PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...The First Americans get US citizenship



Okla-homey
6/2/2007, 06:55 AM
June 2, 1924: The Indian Citizenship Act

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/17009/2005202750735721548_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005202750735721548)
I Am Crow, by Kirby Sattler

Eighty-three years ago today, with Congress' passage of the Indian Citizenship Act and presidential signing by Calvin Coolidge, the government of the United States confers citizenship on all Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States and her territories -- which in 1924 included, thus making Alaskan Indians (aka Eskimoes and Aleuts) and aboriginal Hawaiians US citizens too.

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/17245/2005216062611049574_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005216062611049574)
Oklahoma Osages and Pres. Coolidge at the White House bill signing ceremony, June 2, 1924.

The "Indian Citizenship Act" of 1924, also known as Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder of N.Y. and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. As an aside, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excluded certain indigenes.)

The text of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (43 U.S. Stats. At Large, Ch. 233, p. 253 (1924)) reads as follows:


BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property."
Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.] SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CHS. 233. 1924. See House Report No. 222, Certificates of Citizenship to Indians, 68th Congress, 1st Session, Feb. 22, 1924. Note: This statute has been codified in the United States Code at Title 8, Sec. 1401(a)(2).

Before the Civil War, citizenship was often limited to Indians of one-half or less Indian blood. During the Reconstruction period, progressive Republicans in Congress sought to accelerate the granting of citizenship to friendly tribes, though state support for these measures was often limited.

In 1888, most Indian women married to U.S. citizens were conferred with citizenship, and in 1919, Indian veterans of World War I were offered citizenship.

In fact, by the early 1920s, some 30 years after the cessation of the 19th century wars, most indigenous people had gained U.S. citizenship through marriage — or through military service, treaties or special laws. But some were not citizens, and they were barred from naturalization.

One active universal Indian citizenship proponent of the early 20th century, Dr. Joseph K. Dixon, wrote following World War I:


"The Indian, though a man without a country, the Indian who has suffered a thousand wrongs considered the white man's burden and from mountains, plains and divides, the Indian threw himself into the struggle to help throttle the unthinkable tyranny of the Hun. The Indian helped to free Belgium, helped to free all the small nations, helped to give victory to the Stars and Stripes. The Indian went to France to help avenge the ravages of autocracy. Now, shall we not redeem ourselves by redeeming all the tribes?"

The privileges of citizenship, however, were largely governed by state law, and the right to vote was often denied to Indians in the early 20th century.

Postscript:

In case you're wondering about which noun to use when referring to the original inhabitants of North America, a 1996 survey revealed that more American Indians in the United States still preferred American Indian to Native American.

Nonetheless, most American Indians are comfortable with Indian, American Indian, and Native American, and the terms are now used interchangeably. The continued usage of the traditional term is reflected in the name chosen for the National Museum of the American Indian, which opened in 2004 in Washington, D.C..

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/17792/2005256617523478307_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005256617523478307)
National Museum of the American Indian on the Mall in DC.

As of 2005 Census estimates, 1.0 percent of the US population is of American Indian and Alaska Native descent. This population is unevenly distributed across the country, with Alaska and New Mexico boasting double digit native populations while in five states these people constitute only 0.2% of the population.[42]

Alaska 16%
New Mexico 10.2%
South Dakota 8.8%
Oklahoma 8.1%
Montana 6.5%
North Dakota 5.3%
Arizona 5.1%
Wyoming 2.7%
Washington 1.7%
Idaho 1.4%
Nevada 1.4%
Oregon 1.4%
Utah 1.3%
North Carolina 1.3%
Minnesota 1.2%
California 1.2%
Colorado 1.1%
Wisconsin 0.9%
Kansas 0.9%
Nebraska 0.9%
Texas 0.7%
Arkansas 0.7%
Maine 0.6%
Rhode Island 0.6%
Michigan 0.6%
Louisiana 0.6%
New York 0.5%
Alabama 0.5%
Vermont 0.4%
South Carolina 0.4%
Missouri 0.4%
Mississippi 0.4%
Delaware 0.4%
Florida 0.4%
Virginia 0.3%
District of Columbia 0.3%
Connecticut 0.3%
New Jersey 0.3%
Maryland 0.3%
Iowa 0.3%
Massachusetts 0.3%
Indiana 0.3%
Tennessee 0.3%
Illinois 0.3%
Hawaii 0.3% Native Hawaiian 9%
Georgia 0.3%
Kentucky 0.2%
New Hampshire 0.2%
Ohio 0.2%
Pennsylvania 0.2%
West Virginia 0.2%

A superb map that is too large to post here with sufficient detail to read all captioning can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Americanindiansmapcensusbureau.gif

http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/17647/2005283572700051917_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005283572700051917)

Frozen Sooner
6/2/2007, 11:25 AM
(psst-Eskimos and Aleuts aren't Indians. Tlingits and Athabascans are, though.)

