Mon épique padlet by Raphael Esquivel

Policing on Indian Lands

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:18:40 UTC

The federal government has cut the size of its police force in Indian territory, reducing financing for law enforcement and beginning fewer investigations of violent felony crime, even as rates of murder and rate have increased to more than 20 times the national average, as shown by a 2012 DOJ report. Crime on Indian reservations has gone unchecked. The FBI reported that the number of rapes on the Navajo reservation in the last several years is higher than those in nine of America’s 20 largest cities. President Obama called the violence “an affront to our shared humanity”, despite his administration largely responsible for the lack of law enforcement, greatly cutting spending. Despite crime rates going down in most of America, and crime on Native American land growing at a concerning rate, the government has allocated much more spending on fighting crime in cities of similar size. Fort Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona has only 30 officers to patrol an area larger than Delaware.

This has led to reduced trust for the government from Native Americans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/as-crime-rises-on-indian-lands-policing-is-cut-back.html

Mass Migration

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:18:53 UTC

There is a largely unnoticed mass migration of American Indians, who move to urban centers, fundamentally changing both reservations and cities over the last few decades. More than 70% of American Indians now live in a metropolitan area, compared to 8% in 1940 and 45% in 1970. This trend mirrors the pattern of the Great Migration of the 20th century of African Americans leaving the south for the north and west. However, while many black migrants found jobs in meatpacking plants, stockyards, and automobile factories, American Indians have not had such luck, as they struggle to find jobs. Federal money hasn’t followed the migration either. Only 1% of spending by the Indian Health Service is going to urban programs, while cities with their own budget problems likewise fail to meet their needs.

One effect of the move is the proliferation of Native American street gangs, which mimic and sometimes form partnerships with previously established black and latino gangs.

Regardless of where they live, a greater proportion of Indians live in poverty than any other group, at a rate that is nearly double the national average. 27% of all Native Americans live in poverty. In some metropolitan areas, this rate is even worse, such as in Minneapolis, where more than 45% live in poverty. However, minneapolis is sean as a symbol of progress, as the Indian community is more integrated than in other areas, and there are social services and legal and job training programs specifically focused on them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/us/as-american-indians-move-to-cities-old-and-new-challenges-follow.html

Pipelines infringing on native territory in North Dakota

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:19:09 UTC

Over a thousand archaeologists, anthropologists, curators, museum officials, and academics added their names to a petition to President Obama to protest an oil pipeline being built in North Dakota. Development of the area has been contested by Native American tribes like the Standing Rock Sioux, who say that the land and water crossings are sacred space used for burials and containing historically and culturally vital information about their origins.

The Dakota Access pipeline, as it’s called, is built by the Dallas-based company Energy Transfer Partners, and has also drawn scrutiny from the Society for American Archaeology and other professional organizations. The group states that there are “unresolved questions” over whether the Corps of Engineers had properly handled its duties under the National Preservation Act. Development on the land may also have violated the Archaeological Protection Act, along with other laws.

The federal government surprisingly asked for a temporary halt to the construction of a portion pipeline, acknowledging the concerns of the tribes involved and pledging to consult with them on land use. Energy Transfer Partners responded by releasing a statement vowing to complete the $3.7 billion project, which runs 1,170 miles from the Dakotas to Illinois.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/arts/design/north-dakota-oil-pipeline-museum-officials-and-archaeologists-sign-letter.html

Canadian company trespassing on tribal land in Wisconsin, Department of Justice sides with natives

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:19:32 UTC

The Department of Justice has weighed in on a court battle over an oil and gas pipeline in Wisconsin, saying that the Canadian oil company Enbridge has been willfully trespassing on tribal lands for more than a decade. They state that Enbridge “lacks any legal right to remain” on the land, part of a reservation of the Bad River Band, an Ojibwe group. Enbridge is fighting demands by state, tribal and judicial authorities to shut down the pipeline known as Line 5, which crosses 645 miles of Wisconsin and Michigan. The cases are being watched closely by tribes that see them as important for their sovereignty. In their many statements, the Department of Justice largely ignored the question of whether the 1970s treaty between the United States and Canada gives Enbridge the right to operate the pipeline indefinitely, as the company asserts, despite requests from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wisconsin for the Department of Justice to address the treaty. Enbridge claims that the treaty gives the company the right to continue transporting oil and gas unless the United States or Canadian federal governments say otherwise. Canada has backed Enbridge in court filings, saying that any shutdown of Line 5 could hurt Canadian customers.

