Speaker 1: Welcome to it could happen here a podcast that is
Speaker 1: on the cycle of being sort of okayly introduced. When
Speaker 1: this episode goes out, it will be Indigenous People's Day
Speaker 1: and so to to talk about that more where we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk to Dalia Killsback, who is a member of
Speaker 1: the Northern Cheyenne, has a Northern Cheyenne tribal citizenship and
Speaker 1: has sort of studied and worked in federal India tribal policy. Dahlia, Hello,
Speaker 1: how how are you doing? I'm doing well. Thank you
Speaker 1: for inviting me here today. Of course Garrison is also here.
Speaker 1: Garrison Hello, Hello. I'm I'm currently also doing writing about
Speaker 1: indigenous stuff, but within the context of Canada, which people
Speaker 1: should will probably here later this week. UM so yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess first thing I wanted to talk about is
Speaker 1: a little bit is about what Indigenous People's Day is
Speaker 1: and why it is that and not the other thing.
Speaker 1: Um yeah. So Indigenous People's Day, UM, as many people know,
Speaker 1: is replacing I'm gonna say it, Chris chrispher Columbus Day. Um.
Speaker 1: That is still like a federal holiday, but multiple cities
Speaker 1: and states have opted to use Indigenous People's Day instead. Um.
Speaker 1: And The reasoning for that is acknowledging the atrocities that
Speaker 1: were committed by Christopher Columbus, who, first of all did
Speaker 1: not discover America UM, but UM continue to UM not
Speaker 1: only use slavery, but UM commit different forms of genocide, rape, etcetera,
Speaker 1: all of these terrible atrocities. And so rather than celebrating
Speaker 1: UM somebody like that UM, Indigenous People's Day UM has
Speaker 1: been implemented in order to recognize the people who are
Speaker 1: actually here first UM and in Diigenous people's across the America's,
Speaker 1: their histories, cultures, and contributions. Yeah, Columbus, real piece of ship,
Speaker 1: worst Christopher, Like, yeah, it really cannot be overstated how
Speaker 1: bad that guy was. Even even you know, even people
Speaker 1: in that era who had committed their own genocides like
Speaker 1: Isabelle and Ferdinand, who you know, expelled the Jews from Spain.
Speaker 1: Where it's like, you know, if once you've reached the
Speaker 1: sentence expelled the Jews from X, like you you're a
Speaker 1: You're already in the ship list of the worst people
Speaker 1: in human history. And even they saw what Columbus was doing,
Speaker 1: it was like what on earth, bad bad guy, bad name.
Speaker 1: Things are going to continue to go badly, And yeah,
Speaker 1: that that wasn't everything that I wanted to talk about,
Speaker 1: which is federal Indian policy. And you know this, this
Speaker 1: is an incredibly broad This is an incredibly broad area
Speaker 1: spanning like three hundred years. So we're not gonna be
Speaker 1: able to go into like an enormous amount of depth
Speaker 1: in it. But I think it's important that people have
Speaker 1: an understanding of, I mean a just what the US
Speaker 1: did and how everyone else has had the sort of
Speaker 1: deal with it. And then also the fact that this
Speaker 1: is something that changes over time and has has looked different,
Speaker 1: It's looked it's been bad in different ways. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: so when talking about federal Indian policy, I always like
Speaker 1: to contextualize it within a larger um sort of like
Speaker 1: euro American like teleology of colonial conquests and then moving
Speaker 1: on to Setler colonialism and where we are with federal
Speaker 1: federal Indian policy currently. UM, So how do we connect
Speaker 1: Christopher Columbus to where we are currently? UM? And this
Speaker 1: is the history of federal Indian policy and Western legal
Speaker 1: discourse and how UM European powers throughout history have defined
Speaker 1: what it means to be an Indian person in relationship
Speaker 1: to UM indigenous people's rights to their own land and
Speaker 1: to self governance. UM. So when we're looking at the
Speaker 1: different periods of federal Indian policy UM, prior to their
Speaker 1: being the United States government, we have the colonial period UM,
Speaker 1: which is fourteen ninety two to seventeen seventies six. UM.
Speaker 1: This is how federal Indian policy illegal scholars divide that UM.
Speaker 1: And it's really important to kind of give the difference
Speaker 1: between what is um a colonial state versus a settler
Speaker 1: colonial state when you're talking about not just the United
Speaker 1: States government, but also the Canadian government and um, different
Speaker 1: governments globally. UM. But I want to talk just a
Speaker 1: little bit about what I mean by the difference between
Speaker 1: a colonial government and a suttler colonial government, because they're
Speaker 1: tied together, UM. So by a settler colonial government, I
Speaker 1: mean what I mean is that it is defined by
Speaker 1: the d territorialization of indigenous population populations. And so rather
Speaker 1: than in a colonial government as you had with Christopher
Speaker 1: Columbus and the Spanish and with the English, etcetera, UM
Speaker 1: is rather than a state and sovereignty being conceived as
Speaker 1: all these resources are going back to the metrical All
Speaker 1: these resources are going back to England or to Spain, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And colonial occupation is in is um conceptualized within this
Speaker 1: way in settler colonial governments, UM, the colonists come to
Speaker 1: these lands and stay and they're what they define as
Speaker 1: sovereignty is within this land that they define now as
Speaker 1: their own. So and in order for that process to happen, UM,
Speaker 1: there needs to be different forms of genocide of the
Speaker 1: indigenous populations. And so that's what we saw with Christopher
Speaker 1: Columbus and throughout history, UM was just the depletion of
Speaker 1: a lot of our indigenous populists. UM. And so when
Speaker 1: I mean about the United States UM being a settler
Speaker 1: colonial state, I mean that this is current and ongoing.
