October 11, 2021 • 50 mins
Daliyah Killsback joins us to do a (brief) walk through of the history of settler policy in America and introduce the concept of land back
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to it could happen here a podcast that is
on the cycle of being sort of okayly introduced. When
this episode goes out, it will be Indigenous People's Day
and so to to talk about that more where we're
gonna talk to Dalia Killsback, who is a member of
the Northern Cheyenne, has a Northern Cheyenne tribal citizenship and
(00:26):
has sort of studied and worked in federal India tribal policy. Dahlia, Hello,
how how are you doing? I'm doing well. Thank you
for inviting me here today. Of course Garrison is also here.
Garrison Hello, Hello. I'm I'm currently also doing writing about
indigenous stuff, but within the context of Canada, which people
(00:46):
should will probably here later this week. UM so yeah,
I guess first thing I wanted to talk about is
a little bit is about what Indigenous People's Day is
and why it is that and not the other thing.
Um yeah. So Indigenous People's Day, UM, as many people know,
(01:07):
is replacing I'm gonna say it, Chris chrispher Columbus Day. Um.
That is still like a federal holiday, but multiple cities
and states have opted to use Indigenous People's Day instead. Um.
And The reasoning for that is acknowledging the atrocities that
were committed by Christopher Columbus, who, first of all did
(01:28):
not discover America UM, but UM continue to UM not
only use slavery, but UM commit different forms of genocide, rape, etcetera,
all of these terrible atrocities. And so rather than celebrating
UM somebody like that UM, Indigenous People's Day UM has
(01:52):
been implemented in order to recognize the people who are
actually here first UM and in Diigenous people's across the America's,
their histories, cultures, and contributions. Yeah, Columbus, real piece of ship,
worst Christopher, Like, yeah, it really cannot be overstated how
(02:16):
bad that guy was. Even even you know, even people
in that era who had committed their own genocides like
Isabelle and Ferdinand, who you know, expelled the Jews from Spain.
Where it's like, you know, if once you've reached the
sentence expelled the Jews from X, like you you're a
You're already in the ship list of the worst people
in human history. And even they saw what Columbus was doing,
(02:37):
it was like what on earth, bad bad guy, bad name.
Things are going to continue to go badly, And yeah,
that that wasn't everything that I wanted to talk about,
which is federal Indian policy. And you know this, this
is an incredibly broad This is an incredibly broad area
(02:58):
spanning like three hundred years. So we're not gonna be
able to go into like an enormous amount of depth
in it. But I think it's important that people have
an understanding of, I mean a just what the US
did and how everyone else has had the sort of
deal with it. And then also the fact that this
(03:19):
is something that changes over time and has has looked different,
It's looked it's been bad in different ways. Yeah, And
so when talking about federal Indian policy, I always like
to contextualize it within a larger um sort of like
euro American like teleology of colonial conquests and then moving
(03:41):
on to Setler colonialism and where we are with federal
federal Indian policy currently. UM, So how do we connect
Christopher Columbus to where we are currently? UM? And this
is the history of federal Indian policy and Western legal
discourse and how UM European powers throughout history have defined
(04:08):
what it means to be an Indian person in relationship
to UM indigenous people's rights to their own land and
to self governance. UM. So when we're looking at the
different periods of federal Indian policy UM, prior to their
being the United States government, we have the colonial period UM,
(04:29):
which is fourteen ninety two to seventeen seventies six. UM.
This is how federal Indian policy illegal scholars divide that UM.
And it's really important to kind of give the difference
between what is um a colonial state versus a settler
colonial state when you're talking about not just the United
(04:52):
States government, but also the Canadian government and um, different
governments globally. UM. But I want to talk just a
little bit about what I mean by the difference between
a colonial government and a suttler colonial government, because they're
tied together, UM. So by a settler colonial government, I
(05:13):
mean what I mean is that it is defined by
the d territorialization of indigenous population populations. And so rather
than in a colonial government as you had with Christopher
Columbus and the Spanish and with the English, etcetera, UM
is rather than a state and sovereignty being conceived as
(05:39):
all these resources are going back to the metrical All
these resources are going back to England or to Spain, etcetera.
And colonial occupation is in is um conceptualized within this
way in settler colonial governments, UM, the colonists come to
these lands and stay and they're what they define as
(06:01):
sovereignty is within this land that they define now as
their own. So and in order for that process to happen, UM,
there needs to be different forms of genocide of the
indigenous populations. And so that's what we saw with Christopher
Columbus and throughout history, UM was just the depletion of
a lot of our indigenous populists. UM. And so when
(06:25):
I mean about the United States UM being a settler
colonial state, I mean that this is current and ongoing.
And so when we talk about federal Indian policy, UM,
federal Indian policy is always in this conversation with what
started with Christopher Columbus as the doctrine of discovery and UM.
(06:47):
So that's how we define the colonial period. And feel
free to like stop me and ask me questions. Else
I'm just going to try to move quickly because there's
a lot I think we probably should briefly talk about
what the doctory discovery is, um least before we get
to set the martial trilogy and stuff. For sure, what
(07:09):
does that actually mean legally? Um? So legally um, it's
the discovery of a quote unquote New found Land UM
by European colonial forces. And the reason why it's called
the doctrine of discovery was that indigenous peoples on these
lands were deemed unable to govern themselves and they did
(07:33):
not know how to utilize their land up to the
definition of what the European powers thought UM land use
was that um. Indigenous peoples didn't have the same concept
of property um, and same with their relationship with resources
(07:55):
and resource extraction. So when um, Christopher club this and
all of these other colonizers clunky clunkys doors came to
the quote unquote New Land, UM, they saw all of
this rich, plentiful resource and thoughts of themselves, Well, obviously
these people don't know what they're doing because there's just
(08:17):
so much they have not done anything with it. Um.
And we're going to take this back to two hours
because obviously their inferior beings and don't know what property is.
So um. Legally um it the doctrine of Discovery conveyed
legal title to an ownership of American soil to European
(08:39):
nations UM a title that devolved to the United States
and so UM. This definition is expansive UM and expansive
discovery implies that Native nations have a right to lands
as occupants or possessors, but they are incompetent to manage
those lands and need a quote unquote benevolent guardian such
(09:02):
as a federal government who holds legal title and UM.
So when we're talking about this legal title, it devolves
to the United States. Later on, UM in history, after
the American Revolution UM, and so rather than being colonial
states UM as the United States like thirteen original colonies,
(09:27):
given um, the American Revolution and its own constitution and
its creation of itself as a nation state, then that
turns into a settler colonial government. Yeah. I think we can, Yeah,
we can get to what happens next then, because yeah, yeah,
(09:47):
you have you have this elaborate legal framework that lets
you steal people's land and murder them and then control it.
And then the outgrowth of that is this sort of
weird event where the colonies go into rebellion and suddenly, yeah,
there's there's not a colony. They're not colonies anymore. They
just are the state and so yeah, but what happens
next after the sort of formation of the United States.
(10:11):
So after the formation of the United States, um, so,
we have this period the American Revolution, it's all not
really diving into. It is seventeen seventy six to seventeen
eighty nine, and it's called the Confederation period. But next
we have the Trade and Intercourse Act era, which is
from seventeen eighty nine to eighteen thirty five. And so
(10:34):
this is defined with the United States Constitution and Congress's
exclusive right to regulate trade relations and make lands since
the land secessions, and enter into treaties with tribes. So
this is a treaty making era with the tribes that
only the United States federal government is able to And
(10:55):
there's a distinction there because there had been a lot
of contestation between states and the federal government as to
who is going to now deal with these, um these
nations that are with our within our own settler colonial borders.
So whose job is that to solve this issue? Um? So,
(11:18):
within the United States Constitution, there are three clauses that
define the United States legal relationship to American Indians, and
so these are the treaty making Clause the commerce clause
and the property clause. Um. And so this this movement
from just relying on the doctrine of discovery and treaty
(11:42):
making processes between different European powers now is between the
United States federal government and tribes. And so what this
does is now tribes are located within the United States territory,
and this places Indians within the boundaries and jurisdiction of
the United States, and now they are a matter of
domestic interest something. It leads it's to one of the
(12:04):
sort of complicated questions that the changes to this whole era,
which is about what does sovereignty mean for these tribes
and to what extent to the even continue to possess it,
and how does that even sort of how does that
work if you have when you have this new state
that's sort of just has his clean control here, right
(12:26):
And also during this period, um, well, well later on
when we have um started jumping ahead of myself, when
we have the extermination of the treaty making process, and
this completely removes seeing tribes as independent sovereign nations. UM.