The Justice Department criticized a lower court decision from last year that ordered Enbridge to pay $5 million in restitution to the Bad River Band, calling the sum a “paltry amount” that would fail to deter any company from trespassing on tribal land in the future.

Members of the Bad River Band said they were heartened at the DOJ’s reaffirmation of the trespass finding, but disappointed that they did not call for an immediate shut down of Line 5. Tribal officials and supporters said they were frustrated with the Justice Department’s lack of action, asserting that century-old treaties between the Bad River Band and the United States trump any later agreements with Canada.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/10/climate/line-five-pipeline-amicus-brief.html

The Marshall Trilogy

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:28:04 UTC

In the early 19th century, Chief Justice John Marshall's Supreme Court reviewed three cases, collectively refferred to as the "Marshall trilogy". these played significant roles in the shaping of us policy toward native americans.

Johnson v M'Intosh (1823)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:30:06 UTC

This case focused on how the united states should interpret the doctrine of discovery; international powers began spreading the ideas of the doctrine during the fifteenth century, declaring that non-Christian lands were open to occupation and did not recognize territorial rights of Indigenous peoples. In 1775, Thomas Johnson purchased a piece of land in Virginia from the Piankeshaw. Later in 1818, William M'Intosh purchased the same land from the U.S. government; Johnson's heirs filed a case to reclaim the land, but in the end, the supreme court ruled that johnson's ownership was invalid.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:32:50 UTC

Covered questions on tribal sovereignty. In the late 1820s, the state of georgia passed laws designed to strip cherokee nation of their lands. the cherokee claimed they constituted a foreign nation. from their perspective, this meant that georgia's laws did not apply to them. the cherokee nation also asked the supreme court to grant an injunction against georgia's laws. ultimately, the supreme court said it could not resolve the matter because the cherokee nation was a "domestic dependent nation", meaning the cherokee was neither a foreign nor a us state. The categorization was associated with Article III of the constitution. the result of the ruling was that the cherokee nation had no standing to bring a case before the court; therefore, the supreme court had no power to exempt them from georgia's laws.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:34:52 UTC

SCOTUS established that the federal government--not individual states--had the authority to enforce laws affective native american first nations.

a missionary named samuel worcester and other missionaries were imprisoned because the state of georgia claimed they did not have the licenses to preach in cherokee territory. worcester appealed, arguing that us states had no authority over activities within native american territories. The court, siding with worcester, described native american nations as "distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive".

Bill of rights (1791)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:37:25 UTC

The bill of rights was adopted to guarantee the civil liberties of all americans. the bill also spelled out the federal government's limitations in relation to individual liberties.

the first part of the first amendment states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

despite this, native americans were prohibited from performing many of their tribal ceremonies and other religious activities; at the same time, christianity was heavily supported by the government.

Blue Lake: Treaty of guadalupe hidalgo (1848)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:40:05 UTC

blue lake in present-day new mexico was an important ancestral site for the taos pueblo people. the managed to retain their sovereignty over blue lake during the initial colonization of north america in the sixteenth century. the us government recognized their rights under the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo in 1848.

Taking back blue lake

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:41:07 UTC

the us government appropriated blue lake in 1906 and declared it a recreational area that was opened to the general public. wider access to blue lake interfered with the sacred status that the area held for the taos pueblo people.

Blue lake bill (1970)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:44:40 UTC

in 1965, the indian claims commission ruled in favor of the taos pueblo people in their quest to re-establish autonomy in the region; however, the icc could only grant monetary compensation and had no power to return the land. over the course of subsequent years, the taos pueblo people sought public and political support. the national council of churches joined the protest, citing the first amendment, and contending that the taos pueblo people were deprived of their religious right to maintain the sace based on the precent of earlier generation holding the blue lake region sacred.

in december 1970, a majority of us senators voted in favor of returning blue lake to the taos pueblo. president richard nixon signed house resolution 471, or the blue lake bill, into public law 91-550, and the taos pueblo people were able to reclaim 48000 acres of their ansertral land.

