Post by hermin1 on Mar 9, 2010 9:35:43 GMT -5
Americanization (of Native Americans)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Americanization (disambiguation).
Portrait of Native Americans from the Cherokee, Cheyenne, Choctaw, Comanche, Iroquois, and Muscogee tribes in American attire. Photos dates from 1868 to 1924.Americanization was an assimilation effort by the United States to transform Native American culture to European-American culture between the years of 1790-1920.[1][2] George Washington and Henry Knox were first to propose the cultural transformation of Native Americans.[3] They formulated a policy to encourage the "civilizing" process.[4] With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens. Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process for minorities.
Americanization policies were based on the idea that when indigenous people learned United States (European-American) customs and values, they would be able to merge tribal traditions with European-American culture and peacefully join the majority society. After the end of the Indian Wars, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the government outlawed the practice of traditional religious ceremonies. It established boarding schools which children were required to attend. In these schools they were forced to speak English, study standard subjects, attend church, and leave tribal traditions behind.
The Dawes Act of 1887, which allotted tribal lands in severalty to individuals, was seen as a way to create individual homesteads for Native Americans. Land allotments were made in exchange for Native Americans' becoming US citizens and giving up some forms of tribal self-government and institutions. It resulted in the transfer of an estimated total of 93 million acres (6,100 km²) from Native American control. Most was sold to individuals. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was also part of Americanization policy.
Contents [hide]
1 Europeans and Native Americans in North America, 1601-1776
2 The United States and Native Americans, 1776-1860
2.1 Indian Removal
2.2 Office of Indian Affairs
3 Americanization and assimilation (1880-1920)
3.1 Grant's "Peace Policy"
3.2 The Role of the Supreme Court in Assimilation
3.2.1 Decisions Focusing on Dependence
3.2.1.1 United States v. Kagama
3.2.1.2 United States v. Nice
3.2.1.3 United States v. Sandoval
3.2.2 Decisions Focusing on Sovereignty
3.2.2.1 Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883)
3.2.2.2 Talton v. Mayes (1896)
3.2.2.3 Montoya v. United States (1901)
3.2.2.4 Choate v. Trapp
3.2.2.5 US v. Winans (1905)
3.2.2.6 Winters v. United States (1908)
3.2.2.7 Clairmont v. United States (1912)
3.2.2.8 United States v. Quiver (1916)
3.2.2.9 Good Shot v. United States (1900)
3.3 Suppression of Religion
4 Native American education and boarding schools
4.1 Non-reservation boarding schools
4.2 The Meriam Report of 1928
4.3 Change to community schools
5 Lasting effects of the Americanization policy
6 See also
7 Footnotes
8 Additional references
9 Further reading
10 External links
[edit] Europeans and Native Americans in North America, 1601-1776
Eastern North America; the 1763 "Proclamation line" is the border between the red and the pink areas.Epidemiological and archeological work has established the effects of increased immigration of children accompanying families to North America from 1634-1640. They came from areas where smallpox was endemic in the Netherlands, England and France, and passed on the disease to indigenous people. Tribes such as the Huron/Wendat and others in the Northeast particularly suffered epidemics after 1634.[5]
In this period European powers fought to acquire cultural and economic control of North America, just as they were doing in Europe. At the same time, indigenous peoples competed for dominance in the fur trade and hunting areas. The French, English and Spanish powers sought to engage Native American tribes as auxiliary forces in their North American armies, otherwise comprised mostly of colonial militia in the early battles. In many cases indigenous warriors formed the great majority of fighting forces, which deepened some of their rivalries. To secure the help of the tribes, the Europeans offered goods and signed treaties. The treaties usually promised that the European power would honor the tribe's traditional lands and independence. In addition, the indigenous peoples formed alliances for their own reasons, wanting to keep allies in the fur and gun trades, positioning European allies against their traditional enemies among other tribes, etc. Many Native American tribes took part in King William's War (1689–1697), Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) (War of the Spanish Succession), Dummer's War (c. 1721-1725), and the French and Indian War (1754–1763) (Seven Years War).
As the dominant power after the Seven Years War, Great Britain instituted the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to try to protect indigenous peoples' territory from colonial encroachment of peoples from east of the Appalachian Mountains. The document defined a boundary to separate Native American country from that of the European community. In part, this justified the English taking complete control of lands on the European side, but the proclamation did not effectively prevent individual ethnic European colonists from continuing to migrate westward. The British did not have sufficient forces to patrol the border and keep out colonists. Europeans and European governments continued to use military/diplomatic and economic force to secure control of more territories from Native Americans. For further information see European colonization of the Americas.
From the Native American perspective, European control of an area generally meant a dramatic change in their way of life, with free movement across hunting grounds curtailed or objected to, for instance, by Europeans who had different conceptions of property and the uses of land.
[edit] The United States and Native Americans, 1776-1860
The struggle for empire in North America caused the United States in its earliest years to adopt an Indian policy similar to the one devised by Great Britain in colonial times.[6] They realized that good relations with bordering tribes were important for political and trading reasons, but as had the British, they reserved the right to abandon these good relations to absorb the lands of their enemies and allies alike as the agricultural frontier moved west. The United States continued the use of Native Americans as allies, including during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. As relations with England and Spain normalized during the early 1800s, the need for such friendly relations ended. It was no longer necessary to "woo" the tribes to prevent the other powers from using them against the United States. Now, instead of a buffer against other "civilized" foes, the tribes often became viewed as an obstacle in the expansion of the United States.
Benjamin Hawkins, seen here on his plantation, teaches Creek Native Americans how to use European technology. Painted in 1805.George Washington and Henry Knox believed that Native Americans were equals but that their society was inferior. He formulated a policy to encourage the "civilizing" process.[4] Washington had a six-point plan for civilization which included,
1. impartial justice toward Native Americans
2. regulated buying of Native American lands
3. promotion of commerce
4. promotion of experiments to civilize or improve Native American society
5. presidential authority to give presents
6. punishing those who violated Native American rights.[7]
Robert Remini, a historian, wrote that "once the Indians adopted the practice of private property, built homes, farmed, educated their children, and embraced Christianity, these Native Americans would win acceptance from white Americans."[8] The United States appointed agents, like Benjamin Hawkins, to live among the Native Americans and to teach them how to live like whites.[3]
“ How different would be the sensation of a philosophic mind to reflect that instead of exterminating a part of the human race by our modes of population that we had persevered through all difficulties and at last had imparted our Knowledge of cultivating and the arts, to the Aboriginals of the Country by which the source of future life and happiness had been preserved and extended. But it has been conceived to be impracticable to civilize the Indians of North America - This opinion is probably more convenient than just. ”
—-Henry Knox to George Washington, 1790s.[9]
[edit] Indian Removal
Little girls praying beside their beds, Phoenix Indian School, Arizona, June 1900.The Indian Removal Act of 1830 characterized the US government policy of Indian removal, which called for the relocation of Native American tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river. While it did not authorize the forced removal of the indigenous tribes, it authorized the President to negotiate land exchange treaties with tribes located in lands of the United States. The Intercourse Law of 1834 prohibited United States citizens from entering tribal lands granted by such treaties without permission, though it was often ignored.
While the Indian Removal Act made the relocation of the tribes voluntary, it was often abused by government officials. The best-known example is the Treaty of New Echota. It was negotiated and signed by a small faction of Cherokee tribal members, not the tribal leadership, on December 29, 1835. It resulted in the forced relocation of the tribe in 1838.[10] An estimated 4,000 Cherokees died in the march, now known as the Trail of Tears.
In the decades that followed, white settlers encroached even into the western lands set aside for Native Americans. European-American settlers eventually made homesteads from coast to coast, just as the Native Americans had before them. No tribe was untouched by the influence of white traders, farmers, and soldiers.
[edit] Office of Indian Affairs
The Office of Indian Affairs (Bureau of Indian Affairs as of 1947) was established March 11, 1824, as an office of the United States Department of War, an indication of the state of relations with the Indians. It became responsible for negotiating treaties and enforcing conditions, at least for Native Americans. In 1849 the bureau was transferred to the Department of the Interior as so many of its responsibilities were related to the holding and disposition of large land assets.