(12:46):
So I think that will kind of get more into
that later. But the thing with federal Indian policy, UM,
is that it's sort of self prophesizing. So as settlers
are moving across America, UM, the United States government also
has to create these policies UM in order to legalize
(13:10):
these land cessations and movements. And a pattern that we
do see here UM throughout history and throughout time is
that the United States federal government, as a settler state
is um over the rights of over the UM rights
to land and rights of indigenous peoples themselves. You have
(13:32):
a priority of the settler state in order to acquire land.
So that a lot of the reason why UM later
these treaties will be broken, etcetera, is because settlers are
moving into these lands and the United States is then
breaking these treaties in order to UM have more more land,
(13:54):
more land secessions. Yeah, the laws are of just following
the violence and it just becomes a retroactive justification. Yes,
it's it's a self justifying sort of sovereignty. So this
(14:19):
is the removal period and what a lot of people
may have heard of. So it's from to eighteen sixty one,
and what we have is the extinguishment of Indian title
to eastern lands and the removal of Indian tribes westward
so UM. One of the most notable acts is the
Removal Act, which was authorized by President Andrew Jackson, which
(14:42):
moved Um Indians from the east to the west of
the Mississippi River into what was called Indian Territory UM.
And what brought about this UM Federal Federal Act UM
was a series of three foundational statutes within federal Indian
policy UM dictated by Chief Justice John Marshall. So first
(15:04):
we have Johnson B. Macintosh Cherokee Nation be Georgia and
Worcester be Georgia. And I won't go into too much detail,
but what this these essentially UM did and legally defined
tribes as being domestic dependent nations. And so it clarified
more that again tribal nations are underneath the federal government's overview,
(15:31):
not the states. So yeah, it placed tribes above state jurisdiction.
And what this is trying to do was UM solve
some issues that tribes such as the Cherokee Nation had
with different states when it came to land and UM
jurisdiction over said land. UM. But that is kind of
(15:52):
the basis of a lot of federal Indian policy and
still remains truth day. And what is notable uh in
each one of these statutes UM, I believe, particularly in
Worcester the Georgia, although it seems that it was supporting
tribal sovereignty in them and that they were above state jurisdiction,
(16:16):
a lot of these UM statute sided racist president and
the doctrine of Discovery. So what you see for federal
Indian policy is that a lot of the fount well
all the foundation for federal Indian policy based on President
is the Doctrine of Discovery, which is reliant on the
idea that American Indians were savages and needed um federal
(16:41):
benevolence and um paternalism in order to regulate their own affairs. Yeah,
and I think that's well, okay, we should probably not
just immediately get to allotment, but yeah, because there this is,
there's this, there's also Yeah, this is also the period
of use. Yeah, the thing you were talking about earlier,
the thing you helped me know about, which is okay,
(17:02):
it's not true to say this is when this starts,
but this is Indian Removal Act, Trail of Tears territory.
And yeah, one thing that you know, I think one
of one of the sort of running themes of this
is that, you know, the the law in this context
is just sort of becomes a sort of retroactive excuse
to do whatever needs to be done from the perspective
(17:24):
quote unquote of the sort of of the settler state
to just take all of this land. Yeah. And I
think maybe like one of the keystones of this is
Andrew Jackson just straight up tellings between court to funk
Off so that he can do so he can do
with trail of tears. Yeah. Um. So the Removal Act
(17:48):
happened after all of these statutes that you already had
that supported um, federal Indian sovereignty. And so the Cherokees
in Georgia were one of the tribes that were removed. Um.
And so you kind of see what you talked about,
the the retrograde kind of justifications for said removal despite um,
(18:13):
the statutes that are there. So although that like Marshall
Um in Worcester f Georgia determined that the State of
Georgia did not have jurisdiction over Cherokee territory all this territory,
although this territory was in the state's borders. Um. Later on,
you see with the Removal Act that although these statutes
(18:36):
are still president in federal Indian policy, those were noll
in order for UM there to be more UM expansion
of settlers within these areas. So when it was decided that, oh, wait,
we do need this land and we don't actually want
these Indians here, let's put them to the side over
(18:57):
past the Mississippi so that they're out of side, out
of my right. So we see more of this um
justification for settler expansion. And so again we bring back
to these themes of like settler colonialism in order to
UM kind of gain more of this land. And a
lot of these statutes are still cited the doctrine of
(19:20):
discovery in them and rather than supporting tribal policy, the
relationship between the United States federal government and American Indians
um was not based on the rights of Indians, but
more that they can't they can't govern themselves, right and
so so and that's the whole issue is like people
(19:41):
are like they don't know what they're doing, so we're
gonna push them and like take their land again. So
I I don't know if you want me to go
too much into the trail of tears, but um, you're
seeing a lot of patterns here, I think, different forms
of genocide, different forms of taking land. This was this
is all around the same time as the Indian acting
(20:03):
Canada as well, which was did a very similar thing,
especially starting in the nine it's starting in the twenty
century as well with the like expansion of the like
assimilation programs. Yeah, and I think I guess the only
thing I want to point out about this is that,
you know, so one of one of the things that
happens trailers here is at the Streme Court like tells
(20:26):
Jackson that he can't do this, and j actually just
does it anyways. And I think that's a very interesting
important moment because you know, this is this is this
thing right where the federal government can tell there's Supreme
Court to funk off, right, and there's nothing that Streme
Court could do about it. And if you look at
what they did it to do, the thing they did
it to do was genocide. And it's I think it's
(20:49):
it's just I think this is a very sort of
I don't know, this incredibly grim like you know, encapsulation
of like what this state actually is, which is this
sort of genocide machine and whatever sort of this is
what sovereignty is right. The ability to break your own
rules sort to sort of into or toning the system.
So you know, you break your own laws and you
know as we're gonna get you in a second, like
(21:10):
you break your own treaties continuously, and you do this
because you know, the genisite machine has to keep moving,
right and Um. There's a couple of federal and new
policy theorists um Findeler Jr. Who's one of the most
famous ones, and David E. Wilkins who talks about how
there's no need for checks and balances within the federal
(21:31):
Indian policy system. So you have Congress that is able
to um pass whatever act they want, and and then
you also have the Supreme Court, and then you also
have executive action. But it wasn't really delineated that well
um within especially when it comes to this period as
(21:53):
to who is going to be dealing with the Indians
kind of thing. Um. And so this kind of confusion
and not really completely defining what it means to be
a domestic dependent nation, I think really just goes to
show how much of a fragile edifice like settler um
(22:14):
colonial policy is for it is within the system. UM.
But again moving on it comes back again to land.
So the reservation area era in eighteen sixty one to
eighteen eighty seven UM has you have a lot of
westward expansion of non Indians UM settlers, specifically to California.
(22:37):
You also have the creation of Indian reservations and resulting
Indian wars UM. Uh. So during this era what you
see a lot out of UM are different types of
attempts that assimilation UM and a lot of warfare. So
you have a lot of the Plains tribes my tribe
(22:57):
for instance, UM that are going through all of these
battles fighting UM forced removal onto reservations UM. One of
the most famous ones was UM the Battle of Greasy
Grass or a Little Big Horn UM where General Custer
was killed by Sue Cheyennes and Arapahos, and different instances
(23:22):
of battles such as those, and also where a lot
of tribes UM were forcibly removed to era areas that
they weren't originally from. So like how the Sheriffees were
moved to Oklahoma, there was attempts of my tribe, for instance,
more than Cheyenne to be moved down to Oklahoma as well,
(23:44):
and that's why there's some Southern Cheyennes in Oklahoma and
then my tribes and with thin Shians in Montana. Another
um in. Another thing that is happening during this period
are boarding schools UM the boarding school era. So the
attempt at assimilation through education UM and assimilation is also
(24:06):
UM within within the settler colonial kind of structure. It's
it's defined as a process where indigenous people end up
UM conforming to different constructed notions of UM settler norms UM.
