
The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View - pseudolus
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-american-indian/2019/04/24/treaty-new-echota/
======
steve19
It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to
that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.

~~~
hummel
Native Americans had Spanish citizenship almost 300 years earlier and also
retained their lands, affiliation, and culture under the law of the Spanish
Empire.

~~~
_iyig
Incorrect. For example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Indians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Indians)

“Spanish explorers arrived on California's coasts as early as the mid-16th
century. In 1769 the first Spanish Franciscan mission was built in San Diego.
Local tribes were relocated and conscripted into forced labor on the mission,
stretching from San Diego to San Francisco. Disease, starvation, over work and
torture decimated these tribes.”

------
gumby
Has anything changed? The man who signed and implemented this lopsided
"agreement" was president and is still celebrated by many. His nickname was
"the Indian killer". His portrait hangs in the Oval Office.

~~~
basetop
George Washington's nickname was Town Destroyer ( for wiping out native
american towns ).

[https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/27/tow...](https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/27/town-
destroyer-versus-the-iroquois-indians)

Thomas Jefferson on exterminating the natives.

"This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to
civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities
justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate."

General Sherman on exterminating natives

"After the 1866 Fetterman Massacre, Sherman wrote Grant that "we must act with
vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men,
women and children."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman)

The first governor of california - Peter Burnett.

Instead, the greed for gold wealth led to a second option which was,
literally, termed a "war of extermination" by Governor Peter Burnett who
declared warfare would not cease with Native Americans "until the Indian race
becomes extinct"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hardeman_Burnett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hardeman_Burnett)

The inescapable truth is this country ( and before if we include the pilgrims
) was subdued with conquest and series of genocides. Pretty much everyone
political, academic and business leader implicitly or explicitly supported
genocide. Of course some ( like Jefferson ) wanted to negotiate first but when
push came to shove, they all supported explusion and/or genocide.

But they also did a lot of great things. You have to take the good with the
bad. Else we are in an untenable position. Columbus was far more brutal to the
natives and he didn't contribute anything to the growth of america ( like
andrew jackson did ). George Washington was also far more brutal against the
natives. What should we do? Rename Washington DC ( District of Columbia )?

The only reason Andrew Jackson is being targeted by the establishment today is
because he was the most anti-central bank president we've ever had.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War)

In terms of his racist views and policies, he wasn't anything exceptional (
especially during the 1800s ). If we have to remove him, then we have to
remove Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Sherman and an unending list of public
figures. Where does it end? We should teach and accept that genocide and
slavery was part of the making of america rather than try to hide it. And it's
okay to praise Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc for their part in founding
and building the country and also condemn them for their wrongs.

~~~
nonaime
But, I think that's the tricky part:

"And it's okay to praise Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc for their part in
founding and building the country and also condemn them for their wrongs."

How do you convince people that current portraits, monuments, etc aren't
praising the good and bad OR (and I think this is much more the case) are
praising the good and turning a blind eye to the bad?

It sounds like we need new portraits, monuments, etc to replace what we have
currently.

~~~
michaelscott
Or maybe present them as they were, perhaps through explanatory plaques to go
along with the statues, portraits and monuments: "To someone who did a lot of
good for America through A, B and C, but also ratified/genocided/did whatever
else we now know to be bad".

It probably wouldn't hurt to have commemorative objects of Indian leaders and
country-shapers as well (of which I have no doubt there a good number), to
present something more "complete" regarding American history (which, like any
nation's history, is complicated and more like a series of connected creeks
and streams than a single river sequence of events).

------
RickJWagner
I wonder what things would be like if the European settlers hadn't displaced
the indigenous Americans. (If the American Indian way of life evolved and was
still predominant today.)

It's an interesting mental exercise.