Okla-homey
6/2/2007, 12:50 PM
(psst-Eskimos and Aleuts aren't Indians. Tlingits and Athabascans are, though.)

psst yourself. Are they citizens now or not?;)

Seriously, please 'splain that taxonomy. Are you saying that Eskimoes and Aleuts are one thing, but Tlingits and Athabascans are something else? If so, please elaborate.

47straight
6/2/2007, 01:10 PM
Did any native americans, at the time of this act, not want to be american citizens and remain citizens only of their tribe?

Frozen Sooner
6/2/2007, 01:16 PM
psst yourself. Are they citizens now or not?;)

Seriously, please 'splain that taxonomy. Are you saying that Eskimoes and Aleuts are one thing, but Tlingits and Athabascans are something else? If so, please elaborate.

Yes, I am.

It has to do with which migratory wave they belonged to. Athabascans are very close relatives of the Apaches and were part of the same migratory wave. Tlingits are closely related to the Haida and other Washington tribes. Eskimos and Aleuts came over in different migratory waves and are much more genetically similar to modern Asians.

Frozen Sooner
6/2/2007, 01:20 PM
And by no means do I claim to be an expert on the different Native Alaskan tribes and such. I do know, however, that if you call a Tlingit an Eskimo or an Eskimo an Aleut or whatever, you should probably be prepared for a fight.

Okla-homey
6/2/2007, 01:27 PM
And by no means do I claim to be an expert on the different Native Alaskan tribes and such. I do know, however, that if you call a Tlingit an Eskimo or an Eskimo an Aleut or whatever, you should probably be prepared for a fight.

well I hope they wear jerseys are something, because how else are us palefaces to know?

Frozen Sooner
6/2/2007, 01:29 PM
Trust me, Aleuts and Eskimos are VERY easy to tell apart from Native Americans. Very distinct facial features. You're much more likely to mistake them for ethnic Chinese.

Okla-homey
6/2/2007, 01:35 PM
Trust me, Aleuts and Eskimos are VERY easy to tell apart from Native Americans. Very distinct facial features. You're much more likely to mistake them for ethnic Chinese.

I'm sure you're right. I can tell Koreans from Japanese. I imagine its like telling Filipinos from Asians from the continent or something.

Frozen Sooner
6/2/2007, 01:38 PM
Much more distinct than that, even. But yeah.

I will also go on record as saying that many of the Aleut/Caucasian mix children I've seen are just absolutely beautiful.

Okla-homey
6/2/2007, 03:06 PM
Much more distinct than that, even. But yeah.

I will also go on record as saying that many of the Aleut/Caucasian mix children I've seen are just absolutely beautiful.

I've found generally that mixed race children are beautiful. They seem to acquire the most pleasant looking physical characteristics of both races.

Except for Obama. he's a socialist.

StoopTroup
6/2/2007, 03:12 PM
So...

Are you two saying that quarter-breeds are prettier than half-breeds?

:pop:

Frozen Sooner
6/2/2007, 03:30 PM
I've found generally that mixed race children are beautiful. They seem to acquire the most pleasant looking physical characteristics of both races.

Except for Obama. he's a socialist.

I've got a theory on that.

People tend to like those who look like them. Therefore, when you get mixed-race couples, both tend towards the normative standards of beauty more than the average as they're overcoming our normal distaste for outlanders. Hence, their children tend even more towards normative standards of beauty.

For example, though, SuperGirl is quarter Aleut, quarter Yu'pik, and half caucasian and is gorgeous.

Rogue
6/2/2007, 08:41 PM
That picture is Picasso-bait. I think the statistic for Idaho is pretty low. 'Course I grew up on Fort Hall (Shoshone-Bannock Res, but I'm neither) so maybe my reference point is skewed. But hell, there aren't that many people in Idaho period and probably 40% of my grade school and 20% of my High School were Indians.