In 1854 Commissioner George W. Manypenny called for a new code of regulations. He noted that there was no place in the West where the Indians could be placed with a reasonable hope that they might escape molestation by white settlers. He also called for the Intercourse Law of 1834 to be revised, as its provisions had been aimed at individual intruders on Indian territory rather than at organized expeditions.
In 1858 succeeding Commissioner Charles Mix noted that the repeated removal of tribes had prevented them from acquiring a taste for civilization. In 1862 Secretary of the Interior Caleb B. Smith questioned the wisdom of treating tribes as quasi-independent nations. [6] Given the difficulties of the government in what it considered good efforts to support separate status for Native Americans, it began to consider a policy of Americanization instead.
[edit] Americanization and assimilation (1880-1920)
Portrait of Marsdin, Non-Native Man, and Group of Students from the Alaska region.The movement to reform Indian administration and assimilate Indians as citizens originated in the pleas of people who lived in close association with the natives and were shocked by the fraudulent and indifferent management of their affairs. They called themselves "Friends of the Indians" and lobbied officials on their behalf. Gradually the call for change was taken up by Eastern reformers.[6] Many of the reformers were Protestant Christians who considered assimilation necessary to the Christianizing of the Indians. The nineteenth century was a time of major efforts in evangelizing missionary expeditions to all non-Christian people. In 1865 the government began to make contracts with various missionary societies to operate Indian schools for teaching citizenship, English, and agricultural and mechanical arts.
[edit] Grant's "Peace Policy"
In his State of the Union Address on December 4, 1871, Ulysses Grant stated that "the policy pursued toward the Indians has resulted favorably...many tribes of Indians have been induced to settle upon reservations, to cultivate the soil, to perform productive labor of various kinds, and to partially accept them to avoid extermination".[11]
Within this brief excerpt of the State of the Union, the "American" view of the Native Americans is evident. Grant proposed a peace policy: land west of Arkansas and Missouri and south of Kansas was given to the Native Americans in 1830 and called "Indian Territory".[12]
Yet, this policy was not adhered to, as the United States began to confiscate the western portions of the Indian Territory and began to resettle the Native Americans who lived there. In 1889, Congress authorized the opening for homestead settlement of land seized from the Indian Territory. A year later Congress passed an act that officially created the Oklahoma Territory from that land.[13]
[edit] The Role of the Supreme Court in Assimilation
The political ideas during the time of assimilation policy are known by many Indians as the progressive era, but more commonly known as the assimilation era.(1890-1928[14] Progressives also had a faith in the knowledge of experts.[15] This was a dangerous idea to have when an emerging science was concerned with ranking races based on moral capabilities and intelligence.[16] Indeed, the idea of an inferior Indian race made it into the courts. The progressive era thinkers also wanted to look beyond legal definitions of equality to create a realistic concept of fairness. Such a concept was thought to include a reasonable income, decent working conditions, as well as health and leisure for every American.[15] These ideas can be seen in the decisions of the Supreme Court during the assimilation era.
Through cases such as Lone Wolf v. Hitchthingy, Talton v. Mayes, Winters vs. United States, United States v. Winans, United States v. Nice, and United States v. Sandoval the court set many precedents and provided building blocks for much of the new legislation concerning Native Americans. One of the basic decisions that had to be made in most of these cases was how to classify the Indian nations and what rights they were to have. Lone Wolf v. Hitchthingy provides an excellent example of the implementation of the paternal view of Native Americans as it refers back to the idea of Indians as "wards of the nation." [17] Some other issues that came into play were the hunting and fishing rights of the natives, especially when land beyond theirs affected their own practices, whether or not Constitutional rights necessarily applied to Indians, and whether tribal governments had the power to establish their own laws. As new legislation tried to force the American Indians into becoming just Americans, the Supreme Court provided these critical decisions. Native American nations were labeled "domestic dependent nations" by Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, one of the first landmark cases involving Indians.[18] Some decisions focused more on the dependency of the tribes, while others preserved tribal sovereignty, while still others sometimes managed to do both.
[edit] Decisions Focusing on Dependence
Alcohol was the root of many cases which led to increased government power over Indians. This is a picture of an old Westmalle Tripel beer bottle[edit] United States v. Kagama
The United States Supreme Court case United States v. Kagama set the stage for the court to make even more powerful decisions based on plenary power. To summarize congressional plenary power, the court stated:
"The power of the general government over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell. It must exist in that government, because it never has existed anywhere else; because the theater of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United [118 U.S. 375, 385] States; because it has never been denied; and because it alone can enforce its laws on all the tribes." [19]
The decision in United States v. Kagama led to the new idea that "protection" of Native Americans could justify intrusion into intratribal affairs. The Supreme Court and Congress were given unlimited authority with which to force assimilation and acculturation of Native Americans into American society.[20]
[edit] United States v. Nice
United States . West Group, 2004. (1) Print.</ref> The outcome of this case was the continued practice of congress prohibiting the sale of liquor to American Indians. This outcome further promoted the idea that American Indian nations could not be entirely independent, and needed a guardian to protect them.
[edit] United States v. Sandoval
Like United States v. Nice, the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Sandoval (1913) came about in an attempt to protect American Indians from the sale of liquor. As American Indians were granted citizenship, there was an effort to retain the ability to protect them as a group which was distinct from regular citizens. The Sandoval Act reversed the U.S. v. Joseph decision of 1876 which claimed that the Pueblos were not considered federal Indians and oppositely claimed that the Pueblos were “not beyond the range of congressional power under the Constitution.” [21] This case resulted in congress continuing to prohibit the sale of liquor to American Indians. In relation to dependence, the ruling serves to promote the idea that American Indians need a guardian for protection.
[edit] Decisions Focusing on Sovereignty
Limiting the amount of water the Native Americans could use was potentially fatal because they relied on this resource so much. They used it for fishing, agricultural purposes, and pure drinking.There were several United States Supreme Court cases during the assimilation era that focused on the sovereignty of American Indian nations. These cases were extremely important in setting precedents for later cases and for legislation dealing with the sovereignty of American Indian nations.
[edit] Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883)
This United States Supreme Court case was an appeal by a convict who had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. The defendant was an American Indian, and had been found guilty of the murder of another American Indian. The convict argued that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to try him for a crime committed between two American Indians that happened on an American Indian reservation. The court found that even though the reservation was located within the territory covered by the district court's jurisdiction, Rev. Stat. § 2146 precluded the inmate's indictment in the district court. Section 2146 stated that Rev. Stat. § 2145, which made the criminal laws of the United States applicable to Indian country, did not apply to crimes committed by one Indian against another or to crimes for which an Indian was already punished by the law of his tribe. The Court issued the writs of habeas corpus and certiorari to the inmate.[22]
[edit] Talton v. Mayes (1896)
The United States Supreme Court case of Talton v. Mayes was a decision respecting the authority of tribal governments. This case decided that the individual rights protections, specifically the Fifth Amendment, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.[23] Talton v. Mayes is also a case dealing with Native American dependence, as it deliberated over and upheld the concept of congressional plenary authority. This part of the decision led to some important pieces of legislation concerning Native Americans, the most important of which is the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.
