free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Pipe · Joined: 31 Mar 2010 Posts: 14

The first few sentences of the reading had me excited. After such a long stretch of sad stories of lost culture, dead warriors, and failed campaigns by the Indians I wanted to hear something sweet. I wanted white Americans to realize their injustices and give back to the Indians what they rightfully deserved. Through the first pages i was optimistic that John Collier was the Native American savior, although many Native Americans doubted his intentions and still felt mistrust. What caught my attention was that this minority came from elders and people of larger tribes. I started doubting the federal governments change of heart. The fact that these events occurred during the Great Depression makes me wonder, Was this some form of economic stimulus? This barrier between the Native Americans and the American government made me think of other political movements by minorities. often times when minorities don't have a voice someone outside of their ethnic group will speak for them. Is this the best way to gain respect and power, or should a leader come from one of their own? What could have the Native Americans done to strengthen their nation?
_________________
Melipe Fatho

Free Forum

rbennett · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 39

I think the most interesting part of this chapter is the overall theme of struggle between the old Native American culture, and the new Native American culture arising out of Native Americans going to live in cities, and being assimilated into white culture. This struggle obviously greatly affected the Native Americans way of life, ultimately bringing some tribes to “termination.” While I was reading, this word stuck out to me because it is so final. Termination is the complete end of something, and I thought it was sad that this word was used to describe Native Americans basically losing a lot of the glue that held their tribes together, like government funding and their reservations. I think Jake Page used this word on purpose, to illuminate how final these changes were. This struggle not only affected the Native Americans themselves, but it also affected how white people saw them. Page writes “…one noted Sierra Club official announced that he had visited the Havasupais down in their canyon, and reported ‘They aren’t even real Indians. They have refrigerators and wear sneakers’” (373). This quote is evidence that the Native Americans had been pushed so far from their original culture, that white people no longer saw the stereotypes that labeled them as “real Indians.” I think this quote is unfair and really offensive to the Native Americans, because it was white people who forced them away from what made them “real” Indians, and now white people were criticizing what they have become. They were still real Indians even though they had evolved and lost some of their culture.

My question is one that Earl Old Person who was a Blackfeet Native American, asked, and Page writes about on the last page of chapter 15. The question is: “…Why is it so important that Indians be brought into the mainstream of American life?” (378).

(i typed this before i saw that felipe already posted, so someone else should answer his question!)

pkelley · Joined: 31 Mar 2010 Posts: 12

This chapter brought up a lot of the questions I had about mixing the two cultures together (from chapter 9 or something) where Page talks about Handsome Lake and the significance of mixing two cultures together, or forcing the end/start of a culture.
The termination section also stood out a lot to me for a few reasons. The Kalmaths were a really sad story with the infant mortality and alcoholism problems as a direct result of them not being federally recognized, and the section where Page says, "Overall, the immediate effects of termination had less sociological effect than the enormous migration to the cities at this time." confused me a little. How could that be true? A sentence later Page contradicts himself, saying termination had a far worse impact.

my question is, what do you think Page was getting at when he said "Overall, the immediate effects of termination had less sociological effect than the enormous migration to the cities at this time."?
and also, the test is on 14 and 15 right?

afenn · Joined: 31 Mar 2010 Posts: 17

.. Yes the test is on the reading we did from 14 and 15 Smile

So to answer Felipes question... I think that in general an Indian representative would have been better than a white one because they'd knows about the struggles and problems Indians have. That being said I think collier was one of the first people with significant power to have Indian peoples best interest in mind. I also think that politically in washington it is much easier for a white person to gain respect and attention from other white people than any one that is of a minority would.

Something else of interest to me in this chapter was the fact that there was no statute of limitations on the land claims Indians can make. I really don't know why but that almost seemed insulting to me.. Maybe it's because I didn't believe that any white comissioner, even Collier, would take a claim from the 1700s seriously. Also I'm sure the claim has to be somewhat proveable and the Indians didn't keep written records of their deals with Europeans.

Do you guys think that there should have been a statue of limitations On land claims. or that a claim from the 1700s is still legitimate?

mmcgowan18 · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 27

From the first few pages, I was hit with a huge sense of relieve. An American government official is actually doing something that actually benefits Native Americans. And he does it very well, at least the way Page puts it. To me it seems like everything Collier was presenting was common sense. Because I was so happy/proud of what Collier was doing I was really surprised that tribes were against it. They were getting control and land back, they were getting money. But when Page says it’s “another white man program” it clicks. Native Americans have no reason to trust white government official because so many have lied before him.

Why did Collier “simply issue a set of orders to the Navajos under which their existing tribal council was to operate”?

mholmes · Joined: 01 Apr 2010 Posts: 15

In my post for last night, I wrote about how the beginning of reservations was the first time Indians had completely lost their control. This chapter seemed to be the beginning of them getting it back. It was good to hear about an administration that saw what government had done wrong in the past, and was willing to help correct it for a better future for Natives. While there was support for these actions, it wasn’t surprising that many people from the places nearby native reservations were eager to “help the Natives” by getting them off their reservation lands, mostly so that the people nearby could benefit off the land they were once restricted from. It was a chapter of both good and bad news for natives culture. Unfortunately, many tribes eventually lost their original tribal cultures.

Would this big move off reservations have happened eventually without the program? Would natives have gotten tired of life on their reservations and have wanted to see the rest of the world?

mnorton · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 23

To answer Rachel's question, I think that depending on who you're asking the answer to that question would be very different. For example, the conservative parties in support of termination might have said that it was important for native Americans to be part of mainstream America so that the government could stop providing them funding as well as land and other resources. However, a Native American might have said that it was important in order for Indians to survive in modern America and take advantage of new laws and regulations being placed on Indians. So anyways, I think that there are definitely some varying answers to this question.

I think the most interesting aspects of these chapters were all of the acts, laws etc. that were established with (supposedly) good intentions for the Native Americans. I guess I'm still a little confused as to the sudden interest in helping/preserving the tribes individual cultures. Some of the efforts seemed sincere and others seemed to have hidden agendas such as removing Indians from their reservations among other things. So maybe someone could clarify that. Where the heck did this sudden interest in advocating for Native Americans come from? Or did people just eventually come to their senses?

Skarman · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 27

This chapter seemed like a lot of trying to make amends with the Indians for treating them so poorly. The US established the Indian Claims Commission which attempted to compensate for the maltreatment, mostly trying to reimburse the land that was taken from them. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was another program to aid thirty-three thousand Indians in relocation. These relocation efforts helped the Indians gain opportunities to find work and transportation. What angers me is that the US thinks they can make amends with the Indians by just treating them really nice for a bit, as if that would disregard the hundreds of years of spewed ruthlessness, and allow them to call it even.

Is there a way to “call it even”? Can the US ever be forgiven for what they did?

esimpson · Joined: 31 Mar 2010 Posts: 10

Well this reading was certainly brighter. I think the fact the Collier's genuinely kind and just acts were rejected by a lot of the Native Americans speaks well to their apprehension to white political action involving them. I found it extremely curious that Collier was attacked by right-wing whites who thought that he was a commie. The juxtaposition of Native Americans and the Cold War (even though this is still the 30s) is extremely confusing to me in a history reading.
And since the history of the Native Americans has read like a Series of Unfortunate Events, as soon as things improved, WWII ended and the right-wing nutjobs paranoid of communism were like Nooooooooooooo and caused Collier to resign, and things sucked again. It's really terrible how much ignorance has oppressed the Native Americans ever since the Europeans first settled.

I found it sad when the terminations in the 50s began, when the two that got hit hardest, the Klamaths and the Menominees, not only were terminated, but had become prosperous on selling timber, which seems to me contradicting traditional values (although I don't know those tribes in depth and don't want to be using the nature stereotype here). It showed that even when white culture had been pretty well embraced by Indians they still had the rug pulled out from under them. To add insult to injury, those that were affected were those that had stayed on the reservations, while the urban ones gained from the termination, further dividing them.

My question is, in prediction for the rest of the book leading up to present day, when and if do the ridiculous and unfair laws end? I'm amazed at how long into the 20th century the laws persisted to attempt to terminate the reservations and tribes. Earl Old Person ends the reading with hope though.

eeschneider · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 30

To answer Eric's question: I don't think the unfair laws are ever going to end. This class has opened to my eyes to how unfairly the United States treats Indians. Though there have been some fair things.
For example even though Collier wasn't perfect he still did a lot for the Inidians. Because of everything he did for the Indians they got "...leverage with the American system that they had not enjoyed in any real sense since the administration of Andrew Jackson." It also made me happy even though some Inidian tribes have trouble admitting it, the Roosevelt years were the best years of Indian history.
I don't know if my question is completely stupid... but it's something that seriously go me thinking. In 1935 when Congress created the Indian Arts and Crafts board, it made me wonder whether or not there is an Arts and Crafts board for other cultures? Like an African arts and crafts board or something?

lfagen · Joined: 31 Mar 2010 Posts: 8

I agree with Rachel in that I also think that unlike other chapters, the most interesting part about this section was just the overall transition (and struggles that came along with it) from the old culture to the new Native American culture.
I also agree that the fact that this started "well into the depression" (Page 369) was interesting. Something that has always intrigued me is that tragedy brings people together. The depression really was like a nation wide tragedy; therefore, it brought the nation together. With no money, everybody basically had to recreate themselves. Collier understood this and as a result, he wanted to clear the water. I kind of see this as really starting anew which is oddly nice (for the lack of a better word) of the administration. Perhaps this is mostly my theory in an ideal world that didn't really exist, but I like to tinnk that those were Collier's motives Very Happy

.

Free Forum