WinsingtonIII t1_j8ro5h4 wrote
Imagine trying to argue that an Indian tribe isn't "Indian." What lawyer thought that argument was going to go anywhere?
homeostasis3434 t1_j8rtogv wrote
From the article
> The definition of “Indian” under the Indian Reorganization Act is: "[1] all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, and [2] all persons who are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation, and shall further include [3] all other persons of one-half or more Indian blood," according to the department.
But also
>"The record in this case reveals the government’s systemic, decades-long policy of forcibly dissolving Indigenous tribes and cultures by coercing children to assimilate into what the government defined as “white” society," wrote Kelley. "The Carlisle School, funded by Congress for the purpose of separating Indigenous children from their families and indoctrinating them in accordance with the government’s policy, was an essential component of this system."
Essentially the plaintiffs tried to make the argument that the Mashpee didn't fit into the narrow definition provided by the 1934 law dictating what an "Indian" is.
Judge comes back and says we have a clear cut record of the government forcing the tribe to integrate into society. We know that the government considered them "indians" at the time because otherwise they wouldn't have forced them to assimilate.
WinsingtonIII t1_j8rusg7 wrote
Ah, I see, thanks. I can see why they thought they could make that argument based on a narrow reading of the law even if logically it would be pretty ridiculous to tell the Wampanoag they aren't a tribe.
But yeah, feels like a stretch even so considering how they were treated by the government.
homeostasis3434 t1_j8rwmcn wrote
I'm fairly certain the Mashpee are a bit unique among tribes in the US in that the integration forced on them was somewhat "succesful".
They were given a town as a Christian Praying Tribe, so they didnt live on a reservation under federal jurisdiction. Many intermarried and had children with white people so the " more than one-half blood" metric didnt explicitly apply to them all either. Their traditional customs were largely wiped out.
But this was done before 1934, so they weren't on the list that was made when the law was passed.
It's like the government decided the tribe was fully "integrated" by the time they defined what an "indian" was.
The-Shattering-Light t1_j8ug4ht wrote
The whole blood quantum thing is racist as fuck, and it’s good to see a number of Native tribes saying “fuck that” to it. Hopefully more follow
[deleted] t1_j8rw324 wrote
[removed]
wittgensteins-boat t1_j8vht41 wrote
Indian has a statutory definition.
However unjust that definition may be, and that is the basis of the argument.
Many Maine tribes fail at the definition, by not residing in a Federal Reservation in 1934 and by having diluted genetic heritage
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments