Antiquities Act

The repatriation process set up by NAGPRRA requires federal agencies and museums to identify items in their possession that are subject to the law and make inventories and summaries of them, they then must consult with lineal descendants and Indian tribes regarding the identification and cultural affiliation of the items, finally the agencies and museums must send notices to the appropriate group describing the lineal descendancy or culture affiliation and stating that the item may be repatriated. The law provides federal grants to assist with the process of documentation and repatriation of the items. NAGPRA also sets up a review committee to monitor and resolve disputes consisting of three Native American nominees, three nominees from scientific organizations or museums, and one mutually approved nomination. In addition, there are steps provided to follow for unclaimed items, unidentifiable items, intentional and inadvertent discoveries on both federal and tribal land. Penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking are also set up through the law. NAGPRA does not prohibit all scientific study or mandate the repatriation of the human remains and other cultural items subject to its coverage. What the law does do is provide

The federal government’s intentions are pure with the passing of NAGPRA. However, NAGPRA has a considerable number of debatable implications regarding Native Americans. To fall under NAGPRA’s jurisdiction, a tribe is required to have federal recognition. Federal recognition requires a cultural group, such as Native Americans, to abide by federal standards. Non-compliance is an issue prevalent today regarding institutions and companies; the lack of compliance is rooted in the absence of strong restrictions and penalties for institutions and companies. International politics inhibit the act of global reparation. International representatives and museum officials leading repatriation processes, results in a more efficient way of returning artifacts to the rightful owner without political restrictions. All in all, the Native American Graves Protection Act made significant important changes over the years, however, with ever advancing United States and American Indian Tribes the outdated act is in need of

There have been many debates based on the sacred sites of Native Indians. Many Americans believe that they have a right to those places for recreation and commercialization. The historical preservation of Indian Sacred Sites in Indiana, especially that of the Potawatomi Tribe (Bodewadmi Culture), have come under disputes that led to legal clashes over the management of these sites. Those who debated brought up concerns based on federally owned land, religious freedom, and influences on historical injustice. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), addresses these issues that surround historic tribal preservation. This impact provides a way for the Potawatomi to consult federal and state divisions on their rights towards historical

An entire body of developed law which followed was ironically referred to as a separate, specific category of laws called AFederal Indian Law@ or ATribal Law@, or just plain A@Indian Law@. These laws and principles were designed to supplement and carry forth the true intent of the treaties, agreements and statutory enactments affecting and involving the AIndians@. However, if that true intent from the government=s perspective, was to complete the long term goal of genocide and total removal of all Indians and Indian interests, the government needed an arsenal of legal weapons to use to carry out that intent. Therefore, AIndian@ Law as a body of ALaw@, is riddled with exceptions, loopholes, clever defenses and principles, complex hidden tricks and judge-made tactical escape hatches. Whereby the government and private wealth interests, are allowed a Alegal@ avenue to circumvent any and all obligations that appeared to be negotiated or agreed to by the Native Americans. These legally created loopholes, exceptions, and devious AIndian law principles@, have been used by the government and its wealthy benefactors or resource-hungry constituents. They have been used with the knowing and willing compliance of the Courts and many judges. With the intent to divest, destroy, manipulate,

Since the 1950s conditions for Native people were very difficult and had moved beyond the conditions of the early half of the century in which Native people had to struggle to simply survive, or prove that they were worthy of adaptation into white society. The Termination policy of the 1950s, which sought to end federal recognition and support of Indian tribes and relocate Indians to urban areas, continued a pattern of breaking up tribal customs and dislocating Native people from reservations. Thus far with the changing political climate of the 1960s, which included the rise of the American Indian Movement also known as the Native American Renaissance, its attempts to increase awareness of Native American struggles due to discrimination and

Sovereignty is very important to American Indian tribes, and they take many steps to preserve it. In this paper I will talk about how American Indian tribes peruse protecting natural resources as a strategy to strengthen their sovereignty.