Speaker 1: And so when we talk about federal Indian policy, UM,
Speaker 1: federal Indian policy is always in this conversation with what
Speaker 1: started with Christopher Columbus as the doctrine of discovery and UM.
Speaker 1: So that's how we define the colonial period. And feel
Speaker 1: free to like stop me and ask me questions. Else
Speaker 1: I'm just going to try to move quickly because there's
Speaker 1: a lot I think we probably should briefly talk about
Speaker 1: what the doctory discovery is, um least before we get
Speaker 1: to set the martial trilogy and stuff. For sure, what
Speaker 1: does that actually mean legally? Um? So legally um, it's
Speaker 1: the discovery of a quote unquote New found Land UM
Speaker 1: by European colonial forces. And the reason why it's called
Speaker 1: the doctrine of discovery was that indigenous peoples on these
Speaker 1: lands were deemed unable to govern themselves and they did
Speaker 1: not know how to utilize their land up to the
Speaker 1: definition of what the European powers thought UM land use
Speaker 1: was that um. Indigenous peoples didn't have the same concept
Speaker 1: of property um, and same with their relationship with resources
Speaker 1: and resource extraction. So when um, Christopher club this and
Speaker 1: all of these other colonizers clunky clunkys doors came to
Speaker 1: the quote unquote New Land, UM, they saw all of
Speaker 1: this rich, plentiful resource and thoughts of themselves, Well, obviously
Speaker 1: these people don't know what they're doing because there's just
Speaker 1: so much they have not done anything with it. Um.
Speaker 1: And we're going to take this back to two hours
Speaker 1: because obviously their inferior beings and don't know what property is.
Speaker 1: So um. Legally um it the doctrine of Discovery conveyed
Speaker 1: legal title to an ownership of American soil to European
Speaker 1: nations UM a title that devolved to the United States
Speaker 1: and so UM. This definition is expansive UM and expansive
Speaker 1: discovery implies that Native nations have a right to lands
Speaker 1: as occupants or possessors, but they are incompetent to manage
Speaker 1: those lands and need a quote unquote benevolent guardian such
Speaker 1: as a federal government who holds legal title and UM.
Speaker 1: So when we're talking about this legal title, it devolves
Speaker 1: to the United States. Later on, UM in history, after
Speaker 1: the American Revolution UM, and so rather than being colonial
Speaker 1: states UM as the United States like thirteen original colonies,
Speaker 1: given um, the American Revolution and its own constitution and
Speaker 1: its creation of itself as a nation state, then that
Speaker 1: turns into a settler colonial government. Yeah. I think we can, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we can get to what happens next then, because yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you have you have this elaborate legal framework that lets
Speaker 1: you steal people's land and murder them and then control it.
Speaker 1: And then the outgrowth of that is this sort of
Speaker 1: weird event where the colonies go into rebellion and suddenly, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's there's not a colony. They're not colonies anymore. They
Speaker 1: just are the state and so yeah, but what happens
Speaker 1: next after the sort of formation of the United States.
Speaker 1: So after the formation of the United States, um, so,
Speaker 1: we have this period the American Revolution, it's all not
Speaker 1: really diving into. It is seventeen seventy six to seventeen
Speaker 1: eighty nine, and it's called the Confederation period. But next
Speaker 1: we have the Trade and Intercourse Act era, which is
Speaker 1: from seventeen eighty nine to eighteen thirty five. And so
Speaker 1: this is defined with the United States Constitution and Congress's
Speaker 1: exclusive right to regulate trade relations and make lands since
Speaker 1: the land secessions, and enter into treaties with tribes. So
Speaker 1: this is a treaty making era with the tribes that
Speaker 1: only the United States federal government is able to And
Speaker 1: there's a distinction there because there had been a lot
Speaker 1: of contestation between states and the federal government as to
Speaker 1: who is going to now deal with these, um these
Speaker 1: nations that are with our within our own settler colonial borders.
Speaker 1: So whose job is that to solve this issue? Um? So,
Speaker 1: within the United States Constitution, there are three clauses that
Speaker 1: define the United States legal relationship to American Indians, and
Speaker 1: so these are the treaty making Clause the commerce clause
Speaker 1: and the property clause. Um. And so this this movement
Speaker 1: from just relying on the doctrine of discovery and treaty
Speaker 1: making processes between different European powers now is between the
Speaker 1: United States federal government and tribes. And so what this
Speaker 1: does is now tribes are located within the United States territory,
Speaker 1: and this places Indians within the boundaries and jurisdiction of
Speaker 1: the United States, and now they are a matter of
Speaker 1: domestic interest something. It leads it's to one of the
Speaker 1: sort of complicated questions that the changes to this whole era,
Speaker 1: which is about what does sovereignty mean for these tribes
Speaker 1: and to what extent to the even continue to possess it,
Speaker 1: and how does that even sort of how does that
Speaker 1: work if you have when you have this new state
Speaker 1: that's sort of just has his clean control here, right
Speaker 1: And also during this period, um, well, well later on
Speaker 1: when we have um started jumping ahead of myself, when
Speaker 1: we have the extermination of the treaty making process, and
Speaker 1: this completely removes seeing tribes as independent sovereign nations. UM.
