Dr. Liz Redd
Description: This three-part series presented by Dr. Liz Redd of Idaho State University will help listeners: 1) articulate pervasive myths and stereotypes of native American peoples often perpetuated in mainstream education/society 2) reframe discussions to dispel common misconceptions about Native American peoples, their histories, and their persistence & resistance 3) describe the unique sovereign political status of Native American Tribes in the United States as informed by history and policy 4) explore ways to incorporate diverse voices and perspectives throughout curriculum and programs Key concepts include representation, U.S. Native American Law & Policy, erasure, resistance, and sovereignty.
Date: 2022-09-09
Topics:
The visual topic map is hidden for screen reader users. Please use the "Filter by Topic" dropdown menu or search box to find specific content in the transcript.
Doug Exton: This program is funded through a more Perfect Union initiative of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Dr. Liz Redd: Part two. Native American histories: a timeline. Acknowledging hard truths. So this is, I'm just going to very briefly touch on broad strokes because there are multiple histories. And so I'm just focusing on, the U.S. relationship with Native American peoples here. So when we're talking about teaching Native American history, we get that centered there. one of the questions that that I always think about, and then I ask people is when does Native American history start?
From most of our history courses. we start teaching us history. And if we teach any Native American history at all, we started at, culinary, colonization. So we started with 1492, but actually Native American history and the history of North America, starts well beyond that. Native peoples have been living in North America for over 50,000 years.
there are frequently new archeological discoveries that or uncoveries, that so we, that we find that supports even greater time depth for native peoples being in North America. There was just one in the past year, that extended that time. even earlier than we thought. So we have to think about the fact that native peoples have been here and were here, that they were sovereign people prior to colonization.
This concept of sovereignty, the, right to self-governance and the ability to self-governance. Native peoples had governments. They had systems of government, sometimes very complex, but nevertheless systems of government. They were not just, wild savages living in the forest like animals. So and then, you know, if we look at this, timeline here, we can see that even when we start at 1492, we're leaving out some settlements.
the north settlement of the two lands in Newfoundland. and there, are potentially other settlements as well. We're finding we're finding more evidence all the time. but here we have a brief timeline. So we've got, you know, the, the, North settlements, and then we've got Columbus. and then how Columbus enslaved and killed the Tainos and the Arawak and the Lucayan.
but never set foot in North America. Oftentimes, when we're talking about Columbus in history classes, we never even mention the name of the Tainos. Right? They just say, oh, he came here and, found Native Americans. and we leave out the fact that he enslaved Native Americans, that he killed Native Americans, that, he traded in ten year old girls for sex.
Right. And that might not be appropriate at all grade levels. But I think when we get to the high school level, we can definitely talk about these things and openly and honestly. And there are some great primary source materials. letters from missionaries back to, the monarchy in Spain discussing these economic endeavors. So first person accounts of this happening.
and then we've got, you know, this this whole history of, invasion and displacements, invasion and displacement. the just continues. until the United States is founded, and then the United States takes up this, displacement. so one of the things that often gets left out as well is if we look at the the date 1513, Ponce de Leon, he actually, was in South Florida but got repelled by the Calusa.
So he did not he was not successful in conquering the Calusa, and nor was de Soto, successful in conquering the Chickasaws. And, you know, we still don't know what happened to Roanoke, but we have some suspicions, right? so this this history is not simply one of, conquest. It is one of, struggle and tension. And it clearly demonstrates that not all of the native American peoples were here waiting with open arms to welcome the colonizers.
and then, you know, even in Hawaii, violently lifted up against. so during the early years of the US government, the judiciary was involved in determining the relationships between native nations and the US. so prior to that, there had been treaties that had been signed. now, there was this newly formed US government. And, a lot of times these treaties, had been broken or needed to be renegotiated, but, the Supreme Court was actually involved in making, a series of decisions that are collectively termed the Marshall Trilogy.
that established among them the Doctrine of Discovery, which asserts that might makes right and that the US fairly won lands through conquest and it justifies Western expansion and continued, imperialism across North America. they also established US federal supremacy over states in decision making regarding, native nations and in, who has authority to try, crimes, on native lands.
