newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive weekly highlights about coming programs like lectures and history, american artifacts, the presidency and more. patent forthe newsletter today o watch american history tv every weekend or anytime online at c-span.org/history. ♪ weekends of cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's story. on sundays about tv rings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes from these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. and we are just getting started. moment 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.

>> charter communications along with these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. >> we are honored to have you join us here for this important commemoration. we gathered today in the kennedy caucus room of the russell senate officee building. but we recognize that we are in that region that was the incest real land of the peoples. this is washington, d.c. everybody claims it. but we gather acknowledging that this is ancestral land of the native peoples. we gather to tell stories that are all too often ignored,

misunderstood, or turned into myths that people believe are far from reality. might is jane campbell i have the honor of serving as the president and ceo of the united states capitol historical society. to set the day in a good mode we're l going to pause for a moment of reflection from larry wright junior. mr. wright is an enrolled member of the tribe of nebraska. served as tribal chairman for 11 years and is currently the executive director of the national congress of american indians which describes itself as the oldest, largest most representative american indian and alaska native organization. serving the broad interest of tribal governments and communities.

in this position mr. wright is responsible for managing the organization day-to-days success and its public education arm. he is a military veteran and a former social studies teacher from lincoln, nebraska. [applause] click she should have said recovering social studies teacher. were still working on that. but it is an honor to be here this morning and to be asked to give the invocation. i will say this in my language and then i will translate. so with all due respect i ask you to pray in your own way will

he do this. so thank you. [speaking in native tounge]. [speaking in native tounge]. [speaking in native tounge]. [speaking in native tounge]. great spirit, we thank you for this day we thank you for the blessings that you bestow upon us. we thank all of those that made this day possible. bring us t together to learn abt our past and talk about our future. we thank you for the strength and guidance that you give us. we say a special prayer for all of my people, all of our tribal

nations. all of those who have come together and work on our behalf to help our sovereignty, help our people. and pray for strength and guidance. thank you for all these blessings. thank you. >> thank you very much, larry. we look forward to hearing more from you this afternoon on the panel. now, some of you were with us last night and some of you weren't. so this story will sound familiar. but i want to tell you something just to put it all in perspective. and richards was governor of texas. she was speaking to a group of us when we were young elected officials and she said you know what? people, you have to say something 12 times before people hear it. so if you're hearing the story

for the second time you're only partway there. five years ago i was the newly appointed ceo of the capitol historical society. so one of the things you do in your new you go around and talk to the leaders. one of those leaders was congressman tom cole was one of our congressional advisors. at the time he was the ranking member of the rules committee. and so he sat down with me any question me about my plans and what were we going to do at the historical society? it was 2019 for i told him we were planning a symposium in 20202 recognize the fact women had earned the right to vote we wanted to look for the struggle and the impact of women have the right to vote. he looked at me and said look, i'm good with women voting. i think that is a fine thing.

my mother was in the oklahoma legislature. i am all about it. but i want you to promise me that in 2024 you will do something equally significant to commemorate the 100th anniversary of my people earning the right to vote. and that was the beginning of the symposium. and so today's events as part of the delivery on that promise. he then gave me a handful of books to read he has a phd historian who was a professor turned congressman. take these home and read them. including at that time tours of the flower moon which no one had heard of it. so i have learned a lot. today we come together to commemorate the indian citizenship act or the schneider act which many of us had an

opportunity to see at the national archive they are displaying it this period of time so that if you have not been there and have an opportunity to go see it, it is in the rubinstein gallery of rights. now in 19204 when the schneider act was passed that granted citizenship to native americans born within the territory limits of the united states. extended the 15th amendment which granted citizens the right to vote. thereby create indigenous suffrage. it would be a vast oversimplification to say the schneider act guaranteed access to the polls across the country.

stake in the civil rights movementnt years of continuing activity to try to secure those rights and the work is not done. it would also be an oversimplification to say the schneider act resolve the inherent difficult and important tensions between the concepts of citizenship and sovereignty they continue to this day these five years have been a real education for me and for our team. we have benefited greatly from our advisory committee. we want to acknowledge the honorable dan born carol, sophia, andre jacobs, we are grateful for all of them to help us put this together are each

have made contributions to this effort. who did the art that is on the program. no the art we will meet cedar hunt is us high school student from montana. who entered her arch into the congressional art competition and one the first district.

he/she is even bringing her mother. we will see her at some point and acknowledge her. the senate rules committee for making this room available to us. so t now i'd like to invite for the podium our first panel, our native american citizenship suffrage and sovereignty in history. joining us today doctor noel is a a lecturer and harvard university's history holds degrees university of new hampshire was a j willard hearst

the charlotte w newcombe fellowship native citizens of fight over native american citizenship in the u.s. 1887 -- 19204. he is the author of several books on native american colonialism including this land is their land plymouth colony and the troubledd history of thanksgiving.

