7-1 Milestone Three Rough Draft

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

200

Subject

History

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by michaelnickens

Shedd 1 2-3 Final Project Milestone Three: Rough Draft of Final Project Thomas C. Shedd HIS 502: Historical Methods Dr. James Nelsen 11/5/2023

Shedd 2 2-3 Final Project Milestone Three: Topic Rough Draft of Final Project I. Historical Topic Description Narrative The Indian Removal act of 1830 was federal Legislation pushed forward by President Andrew Jackson that began forced movement and resettlement of Native Americans who lived east of the Mississippi River. 1 This would affect over sixty thousand and uproot them from ancestral lands. Such a traumatic event has had lasting ramifications still felt to this day as not only the trauma of being forced from their land, but the ineptitude of those redrawing their tribal lines did not understand Native politics or culture often settled incompatible tribes in the same lands only bred more conflict. This removal affected the so-called “civilized” tribes of the southeast, being the Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Creek, on a larger scale than other affected due to the fact that they had established independent republics and assimilated in many ways to the European of life by taking up similar professions, owning plantations, and built self-sustaining communities with schools, churches, and even their own constitutions. 2 Being forced to leave all of their “modern” progress as well as the ancestral lands of their people left them at a great disadvantage and adversely affected their social mobility and connection to their heritage. Many strides have been made in modern times to right many of the wrongs of the past, but there is still work to be done. The passing of the Native American Grave Protection and 1 Jackson, A. Andrew Jackson, December 6 . December 6, 1830. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/maj025297/. 2 Smyth, Noel E. 2023. “Their Determination to Remain: A Cherokee Community’s Resistance to the Trail of Tears in North Carolina.” JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY 89 (1): 140–41. https://search-ebscohost- com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswah&AN=000943011400047&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Shedd 3 Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 has forced federal institutions to rethink their working relationships with tribal leaders and the culture of collection, looting, and display of important heritage items in museums as well historic portrayals of these people. 3 By requiring human remains to be assessed and returned to the tribes is one of the loftiest goals of NAGPRA that is still being processed to this day despite many deadlines over the decades being missed or ignored. Currently, NAGPRA is a high priority in many institutions who have developed programs to involve tribal partners to consult on how artifacts are handled, displayed, and used in educational material. This leads us to ask a question: What effects has NAGPRA and the decades after it had on tribal communities and are the wrongs of the past truly being made right? To understand this, we must analyze the events that removed tribal ancestors from their lands, what was left behind, and how they have been disaffected and mistreated in the time since. By asking these hard questions and holding up a mirror to our own history we can see the darkness of the past and if we are on the correct path forward. This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart as an Archaeologist working withing a NAGPRA team and focused on gaining insight and understanding with tribal partners. II. Historical Topic Defense Understanding the effects of the Indian Removal Act, Trail of Tears, and NAGPRA are of the utmost importance for creating an environment where we can ensure that the horrible actions of the past are not only recognized but corrected. History can affect the feelings and events of 3 Chari, Sangita, and Jaime M. N. Lavallee. 2013. Accomplishing NAGPRA : Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act . First Peoples : New Directions in Indigenous Studies. Oregon State University Press. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx? direct=true&db=cat04477a&AN=snhu.b2011003&site=eds-live&scope=site .

Shedd 4 today, thus the study of any serious historical topic should be analyzed for its lasting legacy and impact on life today. I believe that history can be a tool used for great change, both socially and politically. This is a prime example of that very idea. I feel that this topic has been studied, but perhaps not in the light of how history can lead to change in today’s policy and how our federal and state institution’s function is moving into the future. As someone who works for a Museum NAGPRA program I am personally tied to the topic and work through the issues on a day-to-day basis while hearing the thoughts, feelings, and stories from tribal partners to whom this is a deeply important issue that is not just history, but an ongoing issue. What Makes This Project Stand Apart? The unique nature of this project lies in its attempt to tie social and political actions of the past to present day legislation and use that analysis to strengthen and improve our modern outlook on this very important issue. The issue of Indian Removal is often discussed, but typically done so within a bubble of that time frame and not when considering where it has led us today and what ramifications it has had on the people, places, and laws that follow it in attempting to right the wrongs of the past. NAGPRA and other native centric forms of legislation all have roots in the early days of our nation and are attempting to address the near genocide of a people and return some of their ancestral lands and possession to them. Taking this cause up and delving into the past to find ways to strength and more accurately remedy the problem is of vital importance to us as we move forward. III. Topic Interpretation Research Questions

Shedd 5 There are two primary research questions I want to explore with this research:  By delving into the past with the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the subsequent Trail of Tears what can we learn from these events to inform our current interaction with the descendants of those adversely affected and displaced to help right these heinous wrongs? AND  How can the lessons learned from the forementioned research help us bolster, strengthen, and inform legislation like NAGPRA and give us a better framework to work together in the present and future? Tentative Conclusions I feel that history is one of our most precious resources when looking to solve social and political issues of today. By understanding how events in the past transpired, the motivations, and mistakes made we can better inform our actions and policy to ensure that such unjust treatment does not seep back into our society. Often the past is an untapped resource that could greatly improve our outlook on events that cause strife and harm to people around us. Certainly, when it comes to landmark legislation as discussed here on both the good and bad end of the spectrum, we can develop a framework for systems that promote harmony and collaboration rather than division and competition between ethnic groups and people within our country. I think that there is still much that could be improved with our current NAGPRA framework that could come from deep analysis of the past as well as ancillary policies that could

Shedd 6 be put into place for private institutions to comply with NAGPRA guidelines as it currently only affects government institutions, and this leaves a wide hole that leads to exploitation to this day. Challenging These Conclusions There are already many oppositions to law regarding the current repatriation of native cultural artifacts and consultation. Many of these arguments stem from archaeologists stuck in the old ways of digging up treasures with little regard for the cultures from which they come. The mindset of “finders keepers” has a strong grip on large swaths of the Archaeological community and they are often the loudest voices pushing back on repatriation legislation, such as NAGPRA. While this is the way archaeology worked for the bulk of its time as a recognized discipline, times have begun to change and the holdouts are very resistant to this change. Surely, their arguments hold some water. Afterall, many times it is difficult for anyone, tribal partners included, to agree on who certain cultural artifacts belong to as some of the material dealt with stretches back beyond recorded human history or event the modern known names of tribes. For instance, who does an artifact from the early archaic period Mississippian culture projectile point belong to? Depending on the context of the find it could potentially be linked to almost a dozen modern tribes. Does anyone own the point? While the spirit of repatriation would mean the tribes would confer and decide where it belongs the argument against and for archaeologists and scientists to keep it for study, even if found in a burial context, is often heard when modern delineation cannot be decided easily. Because of the potency and logic of these arguments they must be acknowledged while at the same time stressing the cultural importance of funerary goods from burial contexts being treated with respect and returning them to those who have the strongest claims. Afterall, it would

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help