AIRFA (1978)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:46:22 UTC

the us government passed the american indian religious freedom act of 1978 (AIRFA). AIRFA aims to protect and preserve the "inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the american indian, eskimo, aleut, and native hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites.

Anglo-Powhatan wars (1610-1646)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:50:01 UTC

This series of wars transpired between the powhatan confederacy (consisting of more than thirty indigenous tribes) and the jamestown colony in virginia (the first english settlement in north america). initially, relations between the english and the powhatan were cordial and the powhatan shared maize with the new arrivals. but after being introduced to tobacco that native americans had planted, the english began to covet more lands to farm themselves. the powhatan resisted the incursions, but ended up losing all three wars: 1610-1614, 1622-1626, 1644-1646.

Pequot war (1636-1637)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:52:15 UTC

In new england, the pequot war sprung from long standing tensions among different native american tribes; conflict erupted after english settlers were murdered by the pequot.

prior to war, the pequot and the dutch dominated the fur and wampum trade in the region. rival tribes allied themselves with the english as early as the 1630s. the war ended with the defeat of the pequot people. survivors were enslaved and treated as spoils of war by the colonizers.

the mohegan and narragansett tribes also received pequot captives as part of the hartford treaty.

Iroquois wars (1640-1701)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:54:40 UTC

A series of conflicts revolving around the intense fur trade competition in the st lawrence river region. these began with the dutch-backed iroquois confederacy (also called the haudenosaunee) and their search for new hunting grounds. after depleting the beaver and deer populations on their ancestral lands, the iroquois confederacy eyed the resources of the french-back algonquian-speaking tribes. the iroquois confederacy agreed to stop their campaigns in 1701 after signing the treaty of great peace of montreal. although the treaty did not force the french out of the region, ti did strengthen a partnership between the british and the iroquois confederacy that would later aid both parties in the french and indian war. relaitons between first nations and european settlers were greatly shaped by these "beaver wars".

Great Narragansett War (King Philip's war) (1675-1676)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:57:43 UTC

Colonists executed three warriors who were part of metacom's entourage. metacom was the sachem/chief of the wampanoag. his warrior were put before a colonial court and were found guilty of murdering a harvard-educated native american named john sassamon, who also served as metacom's interpreter and advisor but was accused of spying and betraying native americans. the great narragansett war was considered on of the bloodiest conflicts in american history relative to the small population of inhabitants of the region at the time. around 30% of english people in new england died, and twice as many natives. the war concluded with the death of metacom.

Pueblo Rebellion (1680)

rre2601 — 2024-04-17 00:59:21 UTC

In the wake of drought, famine, and increasing attacks from rival tribes, the pueblo people's meticulously orchestrated rebellion transpired from august 10 to september 21 and curtailed the eight-decade spanish colonization of new mexico. indigenous warrior were lead by pope, a tewa from san juan pueblo who popularized the concept: "when jesus came, the corn mothers went away." Popé was among the natural healers and spiritual guides (known then as medicine men) who were earlier persecuted by the Spanish government. After being freed, Popé convinced the scattered Pueblo groups to work together and prepare a coordinated insurrection. After the rebellion, the Pueblo people restored their old customs; they also destroyed churches and voided Christian marriages and baptisms.

Anglo-Cherokee War (1759-1761)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:43:52 UTC

Tensions grew between the cherokee and the british over treaty betrayals and white people's encroachment into native territories. some cherokee warriors returning from battles against the french were killed by white settlers. the cherokee retaliated by attacking north carolina settlers in early 1759, leading to the two-year war that concluded with british victory. borders were established to separate cherokee lands from those of settlers.

French and Indian war (1754-1763)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:44:53 UTC

A conflict between france and great britain, together with their respective native american allies and colonies in north america. it concluded with the signing of the treaty of paris, in which great britain acquired canada from france, while france kept its sugar islands in the carribean.