[edit] Montoya v. United States (1901)
This United States Supreme court case came about when the surviving partner of the firm of E. Montoya & Sons petitioned against the United States and the Mescalero Apache Indians for the value their live stock which was taken in March, 1880. It was believed that the live stock was taken by "Victoria's Band" which was a group of these American Indians. It was argued that the group of American Indians who had taken the livestock were distinct from any other American Indian tribal group, and therefore the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe should not be held responsible for what had occurred. After the hearing, the Supreme Court held that the judgment made previously in the Court of Claims would not be changed. This is to say that the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe would not be held accountable for the actions of Victoria's Band. This outcome demonstrates not only the sovereignty of American Indian tribes from the United States, but also their sovereignty from one another. One group of American Indians can not be held accountable for the actions of another group of American Indians, even though they are all part of the American Indian nation.[24]
[edit] Choate v. Trapp
As more Native Americans received allotments through the Dawes Act, there was a great deal of public and state pressure to tax allottees. However, in the United States Supreme court case Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912), the court ruled for Indian allottees to be exempt from state taxation. [25]
[edit] US v. Winans (1905)
The United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Winans was another important Supreme Court case dealing with the sovereignty of Indian Nations. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yakama tribe, reaffirming their prerogative to fish and hunt on off-reservation land. Further, the case established two important principles regarding the interpretation of treaties. First, treaties would be interpreted in the way Indians would have understood them and "as justice and reason demand." [26]Second, the Reserved Rights Doctrine was established which states that treaties are not rights granted to the Indians, but rather “a reservation by the Indians of rights already possessed and not granted away by them.”[27] These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.[28]
[edit] Winters v. United States (1908)
This is a picture of a Salmon, this fish was very important in American Indian culture, and was a large factor in the debates over water rights.The United States Supreme Court Case Winters v. United States was a case primarily dealing with water rights of American Indian reservations. This case clarified what water sources American Indian tribes had "implied" rights to put to use. [29] This case dealt with the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and their right to utilize the water source of the Milk River in Montana. The reservation had been created without clearly stating the explicit water rights that the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation had. This became a problem once non-Indian settlers began moving into the area and using the Milk River as a water source for their settlements.[30]. As Montana is out west where water sources are extremely sparse and limited, this argument of who had the legal rights to use the water was presented. After the case was tried, the Supreme Court came to the decision that the Fort Belknap reservation had reserved water rights through the 1888 agreement which had created the American Indian Reservation in the first place. This United States Supreme court case was very important in setting a precedent for cases after the assimilation era. It was used as a precedent for the cases Arizona v. California, Tulee v. Washington, Washington v. McCoy, Nevada v. United States, Cappaert v. United States, Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, United States v. New Mexico, and Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona which all focused on the sovereignty of American Indian tribes.
[edit] Clairmont v. United States (1912)
This United States Supreme Court case resulted when a defendant appealed the decision on his case. The defendant filed a writ of error to obtain review of his conviction after being convicted of unlawfully introducing intoxicating liquor into an American Indian reservation. This act was found a violation of the Act of Congress of January 30, 1897, ch. 109, 29 Stat. 506. The defendant's appeal stated that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the offense for which he was convicted did not occur in American Indian country. The defendant had been arrested while traveling on a train that had just crossed over from American Indian country. The defendant's argument held and the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction remanding the cause to the district court with directions to quash the indictment and discharge defendant.[31]
[edit] United States v. Quiver (1916)
This case was sent to the United States Supreme Court after first appearing in a district court in South Dakota. The case dealt with adultery committed on a Sioux Indian reservation. The district court had held that adultery committed by an Indian with another Indian on an Indian reservation was not punishable under the act of March 3, 1887, c. 397, 24 Stat. 635, now § 316 of the Penal Code. This decision was made because of the fact that the offense occurred on a Sioux Indian reservation which is not said to be under jurisdiction of the district court. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court saying that the adultery was not punishable as it had occurred between two American Indians on an American Indian reservation. [32]
[edit] Good Shot v. United States (1900)
This United States Supreme Court case occurred when an American Indian shot and killed a non-Indian. The question of whether or not the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this issue arose. In an effort to argue against the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over the proceedings, the defendant filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari. This request for judicial review, upon writ of error, was denied. The court held that a conviction for murder, punishable with death, was no less a conviction for a capital crime by reason even taking into account the fact that the jury qualified the punishment. The American Indian defendant was sentenced to life in prison.[33]
[edit] Suppression of Religion
With officials believing in the virtue of Christianity, the United States Government worked to convert American Indians to Christianity and suppress the practice of the Native religions (spiritual leaders had been associated with leading uprisings.) The goal of the United States Government was to get Native Americans to assimilate to their culture. Some called this "making apples", as the Indians would still appear 'red' on the outside, but would be made 'white' on the inside.[34]
Even in the 20th century, "spiritual leaders ran the risk of jail sentences of up to 30 years for simply practicing their rituals".[35] It was not until 1973 that the law changed, when the Freedom of Religion Act was passed, although the government had stopped prosecuting Native American spiritual leaders.[34]
Different traditions continued to cause problems. For instance, the government included peyote among strong drugs that were illegal on the open market because of its hallucinogenic properties and general problems with drug abuse. But, the Peyote Indians traditionally had used peyote cactus as central to their religious rituals and practices, where use took place within orderly structures. It was not until the Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act of 1993 was passed that the Peyote Indians could lawfully again use the peyote cactus in their religious celebrations.
[edit] Native American education and boarding schools
[edit] Non-reservation boarding schools
Male Carlisle School Students 1879.The Carlisle Indian Industrial School founded by Richard Henry Pratt in 1879 was the first Indian boarding school established. Pratt was encouraged by the progress of Native Americans whom he had supervised as prisoners in Florida, where they had gotten basic education. When released, several were sponsored by American church groups to attend institutions such as Hampton Institute. He believed education was the means to bring American Indians into society.
Pratt professed "assimilation through total immersion." Because he had seen men educated at schools like Hampton Institute become educated and assimilated, he believed the principles could be extended to Indian children. Immersing them in the larger culture would help them adapt. In addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the Carlisle curriculum was modeled on the many industrial schools: it constituted vocational training for boys and domestic science for girls, in expectation of their opportunities on the reservations, including chores around the school and producing goods for market. In the summer, students were assigned to local farms and townspeople for boarding and to continue their immersion. They also provided labor at low cost, at a time when many children earned pay for their families.
Carlisle and its curriculum became the model for schools sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By 1902 there were twenty-five federally funded non-reservation schools across fifteen states and territories with a total enrollment of over 6,000. Although federal legislation made education compulsory for Native Americans, removing students from reservations required parent authorization. Officials coerced parents into releasing a quota of students from any given reservation.
Pupils at Carlisle Indian Industrial School, Pennsylvania (c. 1900)Once the new students arrived at the boarding schools, their lives altered drastically. They were usually given new haircuts, uniforms of European-American style clothes, and even new English names, sometimes based on their own, other times assigned at random. They could no longer speak their own languages, even with each other. They were expected to attend Christian churches. Their lives were run by the strict orders of their teachers, and it often included grueling chores and stiff punishments.
Additionally, infectious disease was widespread in society, and often swept through the schools. This was due to lack of information about causes and prevention, inadequate sanitation, insufficient funding for meals, overcrowded conditions, and students whose resistance was low.
Native American group of Carlisle Indian Industrial School Male and Female Students; Brick Dormitories And Bandstand in Background 1879.An Indian boarding school refers to one of many schools that were established in the United States during the late 19th century to educate Native American youths according to Euro-American standards. In some areas, these schools were primarily run by missionaries. Especially given the young age of some of the children sent to the schools, they have been documented as traumatic experiences for many of the children who attended them. They were generally forbidden to speak their native languages, taught Christianity instead of their native religions, and in numerous other ways forced to abandon their Indian identity and adopt European-American culture. Tragically, many cases of mental and sexual abuse have been documented, as in North Dakota.
By 1923 in the Northwest, most Indian schools had closed and Indian students were attending public schools. States took on increasing responsibility for their education. [36] Other studies suggest attendance in some Indian boarding schools grew in areas of the United States throughout the first half of the 20th century, doubling from 1900 to the 1960s. [37] Enrollment reached its highest point in the 1970s. In 1973, 60,000 American Indian children were estimated to have been enrolled in an Indian boarding school.[38][39].
[edit] The Meriam Report of 1928
The Meriam Report,[40] officially titled "The Problem of Indian Administration", was prepared for the Department of Interior. Assessments found the schools underfunded and understaffed, too heavily institutionalized, and run too rigidly. What had started as an idealistic program about education had gotten subverted.
