Who Owns Oklahoma?
November 27, 2018 8:59 AM Subscribe
Who Owns Oklahoma? Today the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Carpenter v. Murphy, reviewing a Tenth Circuit decision finding that the Muskogee Creek reservation has never been formally dissolved.
"If the Tenth Circuit’s decision stands—and if courts restore the reservation boundaries for all five civilized tribes—roughly half of Oklahoma will become, at a stroke, Indian country."
I personally have very little doubt of the outcome. But the contortions the court goes through to get there should be interesting.
posted by dilettante at 9:11 AM on November 27, 2018 [13 favorites]
posted by dilettante at 9:11 AM on November 27, 2018 [13 favorites]
Arguably the most fucked up thing about this very fucked up case is this:
The whole thing rests on the idea that the original 3 million acre reservation was never formally dissolved by congress when they started tearing it apart. The DEFENSE of the state and federal government is literally that they treated the native population so badly that it was a de facto statement of dissolution.
The whole thing rests on the idea that the original 3 million acre reservation was never formally dissolved by congress when they started tearing it apart. The DEFENSE of the state and federal government is literally that they treated the native population so badly that it was a de facto statement of dissolution.
Before the Court, Oklahoma argues that the contemptuous treatment of the tribe by the state and federal government after allotment makes a formal statute unnecessary. “Congress’s breach of its treaty promises of communal land ownership … and tribal self-government, combined with the creation of Oklahoma, amply overcomes the presumption that Congress does not lightly abrogate its treaty promises or diminish a reservation,” the state argues.posted by 256 at 9:11 AM on November 27, 2018 [43 favorites]
Supporting Oklahoma in an amicus brief, the federal government notes that Congress “broke up the Creek Nation’s lands, abolished its courts, circumscribed its governmental authority, applied federal and state law to Indians and non-Indians alike in its territory, provided for allotment of almost all of its communal lands to individual tribal members, distributed tribal funds to individual Indians, and set a timetable for dissolution of the Tribe.”
The article points out that the Supreme Court would be overturning a unanimous previous SC decision if they do, so very interesting indeed.
posted by BeeDo at 9:12 AM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by BeeDo at 9:12 AM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
Backstory: Following the relocation of the Five Civilized Tribes, most of modern-day Oklahoma was Indian Territory. After the Civil War, in which the (slaveholding) Five Civilized Tribes had fought for both sides, the tribal land was re-organized (reduced), moving the tribes to modern eastern Oklahoma, with some of the western/central land allocated to other tribes and some land “unassigned”. Unassigned lands were opened to white settlement starting in 1889. In 1890 the Oklahoma Territory was organized in the middle (around Oklahoma City) and the panhandle. Eventually it expanded to cover the western half of the modern state, with Indian Territory in the eastern half.
Indian Territory tried to get statehood, but in the end the two territories were combined into the state of Oklahoma in 1907.
The Curtis Act of 1898 broke up the tribal allotments of the Five Civilized Tribes, instead assigning the land to individual registered tribe members, as the Dawes Act had done for other tribes previously. Tribal government was re-established in the New Deal.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:15 AM on November 27, 2018 [13 favorites]
Indian Territory tried to get statehood, but in the end the two territories were combined into the state of Oklahoma in 1907.
The Curtis Act of 1898 broke up the tribal allotments of the Five Civilized Tribes, instead assigning the land to individual registered tribe members, as the Dawes Act had done for other tribes previously. Tribal government was re-established in the New Deal.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:15 AM on November 27, 2018 [13 favorites]
For reference, the Five Civilized Tribes are the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations, which were moved from the Southeast on the Trail of Tears and other similar forced migrations.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:17 AM on November 27, 2018 [13 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:17 AM on November 27, 2018 [13 favorites]
The article points out that the Supreme Court would be overturning a unanimous previous SC decision if they do, so very interesting indeed.