So if they're not absorbed within the state completely, then
(24:27):
their attempted attempt to be assimilated UM culturally, UM through education,
through languages, in terms of economics and how you have
a bunch of different sort of bureaucratic structures on these
reservations trying to make tribal governments appear to be UM
(24:49):
or constructed as as settler colonial governments are UM. So
maybe it's the three branches UM in ways that aren't
just compatible with different tribes culturally, and you also have
the attemptive eradication of different kind of spiritual and cultural
(25:11):
practices and a lot of Christianity course on different people
and just kind of terrible things that UM I think
more and more people are becoming aware of due to
due to current movements. But we'll get into that moment later.
(25:39):
Do we want to talk about a lot of in
the same period, Yes, a lotment period and UM course assimilation.
So this is like eighteen seventy one to nineteen thirty four,
and so this is the end of the treaty making process.
So the whole idea of UM trying to force tribes
(26:01):
onto reservations and signed these treaties were too again take
land and make sure that the United States has more
land and all the land, etcetera that they possibly have UM.
So at this end of treaty making UM federal allotment
of Indian lands also happened in the UM the Jaws
(26:24):
Act UM. And so what this was was an attempt
to UM further shrink the reservation lands that tribes are
already guaranteed within treaties UM. So during this period, I
think that somewhere like nine million acres were UM taken
(26:49):
from tribal reservations during the allotment process. So that what
the allotment process did was it counted each in every
individual Indian UM that was eligible. I think there were
adults um. Yeah, adults that were eligible UM, and each
one of them were given a certain parcel of land,
(27:11):
a certain number of acreage UM. And once all of
this land was calculated, what you had was an excess
of land quote unquote excess of land that the tribes
obviously didn't need because they had still too too many people.
And so what the excess of land um was utilized
(27:33):
force for pioneers and for settlers UM. If it didn't
go UM to the federal government, it was to um
incentivized settlers to colonized, esscial settle on Indian lands. So
trying its hardest to not stay true to its treaty
(27:56):
making practices. I think everything was interesting to me about
this is that, like because one of the other goals
of this is to sort of like, oh is the
civilizing mission. It's like, yeah, we're gonna turn them into
We're turning these people into like like human farmers, like
true American fintiersman or whatever. And it's just like it
just doesn't work because economically it doesn't make any sense,
(28:16):
like breaking up all these like lands. It's like it
doesn't you can't just give someone like a small patch
of like shitty land and have them farm like this
doesn't like this, it doesn't it doesn't like they certainly tried,
and then yeah, yeah, like that was one of the
main things. One of the main things in Canada was
about getting them to adopt like like European farming practices,
(28:40):
which which they already knew how to get their own food, right,
they were trying to change this whole system of of
of like of of food growth to to this like
to this European way of of farming, and it just
and they were just forcing them to and there's yeah,
it's it's yes, it gets it gets, it gets super,
it gets super like dark and horrible. Once you like
(29:02):
look at like the letters that were being written by
like the heads of these programs um like you know,
instructing like these agents were stationed at these like reservations
that to like force people to be doing doing this
horrible farming for like all day every day. And I think,
you know the sign that this was like like this
(29:22):
is this is so bad that even the US government
eventually is like wait this this like this is fucked
up and doesn't work. So I think that's yeah, transitioned
to sort of like the next phase. I guess yeah,
a very short phase. UM. Yeah. So the next phase,
(29:43):
um is the Indian Reorganization Act. And so this only
lasted six years from nineteen thirty four in nineteen forty. UM.
So this is when allotment ended. As you said, the
United States government was like, wait, this isn't working. Um,
what else can we do? What the Indians dive off?
They're not assimilating, they're not a culturating. We don't know
(30:03):
what to do with them. Um, so maybe we'll We'll
have them adopt these constitutions and a lot of them
were just templates. So regardless of whether or not they
were um I think compatible with tribal different tribes way
(30:24):
of life, they were like, you have these constitutions. Now, um,
now you're you're a tribe, and this is what each
tribe has to look like in order for us, the
federal government to recognize you as a legitimate entity. Uh
and um. And then so you have the establishment of
these um tribal governments that consist of tribal councils and
(30:46):
the business committees, etcetera. However, this period is fleeting, very fleeting, um.
And next, um, you have the termination era. So this
is the period of time where the federal government essentially
even more so, wants to just get rid of the
quote unquote Indian problem, which is the existence of indigenous
(31:09):
peoples UM that are reminders to the government essentially that UM,
they are a settler colonial force and they don't know
what to do with us because they tried to commit genocide,
they tried to remove us, etcetera, etcetera. It's still not working. UM.
They decided that our travel governments UM aren't aren't legitimate,
(31:32):
and they just decide, well, it's too much to try
to keep up with our treaties and what we promised
them when it comes to healthcare, education, housing, etcetera, etcetera.
How about we terminate our federal responsibility, our trust responsibility
that are delineated in federal in the policy and in
(31:53):
our treaties UM and give them off to this to
the states to decide what to do with and says
during this period it you see UM sort of the
federal UM dissolution of some tribes such as the monotymy
Um and other ones UM as well. So this is
(32:18):
another dark time there. The dark times just keep on coming.
And what federal policy scholars have UM characterized federal unw
policy as a pendulum, the swinging swinging from side to
side between this terminal, this termination of tribes, So the
federal India government as trying to get rid of tribes,
(32:40):
especially as you can see in this era, and then
the pendulum of the other side of self determination. But
both of these are held within the context of goals
of assimilation. So, um, this is just another phase of terribleness. Well,
I think this this phase is also like one thing
I think that also like is important people understand. Is
(33:03):
it like like it's not like people aren't fighting this
like the whole time. I mean even going like even
going back to the stuff the Seventh Cafrey, like the
seventh Cavalry lose like bores, they lose bells all the time.
People are fighting constantly, and this is this period determination.
Period is also where you see the the rise of
(33:23):
the American Indian movements. Yeah, a lot of these periods
can be like dove into more and all of these
different things. Um, and every instance, in every instance of
federal Indian policy, you have resistance, which we are not
covering here right now. Um, but you have instances throughout
history where indigenous peoples have fought for their rights to land,
(33:47):
to UM, for their community, to being sovereign nations, etcetera.
And that's why the federal Indians, the federal government, not
federal Indian government, the federal government has not been able
to aradicated us, much to their dismay um UM. And
so now I'm going to switch into the era that
(34:08):
we are considered to be in, which I have mentioned
when I talked about the pendulum of federal Indian policy.
So now we are in the self determination era UM,
which began in nineteen sixty two, UM, and we have
UM the right. It's characterized with the revitalization of tribal entities.
(34:29):
So UM going kind of back to when there was
the Indian Reorganization Acts that we have our tribal councils. UM.
There's restoration of some tribes under federal recognition who are
terminated again not all of them. We also have the
Indian Civil Rights Act. So this this kind of guaranteed
(34:51):
individual Indians UM some rights UM, not just characterized by
their tribes. Also the self determination call say, so this
is when UM Nixon condemned determination policy and gave more
control to Indians rather than the Bureau of Indian Fairs,
which just a federal bureau and just kind of like
(35:14):
other policies that UM have given the tribes more rights
to UM determine for themselves in their own trust, their
own people, UM to a certain degree underneath the federal
government as a mess of dependent nations. And again I
I think that we have seen a lot more movement,
(35:38):
but within the context of being within a settler colonial state. UM.
It's always I think a possibility that the federal Indian
government or the federal government I keep saying Indian, the
federal government will try UM to take more and more.
And I think UM for since when it comes to
(36:03):
issues of fishing rights, issues of UM hunting rights with states,
not even just with the federal government. So you have
a lot of states throughout throughout history but still ongoing
UM that attempt to encroach on UM tribal treaties UM.
And again, treaties are the basis of federal Indian policy.
(36:25):
Without these treaties, that lands would have never been succeeded
to the United States. And so UM there's just this
sort of like legal legal conundrum I would say, of
where all these all treaties in the history of the
United States with India with Indian tribes have been broken
(36:47):
in some way, shape or form um, but still um
American Indians have to live on their reservations instead of
having their their land back. And so now of days
a lot of movement has been towards um land back.
What this means? What is this process? And I think
it means a lot of different things for different people
(37:10):
indigenous people because again there's there's four federally recognized tribes
and so it's not one monolith of ideas, the monolith
of the beliefs. But by just by saying land back,
that's like recognition that this is our this was our
land first, and you're not keeping your side of the
(37:32):
deal and never have been. Could you maybe go a
bit more into land back with the topic, because like specifically,
like the past five years, it has really gain a
lot more like um popularity as like a slogan UM.
