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
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
1934 Indian Reorganisation Act (IRA)/Wheeler-Howard act
(FG: Land)
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
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
AIM - Occupation of wounded knee (1973)
Demonstrated that NAs recognised the importance of the media in galvanising support for their cause
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