A unanimous decision from 1984 that was unanimously upheld just 2 years ago. But as the article points out, we now have Gorsuch (maybe semi-positive on Native issues) and Kavanaugh (definitely awful on Native issues) on the court. This will be a test of the conservative majority's willingness to give stare decisis the middle finger. I'm not sanguine.
posted by jedicus at 9:19 AM on November 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
A unanimous decision from 1984 that was unanimously upheld just 2 years ago. But as the article points out, we now have Gorsuch (maybe semi-positive on Native issues) and Kavanaugh (definitely awful on Native issues) on the court. This will be a test of the conservative majority's willingness to give stare decisis the middle finger. I'm not sanguine.
posted by jedicus at 9:19 AM on November 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
Huh, I always thought that the big action set-piece at the end of the movie Far and Away was made up whole cloth or at least a condensed version of actual history that had been twisted to fit the script. The idea that you'd have a big race for everyone to run in and grab a bunch of land seemed ludicrous at the time but the whole plot perfectly lines up with what Odinsdream describes.
posted by VTX at 9:37 AM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by VTX at 9:37 AM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
Yeah, that's where the terms Boomer and Sooner come from. At noon, in certain places they fired a cannon and then everybody raced to grab some land. Those people were the Boomers. But some people cheated, and got going earlier. Those people were called Sooners (because they started too soon.)
Which is why the OU football team (the Sooners) has a horse-drawn covered wagon that tear-asses all over the field between quarters.
posted by nushustu at 10:06 AM on November 27, 2018 [20 favorites]
Which is why the OU football team (the Sooners) has a horse-drawn covered wagon that tear-asses all over the field between quarters.
posted by nushustu at 10:06 AM on November 27, 2018 [20 favorites]
And what about the other tribes that were relocated to Oklahoma? Do we lose our reservation? Are we sent back to Kansas (where we once had a reservation but it got taken away when white people decided the land was too nice for Indians). Or do we get to go back to our tribal lands from before that? Because that means we get Chicago.
I'm okay with that.
First thing I'm doing is renaming the Blackhawks.
posted by elsietheeel at 10:23 AM on November 27, 2018 [53 favorites]
I'm okay with that.
First thing I'm doing is renaming the Blackhawks.
posted by elsietheeel at 10:23 AM on November 27, 2018 [53 favorites]
The DEFENSE of the state and federal government is literally that they treated the native population so badly that it was a de facto statement of dissolution.
The implications of this sort of argument are truly staggering to contemplate.
It’s like saying “No, your honor, I didn’t breach my contract with that vendor. Because I’d already burned down his store by then, so technically he wasn’t even in business anymore.”
Or “No, your honor, I didn’t violate that guy’s civil rights. Because, see, I had so dehumanized him by gross mistreatment and abuse of power that it is obvious I no longer considered he still had any civil rights to violate.”
When your own violation of a treaty and/or basic decency is used as an excuse to mitigate the consequences of your later abuses, it’s quite something.
posted by darkstar at 10:25 AM on November 27, 2018 [50 favorites]
The implications of this sort of argument are truly staggering to contemplate.
It’s like saying “No, your honor, I didn’t breach my contract with that vendor. Because I’d already burned down his store by then, so technically he wasn’t even in business anymore.”
Or “No, your honor, I didn’t violate that guy’s civil rights. Because, see, I had so dehumanized him by gross mistreatment and abuse of power that it is obvious I no longer considered he still had any civil rights to violate.”
When your own violation of a treaty and/or basic decency is used as an excuse to mitigate the consequences of your later abuses, it’s quite something.
posted by darkstar at 10:25 AM on November 27, 2018 [50 favorites]
The Unassigned Lands were portions of the land ceded by the Creek and Seminole Tribes in 1866, immediately following the Civil War that weren’t subsequently assigned to other tribes. By 1879, white interests started pushing for the unassigned lands to be settled. The Boomers were filibuster settlers, trying to set up towns like Stillwater in the unassigned lands. They were removed.
The unassigned lands were all finally settled in the first land run, on April 22, 1889. Sooners were cheaters who snuck across before the start time. This would eventually become enough of a problem that they quit doing land runs.
Far and Away depicts the Cherokee Outlet land run of September 16, 1893. The Cherokee Outlet was along most of the northern border of Oklahoma but was disconnected from the Cherokee settlement lands.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:50 AM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
The unassigned lands were all finally settled in the first land run, on April 22, 1889. Sooners were cheaters who snuck across before the start time. This would eventually become enough of a problem that they quit doing land runs.