It recommended:
abolishing the "Uniform Course of Study", which taught only majority European-American cultural values;
having younger children attend community schools near home, though older children should be able to attend non-reservation schools; and
ensuring that the Indian Service provided Native Americans with the skills and education to adapt both in their own traditional communities (which tended to be more rural) and the larger American society.
[edit] Change to community schools
Several events in the late 1960s and mid-1970s (Kennedy Report, National Study of American Indian Education, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) led to renewed emphasis on community schools. Many large Indian boarding schools closed in the 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, 9,500 American Indian children lived in an Indian boarding school dormitory.[citation needed] From 1879 when the Carlisle Indian School was founded to the present day, more than 100,000 American Indians are estimated to have attended an Indian boarding school.
A similar system in Canada was known as the Canadian residential school system. [41]
[edit] Lasting effects of the Americanization policy
While the concerted effort to assimilate Native Americans into American culture was abandoned officially, integration of Native American tribes and individuals continues to the present day. Often Native Americans are perceived as having been assimilated. However, some Native Americans feel a particular sense of being from another society or do not belong in a primarily "white" European majority society, despite efforts to socially integrate them.[citation needed]
In the mid-20th century, as efforts were still under way for assimilation, some studies treated American Indians simply as another ethnic minority, rather than citizens of semi-sovereign entities which they are entitled to by treaty. The following quote from the May 1957 issue of Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, shows this:
"The place of Indians in American society may be seen as one aspect of the question of the integration of minority groups into the social system."[42]
Since the 1960s-1970s, however, there have been major changes in society. Included is a broader appreciation for the pluralistic nature of United States society and its many ethnic groups, as well as for the special status of Native American nations. More recent legislation to protect Native American religious practices, for instance, points to major changes in government policy. Similarly the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 was another recognition of the special nature of Native American culture and federal responsibility to protect it.
[edit] See also
Canadian Indian residential school system
Native Americans in the United States
Indian removal
Indian termination policy
European colonization of the Americas
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Native American Assimilation
[edit] Footnotes
^ Frederick Hoxie, (1984). A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
^ Remini, Robert. ""The Reform Begins"". Andrew Jackson. History Book Club. p. 201. ISBN 0965063107.
^ a b Perdue, Theda. "Chapter 2 "Both White and Red"". Mixed Blood Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. The University of Georgia Press. p. 51. ISBN 082032731X.
^ a b Remini, Robert. ""The Reform Begins"". Andrew Jackson. History Book Club. p. 201. ISBN 0965063107.
^ Gary Warrick, "European Infectious Disease and Depopulation of the Wendat-Tionontate (Huron-Petun)", World Archaeology 35 (October 2003), 258–275.
^ a b c Fritz, Henry E. (1963). The Movement for Indian Assimilation, 1860-1890. University of Pennsylvania Press.
^ Miller, Eric (1994). "George Washington And Indians". Eric Miller. www.dreric.org/library/northwest.shtml. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
^ Remini, Robert. ""Brothers, Listen ... You Must Submit"". Andrew Jackson. History Book Club. p. 258. ISBN 0965063107.
^ Eric Miller (1994). "Washington and the Northwest War, Part One". www.dreric.org/library/northwest.shtml. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
^ Hoxie, Frederick (1984). A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
^ www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/83.html
^ www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~okwanuts/history/cloud/cloud-chief2.htm[dead link]
^ www.archives.gov/legislative/features/oklahoma/
^ Hoxie, Frederick E. Talking Back to Civilization: Indian Voices from qgepifuh p98uerh;gnq[oje8fh kjhgjjjjjjde ohaepg9uhpeiru;gjqnp9rhgpqiahg Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. University of Texas Press, 1997. (78-81) Print.
^ a b Tomlins, Christopher L. The United States Supreme Court: the pursuit of justice. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2005. (175-176) Print.
^ Tomlins, Christopher L. The United States Supreme Court: the pursuit of justice. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2005. (191) Print.
^ caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=187&invol=553
^ Duthu, Bruce. American Indians and the Law. New York: Penguin Books, 2008. (XXV) Print.
^ Find Law. "United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886)"Retrieved on 2009-10-19.
^ Wilkins, David E. American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. University of Texas Press, 1997. (78-81) Print.
^ Red Man’s Land White Man’s Land 2nd addition, Wilcomb B. Washburn, 1995, p 141
^ “EX PARTE CROW DOG” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ "Full text opinion from Justia.com"
^ “MONTOYA v. UNITED STATES” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ Wilkins, David, and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. University of Oklahoma Press, 2001. (151) Print.
^ Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 668
^ Shultz, Jeffrey D. (2000). Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics, p.710. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 1-57356-149-5
^ Wilkins, David E. and Lomawaima, K. Tsianina (2002). Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law, p.125. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-3395-9
^ Duthu,N. (2008). "American Indians and the Law", p. 105.Penguin Group Inc., New York. ISBN 9780670018574.
^ Shurts, John. (2000). "Indian Reserved Water Rights", p. 15.University of Oklahoma Press.ISBN 0806132109
^ “Clairmont v. United States” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ “United States v. Quiver” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ “Good Shot v. United States” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ a b Religious Tolerance Website
^ www.religioustolerance.org/nataspir2.htm
^ Carolyn Marr, "Assimilation through Education: Indian Boarding Schools in the Northwest", University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
^ Colmant, S.A. (2000). "U.S. and Canadian Boarding Schools: A Review, Past and Present", Native Americas Journal,17 (4), 24-30.
^ Colmant, S.A. (2000). "U.S. and Canadian Boarding Schools: A Review, Past and Present", Native Americas Journal,17 (4), 24-30
^ C. Hammerschlag; C.P. Alderfer; and D. Berg, (1973). "Indian Education: A Human Systems Analysis", American Journal of Psychiatry
^ www.alaskool.org/native_ed/research_reports/IndianAdmin/Indian_Admin_Problms.html
^ Andrea Smith, "Soul Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools", Amnesty Magazine, Amnesty International website
^ Dozier, Edward, et al. "The Integration of Americans of Indian Descent", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 311, American Indians and American Life. (May, 1957), pp. 158-165.
[edit] Additional references
Adams, David Wallace (1995). Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875 – 1928. University Press of Kansas.
Ahern, Wilbert H. (1994). "An Experiment Aborted: Returned Indian Students in the Indian School Service, 1881-1908", Ethnohistory 44(2), 246-267.
Borhek, J. T. (1995). "Ethnic Group Cohesion", American Journal of Sociology 9(40), 1-16.
Ellis, Clyde (1996). To Change Them Forever: Indian Education at the Rainy Mountain Boarding School, 1893-1920. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hill, Howard C. (1919). "The Americanization Movement", American Journal of Sociology, 24 (6), 609-642.
Hoxie, Frederick (1984). A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
McKenzie, Fayette Avery (1914). "The Assimilation of the American Indian", The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 6. (May), pp. 761–772.
Peshkin, Alan (1997). Places of Memory: Whiteman’s Schools and Native American Communities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Spring, Joel (1994). Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality: A Brief History of the Education of Dominated Cultures in the United States. McGraw-Hill Inc.
Steger, Manfred B (2003. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Wright, Robin K. (1991). A Time of Gathering: Native Heritage in Washington State. University of Washington Press and the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum.
[edit] Further reading
Tatum, Laurie. Our Red Brothers and the Peace Policy of President Ulysses S. Grant. University of Nebraska Press (1970).
Senier, Siobhan. Voices of American Indian Assimilation and Resistance: Helen Hunt Jackson, Sarah Winnemucca, and Victoria Howard. University of Oklahoma Press (2003).
Churchill, Ward. Kill the Indian and Save the Man: the genocidal impact of American Indian residential schools, San Francisco : City Lights Press (2004).
[edit] External links
Endangered Native American Languages: What Is to Be Done, and Why?
Bureau of Indian Affairs website
"History of Native Americans in the U.S.", Hartford World History Archives
NPR Report, National Public Radio
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(of_Native_Americans)"
Categories: Cultural assimilation | American culture | Native American topics | Native American history
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from March 2009 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsTry Beta Log in / create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
Languages
Nederlands
日本語
This page was last modified on 5 March 2010 at 02:20.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Americanization (disambiguation).
