Robert Gilmer
Rapporteur
3/5/08 Discussion Questions
Questions:
1. What were some reasons that the ‘Indian Country’ didn’t
work?
The class felt that everywhere the government tried to set a border they
couldn’t keep whites from crossing over and settling on Indian land.
As an example we talked about the 1763 proclamation line, which was intended
to establish Indian country beyond crest of Appalachians, but ultimately
caused resistance from white colonists who refused to abide by it.
2. Do you think the Indians would have been better off if they had become
their own state in the Union?
At first the class felt that the idea of Indians having own states wouldn’t
have worked because the Indians wouldn’t have wanted it and they
would have been at a disadvantage to other states who were more familiar
with Euroamerican law. Some students countered this by saying that it would’ve
given them more control over their affairs and more of a share in the country.
The attempted State of Sequoyah was also brought up as a example of Indians
attempting to create their own state in eastern Oklahoma.
3. Why did the Indians continue to participate in treaty negotiations
after previous terms had been breached?
We felt that the didn’t really have a choice, and that the United
States held too much power for any other option to be viable. Negotiation,
even though they were probably skeptical, offered their best chance to
protect their own interests. Otherwise the government might just decide
it for them. The “promise of retaining what they had” led them
to take part in treaty negotiations.
4. Why, even after starting to farm, creating schools, etc, were the Cherokees
to be forced out of Georgia?
Whites were
just using lack of assimilation as an excuse, even though Indians adopted some
European technology, etc, whites just ignored it and still forced them out.
Government and powerful people really had ulterior motives for civilization
rhetoric. Taxonomy of civilization: hunting and gathering, pastural, agriculture,
industrialization and urbanization, centralized states—mobile to sedentary
trajectory. European notion of civilization underlay US Indian policy. We didn’t
want to use the term “progress” because it implies that later stages
are “better.” We also talked about how the work of Paul Shephard
questioned European notions of civilization and pointed out what was missing
in European “progress.”
5. What differences between the whites and the Indians allowed the whites
to progress?
We skipped this question.
6. Do you think the treaties passed in the 1800s should still be pertinent
today? Should they be modified at all?
Treaties
are law of the land, so yes, regardless of how we feel they should be respected.
Treaties should have been upheld originally, but since they weren’t we
can’t really force people off of what were Indian lands. Displacement
would be just as bad now as in the past, regardless if the law may support
it. Modification of treaties would also really depend on who wanted to modify
them. Government modifications would likely be seen in a more negative light
than Indian efforts to modify them. We compared these treaties to the NAFTA
debates today, pointing out how a president can’t really change NAFTA,
they can renegotiate it, but can’t actually make the changes themselves.
Abjure—formal renouncement of treaty, not the same as abrogating it.
Former only suggests that you don’t like it and want to renegotiate,
not that you will unilaterally withdraw. Finally we discussed how the purposes
of Indian treaties has also changed over time, initially meant to protect lands,
now that lands are lost the focus is more on protecting Indian rights to use
lands.
7. How were the Indians different from Slaves? How were they similar?
A major difference was that Indians
were forced off land, while blacks were forced to stay on white lands. Another
difference is that Indians did not want to assimilate, can’t use same
language that you use with other minorities. Indians didn’t want to be
part of the US, they wanted to be separate. Attitudes of whites shaped how
Indians saw themselves in relation to whites, removal etc, made Indians not
want to be with whites. Removal of Indians to reservations set them apart,
reinforced idea of separate identity.
8. Are there similarities between John Marshall and Las Casas?
Both wrestled
with similar problems, though in different places. How do we justify Euro conquest,
expropriation of Indian land? Both wanted to morally justify it, and struggled
figuring out how to bring order to this system while respecting the rights
of everyone involved. Both wanted to do the right thing, but were restricted
by discourses of the day, options were somewhat limited by what was seen as
being possible. Both were in a sense members of a priesthood, one Catholic,
the other legal. But both dealt with issues of morality and how to distinguish
right from wrong in complex situations. Both had courage to attempt to settle
these issues in moral fashion.
"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
Date created: January 10, 2000
Last modified: March, 2008
Copyright © 2008, George R. Spangler