Native American Indians Flashcards
- Their position in 1865 - the impact of the Plains Wars (1854–1877), the Dawes Act 1887, acquisition of US citizenship 1924, the New Deal, the American Indian Movement in the 1960s and 1970s - Native Americans and the Supreme Court - Native American pressure groups (32 cards)
Overall judgement on the FG and its attitude towards NAs
The Federal Government, although especially key in advancing NA rights, very rarely implemented these ‘progressive’ acts, so any gains it instigated for NAs were periodic at best (confined to the 1930s w/ the Wheeler-Howard act, and the late 70s/80s). Furthermore, the FG never really had a desire to improve NA rights as it had consistently prioritised its own desires of Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny which diametrically opposed NAs desires, so these ‘progressive’ actions were usually a reaction to the increased lobbying and pressurisation that NAs placed on the FG which only seemed to have much of an influence in the 70s, at which point the FG STILL seemed reluctant to aid NAs campaign.
+ gains for NAs were also not in their interest concerning land bc only compensation offered => ignorance of NA customs.
Seminole Vs. Butterworth 1981
(FG/SC: Land/Sovereignty)
Granted tribes the right to establish casinos on their own land and thereby make a profit. = instilled NA with a greater sense of economic freedom and self-determination.
UNDERMINE: but operated on a monetary system that was ‘alien’ to traditional NA practices & reinforced sense that FG was not able to legislate in favour of Native American civil rights bc their definition of cr fundamentally differed from that of the NAS.
Lone Wolf Vs. Hitchcock 1903 (FG/SC: Land & Sovereignty)
A continuation of the FG vicious acquisition of land from NAs, demonstrating that they were willing to ignore many treaties they had established with NAs, further revealing that they saw no importance of NAs voices as they did not cooperate w/ NAs for ownership of land. - always motivated by a desire for Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny which necessitated the destruction of NA land ownership.
Oneida vs. Oneida 1974 (FG/SC: Land)
1st major FG recognition of the past atrocities committed against NAs & realisation that native lands should be returned to them.
BUT only resulted in financial compensation so arguably limited in terms of tangible impact, moreso symbolic if anything.
NAGPRA - 1990S (FG/SC: Culture)
The repatriation of NA remains to tribes, recognising the importance of burial to tribal culture & customs. Arguably part of the FG’s growing receptiveness to NA culture.
UNDERMINE: Although hugely progressive in theory, in practoce the return of remains etc was a slow/prolonged process, reaffirming the FG’s unwillingness to wholly accept NA culture.
Antiquities act 1906 (FG/SC: Culture)
What did this show abt the FG & did this trend continue across the period?
Declared that any NA bones or objects found on FG land were the property of the US govt., essentially triggering the start of a pernicious FG attempt to dislocate and disconnect NAs from their culture.
SYNTHESIS: NAGPRA act 1990 = FG seen to overturn their stance on the eradication of NA culture by repatriating NA remains to tribes. HOWEVER, whilst significant symbolically in demonstrating a clear shift towards recognition of NA culture, in practice the NAGPRA act was slow to deliver = perhaps demonstrating a continued unwillingness to formally recognise the worth of NA culture.
(Land & Sovereignty - FG/SC) Dawes Severalty Act 1887 & Curtis act 1898
Indicative of the FG’s harsh, unwavering decision to eradicate tribal community and ownership of land in the pursuit of ‘Westward Expansion’ & ‘Manifest Destiny’.
Charrier vs. Bell 1986 (FG/SC: Culture)
Growing movement to protect and preserve NA culture as ruled that remains dug from ancient NA burial grounds belonged to NAs themselves rather than museums & so states passed laws preserving these burial grounds. => dispelling the notion that the FG was fundamentally entitled to controlling and eradicating NA culture.
USA vs. Sioux Nation 1980 (FG/SC: LAND)
- What did this act do? (How much money were they entitled to?)
- Why can the significance of the act be somewhat undermined?