he's currently writing a new book about indigenous people and race making in united states history. would youou please help welcome these distinguished scholars to the stage. [applause] will hear their presentations in that will have an opportunity for questions. i'm in a sort there so i will be able to see it. excellent thank you so much for having me here today. amongst these scholars and activists. i've already learned a lot and looking forward to the conversations we start doing

research into this legislation native american citizenship in the u.s. passed legislation as a type of belated patriotic response to native american service and debates during the 19204 acts the bureau of indian

affairs, and so some of the most well-known native americans at the time including charles eastman, arthur parker, carlos montezuma. we look at the legislation it is clear just how controversial in the united states in the decades preceding many congressional representatives and native manic activist came to d.c. and the finall report the populace was

largely in support of every time a bill conferring citizenship have led an opposing." the evidence they said was in congressional archives. the activists in native communitiesua have always known the duality of american citizenship. help bolster sovereignty. if it is to be coercive and threatening to sovereignty. in my allotted time today i thought i would talk a little bit s about the controversy surrounding native american citizenship. the lead up to 19204 the best

path forward for native americansri nations and why oths opposed it. i will also gesture towards how those debates continue to shape suffrage and debates over the 20th century. so as i alluded to it there are plenty of people who supported the legal integration of nativem americans into the american body politic. primary and get you know if activists are society of american indians which is a reform organization founded in 1911 work closely with non-native reform groups, congress and the bureau to address corruption, policy changes the general well-being of native nations and individuals are spent a lot of time in these halls.

for many of the leaders of the society such ass president eastman citizenship in the u.s. was the best way to protect and ensure the future of native americans. citizenship wouldac open up greater access to the courts, allowed many to serve on juries would make suffrage a greater possibility. the trouble from the nation colonizing non-native americans to write to their congressional leaders urging them to support native american citizenship. a society members citizens and u.s. congress from oklahoma charles carter wrote citizenship would be a simple act of justice to render to the indians of that which is long been due to him." their efforts were incredibly successful. a i really think they are the linchpin to turning not

protonated american citizenship their efforts led to the passage of the 1919 indian veterans act which allowed native veterans to apply for u.s. citizenship. the other groups eager to make native american citizens u.s. congressional representative. before the 19204 acts of the primary way for native americans to become citizens most of the general allotment o act of 1887. this piece of legislation was determined to break up tribal reservations, tribal communities and communally held land. it's a purposeful bloat to tribal sovereignty and tribal nations. brief overview of secret

understand the importance. each tribal member at a family of specific parcel of land and importantly that allotment would be held. in trust by the u.s. government for 25 years. during which time the lands immune from local and state taxation. also made citizens of the united states it is hard to overstate the effect of this legislation conceived as progressive piece of legislation led to millions of land loss. an attempted to strip native american cultures of their land practices. congress alter the terms of the dobbs act of the burke act. can i get into legal weeds here but i urge you to stay with me.

made native american citizens upon receiving their allotment, the act delayed that. until the trust. for the individual land allotment was terminated. meaning that now citizenship, taxation, and the end of the trust relationships the personal trust relationship all a coincid at one moment. you can only become a citizen once you receive for your allotment and became vulnerable to taxation. congress also declared the 25 yearul trust. could be terminated early so long as the secretary of the interior approved. this meant the secretary to could declare an individual ready for citizenship which would terminate the trust provision on an allotted plant early. which would then make them liable to state and local

taxation. this could be done without an individual's consent or application for citizenship. and it could be done against their explicit wishes. for congressmen who lived in states with large native american populations, particularly those that had been allotted for now had the potential to open up a new incredibly large tax. these congressman are constantly hearing from constituents their state government counterparts about how difficult it was fornon-native citizens to fund local government areas open by the dobbs act. pushed bys being their constituents to release in the land to taxation the burke act seemly gave the secretary of thesi interior permission to do just that.

so in other words for manyno native american citizenship came to look like just another way to take native american lands out of indigenous possession. by 1917 it was a bureau policy to release native americans as quickly as possible from theci trust to make them citizens preaching to them and make them vulnerable to taxation. citizenship was thus a way to appease citizens who are ideologically committed to native american citizenship. to be essential to american identity and those are driven by more material concerns. against this is probably very easy to see the opposition to citizenship. i want to emphasize in this next part how native american activism really changes

changecitizenship policy in thed states. versus will come as no surprise their sustained objection to impose citizenship because of the tax obligation came along withan it. and i want to be clear this was not shirking of small tax bills. these were large tax bills these tax bills unforced the process came to be known was incredibly destructive. many native americans could not afford the taxes would lose their land or other property as a result. communities had counted on the 25 year trust. as a way to bolster resources and establish revenue. on some reservations, up to 90% of land would be lost. resistance to force a patenting from the early release of the trust and the imposition of impf citizenship was swift. the fourth patents would

certified mail which often led to extended standoffs between native american individuals and postal workers. also we had numerous court cases coming out of indian country to fight which was ultimately successful. by 19202 the courts have decided force a patenting isn't a legal process. every citizenship introduced between 1887 in 19202 had allotment provision included in it. citizenship in this period was intimately tied with allotment and assimilation. but native americans were therefore against citizenship maintained indigenous peoples right to culture and history. allotment threatened many tribal nations ability to practiceth fully and to memorialize their history.

