students to think how different things would be if Native Americans treated European settlers the way we treat undocumented immigrants.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is a collection of primary sources from colonists and Native Americans discussing the takeover of Native American territory. This resource, as it gives conflicting perspectives, can be used a tool to debate whether or not the colonist had any rights to the land on this continent.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains what is happening in South Dakota between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Dakota Access Pipeline. This article gives us a current event where we can examine Native American relationships. The article presents arguments for both sides of the issue. This can be used to show students how Native Americans are still fighting for their rights; it is not a thing of the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And depending on who you ask, the results could be an economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native American sites.

Here's what you need to know about the Dakota Access Pipeline:

The 1,172-mile pipeline would stretch from the oil-rich Bakken Formation -- a vast underground deposit where Montana and North Dakota meet Canada -- southeast into South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.

The oil potential in Bakken is massive. An estimated 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered oil is believed to be in its US portion, according to the US Geological Survey.

After the pipeline is completed, it would shuttle 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day, developer Energy Access Partners said. That's enough to make 374.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.

From Illinois, the oil could go to markets and refineries across the Midwest, East Coast and Gulf Coast.

Who approved it?

The US Army Corps of Engineers approved the project and granted final permits in July.

But the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the Corps, saying the pipeline "threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe."

The Army Corps of Engineers has declined to comment to CNN, citing pending litigation.

But an advocacy group says the tribe's claims are misleading, saying the pipeline "does not cross into the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation."

The Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now also said 100% of the affected landowners in North Dakota, where part of the tribe lives, voluntarily signed easements to allow for construction.

What's the argument for and against?

Pro: The pipeline wouldn't just be an economic boon, it would also significantly decrease U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the developer Energy Transfer Partners said. The pipeline would also help free up railways to transport "crops and other commodities currently constrained by crude oil cargos."

Con: Construction for the pipeline will "destroy our burial sites, prayer sites and culturally significant artifacts," the Standing Rock Sioux tribe said. Opponents also cite environmental concerns, including possible contamination due to breaches and eventual greenhouse gas emissions.

What's the environmental impact?

The developer says the pipeline would provide a safer, more environmentally friendly way of moving crude oil compared to other modes of transportation, such as rail or trucks.

Pipeline supporters cite the 2013 disaster in Quebec, Canada, where a train carrying crude oil derailed and destroyed downtown Lac-Megnatic.

But Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II said he doesn't support moving more crude oil from North Dakota. He told CNN affiliate KFYR that Americans should look for alternative and renewable sources of energy.

More than 274,000 online petitioners agree.

"The Dakota Access pipeline would fuel climate change, cause untold damage to the environment, and significantly disturb sacred lands and the way of life for Native Americans in the upper Midwest," a petition on CredoAction.com states.

Opponents also say they're worried what would happen if the pipeline, which would go under the Missouri River, ruptured and contaminated the water supply.

But the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now backed the developer's claim that pipelines are a safe way of moving crude oil.

"Already, 8 pipelines cross the Missouri River carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of energy products every day," the group said in a statement.

What's the economic impact?

Energy Transfer Partners estimates the pipeline would bring an estimated $156 million in sales and income taxes to state and local governments. The developer also says it will add 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs.

But Archambault said his tribe will settle for nothing less than stopping the pipeline's construction.

"We're not opposed to energy independence. We're not opposed to economic development," he told CNN. "The problem we have -- and this is a long history of problems that evolved over time -- is where the federal government or corporations take advantage of indigenous lands and indigenous rights."

What's going on with the protests?

Protests have been taking place in North Dakota for months. Police said they arrested at least 141 protesters in one day.

Law enforcement officials spent six hours pushing about 200 protesters from one area back to their main encampment. Police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas, and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd.

In response, protesters lit debris on fire near a bridge and threw Molotov cocktails at law enforcement, North Dakota Department of Emergency Services spokeswoman Cecily Fong said.

Around 50 cars were towed away. A handful were either burned or otherwise vandalized.

What do the landowners get?

Energy Transfer Partners said it has tried to steer the pipeline away from residential areas and has tried to reach voluntary deals with property owners "at a fair price."

But Archambault, the tribal chairman, said he thinks the Native Americans are getting short-changed once again.

"What we're opposed to is paying for all the benefits that this country receives," he said. "Whenever there's a benefit, whether it's energy independence ... whether it's economic development, tribes pay the cost. And what we see now are tribes from all over sharing the same concern that we have, saying, 'It's enough now. Stop doing this to indigenous people. Stop doing this to our indigenous lands.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dakota access pipeline: what's at stake?  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dakota Access Pipeline: What's at stake?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And depending on who you ask, the results could be an economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native American sites. Here's what you need to know about the Dakota Access Pipeline: The 1,172-mile pipeline would stretch from the oil-rich Bakken Formation -- a vast underground deposit where Montana and North Dakota meet Canada -- southeast into South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.

# data[].attributes.body
This meme uses current events that many Americans tend to forget, or have never been taught, what colonists did to Native Americans when they came to this continent. This connects, from the perspective of a Native American, how European settlers came to America and the current refugee crisis. Students can use this as a jumping off point to make up an alternate history of the United States if the colonists were treated the same as refugees are.

# data[].attributes.body
0:00-12:00 describes what Columbus thought of Native Americans and how he treated them when he reached the Caribbean. The question of whether or not a genocide was committed against the Native Americans is brought up, which could be debated in a classroom. And the video also gives an example of how the United States was still fighting Native Americans at the turn of the 20th Century. The perspectives of both Native Americans and the colonist are given.