Portrait of Native Americans from the Cherokee, Cheyenne, Choctaw, Comanche, Iroquois, and Muscogee tribes in American attire. Photos dates from 1868 to 1924.Americanization was an assimilation effort by the United States to transform Native American culture to European-American culture between the years of 1790-1920.[1][2] George Washington and Henry Knox were first to propose the cultural transformation of Native Americans.[3] They formulated a policy to encourage the "civilizing" process.[4] With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens. Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process for minorities.
Americanization policies were based on the idea that when indigenous people learned United States (European-American) customs and values, they would be able to merge tribal traditions with European-American culture and peacefully join the majority society. After the end of the Indian Wars, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the government outlawed the practice of traditional religious ceremonies. It established boarding schools which children were required to attend. In these schools they were forced to speak English, study standard subjects, attend church, and leave tribal traditions behind.
The Dawes Act of 1887, which allotted tribal lands in severalty to individuals, was seen as a way to create individual homesteads for Native Americans. Land allotments were made in exchange for Native Americans' becoming US citizens and giving up some forms of tribal self-government and institutions. It resulted in the transfer of an estimated total of 93 million acres (6,100 km²) from Native American control. Most was sold to individuals. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was also part of Americanization policy.
Contents [hide]
1 Europeans and Native Americans in North America, 1601-1776
2 The United States and Native Americans, 1776-1860
2.1 Indian Removal
2.2 Office of Indian Affairs
3 Americanization and assimilation (1880-1920)
3.1 Grant's "Peace Policy"
3.2 The Role of the Supreme Court in Assimilation
3.2.1 Decisions Focusing on Dependence
3.2.1.1 United States v. Kagama
3.2.1.2 United States v. Nice
3.2.1.3 United States v. Sandoval
3.2.2 Decisions Focusing on Sovereignty
3.2.2.1 Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883)
3.2.2.2 Talton v. Mayes (1896)
3.2.2.3 Montoya v. United States (1901)
3.2.2.4 Choate v. Trapp
3.2.2.5 US v. Winans (1905)
3.2.2.6 Winters v. United States (1908)
3.2.2.7 Clairmont v. United States (1912)
3.2.2.8 United States v. Quiver (1916)
3.2.2.9 Good Shot v. United States (1900)
3.3 Suppression of Religion
4 Native American education and boarding schools
4.1 Non-reservation boarding schools
4.2 The Meriam Report of 1928
4.3 Change to community schools
5 Lasting effects of the Americanization policy
6 See also
7 Footnotes
8 Additional references
9 Further reading
10 External links
[edit] Europeans and Native Americans in North America, 1601-1776
Eastern North America; the 1763 "Proclamation line" is the border between the red and the pink areas.Epidemiological and archeological work has established the effects of increased immigration of children accompanying families to North America from 1634-1640. They came from areas where smallpox was endemic in the Netherlands, England and France, and passed on the disease to indigenous people. Tribes such as the Huron/Wendat and others in the Northeast particularly suffered epidemics after 1634.[5]
In this period European powers fought to acquire cultural and economic control of North America, just as they were doing in Europe. At the same time, indigenous peoples competed for dominance in the fur trade and hunting areas. The French, English and Spanish powers sought to engage Native American tribes as auxiliary forces in their North American armies, otherwise comprised mostly of colonial militia in the early battles. In many cases indigenous warriors formed the great majority of fighting forces, which deepened some of their rivalries. To secure the help of the tribes, the Europeans offered goods and signed treaties. The treaties usually promised that the European power would honor the tribe's traditional lands and independence. In addition, the indigenous peoples formed alliances for their own reasons, wanting to keep allies in the fur and gun trades, positioning European allies against their traditional enemies among other tribes, etc. Many Native American tribes took part in King William's War (1689–1697), Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) (War of the Spanish Succession), Dummer's War (c. 1721-1725), and the French and Indian War (1754–1763) (Seven Years War).
As the dominant power after the Seven Years War, Great Britain instituted the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to try to protect indigenous peoples' territory from colonial encroachment of peoples from east of the Appalachian Mountains. The document defined a boundary to separate Native American country from that of the European community. In part, this justified the English taking complete control of lands on the European side, but the proclamation did not effectively prevent individual ethnic European colonists from continuing to migrate westward. The British did not have sufficient forces to patrol the border and keep out colonists. Europeans and European governments continued to use military/diplomatic and economic force to secure control of more territories from Native Americans. For further information see European colonization of the Americas.
From the Native American perspective, European control of an area generally meant a dramatic change in their way of life, with free movement across hunting grounds curtailed or objected to, for instance, by Europeans who had different conceptions of property and the uses of land.
[edit] The United States and Native Americans, 1776-1860
The struggle for empire in North America caused the United States in its earliest years to adopt an Indian policy similar to the one devised by Great Britain in colonial times.[6] They realized that good relations with bordering tribes were important for political and trading reasons, but as had the British, they reserved the right to abandon these good relations to absorb the lands of their enemies and allies alike as the agricultural frontier moved west. The United States continued the use of Native Americans as allies, including during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. As relations with England and Spain normalized during the early 1800s, the need for such friendly relations ended. It was no longer necessary to "woo" the tribes to prevent the other powers from using them against the United States. Now, instead of a buffer against other "civilized" foes, the tribes often became viewed as an obstacle in the expansion of the United States.
Benjamin Hawkins, seen here on his plantation, teaches Creek Native Americans how to use European technology. Painted in 1805.George Washington and Henry Knox believed that Native Americans were equals but that their society was inferior. He formulated a policy to encourage the "civilizing" process.[4] Washington had a six-point plan for civilization which included,
1. impartial justice toward Native Americans
2. regulated buying of Native American lands
3. promotion of commerce
4. promotion of experiments to civilize or improve Native American society
5. presidential authority to give presents
6. punishing those who violated Native American rights.[7]
Robert Remini, a historian, wrote that "once the Indians adopted the practice of private property, built homes, farmed, educated their children, and embraced Christianity, these Native Americans would win acceptance from white Americans."[8] The United States appointed agents, like Benjamin Hawkins, to live among the Native Americans and to teach them how to live like whites.[3]
“ How different would be the sensation of a philosophic mind to reflect that instead of exterminating a part of the human race by our modes of population that we had persevered through all difficulties and at last had imparted our Knowledge of cultivating and the arts, to the Aboriginals of the Country by which the source of future life and happiness had been preserved and extended. But it has been conceived to be impracticable to civilize the Indians of North America - This opinion is probably more convenient than just. ”
—-Henry Knox to George Washington, 1790s.[9]
[edit] Indian Removal
Little girls praying beside their beds, Phoenix Indian School, Arizona, June 1900.The Indian Removal Act of 1830 characterized the US government policy of Indian removal, which called for the relocation of Native American tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river. While it did not authorize the forced removal of the indigenous tribes, it authorized the President to negotiate land exchange treaties with tribes located in lands of the United States. The Intercourse Law of 1834 prohibited United States citizens from entering tribal lands granted by such treaties without permission, though it was often ignored.
While the Indian Removal Act made the relocation of the tribes voluntary, it was often abused by government officials. The best-known example is the Treaty of New Echota. It was negotiated and signed by a small faction of Cherokee tribal members, not the tribal leadership, on December 29, 1835. It resulted in the forced relocation of the tribe in 1838.[10] An estimated 4,000 Cherokees died in the march, now known as the Trail of Tears.
In the decades that followed, white settlers encroached even into the western lands set aside for Native Americans. European-American settlers eventually made homesteads from coast to coast, just as the Native Americans had before them. No tribe was untouched by the influence of white traders, farmers, and soldiers.
[edit] Office of Indian Affairs
The Office of Indian Affairs (Bureau of Indian Affairs as of 1947) was established March 11, 1824, as an office of the United States Department of War, an indication of the state of relations with the Indians. It became responsible for negotiating treaties and enforcing conditions, at least for Native Americans. In 1849 the bureau was transferred to the Department of the Interior as so many of its responsibilities were related to the holding and disposition of large land assets.