Far and Away depicts the Cherokee Outlet land run of September 16, 1893. The Cherokee Outlet was along most of the northern border of Oklahoma but was disconnected from the Cherokee settlement lands.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:50 AM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
My wife is from Oklahoma and most of my in-laws still live there, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how this comes out (even though I'm pessimistic about whether the judges will do the right-but-radical thing). It's also a good reminder that the history of horrific institutional racism in the Sooner State (a nickname in honor of people who proudly ignored even the arbitrary 12 p.m. deadline discussed above) is fractal.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:51 AM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:51 AM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
god, land reparations. that's the dream. i know the reality will be disappointing but i will allow this dream to make me feel good for today.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:07 AM on November 27, 2018 [16 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 11:07 AM on November 27, 2018 [16 favorites]
Tribal government was re-established in the New Deal.
The tribes didn't consider their government truly theirs until they were able to elect their own leaders. That didn't happen until Public Law 91-945 (pdf) in fucking 1970.
posted by Quonab at 11:28 AM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
The tribes didn't consider their government truly theirs until they were able to elect their own leaders. That didn't happen until Public Law 91-945 (pdf) in fucking 1970.
posted by Quonab at 11:28 AM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
Flip half of Oklahoma to Tribal control? But what about all the people who already live there?
posted by xedrik at 12:02 PM on November 27, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by xedrik at 12:02 PM on November 27, 2018 [8 favorites]
traditionally we make them walk somewhere else with whatever they can carry
posted by poffin boffin at 12:03 PM on November 27, 2018 [138 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:03 PM on November 27, 2018 [138 favorites]
(Actually, I say reservation, but it's really just a truck stop, two gas stations, two smoke shops, a bingo hall, two tribal casinos, a golf course, and a bank. Most of our Oklahoma reservation got taken away in 1891 and given away to white settlers during the Land Run, after we were all forced to sign an allotment treaty. Please note that the land we had in Oklahoma we *bought* after selling the land we were forced to give up in Kansas. And before that, there were land allotments on the Rock River in Illinois that had to be sold prior to the move to Kansas. Indian removal took hundreds of years and treaties, thousands of deaths, and millions of lies.)
posted by elsietheeel at 12:08 PM on November 27, 2018 [32 favorites]
posted by elsietheeel at 12:08 PM on November 27, 2018 [32 favorites]
Flip half of Oklahoma to Tribal control? But what about all the people who already live there?
They could continue to live there. As the article indicates, for non-Native people in Oklahoma, life would mostly be the same. Oklahoma police would have to work out some stuff with the Tribal police, but they already do a lot anyway (it's Oklahoma) so it wouldn't be unprecedented. It would swell the federal courts' case load, but otherwise, we're not talking about an expulsion of 1.8 million people, that—although rhetorically satisfying—is not what any of the Native nations want.
So, although this decisions would be an enormous win for the different Native nations, it wouldn't really be a loss for the non-Natives that live there or elsewhere in Oklahoma.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:13 PM on November 27, 2018 [12 favorites]
They could continue to live there. As the article indicates, for non-Native people in Oklahoma, life would mostly be the same. Oklahoma police would have to work out some stuff with the Tribal police, but they already do a lot anyway (it's Oklahoma) so it wouldn't be unprecedented. It would swell the federal courts' case load, but otherwise, we're not talking about an expulsion of 1.8 million people, that—although rhetorically satisfying—is not what any of the Native nations want.
So, although this decisions would be an enormous win for the different Native nations, it wouldn't really be a loss for the non-Natives that live there or elsewhere in Oklahoma.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:13 PM on November 27, 2018 [12 favorites]
The implications of this sort of argument are truly staggering to contemplate.
It’s like saying “No, your honor, I didn’t breach my contract with that vendor. Because I’d already burned down his store by then, so technically he wasn’t even in business anymore.”
Or “No, your honor, I didn’t violate that guy’s civil rights. Because, see, I had so dehumanized him by gross mistreatment and abuse of power that it is obvious I no longer considered he still had any civil rights to violate.”
When your own violation of a treaty and/or basic decency is used as an excuse to mitigate the consequences of your later abuses, it’s quite something.
I know you already get this but it's not really staggering for folks who are familiar with native policies and treatment. I'm no expert or scholar but I know more than the average member of the population and am a first generation descendant of some of the Creeks who were left after/spared the Trail of Tears and, let me tell you, the argument is quite literally the norm when it comes to how native populations were treated in nearly every legal interaction with folks looking to fuck them over, take their belongings/land/women/children, or just kill them outright because why not.
