PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...Major change in Federal Indian policy



Okla-homey
2/8/2010, 06:14 AM
February 8, 1887: Cleveland signs the Dawes Severalty Act

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7580/dawesindianland.jpg

123 years ago today, in a well-meaning but ultimately flawed attempt to assimilate American Indians, President Grover Cleveland signs an act to end tribal control of reservations and divide their land into individual holdings.

Named for its chief author, Senator Henry Laurens Dawes from Massachusetts, the Dawes Severalty Act reversed the long-standing American policy of allowing Indian tribes to maintain their traditional practice of communal use and control of their lands.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4749/daweshenrydawes002.jpg
Henry Laurens Dawes

Instead, the Dawes Act gave the president the power to divide Indian reservations into individual, privately owned plots. The act dictated that men with families would receive 160 acres, single adult men were given 80 acres, and boys received 40 acres. Women received no land.

The most important motivation for the Dawes Act was white hunger for Indian lands. The act provided that after the government had doled out land allotments to the Indians, the sizeable remainder of the reservation properties would be opened for sale to whites. Consequently, Indians eventually lost 86 million acres of land, or 62 percent of their total pre-1887 holdings.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7885/daweswestnativeamerican.jpg

Still, the Dawes Act was not solely a product of greed. Many religious and humanitarian "friends of the Indian" supported the act as a necessary step toward fully assimilating the Indians into American culture. Reformers believed that Indians would never bridge the chasm between "barbarism and civilization" if they maintained their tribal cohesion and traditional ways.

J.D.C. Atkins, commissioner of Indian affairs, argued that the Dawes Act was the first step toward transforming, "Idleness, improvidence, ignorance, and superstition.... into industry, thrift, intelligence, and Christianity."

In reality, the Dawes Severalty Act proved a very effective tool for taking lands from Indians and giving it to whites, but the promised benefits to the Indians never materialized. Racism, bureaucratic bungling, and inherent weaknesses in the law deprived the Indians of the strengths of tribal ownership, while severely limiting the economic viability of individual ownership. Many tribes also deeply resented and resisted the government's heavy-handed attempt to destroy their traditional cultures.

Despite these flaws, the Dawes Severalty Act remained in force for more than four decades. In 1934, the Wheeler-Howard Act repudiated the policy and attempted to revive the centrality of tribal control and cultural autonomy on the reservations. The Wheeler-Howard Act ended further transfer of Indian lands to whites and provided for a return to voluntary communal Indian ownership, but considerable damage had already been done.

SicEmBaylor
2/8/2010, 06:18 AM
I'm kind of curious about that map showing IT as a reservation. I've always thought IT was the total opposite of a reservation. Since it's tribal owned and run rather than operated under the BIA...

I think the fact that they aren't Federally operated is one of the reasons they've prospered to the degree they have compared to tribes that are on reservations....the Sioux, for example.

Edit: Okay, I just saw the date on the map which was the first thing I looked at. Still, I didn't know it was ever considered a reservation.

picasso
2/8/2010, 08:54 AM
I'm kind of curious about that map showing IT as a reservation. I've always thought IT was the total opposite of a reservation. Since it's tribal owned and run rather than operated under the BIA...

I think the fact that they aren't Federally operated is one of the reasons they've prospered to the degree they have compared to tribes that are on reservations....the Sioux, for example.

Edit: Okay, I just saw the date on the map which was the first thing I looked at. Still, I didn't know it was ever considered a reservation.

The folks out west and north weren't forced to move to Oklahoma. They've stayed put and taken the handout which makes prosperity a bit tougher.

Not saying forced removal was a winning idea. It does seem that assimilation has fared better outside of the reservation system.

Okla-homey
2/8/2010, 02:45 PM
The folks out west and north weren't forced to move to Oklahoma. They've stayed put and taken the handout which makes prosperity a bit tougher.

Not saying forced removal was a winning idea. It does seem that assimilation has fared better outside of the reservation system.

IMHO, since 1988's passage of the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), a key to tribal prosperity has been how close the tribal lands, on which Indian gaming facilities must be situated per the aforementioned federal statute, are from major population centers. Put another way, if your rez is 200 miles of bad road from the nearest good sized city, your tribal casinos aren't going to net much profit for the tribe.

SicEmBaylor
2/8/2010, 05:01 PM
The folks out west and north weren't forced to move to Oklahoma. They've stayed put and taken the handout which makes prosperity a bit tougher.

Not saying forced removal was a winning idea. It does seem that assimilation has fared better outside of the reservation system.

I know that. I'm not talking about them. I'm just talking about the labeling of Indian Territory as "reservation" land.

Removal was the best thing that could have happened to the 5 Civs. They assimilated and prospered where others haven't. They can at least be proud of that.