- Give synthesised evidence to demonstrate whether this changed or was a continuity throughout the period?
One of many ‘progressive’ FG/SC actions as the SC ruled that the Sioux were entitled to $106 million in compensation for the breaking of the Treaty of Fort Laramie. Very important SYMBOLLICALLY because a major formal recognition of the historic injustices enacted upon NAs.
UNDERMINE:
- A REACTIVE action, as there was a growing wave of progressivism within the 70s and 80s & also a spate of NA activism which arguably catalysed the FG willingness to grant NAs land in an attempt to avoid further conflict like the 1975 Pine Ridge Shootout.
- DID NOT!!! return physical land back to NAs, only offered them FINANCIAL COMPENSATION!! which was not in the interests of NAs who did not operate on a financial system. = the Sioux actually refused to take the compensation.
SYNTHESIS: Clearly, through both the 1974 Oneida V. Oneida case and the 1980 US v. Sioux case, The FG began to adopt a more ‘progressive’ stance towards NA land rights by issuing a series of SC rulings which enfranchised NA by formally recognising their historic ownership of land. This essentially negated or rather invalidated past consistent attempt to viciously strip land away from natives: 1887 Dawes Severalty Act, 1903 Lone wolf v. Hitchcock, 1921 Pueblo indians
Establishment of boarding schools (1879) (FG/SC: Culture) & a synthesis pairing for FG attempts to eradicate culture of NAs
Vicious destruction & decimation of NA culture through the establishment of boarding schools such as the Carlisle institute in 1879: ‘kill the native, save the man’ mantra. This was a symbol of the FGs desire to
= KEY in creating a disconnect between young NAs and their own culture, essentially creating a ‘lost generation’ in the hopes that NA ways of life would ultimately vanish.
SYNTHESIS: 1950S NA adoption policy = systematic removal of NA children from trad. tribal communities to live with white families in order to instil them with westernised values.
Overall judgement on NAs themselves and their role in terms of advancing their rights.
Culture: important to some extent in terms of attempts to preserve culture which often came directly from NA movements such as AIM, however were not majorly effective in preserving culture until they began to pursue unified action by the 60s & 70s.
Land: Although there were campaigns to regain land
1934 Indian Reorganisation Act (IRA)/Wheeler-Howard act
(FG: Culture)
Arguably significantly improved NA cultural rights as overthrew the Religious Crimes Code 1883, banning ceremonial dances and celebrations & allowing many to use the hallucinatory drug ‘peyote’ for religious purposes.
UNDERMINE: however, impact was short-lived as was quickly followed by later policies of assimilation and termination which emphasised the eradication of NA culture as part of the US govt.’s prolonged pursuit of Western expansion and Manifest destiny.
1934 Indian Reorganisation Act (IRA)/Wheeler-Howard act
(FG: Land)
Did mark the end of the allotment policy popularised by the Dawes act of 1887. & thereby ended the sale of NA lands.
UNDERMINE: However, due to diversion of funding to the 2nd world war, teh IRA never actually secured/repurchased any NA lands on their behalf.
1934 Indian Reorganisation Act (IRA)/Wheeler-Howard act
(FG: Sovereignty)
- Introduced the idea of tribal courts which meant that NAs would have a greater input in how they operated & started to formally recognise their tribal organisation/formation, compounded by the 1936 Alaskan reorg. act.
UNDERMINE: However, clearly short-lived benefits as the introduction of the termination policy in 1953 essentially removed the recognition of NA tribes as domestic dependent NATIONS, seeing them as Americanised individuals.
+ NAs had v. limited input into teh act, w/ 75 out of 245 tribes voting against its measures, indicating a complete lack of unilateral NA support.
AIM - Occupation of wounded knee (1973) (Land) & provide synthesised evidence to illustrate the effectiveness of NA resistance
Demonstrated that NAs recognised the importance of the media in galvanising support for their cause and pressurising teh FG into creating legislative change.
UNDERMINE:
Not necessarily successful in actually gaining any physical ownership of land.
