Katie Pilarski
3-26-08- Discussion
We first discussed treaties and how no new treaties are currently made with Indians. We then discussed the rights of Indians based on treaty provisions, tribal sovereignty, and the reserved rights doctrine (1903 decision) that said Indians retain all rights not abrogated in treaties or other laws. Although they have the same legal rights as every other U.S. citizen, Indians retain unique rights when it comes to hunting, fishing, and other natural resources use. For example, no one can hunt or take bald eagles, except for Indians for religious purposes.
Questions:
Europeans had false notions of what was really going on in Indian culture. Early on, European attitudes were centered on what genders were doing which jobs; gendered roles differed from that of Europeans in that men were hunting, while women worked in the fields, and this was not something that the Europeans were accustomed to. This may have had an impact on the way they thought of the Indians (“as wondering, blood-thirsty savages”). Throughout history, people have progressed to civilized states through agricultural means, and we discussed the affects of “progressing” civilization and industrialization and the pinnacle of human civilizations. Also, the communication barrier that existed had a major role in what was written or recorded about Indian culture. We don’t know if or what parts of history may have been made up.
Maybe since North America was/is closer to Spain than South America, it was treated differently. Maybe Spain hoped that the government would retain control of North America instead of what happened with other countries and losing control of them. Europe had been liberated from another ruling force (the Moors) and were wondering what to do with their unemployed military- perhaps seeking justification for the beginnings of an expansion period.
John Marshall had influence on domestic law. He felt that the discovery of land entitled the Europeans to it, but that this shouldn’t extinguish the rights of the Indians. He decided that while the tribes were not “foreign nations” that had full sovereignty rights, the Indians could govern themselves and be involved in political relations with the federal government (domestic dependency). Andrew Jackson did not go along with the rulings; John Marshall wouldn’t have been able to enforce them. Indians’ rights were slowly taken away, and they were losing their political standing as time passed. The battle over state’s rights led to civil war (30 years later). Marshall’s decision of 1832 was based on the formal relations between state governments and Indians.
We also discussed the 1887 General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act), which gave the President the right to allot any Indian reservation land when he felt it advantageous to the Indians, which was quite often. Henry Dawes argued on behalf of Indians, placing the lands under “our” control. The only hope for Indian survival was to go along with white man’s laws, and this resulted in a great loss of Indian lands (138 million acres to 48 million acres). Nearly half of this land was unsuitable to use for farming purposes, and the Indians were not given the necessary tools to succeed. Again, we discussed the idea that “civilized” people were civilized due to regular habits and work such as farming, and that it would be in the best interest of the Indians (in European’s minds) to have them become involved with agriculture.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are
strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not
been reviewed
or approved by the
University
of Minnesota
Date created: January 10, 2000
Last modified:
April, 2008
Copyright © 2008, George
R. Spangler