Case in point, my ancestors were the ones who were spared said migration/death march for being the cooperative/friendly individuals in that time and place and war yet they were only granted Tribal status in 1983 after years and years of legal battles to get there. The logic of the government from a legal point of view literally goes something like
'We didn't force march your tribe away because you're the helpful savages but we also won't grant the fact that you're actually a tribe because *charlie brown adult speaking noise here*'
So, yea, not at all surprising to see this sort of legal standing that defies all logic put forth as good reasoning for status quo/continuing the theft/whatever.
Flip half of Oklahoma to Tribal control? But what about all the people who already live there?
Can't tell if serious or....
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:21 PM on November 27, 2018 [17 favorites]
It’s like saying “No, your honor, I didn’t breach my contract with that vendor. Because I’d already burned down his store by then, so technically he wasn’t even in business anymore.”
Or “No, your honor, I didn’t violate that guy’s civil rights. Because, see, I had so dehumanized him by gross mistreatment and abuse of power that it is obvious I no longer considered he still had any civil rights to violate.”
When your own violation of a treaty and/or basic decency is used as an excuse to mitigate the consequences of your later abuses, it’s quite something.
I know you already get this but it's not really staggering for folks who are familiar with native policies and treatment. I'm no expert or scholar but I know more than the average member of the population and am a first generation descendant of some of the Creeks who were left after/spared the Trail of Tears and, let me tell you, the argument is quite literally the norm when it comes to how native populations were treated in nearly every legal interaction with folks looking to fuck them over, take their belongings/land/women/children, or just kill them outright because why not.
Case in point, my ancestors were the ones who were spared said migration/death march for being the cooperative/friendly individuals in that time and place and war yet they were only granted Tribal status in 1983 after years and years of legal battles to get there. The logic of the government from a legal point of view literally goes something like
'We didn't force march your tribe away because you're the helpful savages but we also won't grant the fact that you're actually a tribe because *charlie brown adult speaking noise here*'
So, yea, not at all surprising to see this sort of legal standing that defies all logic put forth as good reasoning for status quo/continuing the theft/whatever.
Flip half of Oklahoma to Tribal control? But what about all the people who already live there?
Can't tell if serious or....
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:21 PM on November 27, 2018 [17 favorites]
Yeah, there’s an existing dual-government infrastructure in place around civil issues like license plates, gambling, oil, schools, taxation, and some other stuff. When you drive through Oklahoma there are signs that tell you when you’re entering which tribal nation.
The case would basically change it so that within the old tribal lands, white, black, brown and nonregistered Native people who commit crimes continue to answer to the state of Oklahoma, but registered Native people who commit crimes would answer only to the Feds.
It may surprise you to hear that the headline is kinda overblown.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:21 PM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
The case would basically change it so that within the old tribal lands, white, black, brown and nonregistered Native people who commit crimes continue to answer to the state of Oklahoma, but registered Native people who commit crimes would answer only to the Feds.
It may surprise you to hear that the headline is kinda overblown.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:21 PM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
Forgoing the Edit feature to add: Go to the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian if you get a chance. There's basically a whole floor/wing dedicated to the sequence of treaties and backstabbing, underhanded actions of the folks that interacted with native tribes throughout the recent centuries that will, if you're anything like me I suppose, leave you wandering about in tears thinking about the injustices and atrocities that were oh so casually committed without a moment's hesitation.
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:24 PM on November 27, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:24 PM on November 27, 2018 [8 favorites]
Tribes have also taken over things like state parks.
posted by Quonab at 12:26 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Quonab at 12:26 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
A transcript of oral argument is now available. Keep an eye out for where the attorney representing the state in this Indian law case tells the U.S. Supreme Court, "I'm not an Indian law expert."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:35 PM on November 27, 2018 [17 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:35 PM on November 27, 2018 [17 favorites]
Keep an eye out for where the attorney representing the state in this Indian law case tells the U.S. Supreme Court, "I'm not an Indian law expert."
You don't really have to pay attention to something if you just want to obliterate it.
posted by rhizome at 12:39 PM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
You don't really have to pay attention to something if you just want to obliterate it.
posted by rhizome at 12:39 PM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
Yeah but when the justices are already discussing how they're going to structure their decision against you (Breyer suggested delaying the date when the decision would take effect, so the state and tribal governments can figure out what criminal law will look in eastern Oklahoma going forward) that strategy can be reasonably said to have hit a snag.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:41 PM on November 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:41 PM on November 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
The Eastern Shawnee is attempting to re-appropriate some of its stolen land here in Ohio. It's only 168 acres, not half a state.
