GEOG478 Oct. 14 by Esor Richards

Question #3: What systemic inequalities motivated Native activists to occupy Fort Lawton in 1970?

esorr1 — 2026-10-13 19:21:18 UTC

Question #2: What does the establishment of the Daybreak Star Center reveal about the importance of place to a community’s cultural identity, well-being, and sense of belonging?

esorr1 — 2026-10-13 19:21:41 UTC

Question #1: What challenges or limitations of other forms of protest might have led Native activists to choose direct action during the Fort Lawton Takeover?

esorr1 — 2026-10-13 19:21:53 UTC

Instructions

esorr1 — 2026-10-13 19:37:39 UTC

To add a response, press the green plus button at the bottom of your screen. It should be in the bottom right on computer, and the center middle on smartphone.

Be sure to include your name on the post if you're not signed in.

Example

esorr1 — 2026-10-13 20:08:57 UTC

This is an example of a response post! I chose question 3 and while discussing with my group I noticed...

Question #4: When the state grants Indigenous organizations small parcels of land while retaining the vast majority (such as in the Daybreak Star agreement at Fort Lawton, where 40 out of 10k acres were given), does this mark a genuine step toward decolonization? Or does it serve as a settler-colonial “move to innocence” that limits true sovereignty while appeasing political pressure?

esorr1 — 2026-10-14 22:07:30 UTC

Question 4:

2026-10-15 00:26:41 UTC

Our group was hesitant to label the unfair compromise in land exchange that occurred as a positive thing. It seems very much like a move to innocence: a small concession to end further calls to decolonize. Still, I think compromises are acceptable, so long as they do not undermine later progress. We can view what happened here as just one step along the road to larger returns of land and reparations.

Question 4 - Camila

2026-10-15 00:29:47 UTC

My group agreed that it was a “move to innocence.” Redistributing a minimal amount of stolen land back to a population that has been displaced due to government intervention is not a true act towards decolonization. It is essentially slapping a band aid on a gaping wound, an attempt to silence protest formed from inequality. I think this could tie back into forms of administrative violence; government avoiding culpability because they already made it up through providing some sort of land to indigenous populations. I feel like you can see this argument in a lot of conversations about land back; that the government has already “gifted” a portion of this land back to indigenous groups, that it’s impractical to expect more from them, while also not considering systemic oppressions that indigenous people within urban systems face.

tom- question 1

2026-10-15 00:29:49 UTC

Using violent methods of protest would have likely resulted in many injuries and potential deaths on both sides which was probably unlikely to appeal to the media/public. It also would have been difficult to organise as the protestors consisted of a wide range of ages. I think non-violent direct action was the most suitable method when considering the number of protestors and their lack of training as mentioned in the article. It gained sympathy and media attention and also forced a response from the federal government.

2026-10-15 00:30:06 UTC

I chose question 2 and while discussing with my group I noticed that this question connects with the class's previous reading on "wounded cities" where it made a place into something organic and not just property. This is similar to the establishment of Daybreak Star Center as this area can relate to someone's identity and taking away this place can strongly inflict emotional trauma onto a community or as described in the previous article as "root shock" where a person experiences psychological distress because of displacement. The similarity between these two is that a place strongly connects a person to their community and their culture ultimately creating a sense of attachment to the place.

-Willa Chen

2026-10-15 00:30:29 UTC

They wanted to take physical action toward making social change and passive, peaceful protest for example would have limited their ability to do that. -scout h

Question 4 response

2026-10-15 00:32:41 UTC

While discussing with the group, we felt that returning small portions of land to indigenous people was ingenuine. Limits to sovereignty are usually within bureaucracy in the U.S. government. Changes can take a long time when urgency is needed. The fight for tribal recognition is one example. U.S. law enforcement has also entered reservations rather than allowing tribes to settle internal issues, so this is an example of how sovereignty is not respected. U.S. citizens do have power in the fight for indigenous sovereignty as public pressure can influence decision making. U.S. citizens become accomplices when upholding what blocks indigenous peoples from sovereignty.

Question 1 Response

2026-10-15 00:35:15 UTC

Institutions that had historically served Indigenous populations had long been ineffective and were further gutted throughout the mid-20th century, leaving urban Indigenous people with few realistic avenues to voice their demands formally to the government. Understandably, this led Indigenous community leaders to consider alternative forms of direct action to voice their demands to the government. Non-violent occupation might have seemed like a reasonable choice due to the recent occupation of Alcatraz that brought increased attention to the marginalization of urban Indigenous people.

Q 4

2026-10-15 00:35:40 UTC

I would say it’s both. Growth is still growth and the Daybreak Star center still contributes to helping others. On the other hand, it was never the state’s land to give out so it seems ironic to say “here’s some of our land but not all of it”.

Parker

Question 2

2026-10-15 00:36:05 UTC

I chose question 2. Our group primarily discussed the cultural significance of place as a space in which cultural traditions and practices can be implemented. This is especially important for Native places such as the Daybreak Star Center, because it is not common to find Native-specific and cultural spaces within the frameworks of modern post-colonial society. Establishing this center not only gave roots to a Native community in Seattle, but the journey towards its establishment brought together Native peoples across Seattle, Washington, and even the Pacific Northwest as a whole, allowing these roots to take hold even more deeply and widespread. Our group also referenced another article we discussed in class about wounded cities, and how spaces of expression, identity, and connection provide familiarity and tie members of a community to the city in which they live. Without them, people feel isolated and marginalized, a state of being largely felt by urban Natives in response to the dissolution of reservations and relocation to cities in the 1950s.

