Native Hawaiian Sovereignty

It never ceases to amaze me how often people will take such ridged stands on an issue, while at the same time proudly describe themselves as ignorant of the facts of that very issue.

 

I'm not upset at all, just commenting after reading the back and forth between Martin and yourself. No big deal.

 

google trail of tears

from http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html

The Cherokees in 1828 were not nomadic savages. In fact, they had assimilated many European-style customs, including the wearing of gowns by Cherokee women. They built roads, schools and churches, had a system of representational government, and were farmers and cattle ranchers. A Cherokee alphabet, the "Talking Leaves" was perfected by Sequoyah.

"I would sooner be honestly damned than hypocritically immortalized"
Davy Crockett
His political career destroyed because he supported the Cherokee, he left Washington D. C. and headed west to Texas.
In 1830 the Congress of the United States passed the "Indian Removal Act." Although many Americans were against the act, most notably Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett, it passed anyway. President Jackson quickly signed the bill into law. The Cherokees attempted to fight removal legally by challenging the removal laws in the Supreme Court and by establishing an independent Cherokee Nation. At first the court seemed to rule against the Indians. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Court refused to hear a case extending Georgia's laws on the Cherokee because they did not represent a sovereign nation. In 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee on the same issue in Worcester v. Georgia. In this case Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign, making the removal laws invalid. The Cherokee would have to agree to removal in a treaty. The treaty then would have to be ratified by the Senate.

By 1835 the Cherokee were divided and despondent. Most supported Principal Chief John Ross, who fought the encroachment of whites starting with the 1832 land lottery. However, a minority(less than 500 out of 17,000 Cherokee in North Georgia) followed Major Ridge, his son John, and Elias Boudinot, who advocated removal. The Treaty of New Echota, signed by Ridge and members of the Treaty Party in 1835, gave Jackson the legal document he needed to remove the First Americans. Ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate sealed the fate of the Cherokee. Among the few who spoke out against the ratification were Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, but it passed by a single vote. In 1838 the United States began the removal to Oklahoma, fulfilling a promise the government made to Georgia in 1802. Ordered to move on the Cherokee, General John Wool resigned his command in protest, delaying the action. His replacement, General Winfield Scott, arrived at New Echota on May 17, 1838 with 7000 men. Early that summer General Scott and the United States Army began the invasion of the Cherokee Nation.

 

'68,

Are you admitting in a round about way that the entire human race is (still) contaminated with a sin nature?

If so, congrats. Risking the accusation of changing the topic, which seems to have morphed into the "nature of human government," all recent human governments are based on the concept of human improvement i.e. the Indian People were uncivilized but we are civilized. I propose that, at best, we are more sanitary in executing our evil.

 

How far are you from the nearest indian reservation, Salty ?
When I lived up over at the Buffalo area, if I recall correctly, the nearest indian reservation was maybe well over 30 miles, way past Evans where we used to go for church.
Made no sense, for me, at least (maybe it did to those who had bigger gas tanks) to drive that far just to load up with gas then drive back to Amherst, except if I carried an extra 5 gallon can or two, which my wife won't allow, and my wallet won't definitely approve of it.

 

==If you have not studied this in depth and you do not care to do so why are you commenting forcefully on it? I would have assumed that someone who has such strong feelings on this as you do would have done more research (etc).

==Actually they do. They are descendents from people with whom the United States signed treaties and made agreements. Those treaties and agreements have, for the most part, not be cancelled nor have they expired. The United States government has simply chosen not to honor those treaties. That is not right.

==Giving them some sovereign status does not necessarily equal "a perpetual system of special benefits". They were here and they were sovereign before the colonists and the United States. For the most part their sovereignty was taken from them by settlers just taking up residence and governments making land claims (over land they had no right to make such claims over).

==Nobody denies that everyone born in America is, technically, a native American. In fact, there is a debate among historians (etc) about what term should be used for the American Indian (Native American, American Indian, Indian, etc). Nobody is saying that we, today, do not have rights to our land. The issue is about giving the American Indians what they were promised.

==I find that statement to be very interesting, and very true. Why is it interesting? It is the exact same argument many American Indians have made throughout history in the face of European colonization. Tecumseh, the Shawnee warrior, made that same argument in his debates with William Henry Harrison (who would later be president, for a short time). So the American Indians do not, as a whole, deny that the land belongs to God (etc). What they are asking for is their sovereignty. Why should that be denied them?

 

==That (bold) is simply not true. First, there never was one American Indian nation. Second, many nations still exist. They have their own land, governments, schools, etc.

 

==While I am not a "walking encyclopedia" on American Indian studies/history, I have spent a great deal of my professional life studying the history and culture of American Indians. My major graduate research was on King Philip's War and I did a research paper in my graduate historiography class on Native Americans as slaves. I also teach the Native American History class at the college I work at. However I don't claim to be an American Indian scholar nor do I claim to be an expert on the subject. I have many friends and professional acquantences (at other colleges/universities) who are scholars of American Indian history. I don't claim to be at their level (yet). I enjoy talking with them and reading their books, but I still have a great deal of learning to do.

I say that to point out that I do have some background in this area. Some of the things you stated above are not totally true. Let me elaborate on that point.

First, you said that "American Indians were human beings just like all the rest of us - inherently no better and no worse - but their culture was not at all like that of Europe". That is 100% correct. Like you I realize that American Indians were/are humans, sinful humans at that. Their culture, thanks a lot to their environment, was very different from that of Europeans.

Second, you said that "They had some nasty habits such as warring among themselves a lot". That is a bit more complicated. Yes, Americans Indians warred amongst themselves prior to the arrival of Europeans. However the amount of warfare, and the effectiveness of that warfare, is a matter of debate. Most of the scholars I have read agree that Indian warfare prior to contact was less violent than wars going on at the same time in Europe, Africa, and Asia. I have also seen this point in my studies of primary writings of the early colonists (Woods, Williams, Morton, etc). Don't get me wrong, people were killed and injured in these wars and the fate of male captives could be horrifying (scalping, dismemberments, etc). There were, of course, many different tribes (etc) and the level of violence associated with any war would depend on who was involved. There were tribes, such as the Aztecs in Mexico, that were very war like. So it really depends.

Third, you said "taking and holding slaves, torturing prisoners, and treating women as inferior beings". American Indians did hold slaves and after contact they held Europeans and Africans as slaves. As you rightly point out, they were not unique in that. They also "tortured" male prisoners. Many times children and women were adopted into the tribe. However men would many times be tortured to death. The descriptions of such scenes in colonial writings is chilling. I would take some exception to the idea that American Indians treated women as "inferior beings". Women did most, if not all, of the domestic work. They also did most of the field work (planting, etc). Men generally hunted, fished, fought, carried out diplomacy, etc. However that does not mean women were looked down upon. Many tribes/nations were matrilineal and women would often hold positions of leadership in the villages. Some women were even sachems.

==Most of the primary accounts, from Europeans, report that the American Indians were very friendly upon first contact. Sadly the friendly behavior of the Indians changed after conflicts with Europeans and later arrivals often suffered the consequences.

==Actually during the 16th and 17th century many of the American Indians believed that they had been placed here by God. There are reams of "creation" and "emergence" myths to prove that. Even today, not all American Indians believe the Beringia theory.

 

That's true, and I see where you're coming from. However, I think you miss the legal basis from tribal sovereignty. The Indians governed their own territory and people prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Constitution in several places indicates that there is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. Modern day tribal sovereignty is a continuation of that.