In 1831 the Shawnee near Lewistown signed a treaty with the government to cede their Ohio reservation and move to Oklahoma. But 168 acres adjacent to the reservation were owned by Stewart, the daughter of the storied Shawnee chief Blue Jacket. Stewart stayed behind and passed away in 1840, outliving her childless heirs. Per the treaty, the land was supposed to revert to the tribe, but the government simply took the land, which the Shawnee are trying to get back today.posted by zakur at 12:44 PM on November 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
So, although this decisions would be an enormous win for the different Native nations,...
Well, white people can't be having that! Only one race allowed to win here.
it wouldn't really be a loss for the non-Natives that live there or elsewhere in Oklahoma.
What about white people's obvious superior status? Can't be giving that up.
posted by BlueHorse at 1:09 PM on November 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
Well, white people can't be having that! Only one race allowed to win here.
it wouldn't really be a loss for the non-Natives that live there or elsewhere in Oklahoma.
What about white people's obvious superior status? Can't be giving that up.
posted by BlueHorse at 1:09 PM on November 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
Yeah, there’s an existing dual-government infrastructure in place around civil issues like license plates, gambling, oil, schools, taxation, and some other stuff. When you drive through Oklahoma there are signs that tell you when you’re entering which tribal nation.
I was just there last week. My whole family has Cherokee tags now instead of the "Hunger Games" Oklahoma tags.
Remember that most Oklahoma natives can claim membership in a tribe (tho mainly in ones where the Dawes Rolls are used to determine membership). I'm one myself. All this potential ruling would do is expand the area where the tribes have sovereignty. Right now, it's a hodgepodge, and the rules are all over the place depending on what piece of land you're standing on. The worst that could happen is the state and the tribes will have new overlaps and will need to rework their current agreements on how they collaborate.
posted by dw at 1:15 PM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
I was just there last week. My whole family has Cherokee tags now instead of the "Hunger Games" Oklahoma tags.
Remember that most Oklahoma natives can claim membership in a tribe (tho mainly in ones where the Dawes Rolls are used to determine membership). I'm one myself. All this potential ruling would do is expand the area where the tribes have sovereignty. Right now, it's a hodgepodge, and the rules are all over the place depending on what piece of land you're standing on. The worst that could happen is the state and the tribes will have new overlaps and will need to rework their current agreements on how they collaborate.
posted by dw at 1:15 PM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
The case would basically change it so that within the old tribal lands
You mean the "old" tribal lands they were forcibly removed to from their actual tribal lands?
Because the "old" tribal lands of the Five Civilized Tribes were actually where the Witchita people lived before THEY got removed.
Land reparations aren't that simple.
posted by elsietheeel at 1:18 PM on November 27, 2018 [11 favorites]
You mean the "old" tribal lands they were forcibly removed to from their actual tribal lands?
Because the "old" tribal lands of the Five Civilized Tribes were actually where the Witchita people lived before THEY got removed.
Land reparations aren't that simple.
posted by elsietheeel at 1:18 PM on November 27, 2018 [11 favorites]
I grew up in Oklahoma in the '80s and '90s. I'm kinda surprised people didn't know about the land run, as it was taught to us in school. (So was the Trail of Tears, but the connections between these two events were never acknowledged.) Most white Oklahomas take great pride in their Native history while also appropriating the living shit out of it.
My great-grandmother made the land run as an infant with her family. In elementary school we'd reenact the event during 89er Day. At my school you could choose to dress like a "pioneer" or an "indian" (a nebulous term since we were taught the tribes as a monolith). As soon as I was old enough to understand I was utterly disgusted by it.
posted by Brittanie at 2:13 PM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
My great-grandmother made the land run as an infant with her family. In elementary school we'd reenact the event during 89er Day. At my school you could choose to dress like a "pioneer" or an "indian" (a nebulous term since we were taught the tribes as a monolith). As soon as I was old enough to understand I was utterly disgusted by it.
posted by Brittanie at 2:13 PM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
As noted in the Epps article, most of Tacoma WA is inside the boundaries of the Puyallup reservation. It's not actually a big deal.