But I think for a lot of a lot of
people who chanted and here it don't always really know
(37:55):
exactly what it means. That there's a lot of like
mixed opinions on what it means UM. Of course, on
like the more like reactionary side it's like people be like,
what you're going to like kick white people out of
these areas? Like that's kind of That's what a lot
of like the reactionary takes on land back is. Um.
And I'm sure most people are listening to this podcast
(38:15):
that's not what they think, um, But they may not
really know exactly what it means either. Um. They may
think it sounds like a good idea, but they're not
quite sure what it is. Do you mind kind of
talking about how land backs like developed as as an
idea and what like what like you mean by it personally?
At least? Yeah, I think I can talk about more
(38:36):
about like what I mean by it personally and what
I've understood it to mean to other people, because I think, um,
land back itself, it means like a lot of different things,
and I don't think that there has been a concrete
kind of idea of what it means. But I think
(38:57):
a lot of the movement I want to contextualize it
with and a lot of the sort of act activism
that we've seen in their recent years. UM. So for instance,
no Jack all the Dakota Access pipeline in two thousand
and sixteen and kind of I think that's one of
the more recent events that have really illustrated on a
(39:19):
wide scale, like globally about UM indigenous movements, UM sovereign movements,
and especially when it comes to environmental justice. But what
you saw there was encroachment on tribal treaty land within
UM that we when it had to do with the
(39:40):
Dakota Access pipeline UM. So although it didn't cross some
of the current reservation borders, it was in treaty land,
you know that kind of thing. The same the same
thing was stop line three, how it encroached on the
hunting land and the farmland that was not technically in
the like residential like like UM like the not in
(40:00):
like the reservation area where people live, but it's in
the surrounding area that is for hunting that is specified
in the treaty. So people trying to use these loopholes
to get the pipelines through right right. And so I
think what you see is a lot of solidarity across
tribes because this is not new, this has never been new,
(40:20):
and a lot of tribes can relate to that. And
what you've seen and what I've hoped that I've highlighted
throughout this kind of very brief overview of federal loving
policy is the different ways that Indigenous rights to land
and sovereignty has been attacked in different forms by settler
(40:42):
and colonial governments. Um. And I think that the day
and age that we live in now has allowed for
um sort of more widespread solidarity, especially over social media. Um.
And so when we say land back, for me, how
I interpret it as what people mean when they're saying
(41:02):
it is recognition of our tribal sovereignty, of our right
to this land that has not been respected. And then
I also think that it means, well, if these treaties
aren't being respected, then how is this treaty still um valid? Right?
How come we aren't getting our land back because they're
(41:23):
not upholding your end of the deal. While some people
also might mean and recognize that this whole United States
government is a settler state right based on the doctrine
of discovery, which is based on denying tribes and American
Indians of their rights to this land. Um. So some
(41:47):
people might take it to this whole other context of yeah,
well maybe this is this is all of our land, etcetera, etcetera.
But in practice, what does this look like, and I
think in practice a lot of people UM are seeing
it with reparations or people buying land back for tribes
and giving it back to tribes. And we have seen
(42:08):
some of that or UM also just people interrupting the
narrative UM in their own mind of their euro American identity,
so non non UM American Indians and primarily European settlers
and their history of their own families taking part of
the settler colonial process, and how has that UM what
(42:31):
about their lands? There's everyone who UM descends I guess
from these these settlers, and I want to be specific
when I'm talking about Euro American settlers UM UM and
how they currently benefit from these systems. And I think
by saying land back UM, it's we're able to highlight
(42:53):
this movement for tribal sovereignty and recognition on a global scale.
Instead of searching for justice within the quote unquote like
UM searching for justice within the courts of the conqueror,
how how do we expect UM for the conqueror to
be held accountable for all of these atrocities, attempts at genocide, assimilation,
et cetera. By taking it more towards a global scale,
(43:16):
such as nod Apple highlighting these two other people as
these are injustices. Um, this is this is ongoing genocide.
I think that land back has many, like a plethora
of meanings in the in that sense. Yeah, yeah, I
hope that answers your question. I myself, UM might use
(43:39):
it in in some some different ways. Um, because land
as we conceive it to be property kind of grew,
that concept grew in conversation with euro American Yeah. Absolutely, yeah,
conceptions of property. So I think that um, moving forward,
(44:00):
when we talk about de colonization as a process and
not like a metaphor, um that thinking of land back
not within that whole idea of your American property as well.
That's that's kind of another thing to consider. Yeah, I
think I think lend back would just be a whole
other thing that will pay someone more qualified than our
(44:25):
team to talk about on this show. Um, because yeah,
that's definitely, like you know, like all of the things
we've we've discussed, they deserve their own deep dives by
people that are uh not me, Robert and Chris. Um.
Let's see, is there any kind of resources, either books
(44:46):
or stuff online that you would recommend for people wanting
to learn more about this history UM, and then any
kind of ways to I don't know, I I guess
show support in these and these kind of like efforts
that are going on, Yeah, for sure. UM. So in
terms of resources and reading UM, I have read Lorenzo
(45:09):
Verrocchini's UM Settler book on Settler Colonialism. UM. That's really
helpful when you're trying to understand that framework in terms
of getting to know kind of more of the basics
of like current UM issues impacting tribes UM. The National
Congress of American Indians does a lot of work on
(45:32):
the federal level. UM. If you want to talk more
about UM kind of lived current lived experiences of American Indians,
there's illuminatives UM and getting more involved in those as well.
I think that they have some tips, but I would
recommend UM everyone getting more familiar with the land that
(45:54):
they are on currently, the tribes within their states and
what they can do UM, not just on the local level,
but on the state level to support tribal sovereignty UM.
Because a lot of issues UH. For instance, I worked
on the on the state policy level in Washington and
in Montana, and both of those have a significant amount
(46:17):
of tribes UM, but you have a lot of legislation
that's trying to happen that infringes on tribal treaty rights.
And the thing is is UM as ugly as it
may be to say, but sometimes voices of non indigenous
(46:39):
people's are listened to more within those UM contexts. So
you need to get more involved on on those levels.
UM what sort of like at UM nonprofit organizations UM
work with your tribes or and what sort of issues
are impacting tribes. And again, these are all going to
(47:00):
probably be surrounding travel sovereignty, so maybe it's UM fishing access,
hunting rights, etcetera. UM. I think that's a really good
way to make some more palate UM tangible change, to
feel like you're doing something to support tribal sovereignty while
(47:20):
you're also educating yourself and making sure that their voices
are at the forefront. And that's also applicable to the
federal level, especially with as you already said, like stop
line three in Minnesota, contacting your legislators, etcetera, etcetera. And
I think also with when it comes to one of
(47:44):
one of the larger issues besides UM, environmental justice for
indigenous peoples such as pipelines you have right now missing
a murdered Indigenous women UM, so looking and looking into
that UM a little bit more and who you can
support who's addressing those issues along with UM. There is
(48:07):
another movement with boarding schools right now because there's been
a lot of UM bodies of young children UM that
have been uncovered. And this is not an issue that
happened a long long time ago, like, for instance, my
(48:27):
grandmother went to a boarding school. UM. There's still schools
that UM although they're not called boarding schools right now
that we're boarding schools, but are still an operation under
different names, etcetera. UM. So kind of familiarizing yourself with
those histories. And then also there's a UM national UM
(48:49):
I think it's called the National Boarding School Healing Coalition
based out of Minnesota, and UM looking into them and
supporting their efforts UM with this issue is also a
good place to start. UM. Is there anywhere that people
can find you online? Yes? I don't. I don't really
(49:13):
use UM social media that much. Yeah, yeah, I try
not to. I don't know. If I want people to
find me, don't don't do it. It's it's better that
people don't find anyone online. It's better. We're all just
(49:36):
just posting into the void. There's nothing not just just
a void. Well that that is. I think going to
wrap up what we have today, Chris, I want to
close us out with a funny bit. I light your
local gas station on fire. Wow, Christ killing it? Oh
(50:01):
my god, jeez wow. All right, goodbye for Buddy. It
could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media
or more podcasts from cool Zone Media. Visit our website
cool zone media dot com, or check us out on
the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could
(50:22):
Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone Media dot com
slash sources. Thanks for listening,
Welcome to it could happen here a podcast that is
on the cycle of being sort of okayly introduced. When
this episode goes out, it will be Indigenous People's Day
and so to to talk about that more where we're
gonna talk to Dalia Killsback, who is a member of
the Northern Cheyenne, has a Northern Cheyenne tribal citizenship and
(00:26):
has sort of studied and worked in federal India tribal policy. Dahlia, Hello,
how how are you doing? I'm doing well. Thank you
for inviting me here today. Of course Garrison is also here.