Speaker 1: So I think that will kind of get more into
Speaker 1: that later. But the thing with federal Indian policy, UM,
Speaker 1: is that it's sort of self prophesizing. So as settlers
Speaker 1: are moving across America, UM, the United States government also
Speaker 1: has to create these policies UM in order to legalize
Speaker 1: these land cessations and movements. And a pattern that we
Speaker 1: do see here UM throughout history and throughout time is
Speaker 1: that the United States federal government, as a settler state
Speaker 1: is um over the rights of over the UM rights
Speaker 1: to land and rights of indigenous peoples themselves. You have
Speaker 1: a priority of the settler state in order to acquire land.
Speaker 1: So that a lot of the reason why UM later
Speaker 1: these treaties will be broken, etcetera, is because settlers are
Speaker 1: moving into these lands and the United States is then
Speaker 1: breaking these treaties in order to UM have more more land,
Speaker 1: more land secessions. Yeah, the laws are of just following
Speaker 1: the violence and it just becomes a retroactive justification. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's it's a self justifying sort of sovereignty. So this
Speaker 1: is the removal period and what a lot of people
Speaker 1: may have heard of. So it's from to eighteen sixty one,
Speaker 1: and what we have is the extinguishment of Indian title
Speaker 1: to eastern lands and the removal of Indian tribes westward
Speaker 1: so UM. One of the most notable acts is the
Speaker 1: Removal Act, which was authorized by President Andrew Jackson, which
Speaker 1: moved Um Indians from the east to the west of
Speaker 1: the Mississippi River into what was called Indian Territory UM.
Speaker 1: And what brought about this UM Federal Federal Act UM
Speaker 1: was a series of three foundational statutes within federal Indian
Speaker 1: policy UM dictated by Chief Justice John Marshall. So first
Speaker 1: we have Johnson B. Macintosh Cherokee Nation be Georgia and
Speaker 1: Worcester be Georgia. And I won't go into too much detail,
Speaker 1: but what this these essentially UM did and legally defined
Speaker 1: tribes as being domestic dependent nations. And so it clarified
Speaker 1: more that again tribal nations are underneath the federal government's overview,
Speaker 1: not the states. So yeah, it placed tribes above state jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: And what this is trying to do was UM solve
Speaker 1: some issues that tribes such as the Cherokee Nation had
Speaker 1: with different states when it came to land and UM
Speaker 1: jurisdiction over said land. UM. But that is kind of
Speaker 1: the basis of a lot of federal Indian policy and
Speaker 1: still remains truth day. And what is notable uh in
Speaker 1: each one of these statutes UM, I believe, particularly in
Speaker 1: Worcester the Georgia, although it seems that it was supporting
Speaker 1: tribal sovereignty in them and that they were above state jurisdiction,
Speaker 1: a lot of these UM statute sided racist president and
Speaker 1: the doctrine of Discovery. So what you see for federal
Speaker 1: Indian policy is that a lot of the fount well
Speaker 1: all the foundation for federal Indian policy based on President
Speaker 1: is the Doctrine of Discovery, which is reliant on the
Speaker 1: idea that American Indians were savages and needed um federal
Speaker 1: benevolence and um paternalism in order to regulate their own affairs. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think that's well, okay, we should probably not
Speaker 1: just immediately get to allotment, but yeah, because there this is,
Speaker 1: there's this, there's also Yeah, this is also the period
Speaker 1: of use. Yeah, the thing you were talking about earlier,
Speaker 1: the thing you helped me know about, which is okay,
Speaker 1: it's not true to say this is when this starts,
Speaker 1: but this is Indian Removal Act, Trail of Tears territory.
Speaker 1: And yeah, one thing that you know, I think one
Speaker 1: of one of the sort of running themes of this
Speaker 1: is that, you know, the the law in this context
Speaker 1: is just sort of becomes a sort of retroactive excuse
Speaker 1: to do whatever needs to be done from the perspective
Speaker 1: quote unquote of the sort of of the settler state
Speaker 1: to just take all of this land. Yeah. And I
Speaker 1: think maybe like one of the keystones of this is
Speaker 1: Andrew Jackson just straight up tellings between court to funk
Speaker 1: Off so that he can do so he can do
Speaker 1: with trail of tears. Yeah. Um. So the Removal Act
Speaker 1: happened after all of these statutes that you already had
Speaker 1: that supported um, federal Indian sovereignty. And so the Cherokees
Speaker 1: in Georgia were one of the tribes that were removed. Um.