But I do wonder about mineral rights and water rights. I suspect the cleanest resolution would require an act of Congress.
posted by suelac at 2:37 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
But I do wonder about mineral rights and water rights. I suspect the cleanest resolution would require an act of Congress.
posted by suelac at 2:37 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
They'll bend over backwards not to award the relief even if the Native Americans prevail on the merits. See: Oneida.
posted by praemunire at 3:14 PM on November 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 3:14 PM on November 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
As someone who's patrilineal side is descended from Scots-Irish Settlers in that land, FUCK EM. They can go elsewhere.
Though I like : Reservations or Trail of White Tears, too.
posted by symbioid at 3:48 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
Though I like : Reservations or Trail of White Tears, too.
posted by symbioid at 3:48 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
I'm totally cool with the eastern half of Oklahoma becoming the Sovereign State of the Five Nations.
They can put up customs checkpoints on all the interstates cutting across it, and charge tolls.
posted by mikelieman at 4:03 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
They can put up customs checkpoints on all the interstates cutting across it, and charge tolls.
posted by mikelieman at 4:03 PM on November 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
[...]and charge tolls.
I have bad news about trying to drive in Oklahoma today.
(On the other hand, if they actually put bathrooms in their rest stops it’d be a win for everybody.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:13 PM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
I have bad news about trying to drive in Oklahoma today.
(On the other hand, if they actually put bathrooms in their rest stops it’d be a win for everybody.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:13 PM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
Now do Manhattan.
posted by runcibleshaw at 4:15 PM on November 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by runcibleshaw at 4:15 PM on November 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
I'm totally cool with the eastern half of Oklahoma becoming the Sovereign State of the Five Nations.
The "Five Civilized Tribes" != the Five Nations. IIRC the two sets are disjoint.
Though double-stealing the land from the Creek to hand it over to the Seneca would be a pretty white thing to do.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:29 PM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
The "Five Civilized Tribes" != the Five Nations. IIRC the two sets are disjoint.
Though double-stealing the land from the Creek to hand it over to the Seneca would be a pretty white thing to do.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:29 PM on November 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
The article points out that the Supreme Court would be overturning a unanimous previous SC decision if they do, so very interesting indeed.
But it's settled law, now?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:34 PM on November 27, 2018
But it's settled law, now?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:34 PM on November 27, 2018
Nothing is settled law if you're willing to ignore precedent.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 5:26 PM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 5:26 PM on November 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
A transcript of oral argument is now available. Keep an eye out for where the attorney representing the state in this Indian law case tells the U.S. Supreme Court, "I'm not an Indian law expert."
You know, reading this I was just wondering why the Indian nations aren't all just like, "Screw you, and screw US Law."
Then call every treaty invalid -- since it's clear that the US negotiated in bad-faith every time -- and returning to their original borders.
Personally, I think that Kiliaen van Rensselaer's title to the land from the Indians who sold it to him will hold up, and I shouldn't have any issues.
posted by mikelieman at 6:22 PM on November 27, 2018
You know, reading this I was just wondering why the Indian nations aren't all just like, "Screw you, and screw US Law."
Then call every treaty invalid -- since it's clear that the US negotiated in bad-faith every time -- and returning to their original borders.
Personally, I think that Kiliaen van Rensselaer's title to the land from the Indians who sold it to him will hold up, and I shouldn't have any issues.
posted by mikelieman at 6:22 PM on November 27, 2018
Now do Manhattan.
i can't think of anything i'd enjoy more, aside from launching various men into the sun, which can certainly be done concurrently.
posted by poffin boffin at 6:33 PM on November 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
i can't think of anything i'd enjoy more, aside from launching various men into the sun, which can certainly be done concurrently.
posted by poffin boffin at 6:33 PM on November 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
I think Gorsuch recused (before the wardens switched from Royal to Carpenter), so there's a chance this could come out 4-4, like Dollar General did a few years ago. That's one way the 10th Circuit decision might stand (i.e. yes it's Indian country).
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 9:01 PM on November 27, 2018
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 9:01 PM on November 27, 2018
The US government should cede territory back to Native Americans: Historically, immigrants were given special rights to take Native land. If Trump says we are no longer a nation of immigrants, that has consequences
posted by homunculus at 10:48 PM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 10:48 PM on November 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
Manhattan was purchased at a time when the Europeans didn't have a lot of leverage to coerce anyone. The stories about it being sold for trinkets do a (racially-motivated) disservice, I think, to Seyseys and the rest of the Canarsees, who may well have viewed the transaction as a sort of technology transfer, or (perhaps simultaneously) were perhaps intentionally placing the Europeans on disputed territory or creating a buffer between themselves and the Wappinger.
