Hannah Locklear
Luigi Mendez
POLI 130
11 November 2016
The Nations Within Our Nation
Native Americans within the United States are the aboriginal population of the land. America was not a vacuum domicillium (empty landscape) when explorers arrived—that was just a statement tool used to justify the mass genocide and conquests that occurred after colonization (Welch 9). There were millions of Native peoples that populated this land with preexisting political structures and tribal relations of their own. In today 's time, the Native American people are not fully free nations, but they maintain many sovereign rights depending on their level of federal recognition and autonomy. In this essay, there will be an outline of the United States history and political similarities to Native American tribes, an explanation of how sovereign nations interact domestically with the United States, and why these governments still exist separately within the United States.
The United States of America has a very tumultuous history with Native American tribes. The country originally attempted to eradicate the Native American populations, but when the attempts did not work the citizens had to learn how to coexist with the tribes. Native American tribes are unique in the United States because they are the only aboriginal peoples that continue to practice a form of self-government in the midst of a new and modern civilization that has come to their lands (Deloria 2). The term nations were given
By 1940, Native Americans had experienced many changes and counter-changes in their legal status in the United States. Over the course of the nineteenth century, most tribes lost part or all of their ancestral lands and were forced to live on reservations. Following the American Civil War, the federal government abrogated most of the tribes’ remaining sovereignty and required communal lands to be allotted to individuals. The twentieth century also saw great changes for Native Americans, such as the Citizenship Act and the Indian New Deal. Alison R. Bernstein examines how the Second World War affected the status and lives of Native Americans in American Indians and World War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Bernstein argues
Has America always been true to its ideals of freedom reigning throughout its people and diverse culture? Throughout history the relationship as well as interactions between Native Americans and eager-faced settlers have been at the least discriminatory. "America the land of the free, home of the brave," this iconic line has seemed to be America's anthem time and time again. Throughout the periods and trials involving Native Americans and other settlers, this theme has seemed contrary in the Indians eyes.
Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).
Before reading Joel Spring’s text, Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality, I assumed by the late 1800s that Native Americans would be allowed to be citizens in the United States. So I was shocked to discover that the first Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1901. Unfortunately, the only Native Americans to receive citizenship at the time were ones were considered civilized because they adopted European culture (Spring, 2016). It is astonishing to me that our government forced Native Americans to give up their culture and adopt ours if they
Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and
The history of the United States with regards to its native population is inaccurate and assumes that the history of this country began when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock (Richter, pp. 4-5). With regards to the native people’s
From its birth, America was a place of inequality and privilege. Since Columbus 's arrival and up until present day, Native American tribes have been victim of white men 's persecution and tyranny. This was first expressed in the 1800’s, when Native Americans were driven off their land and forced to embark on the Trail of Tears, and again during the Western American- Indian War where white Americans massacred millions of Native Americans in hatred. Today, much of the Indian Territory that was once a refuge for Native Americans has since been taken over by white men, and the major tribes that once called these reservations home are all but gone. These events show the discrimination and oppression the Native Americans faced. They were, and continue to be, pushed onto reservations,
“The Indian presence precipitated the formation of an American identity” (Axtell 992). Ostracized by numerous citizens of the United States today, this quote epitomizes Axtell’s beliefs of the Indians contributing to our society. Unfortunately, Native Americans’ roles in history are often categorized as insignificant or trivial, when in actuality the Indians contributed greatly to Colonial America, in ways the ordinary person would have never deliberated. James Axtell discusses these ways, as well as what Colonial America may have looked like without the Indians’ presence. Throughout his article, his thesis stands clear by his persistence of alteration the Native Americans had on our nation. James Axtell’s bias delightfully enhances his thesis, he provides a copious amount of evidence establishing how Native Americans contributed critically to the Colonial culture, and he considers America as exceptional – largely due to the Native Americans.
Native Americans have felt distress from societal and governmental interactions for hundreds of years. American Indian protests against these pressures date back to the colonial period. Broken treaties, removal policies, acculturation, and assimilation have scarred the indigenous societies of the United States. These policies and the continued oppression of the native communities produced an atmosphere of heightened tension. Governmental pressure for assimilation and their apparent aim to destroy cultures, communities, and identities through policies gave the native people a reason to fight. The unanticipated consequence was the subsequent creation of a pan-American Indian identity
What were the significant treaties, policies, and events that defined US Government and Native American Relations? How did the Native American respond to these treaties, polices, and events historically? How did these treaties, policies, and events affect the subsistence, religion, political, and social structures of the Native American people? I will answer these questions through the examination of two centuries of US history in six time periods that define clear changes in the relationship between the Native American and the US Government.
In addition to the Native Americans not just being one group of people they were not united; tribes frequently went to war with one another. The Native that presided in what is now the present day United States were not quite as advanced as their Central American counterparts. They lived in small tribes but the tribes weren’t entirely archaic; they had their own systems and unique beliefs. Each member of the tribes fit a certain role which was equally important to the next. These natives also had trade routes and systems.
American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal
The event surrounding the Treaty of Indian Springs are all too familiar in u.s. Native relations. The United States has exploded divisions among native peoples since its creation as a government in a deed the British and other Europeans have done similarly since coming to the new continent. similar cases can be found in Central America and South America. The Creek Nation of the time of the early eighteen-hundreds with split between a relatively small group of assimilationist who believed that through prosperity and embrace of capitalism the Indians could remain whole and survive in the United States comma end traditionalists who believed that only through preservation of old ways could their uniqueness and way of life be preserved. Is clear
History knows no exceptions to the fact that all of the countries which exist in modern world were built on top of previous cultures and nations. United States in this sense was created on the lands and bones of Indians. When first settlers arrived to North America from Europe, they immediately started taking territories and lives of native population. This continued for more than four centuries until almost nothing was left from Native Americans. For the purpose of this paper we will look at this process starting from the
From the moment of organized European appearances in North America, negotiation has been a central characteristic of relationships between aboriginal residents and newcomers. It is a characteristic that has been evident in treaty-making throughout Canada for more than three hundred years and it continues to be the order of the day in modern treaties, claims and agreements being negotiated with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis across in Canada. 1