In 1854 Commissioner George W. Manypenny called for a new code of regulations. He noted that there was no place in the West where the Indians could be placed with a reasonable hope that they might escape molestation by white settlers. He also called for the Intercourse Law of 1834 to be revised, as its provisions had been aimed at individual intruders on Indian territory rather than at organized expeditions.
In 1858 succeeding Commissioner Charles Mix noted that the repeated removal of tribes had prevented them from acquiring a taste for civilization. In 1862 Secretary of the Interior Caleb B. Smith questioned the wisdom of treating tribes as quasi-independent nations. [6] Given the difficulties of the government in what it considered good efforts to support separate status for Native Americans, it began to consider a policy of Americanization instead.
[edit] Americanization and assimilation (1880-1920)
Portrait of Marsdin, Non-Native Man, and Group of Students from the Alaska region.The movement to reform Indian administration and assimilate Indians as citizens originated in the pleas of people who lived in close association with the natives and were shocked by the fraudulent and indifferent management of their affairs. They called themselves "Friends of the Indians" and lobbied officials on their behalf. Gradually the call for change was taken up by Eastern reformers.[6] Many of the reformers were Protestant Christians who considered assimilation necessary to the Christianizing of the Indians. The nineteenth century was a time of major efforts in evangelizing missionary expeditions to all non-Christian people. In 1865 the government began to make contracts with various missionary societies to operate Indian schools for teaching citizenship, English, and agricultural and mechanical arts.
[edit] Grant's "Peace Policy"
In his State of the Union Address on December 4, 1871, Ulysses Grant stated that "the policy pursued toward the Indians has resulted favorably...many tribes of Indians have been induced to settle upon reservations, to cultivate the soil, to perform productive labor of various kinds, and to partially accept them to avoid extermination".[11]
Within this brief excerpt of the State of the Union, the "American" view of the Native Americans is evident. Grant proposed a peace policy: land west of Arkansas and Missouri and south of Kansas was given to the Native Americans in 1830 and called "Indian Territory".[12]
Yet, this policy was not adhered to, as the United States began to confiscate the western portions of the Indian Territory and began to resettle the Native Americans who lived there. In 1889, Congress authorized the opening for homestead settlement of land seized from the Indian Territory. A year later Congress passed an act that officially created the Oklahoma Territory from that land.[13]
[edit] The Role of the Supreme Court in Assimilation
The political ideas during the time of assimilation policy are known by many Indians as the progressive era, but more commonly known as the assimilation era.(1890-1928[14] Progressives also had a faith in the knowledge of experts.[15] This was a dangerous idea to have when an emerging science was concerned with ranking races based on moral capabilities and intelligence.[16] Indeed, the idea of an inferior Indian race made it into the courts. The progressive era thinkers also wanted to look beyond legal definitions of equality to create a realistic concept of fairness. Such a concept was thought to include a reasonable income, decent working conditions, as well as health and leisure for every American.[15] These ideas can be seen in the decisions of the Supreme Court during the assimilation era.
Through cases such as Lone Wolf v. Hitchthingy, Talton v. Mayes, Winters vs. United States, United States v. Winans, United States v. Nice, and United States v. Sandoval the court set many precedents and provided building blocks for much of the new legislation concerning Native Americans. One of the basic decisions that had to be made in most of these cases was how to classify the Indian nations and what rights they were to have. Lone Wolf v. Hitchthingy provides an excellent example of the implementation of the paternal view of Native Americans as it refers back to the idea of Indians as "wards of the nation." [17] Some other issues that came into play were the hunting and fishing rights of the natives, especially when land beyond theirs affected their own practices, whether or not Constitutional rights necessarily applied to Indians, and whether tribal governments had the power to establish their own laws. As new legislation tried to force the American Indians into becoming just Americans, the Supreme Court provided these critical decisions. Native American nations were labeled "domestic dependent nations" by Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, one of the first landmark cases involving Indians.[18] Some decisions focused more on the dependency of the tribes, while others preserved tribal sovereignty, while still others sometimes managed to do both.
[edit] Decisions Focusing on Dependence
Alcohol was the root of many cases which led to increased government power over Indians. This is a picture of an old Westmalle Tripel beer bottle[edit] United States v. Kagama
The United States Supreme Court case United States v. Kagama set the stage for the court to make even more powerful decisions based on plenary power. To summarize congressional plenary power, the court stated:
"The power of the general government over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell. It must exist in that government, because it never has existed anywhere else; because the theater of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United [118 U.S. 375, 385] States; because it has never been denied; and because it alone can enforce its laws on all the tribes." [19]
The decision in United States v. Kagama led to the new idea that "protection" of Native Americans could justify intrusion into intratribal affairs. The Supreme Court and Congress were given unlimited authority with which to force assimilation and acculturation of Native Americans into American society.[20]
[edit] United States v. Nice
United States . West Group, 2004. (1) Print.</ref> The outcome of this case was the continued practice of congress prohibiting the sale of liquor to American Indians. This outcome further promoted the idea that American Indian nations could not be entirely independent, and needed a guardian to protect them.
[edit] United States v. Sandoval
Like United States v. Nice, the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Sandoval (1913) came about in an attempt to protect American Indians from the sale of liquor. As American Indians were granted citizenship, there was an effort to retain the ability to protect them as a group which was distinct from regular citizens. The Sandoval Act reversed the U.S. v. Joseph decision of 1876 which claimed that the Pueblos were not considered federal Indians and oppositely claimed that the Pueblos were “not beyond the range of congressional power under the Constitution.” [21] This case resulted in congress continuing to prohibit the sale of liquor to American Indians. In relation to dependence, the ruling serves to promote the idea that American Indians need a guardian for protection.
[edit] Decisions Focusing on Sovereignty
Limiting the amount of water the Native Americans could use was potentially fatal because they relied on this resource so much. They used it for fishing, agricultural purposes, and pure drinking.There were several United States Supreme Court cases during the assimilation era that focused on the sovereignty of American Indian nations. These cases were extremely important in setting precedents for later cases and for legislation dealing with the sovereignty of American Indian nations.
[edit] Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883)
This United States Supreme Court case was an appeal by a convict who had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. The defendant was an American Indian, and had been found guilty of the murder of another American Indian. The convict argued that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to try him for a crime committed between two American Indians that happened on an American Indian reservation. The court found that even though the reservation was located within the territory covered by the district court's jurisdiction, Rev. Stat. § 2146 precluded the inmate's indictment in the district court. Section 2146 stated that Rev. Stat. § 2145, which made the criminal laws of the United States applicable to Indian country, did not apply to crimes committed by one Indian against another or to crimes for which an Indian was already punished by the law of his tribe. The Court issued the writs of habeas corpus and certiorari to the inmate.[22]
[edit] Talton v. Mayes (1896)
The United States Supreme Court case of Talton v. Mayes was a decision respecting the authority of tribal governments. This case decided that the individual rights protections, specifically the Fifth Amendment, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.[23] Talton v. Mayes is also a case dealing with Native American dependence, as it deliberated over and upheld the concept of congressional plenary authority. This part of the decision led to some important pieces of legislation concerning Native Americans, the most important of which is the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.
