United States Of Americas Founding Fathers attitudes toward Native Americans is largely unchanged in their action toward them. From the very beginning of US history, the founding fathers believe they are at a higher stage of Adam Smiths four stages of history than American Indians. George Washington favors treaties over force, writing that when forced off his land, the savage, like the wolf, always seeks to return. American Indians land title could be extinguished by purchase or by conquest. founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11798 Discovery is the foundation of title February 28, 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh In a land dispute, the Supreme Court determines that titles purchased from tribes do not supersede titles awarded by the federal government, because the indigenous occupants lost their right of occupancy. Chief Justice John Marshalls opinion calls American Indians fierce savages, stating: Discovery is the foundation of title, in European nations, and this overlooks all proprietary rights in the natives. As you will see, this Doctrine of Discovery continues to creep into the policies and mindset of today. thorpe.ou.edu/treatises/cases/Johnson.PDF Domestic Dependent Nation Status March 18, 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia The Cherokee nation sues in federal court as an independent nation seeking redress against Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshalls majority opinion states that the tribe is not an independent nation, but a domestic dependent nation with a relationship to the United States like that of a ward to his guardian. This ward-guardian mindset has carried into modern-day American Indian-US relations. cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/TrailofTears/CherokeeNationvStateofGeorgia.aspx States have no authority in Indian affairs March 3, 1832 Worchester v. Georgia After the state of Georgia convicts Samuel Worchester, a white missionary, for living in Cherokee territory without a state license and sentences him to four years of labor, he appeals. In his appeal (Worchester v. Georgia), John Marshalls Supreme Court declares that individual US states have no authority in Indian affairs. (The modern court determines to ignore this decision as will be seen later) This gives tribes federal protection from individual states, while further establishing the federal governments authority in American Indian affairs. pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/worcestr.htm Kill the Indian in him, and save the man. February 8, 1887 General Allotment Act Congress passes the General Allotment Act, authorizing the president to divide up tribal land and parcel it out to individual American Indians. In the process, tribes are dispossessed of 90 million acres. https://iltf.org/resources/land-tenure-history/historical-allotment-legislation/general-allotment-act Meanwhile, American Indian children are forced to assimilate at mandatory boarding schools. Col. Richard Pratt, founder of the first off-reservation Indian Boarding School, gives a speech in 1892 where he adovcates to kill the Indian in him, and save the man. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865(Video: UAF Tribal Management Program) https://youtube/watch?v=g7ykB9f08lM#t=38 In this video, American Indian scholar and advocate Ada Deer calls the terminations a cultural, economic and political disaster for American Indians. Congress terminates tribal status 1950 — 1960 Termination Era Congress terminates tribal status for more than 100 tribes in the 1950s. When tribes lose their status, their lands become subject to taxation and members lose access to federal programs and services. The government further weakens tribes by relocating American Indians from reservations to cities and expanding state jurisdiction over reservations. tm112munity.uaf.edu/unit-2/termination-era-1950s-public-law-280/ “The Conquerors will February 7, 1955 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States The Tee-Hit Ton (The Tee-Hit Ton are a subgroup of the Tlingit people) seek compensation for lumber taken from their lands in Alaska. The Supreme Court rules against the American Indians, citing the then 132-year-old precedent set by Johnson v. McIntosh:Every American schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty in return for blankets, food, and trinkets, it was not a sale, but the conquerors will that deprived them of their land. https://supreme.justia/cases/federal/us/348/272/case.html Supreme Court denies the right to criminally prosecute March 6, 1978 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe A non-Indian man living with the Suquamish tribe in Washington state is charged by tribal police for assaulting a tribal officer. In an opinion written by Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court denies tribes the right to criminally prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes on their reservations. The decision is partially overturned by Congress decades later, in cases of domestic violence. justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00687.htm A crime of cultural genocide November 8, 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act nicwa.org/indian_child_welfare_act/ Congress passes a law to keep adopted American Indian children within other American Indian families. The law comes in response to an adoption epidemic: Extremely high rates of American Indian children (up to 60-70 percent in some states) were being removed from their families and adopted into non-Indian homes. This has been called a crime of cultural genocide. (Video: UAF Tribal Management