Arguably crushed? by the FG which demonstrates more of a systematic cont. violent resistance to the improvement of NA rights by the FG.
SYNTHESIS: Successful (?) Use of violence by NAs as a means of gaining greater rights = a recognition of the importance of their sacrifice in gaining rights. i.e. Plains Wars such as the Battle of Little Bighorn 1876 which defeated Custer & the US troops. Although Wounded knee arguably pressurised the FG into introducing much more sympathetic acts i.e. 1974 Oneida V. Oneida which was introduced just a year later whereas Little Bighorn actually catalysed further violence against tribes like the Lakota.
Assimilation
Termination (1953) - give some statistics indicating the failures of termination
(FG: Sov./Culture/Land)
- Essentially dissolved tribal formations and forced NAs to relocate into urban communities which was massively unsuccessful.
- many NAs found themselves unable to settle in ‘alien’ urban areas, with around 50% moving back to their reservations.
- Life expectancy for NAs was 44yrs, 20 below the national average, indicating that termination actually worsened conditions for NAs.
Impact on sovereignty:
- A fundamental denial of NA sovereignty as dissolved tribal formations, now seen as independent individuals = no longer recognised as native groups under this extension of assimilation.
Impact on Culture:
Dismantling of tribal organisations arguably severed NA connections to heritage, forcing them to adopt ‘American’ customs.
However, arguably some increase in their cultural rights? Although legally the FG was attempting to eradicate NA culture, through termination many NAs were placed into ghettos with other NAs, establishing a greater sense of community which arg. laid groundwork for future NA resistance.
Impact on Land:
Under the policy, many tribes had their lands taken away or reduced in size, as the U.S. government sought to distribute lands to individual Native Americans or sell them to non-Native settlers.
Indian citizenship act 1924
(FG: Sovereignty)
Extended citizenship rights & voting rights to ALL Native Americans.
Theoretically meant that there was a move by the FG to accept that NAs were on some level equal to US citizens & should be allowed to have political rights, boosting their sovereignty through a white-US citizen lens as NAs could now harness the power to vote to exact better opportunities.
UNDERMINE: many NAs did NOT want the right to vote or to become US citizens bc this undermined their identity as tribal groups. = NAs consistently campaigned for separatism from white america, this act seemed to foreshadow cultural assimilation policy.
THEREFORE NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, ONLY DONE BC OF ASSIMILATION ATTEMPTS.
Carlisle Institute (1879) - What did this indicate in terms of cultural rights.
Give synthesised examples of how the FG attempted to use education & legislation concerning education as a means of dismantling NA culture/counter this view.
‘kill the native, save the man’ mantra. This was a symbol of the FGs desire to
= KEY in creating a disconnect between young NAs and their own culture, essentially creating a ‘lost generation’ in the hopes that NA ways of life would ultimately vanish. This was continued through the 1934 IRA which established schools that still emphasised Westernised values & Catholicism/Christianity as the key religion.
Counter: 1968 Navajo community college - although founded by NAs themselves showed that education could be used to strengthen NA cultural ties. => Perhaps inspired the 1972 Indian education act which funded bilingual and bicultural programmes & created an office of Indian education => growing FG recognition of cultural importance of NA’s and need to preserve culture.
- 1975 Indian self-determination and education assistance act: gave NA parents greater involvement in schooling of NA kids as were allowed to be present on school boards & reversed past 50 yrs of FG action by essentially marking teh transferral of governance back to native self-governance.
However many of these bilingual provisions seemed to focus on English language acquisition rather than actively preserving NA culture, revealing the continuation of assimilationist ideals& they may have only been triggered by the persistence in NA violence i.e. the Siege of Alcatraz (1969 - 71) which caused teh FG to implement the Edu. act as a means of quelling tribes violent ‘outbursts’ rather than out of a genuine desire to advance NA civil rights.
What was the impact of the Indian Appropriation act (1871) in terms of NA sovereignty?