[edit] Montoya v. United States (1901)
This United States Supreme court case came about when the surviving partner of the firm of E. Montoya & Sons petitioned against the United States and the Mescalero Apache Indians for the value their live stock which was taken in March, 1880. It was believed that the live stock was taken by "Victoria's Band" which was a group of these American Indians. It was argued that the group of American Indians who had taken the livestock were distinct from any other American Indian tribal group, and therefore the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe should not be held responsible for what had occurred. After the hearing, the Supreme Court held that the judgment made previously in the Court of Claims would not be changed. This is to say that the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe would not be held accountable for the actions of Victoria's Band. This outcome demonstrates not only the sovereignty of American Indian tribes from the United States, but also their sovereignty from one another. One group of American Indians can not be held accountable for the actions of another group of American Indians, even though they are all part of the American Indian nation.[24]
[edit] Choate v. Trapp
As more Native Americans received allotments through the Dawes Act, there was a great deal of public and state pressure to tax allottees. However, in the United States Supreme court case Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912), the court ruled for Indian allottees to be exempt from state taxation. [25]
[edit] US v. Winans (1905)
The United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Winans was another important Supreme Court case dealing with the sovereignty of Indian Nations. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yakama tribe, reaffirming their prerogative to fish and hunt on off-reservation land. Further, the case established two important principles regarding the interpretation of treaties. First, treaties would be interpreted in the way Indians would have understood them and "as justice and reason demand." [26]Second, the Reserved Rights Doctrine was established which states that treaties are not rights granted to the Indians, but rather “a reservation by the Indians of rights already possessed and not granted away by them.”[27] These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.[28]
[edit] Winters v. United States (1908)
This is a picture of a Salmon, this fish was very important in American Indian culture, and was a large factor in the debates over water rights.The United States Supreme Court Case Winters v. United States was a case primarily dealing with water rights of American Indian reservations. This case clarified what water sources American Indian tribes had "implied" rights to put to use. [29] This case dealt with the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and their right to utilize the water source of the Milk River in Montana. The reservation had been created without clearly stating the explicit water rights that the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation had. This became a problem once non-Indian settlers began moving into the area and using the Milk River as a water source for their settlements.[30]. As Montana is out west where water sources are extremely sparse and limited, this argument of who had the legal rights to use the water was presented. After the case was tried, the Supreme Court came to the decision that the Fort Belknap reservation had reserved water rights through the 1888 agreement which had created the American Indian Reservation in the first place. This United States Supreme court case was very important in setting a precedent for cases after the assimilation era. It was used as a precedent for the cases Arizona v. California, Tulee v. Washington, Washington v. McCoy, Nevada v. United States, Cappaert v. United States, Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, United States v. New Mexico, and Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona which all focused on the sovereignty of American Indian tribes.
[edit] Clairmont v. United States (1912)
This United States Supreme Court case resulted when a defendant appealed the decision on his case. The defendant filed a writ of error to obtain review of his conviction after being convicted of unlawfully introducing intoxicating liquor into an American Indian reservation. This act was found a violation of the Act of Congress of January 30, 1897, ch. 109, 29 Stat. 506. The defendant's appeal stated that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the offense for which he was convicted did not occur in American Indian country. The defendant had been arrested while traveling on a train that had just crossed over from American Indian country. The defendant's argument held and the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction remanding the cause to the district court with directions to quash the indictment and discharge defendant.[31]
[edit] United States v. Quiver (1916)
This case was sent to the United States Supreme Court after first appearing in a district court in South Dakota. The case dealt with adultery committed on a Sioux Indian reservation. The district court had held that adultery committed by an Indian with another Indian on an Indian reservation was not punishable under the act of March 3, 1887, c. 397, 24 Stat. 635, now § 316 of the Penal Code. This decision was made because of the fact that the offense occurred on a Sioux Indian reservation which is not said to be under jurisdiction of the district court. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court saying that the adultery was not punishable as it had occurred between two American Indians on an American Indian reservation. [32]
[edit] Good Shot v. United States (1900)
This United States Supreme Court case occurred when an American Indian shot and killed a non-Indian. The question of whether or not the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this issue arose. In an effort to argue against the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over the proceedings, the defendant filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari. This request for judicial review, upon writ of error, was denied. The court held that a conviction for murder, punishable with death, was no less a conviction for a capital crime by reason even taking into account the fact that the jury qualified the punishment. The American Indian defendant was sentenced to life in prison.[33]
[edit] Suppression of Religion
With officials believing in the virtue of Christianity, the United States Government worked to convert American Indians to Christianity and suppress the practice of the Native religions (spiritual leaders had been associated with leading uprisings.) The goal of the United States Government was to get Native Americans to assimilate to their culture. Some called this "making apples", as the Indians would still appear 'red' on the outside, but would be made 'white' on the inside.[34]
Even in the 20th century, "spiritual leaders ran the risk of jail sentences of up to 30 years for simply practicing their rituals".[35] It was not until 1973 that the law changed, when the Freedom of Religion Act was passed, although the government had stopped prosecuting Native American spiritual leaders.[34]
Different traditions continued to cause problems. For instance, the government included peyote among strong drugs that were illegal on the open market because of its hallucinogenic properties and general problems with drug abuse. But, the Peyote Indians traditionally had used peyote cactus as central to their religious rituals and practices, where use took place within orderly structures. It was not until the Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act of 1993 was passed that the Peyote Indians could lawfully again use the peyote cactus in their religious celebrations.
[edit] Native American education and boarding schools
[edit] Non-reservation boarding schools
Male Carlisle School Students 1879.The Carlisle Indian Industrial School founded by Richard Henry Pratt in 1879 was the first Indian boarding school established. Pratt was encouraged by the progress of Native Americans whom he had supervised as prisoners in Florida, where they had gotten basic education. When released, several were sponsored by American church groups to attend institutions such as Hampton Institute. He believed education was the means to bring American Indians into society.
Pratt professed "assimilation through total immersion." Because he had seen men educated at schools like Hampton Institute become educated and assimilated, he believed the principles could be extended to Indian children. Immersing them in the larger culture would help them adapt. In addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the Carlisle curriculum was modeled on the many industrial schools: it constituted vocational training for boys and domestic science for girls, in expectation of their opportunities on the reservations, including chores around the school and producing goods for market. In the summer, students were assigned to local farms and townspeople for boarding and to continue their immersion. They also provided labor at low cost, at a time when many children earned pay for their families.
Carlisle and its curriculum became the model for schools sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By 1902 there were twenty-five federally funded non-reservation schools across fifteen states and territories with a total enrollment of over 6,000. Although federal legislation made education compulsory for Native Americans, removing students from reservations required parent authorization. Officials coerced parents into releasing a quota of students from any given reservation.
Pupils at Carlisle Indian Industrial School, Pennsylvania (c. 1900)Once the new students arrived at the boarding schools, their lives altered drastically. They were usually given new haircuts, uniforms of European-American style clothes, and even new English names, sometimes based on their own, other times assigned at random. They could no longer speak their own languages, even with each other. They were expected to attend Christian churches. Their lives were run by the strict orders of their teachers, and it often included grueling chores and stiff punishments.
Additionally, infectious disease was widespread in society, and often swept through the schools. This was due to lack of information about causes and prevention, inadequate sanitation, insufficient funding for meals, overcrowded conditions, and students whose resistance was low.
Native American group of Carlisle Indian Industrial School Male and Female Students; Brick Dormitories And Bandstand in Background 1879.An Indian boarding school refers to one of many schools that were established in the United States during the late 19th century to educate Native American youths according to Euro-American standards. In some areas, these schools were primarily run by missionaries. Especially given the young age of some of the children sent to the schools, they have been documented as traumatic experiences for many of the children who attended them. They were generally forbidden to speak their native languages, taught Christianity instead of their native religions, and in numerous other ways forced to abandon their Indian identity and adopt European-American culture. Tragically, many cases of mental and sexual abuse have been documented, as in North Dakota.
By 1923 in the Northwest, most Indian schools had closed and Indian students were attending public schools. States took on increasing responsibility for their education. [36] Other studies suggest attendance in some Indian boarding schools grew in areas of the United States throughout the first half of the 20th century, doubling from 1900 to the 1960s. [37] Enrollment reached its highest point in the 1970s. In 1973, 60,000 American Indian children were estimated to have been enrolled in an Indian boarding school.[38][39].
[edit] The Meriam Report of 1928
The Meriam Report,[40] officially titled "The Problem of Indian Administration", was prepared for the Department of Interior. Assessments found the schools underfunded and understaffed, too heavily institutionalized, and run too rigidly. What had started as an idealistic program about education had gotten subverted.
It recommended:
abolishing the "Uniform Course of Study", which taught only majority European-American cultural values;
having younger children attend community schools near home, though older children should be able to attend non-reservation schools; and
ensuring that the Indian Service provided Native Americans with the skills and education to adapt both in their own traditional communities (which tended to be more rural) and the larger American society.