Speaker 1: And so you kind of see what you talked about,
Speaker 1: the the retrograde kind of justifications for said removal despite um,
Speaker 1: the statutes that are there. So although that like Marshall
Speaker 1: Um in Worcester f Georgia determined that the State of
Speaker 1: Georgia did not have jurisdiction over Cherokee territory all this territory,
Speaker 1: although this territory was in the state's borders. Um. Later on,
Speaker 1: you see with the Removal Act that although these statutes
Speaker 1: are still president in federal Indian policy, those were noll
Speaker 1: in order for UM there to be more UM expansion
Speaker 1: of settlers within these areas. So when it was decided that, oh, wait,
Speaker 1: we do need this land and we don't actually want
Speaker 1: these Indians here, let's put them to the side over
Speaker 1: past the Mississippi so that they're out of side, out
Speaker 1: of my right. So we see more of this um
Speaker 1: justification for settler expansion. And so again we bring back
Speaker 1: to these themes of like settler colonialism in order to
Speaker 1: UM kind of gain more of this land. And a
Speaker 1: lot of these statutes are still cited the doctrine of
Speaker 1: discovery in them and rather than supporting tribal policy, the
Speaker 1: relationship between the United States federal government and American Indians
Speaker 1: um was not based on the rights of Indians, but
Speaker 1: more that they can't they can't govern themselves, right and
Speaker 1: so so and that's the whole issue is like people
Speaker 1: are like they don't know what they're doing, so we're
Speaker 1: gonna push them and like take their land again. So
Speaker 1: I I don't know if you want me to go
Speaker 1: too much into the trail of tears, but um, you're
Speaker 1: seeing a lot of patterns here, I think, different forms
Speaker 1: of genocide, different forms of taking land. This was this
Speaker 1: is all around the same time as the Indian acting
Speaker 1: Canada as well, which was did a very similar thing,
Speaker 1: especially starting in the nine it's starting in the twenty
Speaker 1: century as well with the like expansion of the like
Speaker 1: assimilation programs. Yeah, and I think I guess the only
Speaker 1: thing I want to point out about this is that,
Speaker 1: you know, so one of one of the things that
Speaker 1: happens trailers here is at the Streme Court like tells
Speaker 1: Jackson that he can't do this, and j actually just
Speaker 1: does it anyways. And I think that's a very interesting
Speaker 1: important moment because you know, this is this is this
Speaker 1: thing right where the federal government can tell there's Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to funk off, right, and there's nothing that Streme
Speaker 1: Court could do about it. And if you look at
Speaker 1: what they did it to do, the thing they did
Speaker 1: it to do was genocide. And it's I think it's
Speaker 1: it's just I think this is a very sort of
Speaker 1: I don't know, this incredibly grim like you know, encapsulation
Speaker 1: of like what this state actually is, which is this
Speaker 1: sort of genocide machine and whatever sort of this is
Speaker 1: what sovereignty is right. The ability to break your own
Speaker 1: rules sort to sort of into or toning the system.
Speaker 1: So you know, you break your own laws and you
Speaker 1: know as we're gonna get you in a second, like
Speaker 1: you break your own treaties continuously, and you do this
Speaker 1: because you know, the genisite machine has to keep moving,
Speaker 1: right and Um. There's a couple of federal and new
Speaker 1: policy theorists um Findeler Jr. Who's one of the most
Speaker 1: famous ones, and David E. Wilkins who talks about how
Speaker 1: there's no need for checks and balances within the federal
Speaker 1: Indian policy system. So you have Congress that is able
Speaker 1: to um pass whatever act they want, and and then
Speaker 1: you also have the Supreme Court, and then you also
Speaker 1: have executive action. But it wasn't really delineated that well
Speaker 1: um within especially when it comes to this period as
Speaker 1: to who is going to be dealing with the Indians
Speaker 1: kind of thing. Um. And so this kind of confusion
Speaker 1: and not really completely defining what it means to be
Speaker 1: a domestic dependent nation, I think really just goes to
Speaker 1: show how much of a fragile edifice like settler um
Speaker 1: colonial policy is for it is within the system. UM.
Speaker 1: But again moving on it comes back again to land.
Speaker 1: So the reservation area era in eighteen sixty one to
Speaker 1: eighteen eighty seven UM has you have a lot of
Speaker 1: westward expansion of non Indians UM settlers, specifically to California.
Speaker 1: You also have the creation of Indian reservations and resulting
Speaker 1: Indian wars UM. Uh. So during this era what you
Speaker 1: see a lot out of UM are different types of
Speaker 1: attempts that assimilation UM and a lot of warfare. So
Speaker 1: you have a lot of the Plains tribes my tribe
Speaker 1: for instance, UM that are going through all of these
Speaker 1: battles fighting UM forced removal onto reservations UM. One of
Speaker 1: the most famous ones was UM the Battle of Greasy
Speaker 1: Grass or a Little Big Horn UM where General Custer
Speaker 1: was killed by Sue Cheyennes and Arapahos, and different instances
Speaker 1: of battles such as those, and also where a lot
Speaker 1: of tribes UM were forcibly removed to era areas that
Speaker 1: they weren't originally from. So like how the Sheriffees were
Speaker 1: moved to Oklahoma, there was attempts of my tribe, for instance,
Speaker 1: more than Cheyenne to be moved down to Oklahoma as well,
Speaker 1: and that's why there's some Southern Cheyennes in Oklahoma and
Speaker 1: then my tribes and with thin Shians in Montana. Another
Speaker 1: um in. Another thing that is happening during this period
Speaker 1: are boarding schools UM the boarding school era. So the
Speaker 1: attempt at assimilation through education UM and assimilation is also
Speaker 1: UM within within the settler colonial kind of structure. It's
Speaker 1: it's defined as a process where indigenous people end up
Speaker 1: UM conforming to different constructed notions of UM settler norms UM.