Question 1: Rian Aten

2026-10-15 00:36:13 UTC

In terms of challenges or limitations that Natives faced, the structure and methods of a predominantly white government are not in a consumable format for Natives or groups where English is not their first language. Agreements and treaties are written with loopholes and wording that favors the institutions, so when Natives agreed to them, they agree to a series of other rules that they weren't necessarily aware of. This likely played a role in their motion to take action because it resulted in a product that got their message across.

Question 4 - Mari

2026-10-15 00:36:36 UTC

I do not believe it marks a true step towards decolonization. I think the 40 acres was something the Gov gave away as a hush gift, so the tribes stop asking for more. I do believe it could've been done to appease the guilt of what happened, but if it was genuine, I believe the tribes would've gotten more out of the deal.

Q2-Zihao

2026-10-15 00:37:49 UTC

The establishment of the Daybreak Star Center created a place where the land could connect with the Indigenous and could mutually support one another. Before the establishment, the system scattered and neglected Native Americans in the urban city, but the space has provided the opportunities for community gatherings, cultural celebrations, and support, which highlights the Indigenous principles of valuing land as an important being.

Pushpita Behera - Question #2

pushpb — 2026-10-15 00:38:13 UTC

Though the area given back to the indigenous tribes was not a lot, it gave a place for them to meet up and practice forgotten traditions and shows that they do have the potential to bring change for other spaces and events

Amelia - question 1

2026-10-15 00:39:19 UTC

If Bernie and his peers had approached the occupation of Fort Lawton with more direct violence, they likely wouldn't have gained widespread public support (especially from huge public figures like Jane Fonda) and media coverage probably would have skewed more negative. Additionally, it doesn't seem like they had the numbers to truly go physically head-to-head with the MPs and other armed troops tasked with defending the fort.

2026-10-15 00:41:33 UTC

Daybreak Star is an important part of cultivating a space to preserve history and culture. The establishment of it allowed for the ability to redefine the place that it is in and shape it to fit the needs of the community in an urban setting where at the time there were limited services and places built for supporting indigenous communities. This reminded me of the importance of place consciousness that was discussed in the "Muskrat theories, tobacco in the streets, and living Chicago as Indigenous land” article. They define it as, “Place consciousness must include consciousness of the historical memory of place, and the tradition that emerged there, whether these have been disrupted or conserved”.

question #3

2026-10-15 00:42:17 UTC

a lot of it came from the relocation and termination policies that pushed native out of the reservation and into the cities for better education and employment only to find themselves stagnant along with native reservation losing funding and being terminated once the native migrated into the cities. -LHA

Nathan- Question #2

2026-10-15 00:49:05 UTC

For a community that had been newly formed around desires of self-determination, the establishment of Daybreak Star had provided an alternative from relying on inaccessible services provided by government structures. In this, Seattle Indians had the unique opportunity to carve out their own mode of accessible support and cultural spatiality. While forming a communal identity for the community of a myriad of tribal backgrounds was challenging, the current role it has taken on for urban Indian communities has given new avenues for self-determination in members' personal lives and a space for a new cultural identity, forged by the experiences leading to the very creation of Daybreak Star.

Jingyi Xue Question 1

2026-10-15 00:50:10 UTC

Many Indigenous activists turned to direct action at the Fort Lawton Takeover because traditional protest methods had clear weaknesses. Ordinary ways of campaigning failed to bring real change, so activists decided to occupy the land. In the following essay, I will give some limitaions and challenges.

First, traditional lobbying and petitions have a major structural limitation. These methods are passive and have no power to force government change. Officials can freely ignore Indigenous requests and treaty rights, making mild protests ineffective by design.

Second, legal protest has a critical systemic limitation. The settler-colonial legal system is inherently biased against Indigenous land claims. Courts rarely rule in favor of Native communities, so legal action cannot deliver fair or reliable results.

Third, activists faced serious public challenges with peaceful demonstrations. Ordinary marches and rallies received almost no media coverage. Without public attention, there was no social pressure to push the government to address Indigenous struggles.

Fourth, traditional advocacy created significant political challenges. Slow, non-confrontational protests allow the government to delay action indefinitely. Activists could not create enough urgency to start real negotiations or fix long-standing land injustice.

Question 4 (Henry C):

2026-10-15 22:49:24 UTC

Our group probably spent the most time discussing the fourth question, debating whether this land concession should be celebrated as a win for indigenous communities or if it exemplifies the settler-colonial "move to innocence" that simultaneously appeases political pressure while limiting the efforts of self-determination. On the one hand, there is valid concern that the concession of land for the establishment of Daybreak Star represents a form of carrot-and-stick negotiation that does more to keep the "native problem" managed than it does to promote self-determination. However, the impact that Daybreak Star has had and what it has meant to a community cannot be denied either.