In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act, which authorized the creation of Indian reservations. These lands were given to Native Americans, including the Tribal Sovereignty law which prohibits the government from issuing laws on these selected areas, and gives the Native Americans full authority instead. But these laws have been broken without the resident’s knowledge of it. Government controlled mining areas and other resource farming techniques are performed with the tribal delegate’s permission (Alexandria 2). Most of these jobs are destructive to the environment and the creatures that dwell in nearby areas. Most of these jobs such as lumberjacking are

The American Antiquities Act of 1906 took place after 2 decades of stealing goods and destruction of the Native American sites. There were many people apart of the bill such as John F. Lacey and Jonathan D. Dolliver whom represented Iowa, and Colorado representatives were John F. Shafroth and Senator Thomas M. Patterson. On June 8th, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt had signed the American Antiquities Act. The Lacey Act was a big part of stopping the destruction of Historic Landmarks and other significant objects from history. The Act also stated 'neither the President of the United States or congress could establish monuments under the Antiquities

Collecting objects from a specific culture is also unethical, not because objects are being stolen, but because people are being put on display as if they are not human. In Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Indian skulls and bones are “labeled like a library book with a tracking number, wrapped in coarse white muslin, and packed in a cardboard box” (1). People are viewing these exhibits and looking at the bones as if they are normal objects you see every day. These bones were once humans, and they are being shown off like animals. Labeling them like library books shows the dehumanization of these exhibits, which is ironic because institutions and collectors find their culture so interesting. In a way, this can be considered racist. While discussing this piece, a classmate said “Why are we [as in, Native Americans] so interesting to you [as in, mostly white historians]; why don’t we have exhibits

While the overall population of Native Americans and their reservation lands have been cut in large numbers over the decades, I was not only shocked by the information presented by Deloria in regard to the idea of sacred land that is not accessible for holly use, but also the deeper meaning of what land we truly identify as “historically significant.” That this association of what is socially identified as historic in our countries history isn’t necessarily the right way to think of such land. Growing up in the greater Washington D.C area, (Arlington, VA to be specific) I’ve been accustom to seeing national monuments, national parks, national cemeteries ect. preserved, looked after and owned by our own national government. For me personally, I never second-guessed the fact that our government had established such cultural and significant lands territories to remember and pay respects to those who helped form this country to which we call home. But my idea of what is historic in terms

The relationship between the Federal Government and American Indians during this time period can be characterized as hostile and unfriendly. To begin with, after the Trail of Tears, called for by Andrew Jackson, the Natives had land and peace treaties with America to protect their lands west of the Mississippi River. However during this construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, where the government paid the companies in land, these treaties were violated. In addition, these lands were also taken for settlement purposes on behalf of white migrants, as well as prospective purposes as well: gold had been discovered in the Dakotas’ Black Hills. In the late 19th century, the stealing of land and the settlement of thousands of miners, ranchers, and homesteaders on the Native American land led to violence. The Sioux War and the Red River Ear were both conflicts stemming from the government’s decision to end recognition of the tribes and land treaties, called the Indian Appropriation Act of 1871. The Native Americans evens tried to religiously rebel against the Americans in the movement called the Ghost Dance, where they believed they could reduce the amount of Americans on their lands by dancing / conjuring the spirits of the dead. And finally, a new phase in the hostile relationship with the Natives began with the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, where the government tried to break up the tribal identities of the Natives. In a sense, the government wanted to change the

The American Indian Movement or “AIM” is a civil rights organization founded in 1968 to encourage determination among Native Americans and establish international recognition of their treaty rights. The movement was all about peace and standing up for civil rights in the Native Americans own way. Native Americans were not given adequate housing, people without electricity and plumbing. According to Bill Means, the money was not properly being used for healthcare and education for the Native Americans.

Grading the effectiveness of any civil rights movement can be a difficult affair. The criteria of a successful civil rights movement often include a list of concrete changes to policy. The American Indian Movement’s success should not be diagnosed in this way. The self-empowering culture and spiritual revival that the American Indian Movement (AIM) produced is enough to consider it a success. A young American Indian activist Clyde Warrior stated in a paper he wrote: “Programs must Indian creations, Indian choices, Indian experiences. Even the failures must be Indian experiences because only then will Indians understand why a program failed and not blame themselves for some personal inadequacy.” (Smith and Warrior, 55) The American Indian Movement

This act was devastating towards the Native Indians as it broke up the previous land settlements given to the Native Indians in the form of reservations and separated them into smaller, separate amount of land to live on, and most of the time the land requested by the Native Indians would not be given to them and instead would be designated a land that is not fruitful or is away from any body of water. This act gave the white settlers a great advantage in the expense of the Native Indians land where they plant and burn resources that helped them survive for generations. This document is important as it shows how much negative impact foreign people has done to Native Indians’ agriculture and towards the them as a whole. In addition, this document

Entering the field museums Ancient Americas is quite an experience. Before even fully entering the exhibit that goes back years into the past, the first thing that is heard is the voices in the native tongues of the indigenous peoples. The whole exhibit was made in a respectful and non-ethnocentric manner. At the beginning of the entrance to the Ancient Americas museum in a paragraph, it states, “This exhibition