Speaker 1: So if they're not absorbed within the state completely, then
Speaker 1: their attempted attempt to be assimilated UM culturally, UM through education,
Speaker 1: through languages, in terms of economics and how you have
Speaker 1: a bunch of different sort of bureaucratic structures on these
Speaker 1: reservations trying to make tribal governments appear to be UM
Speaker 1: or constructed as as settler colonial governments are UM. So
Speaker 1: maybe it's the three branches UM in ways that aren't
Speaker 1: just compatible with different tribes culturally, and you also have
Speaker 1: the attemptive eradication of different kind of spiritual and cultural
Speaker 1: practices and a lot of Christianity course on different people
Speaker 1: and just kind of terrible things that UM I think
Speaker 1: more and more people are becoming aware of due to
Speaker 1: due to current movements. But we'll get into that moment later.
Speaker 1: Do we want to talk about a lot of in
Speaker 1: the same period, Yes, a lotment period and UM course assimilation.
Speaker 1: So this is like eighteen seventy one to nineteen thirty four,
Speaker 1: and so this is the end of the treaty making process.
Speaker 1: So the whole idea of UM trying to force tribes
Speaker 1: onto reservations and signed these treaties were too again take
Speaker 1: land and make sure that the United States has more
Speaker 1: land and all the land, etcetera that they possibly have UM.
Speaker 1: So at this end of treaty making UM federal allotment
Speaker 1: of Indian lands also happened in the UM the Jaws
Speaker 1: Act UM. And so what this was was an attempt
Speaker 1: to UM further shrink the reservation lands that tribes are
Speaker 1: already guaranteed within treaties UM. So during this period, I
Speaker 1: think that somewhere like nine million acres were UM taken
Speaker 1: from tribal reservations during the allotment process. So that what
Speaker 1: the allotment process did was it counted each in every
Speaker 1: individual Indian UM that was eligible. I think there were
Speaker 1: adults um. Yeah, adults that were eligible UM, and each
Speaker 1: one of them were given a certain parcel of land,
Speaker 1: a certain number of acreage UM. And once all of
Speaker 1: this land was calculated, what you had was an excess
Speaker 1: of land quote unquote excess of land that the tribes
Speaker 1: obviously didn't need because they had still too too many people.
Speaker 1: And so what the excess of land um was utilized
Speaker 1: force for pioneers and for settlers UM. If it didn't
Speaker 1: go UM to the federal government, it was to um
Speaker 1: incentivized settlers to colonized, esscial settle on Indian lands. So
Speaker 1: trying its hardest to not stay true to its treaty
Speaker 1: making practices. I think everything was interesting to me about
Speaker 1: this is that, like because one of the other goals
Speaker 1: of this is to sort of like, oh is the
Speaker 1: civilizing mission. It's like, yeah, we're gonna turn them into
Speaker 1: We're turning these people into like like human farmers, like
Speaker 1: true American fintiersman or whatever. And it's just like it
Speaker 1: just doesn't work because economically it doesn't make any sense,
Speaker 1: like breaking up all these like lands. It's like it
Speaker 1: doesn't you can't just give someone like a small patch
Speaker 1: of like shitty land and have them farm like this
Speaker 1: doesn't like this, it doesn't it doesn't like they certainly tried,
Speaker 1: and then yeah, yeah, like that was one of the
Speaker 1: main things. One of the main things in Canada was
Speaker 1: about getting them to adopt like like European farming practices,
Speaker 1: which which they already knew how to get their own food, right,
Speaker 1: they were trying to change this whole system of of
Speaker 1: of like of of food growth to to this like
Speaker 1: to this European way of of farming, and it just
Speaker 1: and they were just forcing them to and there's yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's yes, it gets it gets, it gets super,
Speaker 1: it gets super like dark and horrible. Once you like
Speaker 1: look at like the letters that were being written by
Speaker 1: like the heads of these programs um like you know,
Speaker 1: instructing like these agents were stationed at these like reservations
Speaker 1: that to like force people to be doing doing this
Speaker 1: horrible farming for like all day every day. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know the sign that this was like like this
Speaker 1: is this is so bad that even the US government
Speaker 1: eventually is like wait this this like this is fucked
Speaker 1: up and doesn't work. So I think that's yeah, transitioned
Speaker 1: to sort of like the next phase. I guess yeah,
Speaker 1: a very short phase. UM. Yeah. So the next phase,
Speaker 1: um is the Indian Reorganization Act. And so this only
Speaker 1: lasted six years from nineteen thirty four in nineteen forty. UM.
Speaker 1: So this is when allotment ended. As you said, the
Speaker 1: United States government was like, wait, this isn't working. Um,
Speaker 1: what else can we do? What the Indians dive off?
Speaker 1: They're not assimilating, they're not a culturating. We don't know
Speaker 1: what to do with them. Um, so maybe we'll We'll
Speaker 1: have them adopt these constitutions and a lot of them
Speaker 1: were just templates. So regardless of whether or not they
Speaker 1: were um I think compatible with tribal different tribes way
Speaker 1: of life, they were like, you have these constitutions. Now, um,
Speaker 1: now you're you're a tribe, and this is what each
Speaker 1: tribe has to look like in order for us, the
Speaker 1: federal government to recognize you as a legitimate entity. Uh
Speaker 1: and um. And then so you have the establishment of
Speaker 1: these um tribal governments that consist of tribal councils and
Speaker 1: the business committees, etcetera. However, this period is fleeting, very fleeting, um.
Speaker 1: And next, um, you have the termination era. So this
Speaker 1: is the period of time where the federal government essentially
Speaker 1: even more so, wants to just get rid of the
Speaker 1: quote unquote Indian problem, which is the existence of indigenous
Speaker 1: peoples UM that are reminders to the government essentially that UM,
Speaker 1: they are a settler colonial force and they don't know
Speaker 1: what to do with us because they tried to commit genocide,
Speaker 1: they tried to remove us, etcetera, etcetera. It's still not working. UM.