Pontiac's war (1763-1765)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:47:00 UTC

Native americans at the time felt that great britain was less colciliatory than france, prompting ottawa chief pontiac to lead an attack on fort detriot. among the first nations who participated in the rebellion were the delaware, huron, kickapoo, mascouten, miami, ojibwas, ottawa, piankashaw, potawatomis, seneca, seneca-cayuga, shawnee, weas, and wyandot. although they failed to oust the british, they succeeded in persuading the colonies to temporarily respect indigenous rights. on october 7, 1763, king george III issued a royal proclamation that recognized native american land titles and forbade british settlements on native american territories in canada unless ceded by treaties.

First Seminole war (1817-1818)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:50:07 UTC

The seminole people of florida and the us government had a series of conflicts with the US government. the first seminole war spanned from 1817-1818, beginning with the attempted capture of black slaves who escaped and lived among seminole bands.

Second seminole war (1835-1842)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:51:07 UTC

the second seminole war spanned from 1835 to 1842. this prolonged fighting was the result of the ramifications of the indian removal act, which made native land vulnerable to seizure, as it required many native americans to embark on forced marches to established indian territory in oklahoma. the majority of seminole refused to recognize the indian removal act and vigorously defended their homes for years. ultimately, they were defeated and forced to relocate west of the mississippi.

Third seminole war (1855-1858)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:51:23 UTC

the third seminole war happened from 1855 to 1858, ensuing as the us government attempted to quash any remaining seminole resistance in florida. Thousands of Seminoles and Black people related or affiliated with the tribe had been sent to the Indian Territory by the time the Seminole Wars ended. The United States paid the most persistent group of refugees to vacate to the West after the bloody battles came to an end.

Arikara war (1823)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:52:25 UTC

In south dakota, the united states considered the arikara people and their territory as obstacles to us trade expansion. the arikara people tried to retaliate but ultimately were subdued.

Comanche war (1840)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:53:00 UTC

Like the Arikara War, the Comanche War was a result of white people's encroachment on Indigenous territories—in particular, of the Comanche tribe in Central and West Texas.

Red River war (1874-1875)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:54:44 UTC

The arapaho, cheyenne, comanche, kiowa, and kataka wished to break away from the oklahoma and texas reservations. they attacked white settlements, and were met with US troops sent to crush the dissidents concentrated in texas' red river valley. after surrendering, native american survivors returned to the reservations. On December 29, 1890, the U.S. army massacred these defenseless Native Americans at Wounded Knee Creek, located in South Dakota. Soldiers involved in the slaughter were later rewarded with Medals of Honor.

Red Cloud's war (1866-1867)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 03:56:23 UTC

the war began when the us discovered gold in montana and established the bozeman trail, which directly runs on native american territories. the aglala lakota, cheyenne, and arapaho banded to dispel the encroaching white people's caravans in their lands. they werr led by mahpiua luta of the oglala teton dakota (sioux). a treaty was signed in 1868 as a result of the conflict to save native americans' land and way of life. this is one of few native american victories in war.

Leading to the american revolution

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:00:44 UTC

During the American Revolution in the 1770s, the number of Native Americans along the Atlantic coast had significantly decreased. Those who survived formed small kinship groups and faced challenges due to the rapid expansion of white settlers. While British colonial policy aimed to restrict white settlement in the west, American colonial ambitions were geared towards expanding into Native American territories. This expansion often involved violent confrontations with Native Americans, leading to cycles of brutal violence and retaliation.

Many Native Americans initially tried to stay neutral but found themselves caught in the conflict, with some choosing to side with the British due to three main factors: the perceived likelihood of a British victory based on their superior military, the more beneficial British trade practices, and the British efforts to control white expansion which threatened Native American lands. However, despite these alignments, the involvement of Native Americans in the war was primarily driven by their desire to protect their territories from white settlers.

Throughout the war, Native Americans participated actively, serving as scouts and soldiers for both the British and Americans. Initially, English military leaders were hesitant to use Native American forces fearing harsh retributions against white settlers, which could complicate their military objectives. Over time, however, as Native American territorial foothold weakened, their tactics against defeated whites became more violent, including torturing and publicly humiliating adults, while sometimes integrating colonial children into their tribes.