- Specified that no NA tribe would be seen as an independent nation, effectively ending NA tribal sovereignty rights.
- Essentially declared that NAs were domestic dependent nations or ‘wards of the state’ = sig. reduced tribal/NA negotiating powers & key in establishing lack of FG recognition of tribal systems.
How might the creation of the Board of Indian commissioners be considered one of the first ‘sympathetic’ FG legislative actions in terms of NA sovereignty & potentially Land.
- Created in 1869
- Essentially oversaw the NA policy & attempted to ensure the fair treatment of NAs under the US govt. to prevent their systematic cheating & to uphold Fed. Govt. promises as per their treaties signed w/ NAs & to improve conditions on reservations.
- HOWEVER: the board was clearly ignored & undermined by successive FG actions which seemed to incite violence against NAs and violate treaty promises e.g 1874 Custer’s announcement of Gold in Black Hills & subsequent stampede of miners was in direct violation of teh 1868 Fort Laramie treaty which required FG to protect Lakota lands from white intruders.
+ furthermore this was an imposition of westernised governance upon NA tribes, rather than actually allowing them to self-govern.
Synthesis pairing/s:
The establishment of the Society of American Indians (1911) & The national congress of American Indians (1944) & also the National Indian Youth council (1961)
Examples of NAs utilising political organisations to foster a sense of unity & achieve better rights (Sovereignty & culture)
All three are instances of NAs taking the initiative to form/politically organise themselves to counter restrictive FG actions, increasing the popularity of Pan-Indianism as a sentiment.
NAs utilised US political systems and strategems to rebuild a sense of cultural pride & to ensure NA civil rights were preserved.
BUT: Soc. of AI (1911) vs NIYC (1961) had quite different aims as although both emphasised Pan-Indianism/unity between NAs, the SAI favoured assimilation whereas teh NIYC favoured the preservation of NAs distinct cultural customs & identities as a rejection of assimilation.=> perhaps NIYC was only able to take this more radical approach as NA activism became influenced by growing popularity of teh CR movement.
Synthesis pairing:
Ex Parte Crow Dog SC decision (1883) & US vs Wheeler (1978)
Evidence of the SC as sympathetic to the sovereignty rights of NAs
Both cases, despite nearly 100 yrs difference illustrated a consistent SC recognition of the inherent sovereignty of NA tribes in the handling of legal matters.
Crow dog (1883) set a precedent for tribal self-governance by recognising tribal rights to settle their own matters through their own court systems, which Wheeler reaffirmed by reemphasising (legally) the independence of tribal court systems from federal law.
UNDERMINE:
However, neither SC ruling was actually properly enforced as the FG & SC both continued to implement restrictive & assimilationist policies which undermined the idea of sovereignty purportedly legally secured for the NAs. For instance the introduction of the 1887 Dawes Act narrowly after Crow Dog in 1883 which essentially symbolised the FG ensuing pursuit of vicious attempts at wholly dismantling tribal sovereignty via teh allotment policy which allocated land to NAs under teh assumption that they were independent people rather than tribal communities.
- Also quite a limited scope of guaranteed sovereignty rights w/ Crow Dog being limited to criminal jurisdiction & Wheeler still allowing teh FG to exercise legal control over tribes, almost negating tribal authority.
What is the significance of the Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988) in terms of the SC and its influence on land/cultural rights of NAs? - look at the similarities of it to the Antiquities act of ‘06
Both cases exemplify the constant entitlement of all branches of FG to culturally important parcels of Land w/ it assuming possession of culturally sig. artefacts found in fed. land. under the antiquities act & developing on land despite cultural sig. under lyng.
Both cases demonstrate a paternalistic attitude from the federal government regarding Native American interests. The Antiquities Act was established with a protective intent but functioned to assert federal oversight and control over Native cultural heritage. Similarly, in Lyng, the ruling reflected a failure to fully understand or respect the interconnected nature of land and cultural identity for Native tribes, opting instead for a bureaucratic view that prioritized development and federal interests.