Speaker 1: They decided that our travel governments UM aren't aren't legitimate,
Speaker 1: and they just decide, well, it's too much to try
Speaker 1: to keep up with our treaties and what we promised
Speaker 1: them when it comes to healthcare, education, housing, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: How about we terminate our federal responsibility, our trust responsibility
Speaker 1: that are delineated in federal in the policy and in
Speaker 1: our treaties UM and give them off to this to
Speaker 1: the states to decide what to do with and says
Speaker 1: during this period it you see UM sort of the
Speaker 1: federal UM dissolution of some tribes such as the monotymy
Speaker 1: Um and other ones UM as well. So this is
Speaker 1: another dark time there. The dark times just keep on coming.
Speaker 1: And what federal policy scholars have UM characterized federal unw
Speaker 1: policy as a pendulum, the swinging swinging from side to
Speaker 1: side between this terminal, this termination of tribes, So the
Speaker 1: federal India government as trying to get rid of tribes,
Speaker 1: especially as you can see in this era, and then
Speaker 1: the pendulum of the other side of self determination. But
Speaker 1: both of these are held within the context of goals
Speaker 1: of assimilation. So, um, this is just another phase of terribleness. Well,
Speaker 1: I think this this phase is also like one thing
Speaker 1: I think that also like is important people understand. Is
Speaker 1: it like like it's not like people aren't fighting this
Speaker 1: like the whole time. I mean even going like even
Speaker 1: going back to the stuff the Seventh Cafrey, like the
Speaker 1: seventh Cavalry lose like bores, they lose bells all the time.
Speaker 1: People are fighting constantly, and this is this period determination.
Speaker 1: Period is also where you see the the rise of
Speaker 1: the American Indian movements. Yeah, a lot of these periods
Speaker 1: can be like dove into more and all of these
Speaker 1: different things. Um, and every instance, in every instance of
Speaker 1: federal Indian policy, you have resistance, which we are not
Speaker 1: covering here right now. Um, but you have instances throughout
Speaker 1: history where indigenous peoples have fought for their rights to land,
Speaker 1: to UM, for their community, to being sovereign nations, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And that's why the federal Indians, the federal government, not
Speaker 1: federal Indian government, the federal government has not been able
Speaker 1: to aradicated us, much to their dismay um UM. And
Speaker 1: so now I'm going to switch into the era that
Speaker 1: we are considered to be in, which I have mentioned
Speaker 1: when I talked about the pendulum of federal Indian policy.
Speaker 1: So now we are in the self determination era UM,
Speaker 1: which began in nineteen sixty two, UM, and we have
Speaker 1: UM the right. It's characterized with the revitalization of tribal entities.
Speaker 1: So UM going kind of back to when there was
Speaker 1: the Indian Reorganization Acts that we have our tribal councils. UM.
Speaker 1: There's restoration of some tribes under federal recognition who are
Speaker 1: terminated again not all of them. We also have the
Speaker 1: Indian Civil Rights Act. So this this kind of guaranteed
Speaker 1: individual Indians UM some rights UM, not just characterized by
Speaker 1: their tribes. Also the self determination call say, so this
Speaker 1: is when UM Nixon condemned determination policy and gave more
Speaker 1: control to Indians rather than the Bureau of Indian Fairs,
Speaker 1: which just a federal bureau and just kind of like
Speaker 1: other policies that UM have given the tribes more rights
Speaker 1: to UM determine for themselves in their own trust, their
Speaker 1: own people, UM to a certain degree underneath the federal
Speaker 1: government as a mess of dependent nations. And again I
Speaker 1: I think that we have seen a lot more movement,
Speaker 1: but within the context of being within a settler colonial state. UM.
Speaker 1: It's always I think a possibility that the federal Indian
Speaker 1: government or the federal government I keep saying Indian, the
Speaker 1: federal government will try UM to take more and more.
Speaker 1: And I think UM for since when it comes to
Speaker 1: issues of fishing rights, issues of UM hunting rights with states,
Speaker 1: not even just with the federal government. So you have
Speaker 1: a lot of states throughout throughout history but still ongoing
Speaker 1: UM that attempt to encroach on UM tribal treaties UM.
Speaker 1: And again, treaties are the basis of federal Indian policy.
Speaker 1: Without these treaties, that lands would have never been succeeded
Speaker 1: to the United States. And so UM there's just this
Speaker 1: sort of like legal legal conundrum I would say, of
Speaker 1: where all these all treaties in the history of the
Speaker 1: United States with India with Indian tribes have been broken
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form um, but still um
Speaker 1: American Indians have to live on their reservations instead of
Speaker 1: having their their land back. And so now of days
Speaker 1: a lot of movement has been towards um land back.
Speaker 1: What this means? What is this process? And I think
Speaker 1: it means a lot of different things for different people
Speaker 1: indigenous people because again there's there's four federally recognized tribes
Speaker 1: and so it's not one monolith of ideas, the monolith
Speaker 1: of the beliefs. But by just by saying land back,
Speaker 1: that's like recognition that this is our this was our
Speaker 1: land first, and you're not keeping your side of the
Speaker 1: deal and never have been. Could you maybe go a
Speaker 1: bit more into land back with the topic, because like specifically,
Speaker 1: like the past five years, it has really gain a
Speaker 1: lot more like um popularity as like a slogan UM.