Choosing sides in the american revolution

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:01:21 UTC

In the north, the Iroquois Confederacy allowed each tribe to choose its affiliation but remained neutral as a body. Some Oneida, Stockbridge, and Tuscarora Native Americans sided with the Americans, but the Cayuga, Mohawk, Onondaga, and Seneca tribes pledged their support to the British cause. Two notable Native Americans from the Iroquois Confederacy who fought against the colonists were Mohawk chief Joseph Brant and Seneca chief Red Jacket. Farther south, the Cherokee, Chickamauga, Chickasaw, Chipppewa, Choctaw, Creek, Delaware, Miami, Mingo, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Potowatomi, Sauk, Seminole, Sioux, and Wyandot tribes, all took part at one time or another in supporting the British in their attempt to retain the American colonies. Some of the most important battles involving Native Americans included the Chickasaw attack on Fort Jefferson in Virginia in the spring of 1780, the Creek–English alliance against the American siege of Savannah in 1781–1782, and the British attack on Cherry Valley in 1778. Along with organized participation in such battles, the British military used Native Americans as frontier raiders against colonial settlement in western regions like Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio. Native American participation in both organized battles as well as in guerrilla-style warfare was complicated by their desire to use war as an opportunity to regain territories lost to colonial settlement. On the whole, Native Americans were less concerned with British or American goals than they were with exerting their own chances of regaining lands and autonomy at a time of social and political upheaval, even when fighting under the British or American flags

Post-revolution treatment towards Native Americans

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:02:01 UTC

That reality for Native Americans caused serious problems once the war ended with American independence from the British in 1783. The newfound United States targeted Native Americans as enemies of the nascent republic, as many were convinced that Native Americans posed too large a threat to be integrated into the landscape of American political, economic, cultural, and social life. All Native Americans were considered traitors due to the vast support many tribes had given the British. Even during the war, American leaders like Thomas Jefferson called for Native American extermination. The Treaty of Paris (1783) brought an end to the revolution with scarce mention of Native Americans in the new United States, leaving tribes to deal with a new American government uncertain about what the future would hold. In subsequent decades, the American government allowed many thousands of new immigrants—predominantly from the British Isles—to migrate into Native American territories unchecked, which further devastated traditional Native American ways of life. Moreover, the loss of British trade forced Native Americans to surrender huge amounts of their remaining lands to the United States in exchange for meager trade agreements. Crop failures, slash-and-burn reprisals by the U.S. government and colonial settlers, and refugees from dislocated tribes moving into the territories of other tribes, all worked to devastate Native American political alliances. Within a decade after the American Revolution, Native Americans as a whole found themselves paying a devastating price for the individual roles tribes played in the war.

Five Civilized Tribes

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:03:49 UTC

Among the five largest southeastern tribes are the Choctaw, Creek (Muscogee), Seminole, Cherokee, and Chickasaw. The U.S. government had been referring to them as "civilized" based on their language and trading skills. In addition, they appeared to be adopting bits of white American culture, such as wearing European clothes, speaking in English, and observing Christian beliefs. It was after they were forced to relocate to Indian Territory that the term "Five Civilized Tribes" was used to refer to them. The 1894 census clarified that the term "civilized" was only used "in contradistinction to the life of the wild Indian tribes" but their condition as a whole "is not the civilization of the Anglo-Saxon."

Treaty of new echota (1835)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:04:48 UTC

In 1835, the U.S. government made a new agreement with about 500 people from the Cherokee Nation. Under the Treaty of New Echota, the Cherokee Nation was expected to cede seven million acres of their ancestral land east of the Mississippi River. In exchange, the U.S. government would pay them $5 million and accommodate them in the Indian Territory. However, the majority of the Cherokee people refused to obey the treaty and considered it fraudulent. The Cherokee National Council even voted to reject the treaty in 1836. Despite the numerous petitions to void it, the U.S. government ratified it. The Cherokee Nation was then given two years to move. By 1838, the majority of the Cherokee people remained and refused to relocate, so the U.S. government sent forces to expel them.

Treaty of Hopewell (1785-1786)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:05:30 UTC

From 1785 to 1786, the U.S. government made agreements with the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations. These agreements (collectively called the Treaty of Hopewell) set land boundaries and placed these Native nations under U.S. protection. However, settlers continued to intrude and move onto Cherokee lands, resulting in conflict. To reestablish peace, the Treaty of Holston was signed in 1791. However, the treaty made the Cherokee Nation forfeit more lands to the United States. Even with the establishment of treaties, the federal government throughout history regularly reneged on the agreements made with First Nations.

Battle of Horseshoe bend (1814)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:06:16 UTC

After losing the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814, the Creek Nation ceded 23 million acres of their land to the U.S. government. This area comprised more than half of Alabama and a portion of southern Georgia.

trail of tears

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:07:10 UTC

The routes that the Five Civilized Tribes were forced to take to Indian Territory were broadly known as the Trails of Tears. Thousands of Indigenous people did not survive the journey as they suffered from starvation, diseases, and brutal conditions. La section actuelle de la publication est Reservations (late 1800s-early 1900s). La couleur actuelle de la publication est Blanc.

Civil war (1861-1865)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:08:05 UTC

During the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), many First Nations in Indian Territory supported the Confederacy (a collection of eleven states that broke away from the United States in 1860) and lost. As a result, the western half of Indian Territory was ceded to the U.S. government in 1866.

Land rush of 1889

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:08:42 UTC

Three years after the civil war, the U.S. government opened about 1.9 million acres of ceded lands to white settlers. More than 50,000 white settlers participated in a frenzy to buy cheap lands on April 22. This moment in history became known as the Land Rush of 1889. These newly opened lands—and eventually, the remaining acres of the ceded lands in 1866—became the Territory of Oklahoma. The Territory of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory were later united and became the 46th state of the United States in 1907.

Meriam report (1928)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:12:27 UTC

"The Problem of Indian Administration" (1928), more familiarly known as the Meriam Report, is an 872-page survey about the economic and social status of Indigenous nations in the United States.

According to the findings of the Meriam Report, an overwhelming majority of Native Americans lived in poverty. The report also stated that they were resistant to or unable to adjust to the economic and social systems created primarily by the nation's white majority. Their health, when compared to the general population, was poor. It seemed that tuberculosis and trachoma was prevalent and hard to contain among the Native American population. They lived in substandard dwellings that were unable to hold up to the elements and often overcrowded. Deficient nutrition was also a factor in a poor quality of life.The report states that the services the government provided to the Native Americans were sorely inadequate. Schools and hospitals for Native Americans were understaffed and undersupplied. Native Americans were frequently not educated on how to manage what little money they had. This left them vulnerable to white people looking to take advantage of them. Native Americans did not even manage their own property. The government managed their lands and often held community money for them.

Dawes general allotment act (1887)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:13:12 UTC

Named after its chief sponsor, Republican Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, the Dawes Act of 1887 represented an attempt to speed the assimilation of Native Americans into U.S. society. The act proposed to break up tribal communities, which were seen as impediments to the civilizing process, and redistribute communal lands to individual Indians. In the view of reformers and government supporters of the policy, distributing lands "in severalty" (that is, to each member) would promote individual initiative and enable Indians to become self-supporting. The act provided for the issuing of 160 acres of land to each head of household, 80 acres to each single adult and orphan under the age of eighteen, and 40 acres to each minor child. The act also stipulated that the government would hold allotted lands in trust for twenty-five years, thereby preventing them from being taxed or sold and protecting the allottee's interests. At the end of this period the allottee would receive a fee-simple patent to the land. After a reservation had been allotted surplus land would be purchased by the government and sold to homesteaders.

Overall, the act failed to convert Indians into self-sufficient farmers. On many reservations allotments proved too small to be commercially viable, and heirship proceedings following the deaths of the original allottees often left Indians with scattered and fragmented landholdings. Ironically, the act also failed to destroy tribal communities on most reservations.

Indian Reorganization act (1934)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:15:34 UTC

IRA represented a shift in U.S. Indian policy away from force acculturation and assimilation.

In 1933 the new administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt named John Collier, a former New York City social worker, to be commissioner of Indian affairs. Disillusioned with the materialistic and individualistic nature of industrial society, Collier proposed an Indian New Deal that would help preserve Native cultures and provide tribes with greater powers of self-government.

The IRA was the center of Collier's reform agenda. The act repudiated the Dawes General Allotment Act, barred further allotment, and set aside funds to consolidate and restore tribal landholdings. The IRA also provided for job training and vocational education and stipulated that Indians could gain employment in the BIA without recourse to civil service regulations. Finally, the act also allowed tribes to establish business councils with limited powers of home rule to enable them to develop reservation resources. A provision in Collier's original proposal to establish a special court of Indian affairs was rejected by Congress. Tribes were given the option of accepting or rejecting the IRA by referendum. Despite Collier's rhetoric of self-determination, tribes felt pressured to accept the IRA just as they had felt pressed to accept previous government policies. Boiler-plate BIA home rule charters showed little sensitivity to the diversity of Native life, and attempted to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to Indian problems. IRA referendums and majority rule tribal councils also ignored the consensus-driven traditions that persisted in many communities. The IRA attracted opposition from advocates of both assimilation and traditionalism, both inside and outside Indian communities. Ultimately, 174 tribes voted to accept the IRA and 78 tribes, including the Crow, Navajo, and Seneca, rejected it.

Despite its flaws and limitations, the IRA did represent a new recognition of Indian rights and culture. Although many of Collier's policies were altered in subsequent decades, both as a result of government-sponsored programs to terminate federal services to Indians and as a result of indigenous demands for greater sovereignty, the IRA and IRA-created governments remain influential in shaping u.s. indian policy

Blood quantum

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:17:41 UTC

Blood quantum is a system that authenticated the amount of "Native blood" an individual possessed. The amount, which is expressed in fractions such as one-half and one-fourth, is measured by tracing the individual's ancestry. It is usually calculated by a tribal or government official using tribal documents. The Department of Interior would then release a "Certified Degree of Indian Blood," which was similar to an identification card. It acknowledged the person's tribal identity and granted associated legal rights. The concept of blood quantum was first used in 1705 by the Virginia Colony to limit the rights of Native Americans. In some cases, people determined to have less than 50 percent Native American heritage were not allowed to maintain ancestral land.

It was during the Allotment Period (1887–1934) when the use of blood quantum became even more prevalent in the United States. Under the Dawes Act of 1887 (also called the Dawes Severalty Act or General Allotment Act), the U.S. government divided some reservation lands of Native Americans into individual plots. This assimilation policy forced the European American model of individual property ownership, as opposed to Native American collective stewardship, on communities. To receive allotments, Native Americans had to register with government agencies—which would then decide if they were eligible for land titles based on their blood quantum and other requirements. Only those who received land allotments were accepted as U.S. citizens. Many Native Americans, however, did not meet the required threshold blood quantum of one-quarter or more. As a result, they lost two-thirds of the 138 million acres (56 million hectares) that they had occupied before 1887.

Blood quantum and IRA

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 04:17:58 UTC

By 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was introduced, some nations and tribes began to use blood quantum as a requirement for those who wanted to join their communities. Also called Wheeler–Howard Act, the IRA sought to restore Native American self-governance and decrease federal control over the affairs of First Nations.

Harrison v. Laveen (1948)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:26:58 UTC

The Arizona state supreme court upheld the right of indian residents to vote in local and state election, reversing a 20-year-old ruling in which the court found that indians should not be allowed to vote because they are under the guardianship of the federal government. the court equated this status with that of "people with disabilities".

(book)

BIA encourages Navajo to move to cities (1948)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:28:29 UTC

Concerned that the Navajo reservation economy cannot support its growing population, the bureau of indian affairs (BIA) develops a program to encourage navajo to move to urban areas. participants are sent to relocation offices in la, denver, slc, where bia employees try to place them in temporary or permanent jobs. the program's success will later inspire the bia to extend the relocation policy to reservation populations across the united states.

(book)

Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act (1950)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:31:13 UTC

Following the end of wartime jobs, the residents of the navajo and hopi reservations, particularly returning veterans, had difficulty finding jobs. this was compounded by a severe drought in 1946-47, which drew the reservations into economic chaos. after a lengthy studi into how the reservation economies could be rehabilitated, congress passes the navajo-hopi rehabilitation act, allocating 88 million over the next 10 years to improve the reservations' infrastructure, including roads, schools, and irrigation operations. in the years to follow, the improvements, particularly those to roads and highways, greatly increase navajo and hopi interaction with non-indian society.