Garrison Hello, Hello. I'm I'm currently also doing writing about
indigenous stuff, but within the context of Canada, which people
(00:46):
should will probably here later this week. UM so yeah,
I guess first thing I wanted to talk about is
a little bit is about what Indigenous People's Day is
and why it is that and not the other thing.
Um yeah. So Indigenous People's Day, UM, as many people know,
(01:07):
is replacing I'm gonna say it, Chris chrispher Columbus Day. Um.
That is still like a federal holiday, but multiple cities
and states have opted to use Indigenous People's Day instead. Um.
And The reasoning for that is acknowledging the atrocities that
were committed by Christopher Columbus, who, first of all did
(01:28):
not discover America UM, but UM continue to UM not
only use slavery, but UM commit different forms of genocide, rape, etcetera,
all of these terrible atrocities. And so rather than celebrating
UM somebody like that UM, Indigenous People's Day UM has
(01:52):
been implemented in order to recognize the people who are
actually here first UM and in Diigenous people's across the America's,
their histories, cultures, and contributions. Yeah, Columbus, real piece of ship,
worst Christopher, Like, yeah, it really cannot be overstated how
(02:16):
bad that guy was. Even even you know, even people
in that era who had committed their own genocides like
Isabelle and Ferdinand, who you know, expelled the Jews from Spain.
Where it's like, you know, if once you've reached the
sentence expelled the Jews from X, like you you're a
You're already in the ship list of the worst people
in human history. And even they saw what Columbus was doing,
(02:37):
it was like what on earth, bad bad guy, bad name.
Things are going to continue to go badly, And yeah,
that that wasn't everything that I wanted to talk about,
which is federal Indian policy. And you know this, this
is an incredibly broad This is an incredibly broad area
(02:58):
spanning like three hundred years. So we're not gonna be
able to go into like an enormous amount of depth
in it. But I think it's important that people have
an understanding of, I mean a just what the US
did and how everyone else has had the sort of
deal with it. And then also the fact that this
(03:19):
is something that changes over time and has has looked different,
It's looked it's been bad in different ways. Yeah, And
so when talking about federal Indian policy, I always like
to contextualize it within a larger um sort of like
euro American like teleology of colonial conquests and then moving
(03:41):
on to Setler colonialism and where we are with federal
federal Indian policy currently. UM, So how do we connect
Christopher Columbus to where we are currently? UM? And this
is the history of federal Indian policy and Western legal
discourse and how UM European powers throughout history have defined
(04:08):
what it means to be an Indian person in relationship
to UM indigenous people's rights to their own land and
to self governance. UM. So when we're looking at the
different periods of federal Indian policy UM, prior to their
being the United States government, we have the colonial period UM,
(04:29):
which is fourteen ninety two to seventeen seventies six. UM.
This is how federal Indian policy illegal scholars divide that UM.
And it's really important to kind of give the difference
between what is um a colonial state versus a settler
colonial state when you're talking about not just the United
(04:52):
States government, but also the Canadian government and um, different
governments globally. UM. But I want to talk just a
little bit about what I mean by the difference between
a colonial government and a suttler colonial government, because they're
tied together, UM. So by a settler colonial government, I
(05:13):
mean what I mean is that it is defined by
the d territorialization of indigenous population populations. And so rather
than in a colonial government as you had with Christopher
Columbus and the Spanish and with the English, etcetera, UM
is rather than a state and sovereignty being conceived as
(05:39):
all these resources are going back to the metrical All
these resources are going back to England or to Spain, etcetera.
And colonial occupation is in is um conceptualized within this
way in settler colonial governments, UM, the colonists come to
these lands and stay and they're what they define as
(06:01):
sovereignty is within this land that they define now as
their own. So and in order for that process to happen, UM,
there needs to be different forms of genocide of the
indigenous populations. And so that's what we saw with Christopher
Columbus and throughout history, UM was just the depletion of
a lot of our indigenous populists. UM. And so when
(06:25):
I mean about the United States UM being a settler
colonial state, I mean that this is current and ongoing.
And so when we talk about federal Indian policy, UM,
federal Indian policy is always in this conversation with what
started with Christopher Columbus as the doctrine of discovery and UM.
(06:47):
So that's how we define the colonial period. And feel
free to like stop me and ask me questions. Else
I'm just going to try to move quickly because there's
a lot I think we probably should briefly talk about
what the doctory discovery is, um least before we get
to set the martial trilogy and stuff. For sure, what
(07:09):
does that actually mean legally? Um? So legally um, it's
the discovery of a quote unquote New found Land UM
by European colonial forces. And the reason why it's called
the doctrine of discovery was that indigenous peoples on these
lands were deemed unable to govern themselves and they did
(07:33):
not know how to utilize their land up to the
definition of what the European powers thought UM land use
was that um. Indigenous peoples didn't have the same concept
of property um, and same with their relationship with resources
(07:55):
and resource extraction. So when um, Christopher club this and
all of these other colonizers clunky clunkys doors came to
the quote unquote New Land, UM, they saw all of
this rich, plentiful resource and thoughts of themselves, Well, obviously
these people don't know what they're doing because there's just
(08:17):
so much they have not done anything with it. Um.
And we're going to take this back to two hours
because obviously their inferior beings and don't know what property is.
So um. Legally um it the doctrine of Discovery conveyed
legal title to an ownership of American soil to European
(08:39):
nations UM a title that devolved to the United States
and so UM. This definition is expansive UM and expansive
discovery implies that Native nations have a right to lands
as occupants or possessors, but they are incompetent to manage
those lands and need a quote unquote benevolent guardian such
(09:02):
as a federal government who holds legal title and UM.
So when we're talking about this legal title, it devolves
to the United States. Later on, UM in history, after
the American Revolution UM, and so rather than being colonial
states UM as the United States like thirteen original colonies,
(09:27):
given um, the American Revolution and its own constitution and
its creation of itself as a nation state, then that
turns into a settler colonial government. Yeah. I think we can, Yeah,
we can get to what happens next then, because yeah, yeah,
(09:47):
you have you have this elaborate legal framework that lets
you steal people's land and murder them and then control it.
And then the outgrowth of that is this sort of
weird event where the colonies go into rebellion and suddenly, yeah,
there's there's not a colony. They're not colonies anymore. They
just are the state and so yeah, but what happens
next after the sort of formation of the United States.
(10:11):
So after the formation of the United States, um, so,
we have this period the American Revolution, it's all not
really diving into. It is seventeen seventy six to seventeen
eighty nine, and it's called the Confederation period. But next
we have the Trade and Intercourse Act era, which is
from seventeen eighty nine to eighteen thirty five. And so
(10:34):
this is defined with the United States Constitution and Congress's
exclusive right to regulate trade relations and make lands since
the land secessions, and enter into treaties with tribes. So
this is a treaty making era with the tribes that
only the United States federal government is able to And
(10:55):
there's a distinction there because there had been a lot
of contestation between states and the federal government as to
who is going to now deal with these, um these
nations that are with our within our own settler colonial borders.
So whose job is that to solve this issue? Um? So,
(11:18):
within the United States Constitution, there are three clauses that
define the United States legal relationship to American Indians, and
so these are the treaty making Clause the commerce clause
and the property clause. Um. And so this this movement
from just relying on the doctrine of discovery and treaty
(11:42):
making processes between different European powers now is between the
United States federal government and tribes. And so what this
does is now tribes are located within the United States territory,
and this places Indians within the boundaries and jurisdiction of
the United States, and now they are a matter of
domestic interest something. It leads it's to one of the
(12:04):
sort of complicated questions that the changes to this whole era,
which is about what does sovereignty mean for these tribes
and to what extent to the even continue to possess it,
and how does that even sort of how does that
work if you have when you have this new state
that's sort of just has his clean control here, right
(12:26):
And also during this period, um, well, well later on
when we have um started jumping ahead of myself, when
we have the extermination of the treaty making process, and
this completely removes seeing tribes as independent sovereign nations. UM.
