error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
RE: President Obama Supports Native Americans
5/15/2016 6:34:40 PM

Removing Native Americans from their Land

President Andrew Jackson offered similar rhetoric in his first inaugural address in 1829, when he emphasized his desire “to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people.” Yet, only fourteen months later, Jackson prompted Congress to pass the Removal Act, a bill that forced Native Americans to leave the United States and settle in the Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River.

Many Cherokee tribes banded together as an independent nation, and challenged this legislation in U.S. courts. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees, but some tribes still signed treaties giving the federal government the legal authority to "assist" them in their move to the Indian Territory.

In 1838, as the deadline for removal approached, thousands of federal soldiers and Georgia volunteers entered the territory and forcibly relocated the Cherokees. Americans hunted, imprisoned, raped, and murdered Native Americans. Cherokees surviving the onslaught were forced on a 1,000-mile march to the established Indian Territory with few provisions. Approximately 4,000 Cherokees died on this “Trail of Tears.”

An audio recording of a Native American song commemorating this tragedy is available in the American Memory collection, Florida Folklife. A description of how some Cherokees settled in West Virginia can be heard in the audio recording Plateau Region as Unofficial Refuge for Cherokee from the Tending the Commons collection.

The expansion of the United States that encroached upon Native American lands occurred faster than many policymakers had predicted with events such as the Mexican-American War in 1848 placing new territories and tribes under federal jurisdiction. A government report, The Indians of Southern California in 1852, explained that many Californians believed “destiny had awarded California to the Americans to develop” and that if the Indians “interfered with progress they should be pushed aside.”

RE: President Obama Supports Native Americans
5/15/2016 6:38:19 PM
National Native American Heritage Month

RE: President Obama Supports Native Americans
5/15/2016 6:40:57 PM
For Native Americans, One President’s Efforts Spark Hope

Nearly 100 kilometers from the nearest city - amid rolling hills of grazing cattle - Cannon Ball, North Dakota, with a population of less than a 1,000 people, is an unlikely place for a presidential visit.

Randi Dogskin remembers the June day when President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama came to Standing Rock Indian Reservation with a pledge to improve the lives of Native Americans.

RE: President Obama Supports Native Americans
5/15/2016 6:44:32 PM
U.S. Apology To Native Americans: Unnecessary Or Not Enough?

The U.S. Senate ... issued a resolution ... that calls on President Obama to formally apologize for historic violence and injustices inflicted upon Native Americans by the federal government. Some think such an apology is unnecessary, while others say it's not enough. Rob Capriccioso, Washington Staff reporter for the newspaper Indian Country Today, is joined by Sen. John McCoy, a state representative from Washington, to discuss the measure and whether it has the ability to reconcile.

Native Americans [The People] Civil Rights
5/15/2016 6:48:49 PM
Civil Rights 101 - Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund - 2001

Native Americans

Among the most difficult civil rights issues are those facing the nation's 2.5 million Native Americans. Federally recognized tribes are considered domestic dependent nations, with their rights to tribal sovereignty preserved. Tribal sovereignty refers to tribes' right to govern themselves, define their own membership, manage tribal property, and regulate tribal business and domestic relations; it further recognizes the existence of a government-to-government relationship between such tribes and the federal government. The federal government has special trust obligations to protect tribal lands and resources, protect tribal rights to self-government, and provide services necessary for tribal survival and advancement. The fight to preserve tribal sovereignty and treaty rights has long been at the forefront of the Native American civil rights movement.

Moreover, Native Americans suffer from many of the same social and economic problems as other victims of long-term bias and discrimination - including, for example, disproportionately high rates of poverty, infant mortality, unemployment, and low high school completion rates. The struggle for equal employment and educational opportunity is key to addressing these problems.

Also important for many Native American civil rights advocates are cultural issues related to the ability to maintain and pass on traditional religious beliefs, languages and social practices without fear of discrimination. For example, Native Americans have long fought to protect their religious freedom from repeated acts of governmental suppression -- including the denial of access to religious sites, prohibitions on the use or possession of sacred objects, and restrictions on their ability to worship through ceremonial and traditional means.

In 1988, for example, In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protection Association, the Supreme Court allowed the construction of a Forest Service road through an ancient site held sacred by several tribes. In a setback for Native Americans' religious freedoms, the Court ruled that such intrusion did not violate the Indians' First Amendment rights.

And in 1991, in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that states and localities no longer had to show a "compelling governmental interest" to justify generally applicable laws that applied to limit or infringe upon religious exercise. The ruling in this case, which involved two Oregon men who were denied unemployment benefits after taking peyote as part of a worship ceremony of the Native American Church, was widely attacked by representatives of virtually all religious bodies in the United States as a major blow to religious freedom.

In 1993 Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would have overturned Smith and restore the "compelling interest" standards that limited government's ability to enforce legislation that infringes upon religious freedom. However, the Supreme Court soon struck down RFRA as an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional powers in City of Boerne v. Flores.

In 1994, a law signed by President Clinton exempted the religious use of peyote from federal and state controlled substance laws and prohibited discrimination against those who engage in the use of peyote for religious purposes. Although this protected Native Americans' use of peyote, the fight to protect other areas of religious freedom continues.

Other civil rights priorities include ongoing battles for voting rights, as well as the elimination of offensive use of mascots by schools and professional sports teams that reflect outdated stereotypes and perpetuate racism against Native Americans. The "Digital Divide" is also a major area of concern for Native Americans and other minority groups - because many American Indians and Alaskan Natives have yet to be connected to basic telephone networks and are thus unable to access the Internet, they are at risk of falling even further behind in their ability to access employment, educational, and other opportunities made available by information technology.


Like us on Facebook!