so some of those are, retained by the native nation, and some of those are allocated to the federal government, but none of them were supposed to be allocated to the state. Again, this was a nation to nation relationship. Then under Cherokee Nation, we Georgia. the, the Cherokee Nation was termed the domestic dependent nation. So it established this really, kind of nuanced and problematic relationship that both upholds native nations as sovereign nations, but at the same time calls them domestic dependent nations.
but as part of that, there was a trust responsibility established. So the, the, the Supreme Court said that the United States had a responsibility to keep its word from previous treaties, to keep its word in current negotiations and to protect native peoples from further, harms. whether that. Yeah. I'll leave that aside. and then in, west of Georgia again, it upheld the federal supremacy, of, the clause so that the federal government was the one who had the right to make laws to enforce in Indian country, not states.
But in the past year, we've seen that some of this is is being reversed. in decisions regarding Oklahoma. and Oklahoma is an interesting place because, what what where other places had reservations and Oklahoma early had reservations. the government there was, superimposed on those reservations. And so the state had a bit more say in what's going on.
And this was challenged under McGirt. the Oklahoma in 2020 and the federal supremacy, clause was upheld there. Castro-Huerta vs. Oklahoma, this seems to be, being retrenched a little bit. because it seems to reverse, this idea of federal supremacy, because it establishes that states can prosecute non-natives on native lands.
So there's this this is even though this Marshall Trilogy, was established in, Mississippi 1832, not 1932. There we go. Thank you. Let me change that on the fly. even though the Marshall Trilogy, was established in the 1800s, early 1800s. Really? When the, the US was in its infancy. We're still revisiting these issues today, as we can see with the recent Supreme Court decisions.
But one take away from this is that native nations are sovereign, and it's a nation to nation relationship that was established between native nations and the US government, not between native nations and local governments or native nations and state governments.
So then if we also look at, the history of U.S. policy, and there's another timeline here taken from in part from, ..., 2004 that we see, some general trends in. And so ... divides up, the history of U.S. policy toward native peoples, into this, eras and this first era, it calls coexistence, right?
So there was, some slavery, at, at, immediately at first contact. there was a disease, that wiped out significant numbers of native peoples. And then there was a period of, relative peace, with native nations being sovereign nations, entering into treaties with, the colonial governments. And then, in the 1790s, we move into this era, called the, the terms of trade and industrial era.
and during this time period, 1790s to about 1830, we see that we get, the Marshall Trilogy. we get, decisions that, state that the United States government controls the sale of native lands, not, states, the United States and brokers those sales. and that's through the Non Intercourse Act. And we get, lots of treaties with the US.
So no longer treaties with England, France and Spain. But now with the US we get the establishment of emissions and we get some native nations inviting missionaries in to establish, education system, formal education systems. but we also get kind of enforced education becoming the norm. and then in 1824, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is established under the War Department.
And then from the 1830s until about 1887, this is the era of removal and reservations. So we get, Jacksonian removal policy to trace the Trail of Tears. And, as Jefferson described it, the space to live people were native peoples were, intended to be given the space to live undisturbed and to gradually adjust to mainstream U.S. society.
In the starting in about 1887, we see, the Allotment Act. So this is the allotment and assimilation era. the so the Allotment Act is, an act that took all of these reservation lands, lands that were held communally by the native nations and divided up the lands into what's now called the patchwork. so that those individual allotments of land could be, allotted to families.
This meant that a lot of native people had to prove that they were native. And, how do you do that without documentation? so this set up the Dawes Commission to determine, degree of Indian blood. And this really set this, policy, in effect, where we're now measuring blood quantum for native people. And as one of the videos that we that we're not going to see today, points out that it's, dogs, horses and, native people who have to prove their pedigree, which is, really unfortunate.
and it's a colonial idea, this idea of blood quantum, it's not one that was inherent in native nation. prior to colonization and prior to the allotment act, the residential schools were established. So there's forced attendance at residential schools to, in effect, do what Pratt, advocated for, which was, you know, kill the Indians, save the man.
the point of this was to assimilate native peoples, to teach them, European ways of using the land and engaging with, subsistence and, farming. And we also had what are termed the Indian wars, massacres as part of the Civil War. And there's a significant connection between the Indian massacres and the Civil War. and that's again another topic.
But, I invite you to, to go and investigate that connection. there's some significant connection there. So then we have the next era, which is, starting at about the 1940s. the termination and relocation era in the 1940s. the the U.S. government attempted to terminate the tribes. They said you no longer have a government.
part of the goal of this was to say, you know, we no longer have a responsibility to provide those services, to uphold those treaties. If you no longer exist as a sovereign native nation as part of this. and as, an additional, aimed at assimilating native peoples, many native peoples were relocated to urban centers.
the thinking being that it would be easier for them to assimilate, but another, impact of that is if you move people to urban centers, they're no longer living in the reservations. That can impact whether or not they get counted as a tribal citizen. Are voting members of their governments. And that further, weakens native governments.
And then in the 1960s, to the present, we're in this era of self-determination, starting with the the Indian Civil Rights Act. There's the Indian child welfare Act, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance act. And during this time, native nations governments were reestablish, under, reorganization. And so these native governments, many of them look very, very similar to the US government structure.
But, at this point, we are acknowledging the US government is acknowledging that native nations are sovereign nations, although that might be slightly under threat with some of the recent Supreme Court decisions. So those are just general trends in U.S. history. But if we look at this timeline and if we really examine the US policies, and policies of other colonial nations, if we examine the policies that the US has had that are directed at or concern native peoples, it really becomes clear that at least until the 1960s, the overarching purposes of these policies was to erase or to erase native peoples from culture.
It was to deprive them of their lands, their livelihoods, their ceremonies, languages and cultures, and that depriving them of their lands, livelihoods, ceremonies, languages, cultures and sovereign status in some cases. that actually fulfills the UN definition of genocide. So this speaks to that myth that the U.S. does not have a policy of genocide. Here, we can clearly see it.
It's about erasing native peoples. It's about assimilating them. So when you're talking with, students and, you know, especially, you know, upgrades, middle, middle school, high school, this is, it I know that some people in the current political climate are worried about engaging in this type of discussion, where you're openly talking about power differentials and the lasting impacts of colonization and settlement.
But one of the ways that you can do this is just show the students the timeline and ask the students to think about what are the purposes of these policies. If we look at them as if they are telling a whole story, as if they are a narrative. So you invite your students into having that conversation, and I think that creates a safer space in the current political climate for having these discussions.
If they're student led and the students are coming to the realizations on their own, you're just providing them all the information.
So again, I like to show videos. I'm not going to show these three videos, but I like to give teachers some resources that they can start with that they know are quality. They know are going to represent, an accurate history and represent native voice. so I have these three videos here and they'll be listed again.
and one is on residential schools, one's on relocation and one's on red power. So if you were discussing the timeline and you had these students, use the videos, perhaps in a jigsaw, type activity, you could have, you could divide your, your students up into three groups. each group watches one of these videos and discusses and then presents the video to the rest of the class.
and then maybe you divide those groups up so that they can discuss, how their, how the, the histories presented in their videos connect to one another. They can find those themes. So it's a type of, a jigsaw activity that could be useful to getting students to thinking about what are the themes and purposes of policy.
If we look at it as a, as a whole, rather than as any individual policy? Looking at the scope and sweep of history right. another way to engage with students, in thinking about this is looking at local native histories. So, I want to talk a little bit about the Bear River Massacre. this is specifically, Idaho history.
so the Bear River Massacre was part of what is termed the Indian wars, right. And has a connection to, the Civil War. soldiers who were stationed in the West didn't get to see the action happening in, the East in the Civil War. And there was, what has been termed a Western Front. So the the American Indian Wars were actually are actually considered the Western Front of the Civil War.
And again, this is a very complex history, but these massacres were ways for, soldiers to get combat experience and to get promoted through that as well. So if you were being left out of the Civil War, this was the other front. This was a way that you so there was there was incentive for, for the, military here to actually engage in conflict.