(12:46):
So I think that will kind of get more into
that later. But the thing with federal Indian policy, UM,
is that it's sort of self prophesizing. So as settlers
are moving across America, UM, the United States government also
has to create these policies UM in order to legalize
(13:10):
these land cessations and movements. And a pattern that we
do see here UM throughout history and throughout time is
that the United States federal government, as a settler state
is um over the rights of over the UM rights
to land and rights of indigenous peoples themselves. You have
(13:32):
a priority of the settler state in order to acquire land.
So that a lot of the reason why UM later
these treaties will be broken, etcetera, is because settlers are
moving into these lands and the United States is then
breaking these treaties in order to UM have more more land,
(13:54):
more land secessions. Yeah, the laws are of just following
the violence and it just becomes a retroactive justification. Yes,
it's it's a self justifying sort of sovereignty. So this
(14:19):
is the removal period and what a lot of people
may have heard of. So it's from to eighteen sixty one,
and what we have is the extinguishment of Indian title
to eastern lands and the removal of Indian tribes westward
so UM. One of the most notable acts is the
Removal Act, which was authorized by President Andrew Jackson, which
(14:42):
moved Um Indians from the east to the west of
the Mississippi River into what was called Indian Territory UM.
And what brought about this UM Federal Federal Act UM
was a series of three foundational statutes within federal Indian
policy UM dictated by Chief Justice John Marshall. So first
(15:04):
we have Johnson B. Macintosh Cherokee Nation be Georgia and
Worcester be Georgia. And I won't go into too much detail,
but what this these essentially UM did and legally defined
tribes as being domestic dependent nations. And so it clarified
more that again tribal nations are underneath the federal government's overview,
(15:31):
not the states. So yeah, it placed tribes above state jurisdiction.
And what this is trying to do was UM solve
some issues that tribes such as the Cherokee Nation had
with different states when it came to land and UM
jurisdiction over said land. UM. But that is kind of
(15:52):
the basis of a lot of federal Indian policy and
still remains truth day. And what is notable uh in
each one of these statutes UM, I believe, particularly in
Worcester the Georgia, although it seems that it was supporting
tribal sovereignty in them and that they were above state jurisdiction,
(16:16):
a lot of these UM statute sided racist president and
the doctrine of Discovery. So what you see for federal
Indian policy is that a lot of the fount well
all the foundation for federal Indian policy based on President
is the Doctrine of Discovery, which is reliant on the
idea that American Indians were savages and needed um federal
(16:41):
benevolence and um paternalism in order to regulate their own affairs. Yeah,
and I think that's well, okay, we should probably not
just immediately get to allotment, but yeah, because there this is,
there's this, there's also Yeah, this is also the period
of use. Yeah, the thing you were talking about earlier,
the thing you helped me know about, which is okay,
(17:02):
it's not true to say this is when this starts,
but this is Indian Removal Act, Trail of Tears territory.
And yeah, one thing that you know, I think one
of one of the sort of running themes of this
is that, you know, the the law in this context
is just sort of becomes a sort of retroactive excuse
to do whatever needs to be done from the perspective
(17:24):
quote unquote of the sort of of the settler state
to just take all of this land. Yeah. And I
think maybe like one of the keystones of this is
Andrew Jackson just straight up tellings between court to funk
Off so that he can do so he can do
with trail of tears. Yeah. Um. So the Removal Act
(17:48):
happened after all of these statutes that you already had
that supported um, federal Indian sovereignty. And so the Cherokees
in Georgia were one of the tribes that were removed. Um.
And so you kind of see what you talked about,
the the retrograde kind of justifications for said removal despite um,
(18:13):
the statutes that are there. So although that like Marshall
Um in Worcester f Georgia determined that the State of
Georgia did not have jurisdiction over Cherokee territory all this territory,
although this territory was in the state's borders. Um. Later on,
you see with the Removal Act that although these statutes
(18:36):
are still president in federal Indian policy, those were noll
in order for UM there to be more UM expansion
of settlers within these areas. So when it was decided that, oh, wait,
we do need this land and we don't actually want
these Indians here, let's put them to the side over
(18:57):
past the Mississippi so that they're out of side, out
of my right. So we see more of this um
justification for settler expansion. And so again we bring back
to these themes of like settler colonialism in order to
UM kind of gain more of this land. And a
lot of these statutes are still cited the doctrine of
(19:20):
discovery in them and rather than supporting tribal policy, the
relationship between the United States federal government and American Indians
um was not based on the rights of Indians, but
more that they can't they can't govern themselves, right and
so so and that's the whole issue is like people
(19:41):
are like they don't know what they're doing, so we're
gonna push them and like take their land again. So
I I don't know if you want me to go
too much into the trail of tears, but um, you're
seeing a lot of patterns here, I think, different forms
of genocide, different forms of taking land. This was this
is all around the same time as the Indian acting
(20:03):
Canada as well, which was did a very similar thing,
especially starting in the nine it's starting in the twenty
century as well with the like expansion of the like
assimilation programs. Yeah, and I think I guess the only
thing I want to point out about this is that,
you know, so one of one of the things that
happens trailers here is at the Streme Court like tells
(20:26):
Jackson that he can't do this, and j actually just
does it anyways. And I think that's a very interesting
important moment because you know, this is this is this
thing right where the federal government can tell there's Supreme
Court to funk off, right, and there's nothing that Streme
Court could do about it. And if you look at
what they did it to do, the thing they did
it to do was genocide. And it's I think it's
(20:49):
it's just I think this is a very sort of
I don't know, this incredibly grim like you know, encapsulation
of like what this state actually is, which is this
sort of genocide machine and whatever sort of this is
what sovereignty is right. The ability to break your own
rules sort to sort of into or toning the system.
So you know, you break your own laws and you
know as we're gonna get you in a second, like
(21:10):
you break your own treaties continuously, and you do this
because you know, the genisite machine has to keep moving,
right and Um. There's a couple of federal and new
policy theorists um Findeler Jr. Who's one of the most
famous ones, and David E. Wilkins who talks about how
there's no need for checks and balances within the federal
(21:31):
Indian policy system. So you have Congress that is able
to um pass whatever act they want, and and then
you also have the Supreme Court, and then you also
have executive action. But it wasn't really delineated that well
um within especially when it comes to this period as
(21:53):
to who is going to be dealing with the Indians
kind of thing. Um. And so this kind of confusion
and not really completely defining what it means to be
a domestic dependent nation, I think really just goes to
show how much of a fragile edifice like settler um
(22:14):
colonial policy is for it is within the system. UM.
But again moving on it comes back again to land.
So the reservation area era in eighteen sixty one to
eighteen eighty seven UM has you have a lot of
westward expansion of non Indians UM settlers, specifically to California.
(22:37):
You also have the creation of Indian reservations and resulting
Indian wars UM. Uh. So during this era what you
see a lot out of UM are different types of
attempts that assimilation UM and a lot of warfare. So
you have a lot of the Plains tribes my tribe
(22:57):
for instance, UM that are going through all of these
battles fighting UM forced removal onto reservations UM. One of
the most famous ones was UM the Battle of Greasy
Grass or a Little Big Horn UM where General Custer
was killed by Sue Cheyennes and Arapahos, and different instances
(23:22):
of battles such as those, and also where a lot
of tribes UM were forcibly removed to era areas that
they weren't originally from. So like how the Sheriffees were
moved to Oklahoma, there was attempts of my tribe, for instance,
more than Cheyenne to be moved down to Oklahoma as well,
(23:44):
and that's why there's some Southern Cheyennes in Oklahoma and
then my tribes and with thin Shians in Montana. Another
um in. Another thing that is happening during this period
are boarding schools UM the boarding school era. So the
attempt at assimilation through education UM and assimilation is also
(24:06):
UM within within the settler colonial kind of structure. It's
it's defined as a process where indigenous people end up
UM conforming to different constructed notions of UM settler norms UM.
So if they're not absorbed within the state completely, then
(24:27):
their attempted attempt to be assimilated UM culturally, UM through education,
through languages, in terms of economics and how you have
a bunch of different sort of bureaucratic structures on these
reservations trying to make tribal governments appear to be UM
(24:49):
or constructed as as settler colonial governments are UM. So
maybe it's the three branches UM in ways that aren't
just compatible with different tribes culturally, and you also have
the attemptive eradication of different kind of spiritual and cultural
(25:11):
practices and a lot of Christianity course on different people
and just kind of terrible things that UM I think
more and more people are becoming aware of due to
due to current movements. But we'll get into that moment later.