Speaker 1: But I think for a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: people who chanted and here it don't always really know
Speaker 1: exactly what it means. That there's a lot of like
Speaker 1: mixed opinions on what it means UM. Of course, on
Speaker 1: like the more like reactionary side it's like people be like,
Speaker 1: what you're going to like kick white people out of
Speaker 1: these areas? Like that's kind of That's what a lot
Speaker 1: of like the reactionary takes on land back is. Um.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure most people are listening to this podcast
Speaker 1: that's not what they think, um, But they may not
Speaker 1: really know exactly what it means either. Um. They may
Speaker 1: think it sounds like a good idea, but they're not
Speaker 1: quite sure what it is. Do you mind kind of
Speaker 1: talking about how land backs like developed as as an
Speaker 1: idea and what like what like you mean by it personally?
Speaker 1: At least? Yeah, I think I can talk about more
Speaker 1: about like what I mean by it personally and what
Speaker 1: I've understood it to mean to other people, because I think, um,
Speaker 1: land back itself, it means like a lot of different things,
Speaker 1: and I don't think that there has been a concrete
Speaker 1: kind of idea of what it means. But I think
Speaker 1: a lot of the movement I want to contextualize it
Speaker 1: with and a lot of the sort of act activism
Speaker 1: that we've seen in their recent years. UM. So for instance,
Speaker 1: no Jack all the Dakota Access pipeline in two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen and kind of I think that's one of
Speaker 1: the more recent events that have really illustrated on a
Speaker 1: wide scale, like globally about UM indigenous movements, UM sovereign movements,
Speaker 1: and especially when it comes to environmental justice. But what
Speaker 1: you saw there was encroachment on tribal treaty land within
Speaker 1: UM that we when it had to do with the
Speaker 1: Dakota Access pipeline UM. So although it didn't cross some
Speaker 1: of the current reservation borders, it was in treaty land,
Speaker 1: you know that kind of thing. The same the same
Speaker 1: thing was stop line three, how it encroached on the
Speaker 1: hunting land and the farmland that was not technically in
Speaker 1: the like residential like like UM like the not in
Speaker 1: like the reservation area where people live, but it's in
Speaker 1: the surrounding area that is for hunting that is specified
Speaker 1: in the treaty. So people trying to use these loopholes
Speaker 1: to get the pipelines through right right. And so I
Speaker 1: think what you see is a lot of solidarity across
Speaker 1: tribes because this is not new, this has never been new,
Speaker 1: and a lot of tribes can relate to that. And
Speaker 1: what you've seen and what I've hoped that I've highlighted
Speaker 1: throughout this kind of very brief overview of federal loving
Speaker 1: policy is the different ways that Indigenous rights to land
Speaker 1: and sovereignty has been attacked in different forms by settler
Speaker 1: and colonial governments. Um. And I think that the day
Speaker 1: and age that we live in now has allowed for
Speaker 1: um sort of more widespread solidarity, especially over social media. Um.
Speaker 1: And so when we say land back, for me, how
Speaker 1: I interpret it as what people mean when they're saying
Speaker 1: it is recognition of our tribal sovereignty, of our right
Speaker 1: to this land that has not been respected. And then
Speaker 1: I also think that it means, well, if these treaties
Speaker 1: aren't being respected, then how is this treaty still um valid? Right?
Speaker 1: How come we aren't getting our land back because they're
Speaker 1: not upholding your end of the deal. While some people
Speaker 1: also might mean and recognize that this whole United States
Speaker 1: government is a settler state right based on the doctrine
Speaker 1: of discovery, which is based on denying tribes and American
Speaker 1: Indians of their rights to this land. Um. So some
Speaker 1: people might take it to this whole other context of yeah,
Speaker 1: well maybe this is this is all of our land, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But in practice, what does this look like, and I
Speaker 1: think in practice a lot of people UM are seeing
Speaker 1: it with reparations or people buying land back for tribes
Speaker 1: and giving it back to tribes. And we have seen
Speaker 1: some of that or UM also just people interrupting the
Speaker 1: narrative UM in their own mind of their euro American identity,
Speaker 1: so non non UM American Indians and primarily European settlers
Speaker 1: and their history of their own families taking part of
Speaker 1: the settler colonial process, and how has that UM what
Speaker 1: about their lands? There's everyone who UM descends I guess
Speaker 1: from these these settlers, and I want to be specific
Speaker 1: when I'm talking about Euro American settlers UM UM and
Speaker 1: how they currently benefit from these systems. And I think
Speaker 1: by saying land back UM, it's we're able to highlight
Speaker 1: this movement for tribal sovereignty and recognition on a global scale.
Speaker 1: Instead of searching for justice within the quote unquote like
Speaker 1: UM searching for justice within the courts of the conqueror,
Speaker 1: how how do we expect UM for the conqueror to
Speaker 1: be held accountable for all of these atrocities, attempts at genocide, assimilation,
Speaker 1: et cetera. By taking it more towards a global scale,
Speaker 1: such as nod Apple highlighting these two other people as
Speaker 1: these are injustices. Um, this is this is ongoing genocide.