Along with most of modern-day Rhode Island, it's one of the few parts of the American Colonies that there's reasonably clean title to.
Now, Connecticut, on the other hand...
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:34 AM on November 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Along with most of modern-day Rhode Island, it's one of the few parts of the American Colonies that there's reasonably clean title to.
Now, Connecticut, on the other hand...
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:34 AM on November 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Manhattan would actually be perfect in this particular instance because iirc most of the Lenape were removed to Oklahoma.
posted by poffin boffin at 4:02 PM on November 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 4:02 PM on November 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
Oklahoma eventually, after over two hundred years of removals.
The main body of Lenape arrived in Indian Territory in the 1860s. The two federally recognized tribes of Lenape in Oklahoma are the Delaware Nation, headquartered in Anadarko, Oklahoma, and the Delaware Tribe of Indians, headquartered in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
The Delaware Tribe of Indians were required to purchase land from the reservation of the Cherokee Nation; they made two payments totaling $438,000. A court dispute followed over whether the sale included rights for the Delaware as citizens within the Cherokee Nation. While the dispute was unsettled, the Curtis Act of 1898 dissolved tribal governments and ordered the allotment of communal tribal lands to individual households of members of tribes. After the lands were allotted in 160-acre (650,000 m²) lots to tribal members in 1907, the government sold "surplus" land to non-Indians.
In 1979, the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs revoked the tribal status of the Delaware living among Cherokee in Oklahoma. They began to count the Delaware as Cherokee. The Delaware had this decision overturned in 1996, when they were recognized by the federal government as a separate tribal nation.
Fuck the BIA.
posted by elsietheeel at 4:30 PM on November 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
The main body of Lenape arrived in Indian Territory in the 1860s. The two federally recognized tribes of Lenape in Oklahoma are the Delaware Nation, headquartered in Anadarko, Oklahoma, and the Delaware Tribe of Indians, headquartered in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
The Delaware Tribe of Indians were required to purchase land from the reservation of the Cherokee Nation; they made two payments totaling $438,000. A court dispute followed over whether the sale included rights for the Delaware as citizens within the Cherokee Nation. While the dispute was unsettled, the Curtis Act of 1898 dissolved tribal governments and ordered the allotment of communal tribal lands to individual households of members of tribes. After the lands were allotted in 160-acre (650,000 m²) lots to tribal members in 1907, the government sold "surplus" land to non-Indians.
In 1979, the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs revoked the tribal status of the Delaware living among Cherokee in Oklahoma. They began to count the Delaware as Cherokee. The Delaware had this decision overturned in 1996, when they were recognized by the federal government as a separate tribal nation.
Fuck the BIA.
posted by elsietheeel at 4:30 PM on November 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Rebecca Nagle: Half the land in Oklahoma could be returned to Native Americans. It should be.
In 1835, the Supreme Court upheld the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation against the state of Georgia in a landmark decision that effectively ended Andrew Jackson’s campaign to remove all Indians west of the Mississippi. That was, until Jackson simply ignored the decision. He famously remarked, “Marshall has made his decision, let us see him enforce it.” As a result, Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws and Seminoles were rounded up by U.S. soldiers and forced on death marches in which a quarter to a third of their citizens died.posted by homunculus at 7:17 AM on November 29, 2018 [3 favorites]
When Jackson vowed to defy the Supreme Court, there was one other man standing in the room. It was my ancestor, John Ridge.
I am not telling the story of my family and my tribe to ask the Supreme Court to change the law. I tell this story to ask that the law be followed.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the land that John Ridge not only died on, but for, could be acknowledged as Cherokee land for the first time in more than 100 years. John signed the treaty of New Echota knowing he would be killed for it but believing that the rights of the Cherokee Nation enshrined in that blood-soaked document were worth it.
One hundred and seventy-nine years later, the grass is still growing, the water is still running and, in eastern Oklahoma, our tribes are still here. And despite the grave injustice of history, the legal right to our land has never ended.
« Older Small Farmers in Mexico Keep Corn’s Genetic... | Do What The Private Sector Refuses To Do Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
You have to be realistic about these things. But man that would be satisfying wouldn't it?
posted by East14thTaco at 9:09 AM on November 27, 2018 [50 favorites]