(25:39):
Do we want to talk about a lot of in
the same period, Yes, a lotment period and UM course assimilation.
So this is like eighteen seventy one to nineteen thirty four,
and so this is the end of the treaty making process.
So the whole idea of UM trying to force tribes
(26:01):
onto reservations and signed these treaties were too again take
land and make sure that the United States has more
land and all the land, etcetera that they possibly have UM.
So at this end of treaty making UM federal allotment
of Indian lands also happened in the UM the Jaws
(26:24):
Act UM. And so what this was was an attempt
to UM further shrink the reservation lands that tribes are
already guaranteed within treaties UM. So during this period, I
think that somewhere like nine million acres were UM taken
(26:49):
from tribal reservations during the allotment process. So that what
the allotment process did was it counted each in every
individual Indian UM that was eligible. I think there were
adults um. Yeah, adults that were eligible UM, and each
one of them were given a certain parcel of land,
(27:11):
a certain number of acreage UM. And once all of
this land was calculated, what you had was an excess
of land quote unquote excess of land that the tribes
obviously didn't need because they had still too too many people.
And so what the excess of land um was utilized
(27:33):
force for pioneers and for settlers UM. If it didn't
go UM to the federal government, it was to um
incentivized settlers to colonized, esscial settle on Indian lands. So
trying its hardest to not stay true to its treaty
(27:56):
making practices. I think everything was interesting to me about
this is that, like because one of the other goals
of this is to sort of like, oh is the
civilizing mission. It's like, yeah, we're gonna turn them into
We're turning these people into like like human farmers, like
true American fintiersman or whatever. And it's just like it
just doesn't work because economically it doesn't make any sense,
(28:16):
like breaking up all these like lands. It's like it
doesn't you can't just give someone like a small patch
of like shitty land and have them farm like this
doesn't like this, it doesn't it doesn't like they certainly tried,
and then yeah, yeah, like that was one of the
main things. One of the main things in Canada was
about getting them to adopt like like European farming practices,
(28:40):
which which they already knew how to get their own food, right,
they were trying to change this whole system of of
of like of of food growth to to this like
to this European way of of farming, and it just
and they were just forcing them to and there's yeah,
it's it's yes, it gets it gets, it gets super,
it gets super like dark and horrible. Once you like
(29:02):
look at like the letters that were being written by
like the heads of these programs um like you know,
instructing like these agents were stationed at these like reservations
that to like force people to be doing doing this
horrible farming for like all day every day. And I think,
you know the sign that this was like like this
(29:22):
is this is so bad that even the US government
eventually is like wait this this like this is fucked
up and doesn't work. So I think that's yeah, transitioned
to sort of like the next phase. I guess yeah,
a very short phase. UM. Yeah. So the next phase,
(29:43):
um is the Indian Reorganization Act. And so this only
lasted six years from nineteen thirty four in nineteen forty. UM.
So this is when allotment ended. As you said, the
United States government was like, wait, this isn't working. Um,
what else can we do? What the Indians dive off?
They're not assimilating, they're not a culturating. We don't know
(30:03):
what to do with them. Um, so maybe we'll We'll
have them adopt these constitutions and a lot of them
were just templates. So regardless of whether or not they
were um I think compatible with tribal different tribes way
(30:24):
of life, they were like, you have these constitutions. Now, um,
now you're you're a tribe, and this is what each
tribe has to look like in order for us, the
federal government to recognize you as a legitimate entity. Uh
and um. And then so you have the establishment of
these um tribal governments that consist of tribal councils and
(30:46):
the business committees, etcetera. However, this period is fleeting, very fleeting, um.
And next, um, you have the termination era. So this
is the period of time where the federal government essentially
even more so, wants to just get rid of the
quote unquote Indian problem, which is the existence of indigenous
(31:09):
peoples UM that are reminders to the government essentially that UM,
they are a settler colonial force and they don't know
what to do with us because they tried to commit genocide,
they tried to remove us, etcetera, etcetera. It's still not working. UM.
They decided that our travel governments UM aren't aren't legitimate,
(31:32):
and they just decide, well, it's too much to try
to keep up with our treaties and what we promised
them when it comes to healthcare, education, housing, etcetera, etcetera.
How about we terminate our federal responsibility, our trust responsibility
that are delineated in federal in the policy and in
(31:53):
our treaties UM and give them off to this to
the states to decide what to do with and says
during this period it you see UM sort of the
federal UM dissolution of some tribes such as the monotymy
Um and other ones UM as well. So this is
(32:18):
another dark time there. The dark times just keep on coming.
And what federal policy scholars have UM characterized federal unw
policy as a pendulum, the swinging swinging from side to
side between this terminal, this termination of tribes, So the
federal India government as trying to get rid of tribes,
(32:40):
especially as you can see in this era, and then
the pendulum of the other side of self determination. But
both of these are held within the context of goals
of assimilation. So, um, this is just another phase of terribleness. Well,
I think this this phase is also like one thing
I think that also like is important people understand. Is
(33:03):
it like like it's not like people aren't fighting this
like the whole time. I mean even going like even
going back to the stuff the Seventh Cafrey, like the
seventh Cavalry lose like bores, they lose bells all the time.
People are fighting constantly, and this is this period determination.
Period is also where you see the the rise of
(33:23):
the American Indian movements. Yeah, a lot of these periods
can be like dove into more and all of these
different things. Um, and every instance, in every instance of
federal Indian policy, you have resistance, which we are not
covering here right now. Um, but you have instances throughout
history where indigenous peoples have fought for their rights to land,
(33:47):
to UM, for their community, to being sovereign nations, etcetera.
And that's why the federal Indians, the federal government, not
federal Indian government, the federal government has not been able
to aradicated us, much to their dismay um UM. And
so now I'm going to switch into the era that
(34:08):
we are considered to be in, which I have mentioned
when I talked about the pendulum of federal Indian policy.
So now we are in the self determination era UM,
which began in nineteen sixty two, UM, and we have
UM the right. It's characterized with the revitalization of tribal entities.
(34:29):
So UM going kind of back to when there was
the Indian Reorganization Acts that we have our tribal councils. UM.
There's restoration of some tribes under federal recognition who are
terminated again not all of them. We also have the
Indian Civil Rights Act. So this this kind of guaranteed
(34:51):
individual Indians UM some rights UM, not just characterized by
their tribes. Also the self determination call say, so this
is when UM Nixon condemned determination policy and gave more
control to Indians rather than the Bureau of Indian Fairs,
which just a federal bureau and just kind of like
(35:14):
other policies that UM have given the tribes more rights
to UM determine for themselves in their own trust, their
own people, UM to a certain degree underneath the federal
government as a mess of dependent nations. And again I
I think that we have seen a lot more movement,
(35:38):
but within the context of being within a settler colonial state. UM.
It's always I think a possibility that the federal Indian
government or the federal government I keep saying Indian, the
federal government will try UM to take more and more.
And I think UM for since when it comes to
(36:03):
issues of fishing rights, issues of UM hunting rights with states,
not even just with the federal government. So you have
a lot of states throughout throughout history but still ongoing
UM that attempt to encroach on UM tribal treaties UM.
And again, treaties are the basis of federal Indian policy.
(36:25):
Without these treaties, that lands would have never been succeeded
to the United States. And so UM there's just this
sort of like legal legal conundrum I would say, of
where all these all treaties in the history of the
United States with India with Indian tribes have been broken
(36:47):
in some way, shape or form um, but still um
American Indians have to live on their reservations instead of
having their their land back. And so now of days
a lot of movement has been towards um land back.
What this means? What is this process? And I think
it means a lot of different things for different people
(37:10):
indigenous people because again there's there's four federally recognized tribes
and so it's not one monolith of ideas, the monolith
of the beliefs. But by just by saying land back,
that's like recognition that this is our this was our
land first, and you're not keeping your side of the
(37:32):
deal and never have been. Could you maybe go a
bit more into land back with the topic, because like specifically,
like the past five years, it has really gain a
lot more like um popularity as like a slogan UM.