~~~
williamstein
There are still millions of native Americans today, some full blood. Go visit
the rez. Their culture is beautiful.

~~~
yonaguska
I go to pow-wows annually. It's not all beautiful. There's still lots of
racism, drug use and alcoholism. Racism is especially bad, I have friends that
we're basically ostracized from their tribes for having non native fathers.
The annual pow-wows sometimes feel like one big D.A.R.E. lecture and it's
really sad because they talk about how every other generation gets caught up
in addiction and grandparents are always raising grandkids.

My mother intentionally never got us properly set up for tribal membership
because she didn't want us anywhere near the negative aspects of the culture.
(I'm also not even sure if I could qualify despite tracing my ancestry back to
the baker rolls.) And she didn't even grow up on the rez, just in Appalachia.
It's been a blessing and a curse.

------
joveian
One good book on this topic is Cherokee Tragedy: The Ridge Family and the
Decimation of a People by Thurman Wilkins.

------
rambojazz
So, out of curiosity, do these treaties belong to the public domain now?

~~~
shaki-dora
That depends on the meaning of “these treaties”. The texts have probably been
in the PD forever, assuming they were drafted by government lawyers (somewhat
likely judging by the content), because everything created by the federal
government is. Barring that, copyright would have long expired. So go ahead, I
really want to see an adaptation of Indian law to VC term sheets.

The physical documents are not PD, because the concept has no meaning in the
physical realm.

Photographs are works separate from the objects they show, but the same
limitation as to government works as above applies.

------
deytempo
FYI There is a malware text pop up that just appeared on this site saying
“your device has been compromised”.

------
erikpukinskis
It seems clear to me that the treaty violates the U.S. Constitution and as
such, the property in question still belongs to the Cherokee People.

It may take some time for the Supreme Court eventually to rule on the matter,
but the current property "owners" are criminal trespassers in my view.

~~~
abtinf
> the treaty violates the U.S. Constitution

I am not a constitutional law expert, but I believe that under article 6
section 2 (the supremacy clause) treaties are held to be equal to the
constitution. Thus, there is a very high bar for a treaty to by nullified
based on contradicting the constitution. There is very little case law on
this, and I believe the only instance in which an international executive
agreement (not a treaty) was thrown out by the Supreme Court was Reid vs
Covert. In that case, it was throw out on the grounds that it violated 5th and
6th amendment protections of Americans in foreign countries.

~~~
sterlind
In this specific case, the supreme Court ruled that the removal of the
Cherokee was unconstitutional in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia [0].

Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall has made its decision, now let them enforce
it" [1], violating the Court's decision and ordering the Trail of Tears.

He committed treason, this country was founded in genocide, and Jackson's
portrait is proudly hung in the Oval Office. This is why I'm ashamed to be an
American.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia)

1\. [https://sustainatlanta.com/2015/04/02/remembering-the-
time-a...](https://sustainatlanta.com/2015/04/02/remembering-the-time-andrew-
jackson-decided-to-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-the-name-of-georgias-right-to-
cherokee-land/)

~~~
gyaniv
> This is why I'm ashamed to be an American.

Then don't be. No one is forcing you. Just leave.

Yes, terrible things were done in the founding of America, but terrible things
happened all over the world throughout history (including between warring
native tribes). But what we need to take from this isn't that our ancestors
were horrible human beings, but that they did wrong things and more
importantly, we need to strive to learn from it, not repeat their mistakes and
generally be better people.

> the current property "owners" are criminal trespassers in my view.

Then pretty much every single American is a trespassers because basically the
entire United States (or North America in general) was settled by native
American before the Europeans "discovered" it, and in most cases, they didn't
sell them their land.

------
tibbydudeza
Somebody mentioned "genocide and slavery was part of the making of america
rather than try to hide it" but it disturbs the narrative of the shining
beacon on the hill and Thanksgiving.

Virtue and compassion are not geographical traits.

~~~
erikpukinskis
A lot of us have desisted from full-throated celebration of Thanksgiving. It's
a start.

We're still a work in progress and deeply divided on the subject of colonial
occupation and its legal and historical meaning.