There's also a connection here for bear River, to the, settlement of the Utah and, Idaho, territories by, members of the, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. So, settlement was occurring, and native peoples were being displaced and, moved on to reservations. the native peoples were not able to maintain their, traditional subsistence pattern.
So for Shoshone peoples, this meant they're living in a relatively confined area and they don't have their traditional subsistence. means they can't forage in that confined area. And, starvation is occurring. And with ideas of reciprocity being, you know, if I need that, I can use it and I'll give back to you at some point. this idea of property ownership is a little bit different.
So, yes, the Shoshone people would go and take a cow because they're starving and they need the cow, right? But this didn't sit well, of course, with settlers. And so, the settlers asked the military to come in and help. And the way that the military helped in this case was to go and massacre an entire band of Shoshone people, 400 people who were just in their winter camp at dawn were invaded by a group of soldiers who, have been called volunteers from California.
and they just they just killed them all. And there are some really, moving and horrific stories. There are some, wonderful, video coverage out there you can find on YouTube as well. And that's also linked in the resources. but what I want to talk about here is that there's, there's a, there River is a place.
It is it's a winter camp for the Shoshone people. And there there has been a plaque, marking where this event, this massacre took place for many years. and it has recently been replaced by a new plaque. And so I want to compare these two plaques. So on the left we have the original plaque, and it reads The Battle of Bear River.
Notice it calls it the Battle of Bear River, indicating that there were people fighting on both sides that this was, you know, like two, two groups of army, coming down into a field, with their, you know, we think about it in terms of, you know, the revolutionary War battle. but that's not what happened. They were invaded as they were waking up and just killed.
so the Battle of Bear River was fought in this vicinity January 29th, 1863. So right in the middle of the Civil War, Colonel P Connor, leading 300 California volunteers from Camp Douglas, Utah, against Bannock and Shoshone Indians, guilty of hostile attacks on emigrants and settlers, engaged about 500 Indians, of whom 250 to 300 were killed or incapacitated, including 90 combatants, women and children.
14 soldiers were killed, four officers and 49 men wounded, of whom officer of whom officer, and seven men died. Later, 79 were severely frozen. chiefs bear, Hunter, Savage, and Levi were reported killed. 175 horses and I can't really read that word stolen, property were recovered and 70 lodges were burned. So this reads like an inventory.
We burned 70 lodges. There's many people, you know, there's many horses. And notice how they're including the people in the count of how many horses were killed, how many things were. So it's just an inventory of what we accomplished. and it's it's centers, the military, it, upholds the military as, doing good deeds here and frames the, native peoples here as guilty of hostile attacks.
That's how it calls, the women and children combatants, women and children, mothers and babies waking up, grandmothers just starting the fire. If someone comes in with a gun and is trying to kill you, are you not going to fight back?
Thankfully, the, there's been a new plaque, placed, and this is a very, very fuzzy image. So that's one I could find because it's very recent. It's just happened. just this past year. but it reads, Bear River Massacre. And again, this is in contrast to the the battle of the River. and it reads in memory of the estimated 400 men, women and children of the Northwestern Shoshone nation, Shoshone nation.
So upholding sovereignty, very different framing, who were brutally massacred in this vicinity on January 29th, 1863, by the United States Army California Volunteers from Fort Douglas, Utah, under the command of Colonel Patrick E Connor. The attack took place in the early morning hours against a group of people with limited can't read that word without peaceful means
So if you look at this as it's getting more challenging for me to read it, but, it does list that some 23 soldiers died. it does, frame, the, the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, as, people who helped eventually. But it frames the native people as a sovereign nation.
It says, we're commemorating them and it talks about this as a massacre. So it is an improvement, for people who go to visit the site. Another thing I want to mention about bear River is, in talking with, teachers here in Idaho, the majority, not all, but the majority of them have never heard of this event.
It's not treated in our U.S history books, even though it is the largest scale massacre of native people in North America. It doesn't get coverage in our history books. Why don't we tell this story? Why do we tell the story of Thanksgiving and Sacajawea? but we don't tell this story. Why do we tell the story of the Native American wars?
But we don't tell this story. Because this story challenges those myths and narratives that form that discourse that justifies westward expansion.