But I think for a lot of a lot of
people who chanted and here it don't always really know
(37:55):
exactly what it means. That there's a lot of like
mixed opinions on what it means UM. Of course, on
like the more like reactionary side it's like people be like,
what you're going to like kick white people out of
these areas? Like that's kind of That's what a lot
of like the reactionary takes on land back is. Um.
And I'm sure most people are listening to this podcast
(38:15):
that's not what they think, um, But they may not
really know exactly what it means either. Um. They may
think it sounds like a good idea, but they're not
quite sure what it is. Do you mind kind of
talking about how land backs like developed as as an
idea and what like what like you mean by it personally?
At least? Yeah, I think I can talk about more
(38:36):
about like what I mean by it personally and what
I've understood it to mean to other people, because I think, um,
land back itself, it means like a lot of different things,
and I don't think that there has been a concrete
kind of idea of what it means. But I think
(38:57):
a lot of the movement I want to contextualize it
with and a lot of the sort of act activism
that we've seen in their recent years. UM. So for instance,
no Jack all the Dakota Access pipeline in two thousand
and sixteen and kind of I think that's one of
the more recent events that have really illustrated on a
(39:19):
wide scale, like globally about UM indigenous movements, UM sovereign movements,
and especially when it comes to environmental justice. But what
you saw there was encroachment on tribal treaty land within
UM that we when it had to do with the
(39:40):
Dakota Access pipeline UM. So although it didn't cross some
of the current reservation borders, it was in treaty land,
you know that kind of thing. The same the same
thing was stop line three, how it encroached on the
hunting land and the farmland that was not technically in
the like residential like like UM like the not in
(40:00):
like the reservation area where people live, but it's in
the surrounding area that is for hunting that is specified
in the treaty. So people trying to use these loopholes
to get the pipelines through right right. And so I
think what you see is a lot of solidarity across
tribes because this is not new, this has never been new,
(40:20):
and a lot of tribes can relate to that. And
what you've seen and what I've hoped that I've highlighted
throughout this kind of very brief overview of federal loving
policy is the different ways that Indigenous rights to land
and sovereignty has been attacked in different forms by settler
(40:42):
and colonial governments. Um. And I think that the day
and age that we live in now has allowed for
um sort of more widespread solidarity, especially over social media. Um.
And so when we say land back, for me, how
I interpret it as what people mean when they're saying
(41:02):
it is recognition of our tribal sovereignty, of our right
to this land that has not been respected. And then
I also think that it means, well, if these treaties
aren't being respected, then how is this treaty still um valid? Right?
How come we aren't getting our land back because they're
(41:23):
not upholding your end of the deal. While some people
also might mean and recognize that this whole United States
government is a settler state right based on the doctrine
of discovery, which is based on denying tribes and American
Indians of their rights to this land. Um. So some
(41:47):
people might take it to this whole other context of yeah,
well maybe this is this is all of our land, etcetera, etcetera.
But in practice, what does this look like, and I
think in practice a lot of people UM are seeing
it with reparations or people buying land back for tribes
and giving it back to tribes. And we have seen
(42:08):
some of that or UM also just people interrupting the
narrative UM in their own mind of their euro American identity,
so non non UM American Indians and primarily European settlers
and their history of their own families taking part of
the settler colonial process, and how has that UM what
(42:31):
about their lands? There's everyone who UM descends I guess
from these these settlers, and I want to be specific
when I'm talking about Euro American settlers UM UM and
how they currently benefit from these systems. And I think
by saying land back UM, it's we're able to highlight
(42:53):
this movement for tribal sovereignty and recognition on a global scale.
Instead of searching for justice within the quote unquote like
UM searching for justice within the courts of the conqueror,
how how do we expect UM for the conqueror to
be held accountable for all of these atrocities, attempts at genocide, assimilation,
et cetera. By taking it more towards a global scale,
(43:16):
such as nod Apple highlighting these two other people as
these are injustices. Um, this is this is ongoing genocide.
I think that land back has many, like a plethora
of meanings in the in that sense. Yeah, yeah, I
hope that answers your question. I myself, UM might use
(43:39):
it in in some some different ways. Um, because land
as we conceive it to be property kind of grew,
that concept grew in conversation with euro American Yeah. Absolutely, yeah,
conceptions of property. So I think that um, moving forward,
(44:00):
when we talk about de colonization as a process and
not like a metaphor, um that thinking of land back
not within that whole idea of your American property as well.
That's that's kind of another thing to consider. Yeah, I
think I think lend back would just be a whole
other thing that will pay someone more qualified than our
(44:25):
team to talk about on this show. Um, because yeah,
that's definitely, like you know, like all of the things
we've we've discussed, they deserve their own deep dives by
people that are uh not me, Robert and Chris. Um.
Let's see, is there any kind of resources, either books
(44:46):
or stuff online that you would recommend for people wanting
to learn more about this history UM, and then any
kind of ways to I don't know, I I guess
show support in these and these kind of like efforts
that are going on, Yeah, for sure. UM. So in
terms of resources and reading UM, I have read Lorenzo
(45:09):
Verrocchini's UM Settler book on Settler Colonialism. UM. That's really
helpful when you're trying to understand that framework in terms
of getting to know kind of more of the basics
of like current UM issues impacting tribes UM. The National
Congress of American Indians does a lot of work on
(45:32):
the federal level. UM. If you want to talk more
about UM kind of lived current lived experiences of American Indians,
there's illuminatives UM and getting more involved in those as well.
I think that they have some tips, but I would
recommend UM everyone getting more familiar with the land that
(45:54):
they are on currently, the tribes within their states and
what they can do UM, not just on the local level,
but on the state level to support tribal sovereignty UM.
Because a lot of issues UH. For instance, I worked
on the on the state policy level in Washington and
in Montana, and both of those have a significant amount
(46:17):
of tribes UM, but you have a lot of legislation
that's trying to happen that infringes on tribal treaty rights.
And the thing is is UM as ugly as it
may be to say, but sometimes voices of non indigenous
(46:39):
people's are listened to more within those UM contexts. So
you need to get more involved on on those levels.
UM what sort of like at UM nonprofit organizations UM
work with your tribes or and what sort of issues
are impacting tribes. And again, these are all going to
(47:00):
probably be surrounding travel sovereignty, so maybe it's UM fishing access,
hunting rights, etcetera. UM. I think that's a really good
way to make some more palate UM tangible change, to
feel like you're doing something to support tribal sovereignty while
(47:20):
you're also educating yourself and making sure that their voices
are at the forefront. And that's also applicable to the
federal level, especially with as you already said, like stop
line three in Minnesota, contacting your legislators, etcetera, etcetera. And
I think also with when it comes to one of
(47:44):
one of the larger issues besides UM, environmental justice for
indigenous peoples such as pipelines you have right now missing
a murdered Indigenous women UM, so looking and looking into
that UM a little bit more and who you can
support who's addressing those issues along with UM. There is
(48:07):
another movement with boarding schools right now because there's been
a lot of UM bodies of young children UM that
have been uncovered. And this is not an issue that
happened a long long time ago, like, for instance, my
(48:27):
grandmother went to a boarding school. UM. There's still schools
that UM although they're not called boarding schools right now
that we're boarding schools, but are still an operation under
different names, etcetera. UM. So kind of familiarizing yourself with
those histories. And then also there's a UM national UM
(48:49):
I think it's called the National Boarding School Healing Coalition
based out of Minnesota, and UM looking into them and
supporting their efforts UM with this issue is also a
good place to start. UM. Is there anywhere that people
can find you online? Yes? I don't. I don't really
(49:13):
use UM social media that much. Yeah, yeah, I try
not to. I don't know. If I want people to
find me, don't don't do it. It's it's better that
people don't find anyone online. It's better. We're all just
(49:36):
just posting into the void. There's nothing not just just
a void. Well that that is. I think going to
wrap up what we have today, Chris, I want to
close us out with a funny bit. I light your
local gas station on fire. Wow, Christ killing it? Oh
(50:01):
my god, jeez wow. All right, goodbye for Buddy. It
could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media
or more podcasts from cool Zone Media. Visit our website
cool zone media dot com, or check us out on
the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could
(50:22):
Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone Media dot com
slash sources. Thanks for listening,
It Could Happen Here News
Hosts And Creators
Robert Evans
Garrison Davis
James Stout
Show Links
AboutPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.