Program) https://youtube/watch?v=sXbo3-uo12U Prior to 1978, one out of every four American Indian children were taken away from their parents and communities. The US government asserts control over tribal status November 2, 1994 Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act bia.gov/FAQs/ US law formally establishes the three ways in which a tribe may become federally recognized: By an act of Congress, a US court decision or through specific administrative procedures. The US government maintains an updated list of federally recognized tribes. usa.gov/Government/Tribal-Sites/index.shtml Tribe’s authority insufficient reservations lack authority May 29, 2001 Atkinson Trading Company v. Shirley Atkinson Trading Company challenges Navajo Nations right to impose a tax on one of its hotels, which is located within the Nations borders. Although Navajo medical, police and fire services respond to emergencies in the hotels vicinity, the Rehnquist Supreme Court determines the availability of tribal services patently insufficient to sustain the Tribe’s civil authority over nonmembers and maintains that reservations lack authority to tax non-Indian businesses within their reservations. oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_454 Justice William Rehnquist wrote several opinions siding against American Indian interests. Court holds a tribe has no power to regulate the activities June 25, 2001 Nevada v. Hicks In a dispute over whether Nevada has authority to search the home of a reservation resident suspected of killing a protected California bighorn sheep off-reservation, the Rehnquist Supreme Court sides in favor of the state. narf.org/icwa/faq/othercase/hicks.html Tribal Court against, inter alios, the wardens in their individual capacities and petitioner Nevada, alleging trespass, abuse of process, and violation of constitutional rights remediable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Tribal Court held that it had jurisdiction over the tribal tort and federal civil rights claims, and the Tribal Appeals Court affirmed. However the Supreme Court holds that a tribe has no power to regulate the activities of state officials enforcing state law on land owned and controlled by the tribe. The majoritys sweeping opinion, without cause, undermines the authority of tribes to “ ‘make their own laws and be ruled by them.’ ” Doctrine of Discovery March 29, 2005 Justice Ginsburg cites the Doctrine of Discovery Even progressive Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cites the Doctrine of Discovery (from 1823) in a 2005 decision. In City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, the Court determines that property taxes may be imposed on tribes that purchase back their traditional tribal lands on the open market. Justice Ginsburg writes that tribes lost their land title centuries ago, when before and after the adoption of the Constitution, New York State acquired vast tracts of land from Indian tribes through treaties it independently negotiated. law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-855.ZO.html Baby Veronica Brown - Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl June 25, 2013 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl In a controversial case, the Supreme Court rules that sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law to keep adopted children within American Indian families, do not apply if the American Indian biological father never had custody of the child. Baby Veronicas biological father (who is separated from her mother) files for custody after she is adopted by a white couple. The court rules in his favor after two years and Veronica goes into his care. Two more years later, she is returned to her adoptive parents when they win an appeal. scotusblog/case-files/cases/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/ My own opinion is that this court has now allowed Native children to be purchased and the decision in this case demonstrates to all that Indian children can be termenated and involuntarily taken away from fit and wholesome native homes without any other cause that that of purchase or property rights of the buyer. Shawn Wright. cherokee.org/News/Stories/092413CherokeeNationAttorneyGeneralcommentsontransferofcustodyofVeronicaBrown.aspx Congress desecrates “Sacred Ceremonial & Burial” grounds December 9, 2014 National Defense Authorization Act In a controversial move, the recently passed $585 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 gives 2,400 acres of what American Indians consider sacred ceremonial and burial grounds in the Tonto National Forest to Rio Tinto, a subsidiary of an Australian-English mining company. The land will be used for a large copper mining project. The Apache Leap is one potential sacred site threatened by a provision added to the National Defense Authorization Act. huffingtonpost/2014/12/12/defense-bill-passes-rio-tinto_n_6317946.html Still wards of the federal government December 11, 2014 Congressman publicly uses wards of government language Days later, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) defends the Defense Act to an Apache roundtable attendee, using outdated (and inaccurate) language: “You’re still wards of the federal government.” rt/usa/213679-gosar-native-americans-government-wards/ Phil Stago of the White Mountain Apache Tribe tells the Associated Press, He kind of revealed the truth — the true deep feeling of the federal government. bigstory.ap.org/article/1b54e4e7df7d4c84b0107a3c4351e0b7/congressmans-native-american-remark-causes-outcry
Posted on: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 03:06:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015