(book)

House concurrent resolution 108 (1953)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:35:52 UTC

as a response to the pluralistic indian policies of the new deal era, many conservative legislators advocated that the federal government ought to get out of the indian business. their ideas for reform, collectively known as the termination policy, are codified in this house resolution. it calls for congress to draft 60 termination bills over the next nine years, the goal of these bills is to terminate the tribal status of indian groups that congress deems capable and affluent enough to survive without the special protection given wards of the us government. a roll of tribal members is to be taken; tribal assets will then be liquidated, and the proceeds will be distributed to individual tribal members.

although presented as a means to emancipate indians from the control of the federal government, the termination policy is largely intended to save funds due to indian groups, often guaranteed by treaty. termination is also supported by private companies that want access to natural resources on indian lands and by state and local governments that will be able to tax indians living within their borders.

Public law 280 (1953)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:37:54 UTC

Congress passes this law placing most of the reservations in california, minnesota, nebraska, oregon, and wisconsin under the jurisdiction of these states' civil and criminal legal systems. previously, the fbi was in charge of the investigation of major crimes while the bia and tribal police forces were responsible for dealing with all lesser offenses. the law also allows for other states to extend their jurisdictions over indians living within their borders without the indians' consent.

Rancheria act (1958)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:41:13 UTC

the indians living on 41 small california reservations known as rancherias are targeted for termination. the act provides that rancheria residents must vote on whether or not to be terminated. to persuade the indians to accept termination, federal officials visit the rancherias and promote the policy, often with exaggerated claims of its benefits. largely because of their efforts, 36 groups vote in favor of termination. in the years to come, their loss of indian status irrevocably damaged their social and cultural unity, and caused more than 5000 acres of indian land to be passed into non-indian hands.

Termination of the Menominee (1961)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:42:49 UTC

The menominee of wisconsin lose their indian status. the some $10 million the tribe held in the us treasury was largely depleted by the costs of implementing the policy. as their once-prosperous reservation is dissolved, wisconsin officials declare that the new menominee county formed from tribal lands is "an instant pocket of poverty".

Healing v. Jones (1962)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:45:18 UTC

The federal court attempted to intervene to settle a land dispute between the hopi and navajo that dates back to an executive order from 1882 that established the hopi indian reservation. within its borders lived a large number of navajo who refused to move. as the navajo population expanded, more land on the hopi reservation was occupied by navajo.

the federal courts determined that most of the disputed land belongs to both the hopi and navajo. the 2 million acres in question is to be used jointly by both groups. this compromise decision angers the hopi and navajo alike.

Indian civil rights act (1968)

rre2601 — 2024-04-18 18:50:17 UTC

title 2 of the civil rights act, aka the indian civil rights act, extends most of the protections granted to american citizens by the bill of rights to people under the jurisdiction of tribal governments. for example, the act orders that tribal governments cannot deny free speech, religion, press, assembly. among the rights it does not enforce are the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, which could interfere with the traditional indian forms of government, and the right to free legal counsel, which is considered too great an expense for tribal courts.

one of the greatest and most immediate consequences of the indian divil rights act was a flurry of lawsuits against indian tribes by individuals who maintain the tribes are violating their civil rights. suits will challenge the tribes on such issues as election and voting procedures, job discrimination, and tribal enrollment.

United States v. Sious Nation of Indians (1980)

rre2601 — 2024-04-19 04:45:51 UTC

The Red Power quest for return of indian lands was most vividly displayed in the struggle of the lakota people to regain posession of the sacred black hills. the court decision handed in favor of the lakotas came in the 1980s, but they had been fighting since the united states had abrogated the fort laramie treaty of 1868 and illegaly laid claim to the black hills. the treaty contained a provision that promised the black hills would be "set apart for the absolute undisturbed use and occupation of the indians". the violation of the treaty was a result of pressure from gold-seekers and land-hungry westerners that began as soon as the treaty was ratified. In 1980 the journey through the ICC, lower courts, appellate court, courts of appeals, and finally congress ended. the supreme court offered one of the largest indian claims with $17.5 million plus interest, a total slightly above $106 million. today, the lakotas refuse to touch the awarded money in protest, demanding the return of their land.