[edit] Change to community schools
Several events in the late 1960s and mid-1970s (Kennedy Report, National Study of American Indian Education, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) led to renewed emphasis on community schools. Many large Indian boarding schools closed in the 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, 9,500 American Indian children lived in an Indian boarding school dormitory.[citation needed] From 1879 when the Carlisle Indian School was founded to the present day, more than 100,000 American Indians are estimated to have attended an Indian boarding school.
A similar system in Canada was known as the Canadian residential school system. [41]
[edit] Lasting effects of the Americanization policy
While the concerted effort to assimilate Native Americans into American culture was abandoned officially, integration of Native American tribes and individuals continues to the present day. Often Native Americans are perceived as having been assimilated. However, some Native Americans feel a particular sense of being from another society or do not belong in a primarily "white" European majority society, despite efforts to socially integrate them.[citation needed]
In the mid-20th century, as efforts were still under way for assimilation, some studies treated American Indians simply as another ethnic minority, rather than citizens of semi-sovereign entities which they are entitled to by treaty. The following quote from the May 1957 issue of Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, shows this:
"The place of Indians in American society may be seen as one aspect of the question of the integration of minority groups into the social system."[42]
Since the 1960s-1970s, however, there have been major changes in society. Included is a broader appreciation for the pluralistic nature of United States society and its many ethnic groups, as well as for the special status of Native American nations. More recent legislation to protect Native American religious practices, for instance, points to major changes in government policy. Similarly the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 was another recognition of the special nature of Native American culture and federal responsibility to protect it.
[edit] See also
Canadian Indian residential school system
Native Americans in the United States
Indian removal
Indian termination policy
European colonization of the Americas
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Native American Assimilation
[edit] Footnotes
^ Frederick Hoxie, (1984). A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
^ Remini, Robert. ""The Reform Begins"". Andrew Jackson. History Book Club. p. 201. ISBN 0965063107.
^ a b Perdue, Theda. "Chapter 2 "Both White and Red"". Mixed Blood Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. The University of Georgia Press. p. 51. ISBN 082032731X.
^ a b Remini, Robert. ""The Reform Begins"". Andrew Jackson. History Book Club. p. 201. ISBN 0965063107.
^ Gary Warrick, "European Infectious Disease and Depopulation of the Wendat-Tionontate (Huron-Petun)", World Archaeology 35 (October 2003), 258–275.
^ a b c Fritz, Henry E. (1963). The Movement for Indian Assimilation, 1860-1890. University of Pennsylvania Press.
^ Miller, Eric (1994). "George Washington And Indians". Eric Miller. www.dreric.org/library/northwest.shtml. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
^ Remini, Robert. ""Brothers, Listen ... You Must Submit"". Andrew Jackson. History Book Club. p. 258. ISBN 0965063107.
^ Eric Miller (1994). "Washington and the Northwest War, Part One". www.dreric.org/library/northwest.shtml. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
^ Hoxie, Frederick (1984). A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
^ www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/83.html
^ www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~okwanuts/history/cloud/cloud-chief2.htm[dead link]
^ www.archives.gov/legislative/features/oklahoma/
^ Hoxie, Frederick E. Talking Back to Civilization: Indian Voices from qgepifuh p98uerh;gnq[oje8fh kjhgjjjjjjde ohaepg9uhpeiru;gjqnp9rhgpqiahg Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. University of Texas Press, 1997. (78-81) Print.
^ a b Tomlins, Christopher L. The United States Supreme Court: the pursuit of justice. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2005. (175-176) Print.
^ Tomlins, Christopher L. The United States Supreme Court: the pursuit of justice. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2005. (191) Print.
^ caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=187&invol=553
^ Duthu, Bruce. American Indians and the Law. New York: Penguin Books, 2008. (XXV) Print.
^ Find Law. "United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886)"Retrieved on 2009-10-19.
^ Wilkins, David E. American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. University of Texas Press, 1997. (78-81) Print.
^ Red Man’s Land White Man’s Land 2nd addition, Wilcomb B. Washburn, 1995, p 141
^ “EX PARTE CROW DOG” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ "Full text opinion from Justia.com"
^ “MONTOYA v. UNITED STATES” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ Wilkins, David, and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. University of Oklahoma Press, 2001. (151) Print.
^ Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 668
^ Shultz, Jeffrey D. (2000). Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics, p.710. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 1-57356-149-5
^ Wilkins, David E. and Lomawaima, K. Tsianina (2002). Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law, p.125. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-3395-9
^ Duthu,N. (2008). "American Indians and the Law", p. 105.Penguin Group Inc., New York. ISBN 9780670018574.
^ Shurts, John. (2000). "Indian Reserved Water Rights", p. 15.University of Oklahoma Press.ISBN 0806132109
^ “Clairmont v. United States” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ “United States v. Quiver” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ “Good Shot v. United States” LexisNexis. 15 Oct. 2009.
^ a b Religious Tolerance Website
^ www.religioustolerance.org/nataspir2.htm
^ Carolyn Marr, "Assimilation through Education: Indian Boarding Schools in the Northwest", University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
^ Colmant, S.A. (2000). "U.S. and Canadian Boarding Schools: A Review, Past and Present", Native Americas Journal,17 (4), 24-30.
^ Colmant, S.A. (2000). "U.S. and Canadian Boarding Schools: A Review, Past and Present", Native Americas Journal,17 (4), 24-30
^ C. Hammerschlag; C.P. Alderfer; and D. Berg, (1973). "Indian Education: A Human Systems Analysis", American Journal of Psychiatry
^ www.alaskool.org/native_ed/research_reports/IndianAdmin/Indian_Admin_Problms.html
^ Andrea Smith, "Soul Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools", Amnesty Magazine, Amnesty International website
^ Dozier, Edward, et al. "The Integration of Americans of Indian Descent", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 311, American Indians and American Life. (May, 1957), pp. 158-165.
[edit] Additional references
Adams, David Wallace (1995). Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875 – 1928. University Press of Kansas.
Ahern, Wilbert H. (1994). "An Experiment Aborted: Returned Indian Students in the Indian School Service, 1881-1908", Ethnohistory 44(2), 246-267.
Borhek, J. T. (1995). "Ethnic Group Cohesion", American Journal of Sociology 9(40), 1-16.
Ellis, Clyde (1996). To Change Them Forever: Indian Education at the Rainy Mountain Boarding School, 1893-1920. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hill, Howard C. (1919). "The Americanization Movement", American Journal of Sociology, 24 (6), 609-642.
Hoxie, Frederick (1984). A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
McKenzie, Fayette Avery (1914). "The Assimilation of the American Indian", The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 6. (May), pp. 761–772.
Peshkin, Alan (1997). Places of Memory: Whiteman’s Schools and Native American Communities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Spring, Joel (1994). Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality: A Brief History of the Education of Dominated Cultures in the United States. McGraw-Hill Inc.
Steger, Manfred B (2003. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Wright, Robin K. (1991). A Time of Gathering: Native Heritage in Washington State. University of Washington Press and the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum.
[edit] Further reading
Tatum, Laurie. Our Red Brothers and the Peace Policy of President Ulysses S. Grant. University of Nebraska Press (1970).
Senier, Siobhan. Voices of American Indian Assimilation and Resistance: Helen Hunt Jackson, Sarah Winnemucca, and Victoria Howard. University of Oklahoma Press (2003).
Churchill, Ward. Kill the Indian and Save the Man: the genocidal impact of American Indian residential schools, San Francisco : City Lights Press (2004).
[edit] External links
Endangered Native American Languages: What Is to Be Done, and Why?
Bureau of Indian Affairs website
"History of Native Americans in the U.S.", Hartford World History Archives
NPR Report, National Public Radio
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(of_Native_Americans)"
Categories: Cultural assimilation | American culture | Native American topics | Native American history
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from March 2009 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsTry Beta Log in / create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
Languages
Nederlands
日本語
This page was last modified on 5 March 2010 at 02:20.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