Speaker 1: I think that land back has many, like a plethora
Speaker 1: of meanings in the in that sense. Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: hope that answers your question. I myself, UM might use
Speaker 1: it in in some some different ways. Um, because land
Speaker 1: as we conceive it to be property kind of grew,
Speaker 1: that concept grew in conversation with euro American Yeah. Absolutely, yeah,
Speaker 1: conceptions of property. So I think that um, moving forward,
Speaker 1: when we talk about de colonization as a process and
Speaker 1: not like a metaphor, um that thinking of land back
Speaker 1: not within that whole idea of your American property as well.
Speaker 1: That's that's kind of another thing to consider. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think I think lend back would just be a whole
Speaker 1: other thing that will pay someone more qualified than our
Speaker 1: team to talk about on this show. Um, because yeah,
Speaker 1: that's definitely, like you know, like all of the things
Speaker 1: we've we've discussed, they deserve their own deep dives by
Speaker 1: people that are uh not me, Robert and Chris. Um.
Speaker 1: Let's see, is there any kind of resources, either books
Speaker 1: or stuff online that you would recommend for people wanting
Speaker 1: to learn more about this history UM, and then any
Speaker 1: kind of ways to I don't know, I I guess
Speaker 1: show support in these and these kind of like efforts
Speaker 1: that are going on, Yeah, for sure. UM. So in
Speaker 1: terms of resources and reading UM, I have read Lorenzo
Speaker 1: Verrocchini's UM Settler book on Settler Colonialism. UM. That's really
Speaker 1: helpful when you're trying to understand that framework in terms
Speaker 1: of getting to know kind of more of the basics
Speaker 1: of like current UM issues impacting tribes UM. The National
Speaker 1: Congress of American Indians does a lot of work on
Speaker 1: the federal level. UM. If you want to talk more
Speaker 1: about UM kind of lived current lived experiences of American Indians,
Speaker 1: there's illuminatives UM and getting more involved in those as well.
Speaker 1: I think that they have some tips, but I would
Speaker 1: recommend UM everyone getting more familiar with the land that
Speaker 1: they are on currently, the tribes within their states and
Speaker 1: what they can do UM, not just on the local level,
Speaker 1: but on the state level to support tribal sovereignty UM.
Speaker 1: Because a lot of issues UH. For instance, I worked
Speaker 1: on the on the state policy level in Washington and
Speaker 1: in Montana, and both of those have a significant amount
Speaker 1: of tribes UM, but you have a lot of legislation
Speaker 1: that's trying to happen that infringes on tribal treaty rights.
Speaker 1: And the thing is is UM as ugly as it
Speaker 1: may be to say, but sometimes voices of non indigenous
Speaker 1: people's are listened to more within those UM contexts. So
Speaker 1: you need to get more involved on on those levels.
Speaker 1: UM what sort of like at UM nonprofit organizations UM
Speaker 1: work with your tribes or and what sort of issues
Speaker 1: are impacting tribes. And again, these are all going to
Speaker 1: probably be surrounding travel sovereignty, so maybe it's UM fishing access,
Speaker 1: hunting rights, etcetera. UM. I think that's a really good
Speaker 1: way to make some more palate UM tangible change, to
Speaker 1: feel like you're doing something to support tribal sovereignty while
Speaker 1: you're also educating yourself and making sure that their voices
Speaker 1: are at the forefront. And that's also applicable to the
Speaker 1: federal level, especially with as you already said, like stop
Speaker 1: line three in Minnesota, contacting your legislators, etcetera, etcetera. And
Speaker 1: I think also with when it comes to one of
Speaker 1: one of the larger issues besides UM, environmental justice for
Speaker 1: indigenous peoples such as pipelines you have right now missing
Speaker 1: a murdered Indigenous women UM, so looking and looking into
Speaker 1: that UM a little bit more and who you can
Speaker 1: support who's addressing those issues along with UM. There is
Speaker 1: another movement with boarding schools right now because there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of UM bodies of young children UM that
Speaker 1: have been uncovered. And this is not an issue that
Speaker 1: happened a long long time ago, like, for instance, my
Speaker 1: grandmother went to a boarding school. UM. There's still schools
Speaker 1: that UM although they're not called boarding schools right now
Speaker 1: that we're boarding schools, but are still an operation under
Speaker 1: different names, etcetera. UM. So kind of familiarizing yourself with
Speaker 1: those histories. And then also there's a UM national UM
Speaker 1: I think it's called the National Boarding School Healing Coalition
Speaker 1: based out of Minnesota, and UM looking into them and
Speaker 1: supporting their efforts UM with this issue is also a
Speaker 1: good place to start. UM. Is there anywhere that people
Speaker 1: can find you online? Yes? I don't. I don't really
Speaker 1: use UM social media that much. Yeah, yeah, I try
Speaker 1: not to. I don't know. If I want people to
Speaker 1: find me, don't don't do it. It's it's better that
Speaker 1: people don't find anyone online. It's better. We're all just
Speaker 1: just posting into the void. There's nothing not just just
Speaker 1: a void. Well that that is. I think going to
Speaker 1: wrap up what we have today, Chris, I want to
Speaker 1: close us out with a funny bit. I light your
Speaker 1: local gas station on fire. Wow, Christ killing it? Oh
Speaker 1: my god, jeez wow. All right, goodbye for Buddy. It
Speaker 1: could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media
Speaker 1: or more podcasts from cool Zone Media. Visit our website
Speaker 1: cool zone media dot com, or check us out on
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could
Speaker 1: Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone Media dot com
Speaker 1: slash sources. Thanks for listening,