and of course allotment would lead to taxation. one allows smooth effective advocates met repeatedly to reject citizenship because of the repeated reliance on allotment on the assimilationti represented. there were many famous artists including dh lawrence toco publicize their protest. protests. this led to congress abandoning at least two citizenship bills. it created a pr nightmare for congress. the last rejection of citizenship i want to cover they are probably the most well-known for the rejection of u.s. citizenship. they rejected it based on political sovereignty tribal

councils wrote many letters to congress personally or through lawyers reminding congress imposing citizenship violation of treaties on assault on international law. one lawyer reminded congress quoteti they are independentr nations they still have complete control over their internal affairs." the legacy of world war one one lawyer wrote quote we proclaimed the right of a weak people to self-determination. wheaton announced that yesterday otheres people's they broke treaties solemnly made and waged war on them. are wenl hypocrites and search only for worlds praise? ". the hunter shown it threatened to tie these issues up in court.

lawsuitste filed or threatened, public protests, the uproar made byar these type of bills made a passing indian citizenship nearlyly impossible. the committee of 100 recognized in 19203. 19204 act passed i pass not because it was uncontroversial, but because it was done so swiftly and quietly. it was a much different piece of legislation than congress had previously envisioned. there are four main changes i want to highlight. one the citizenship act did not remove tax protections early. to, it did not have any sort of continued allotment provision in it. three, it did not affect tribal citizenship status or claims to tribal property. and for it contains no cultural

assimilation provision. although i do want to recognize obviously assimilation would continue and continue today. of course citizenship was still imposed. it was still nonconsensual but it will be up to the next generation of indigenous americans to leverage that citizenship to notov preserveindian sovereignty but o strengthen it on to fight for greater suffrage rights of the nation that declared them citizens. in a particularly cruel bit of irony the very victory of 19204, the exclusion of early taxation provisions and the continued ability to claimant tribal status would become some of the major ways state would try to limit native american sovereignty. this is a fight that wouldth continue from 19204 and we are living with today.

thank you. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. i am honored to be on this program today with such luminaries. i'm also humbled this morning aware that i am addressing a history that some of the people in this room have lived and whose ancestors hadad lived. i would like to begin this morning by offering a theoretical and historical framework for approaching the subject of the indian citizenship act. my theoretical framework which i offer for those here an online who are unfamiliar with indian country is that native americans are not just another american racial or ethnic group like african americans, asian

americans, jewish americans are irish-americans. for two central reasons. one is they are indigenous which is to say they are here first. as such they did not come as united's voluntarily. the vast majority never asked to join as full members. white people impose the country on them. the history of native peoples relations with the united states has involved a constant struggle to defend the inherent sovereignty that comes with being indigenous. by that i mean the right to self-governance. recognize territorial boundaries on the power to engage with other foreign states. put another way, the focus of native people aspirations unlike say african-americans has not been equal rights with white

people. most of them today certainly expect that status. but the exercise of the greatest sovereignty possible. the second central reasons native people differ from other racial groups as they are organizedd into tribal nations, that govern their members and their territory. though the united states does it permit them to engage in powers. he's tribal nations exists only by virtue of their members inherent in an judge in us rights but virtue of the united states through senate ratified treaties. which under theth constitution f the supreme law of the land. by supreme court rulings. thus, it tribal nations engage in government to government relations with the federal government. makes it different than any other group in america.

against that background would like to devote the rest of my time here to discussing this historical background to the indian citizenship act. preceding the citizenship act the granting of citizenship as a tool by which white people dispossess and subjugated them. not just to get promising equality andty opportunity. from the countries very founding u.s. authorities boys the desires to christianize, civilize and absorb native people into the nation and the hope this offer would encourage indians to surrender their land and authority voluntarily. american leaders also hoped this a program would lead to posterity. to see some moral purpose in the country's expansion at native

expense. pressures of fruit native people took up the offer. notun only because they found it unattractive on its face, but because they had witnessed white american exploitation and extra of christian civilized indians who tried. a pattern that stretch back to the 17th century. i would be happy to elaborate on that pattern in our discussion. in other words, from the start native peoples of the fundamental problem in the utopian dreams of white reformers for assimilation and citizenship. the main obstacle was not indian opposition formidable as it was. but the unwillingness of most white americans to treat those they deemed as racial inferiors with dignity. never mind a quality. no matter how culturally similar they were. this pattern played out

repeatedly throughout the 19th century. the most early examples came during the indian removal. our histories of that dark chapter tend to overlook most removal treaties which were designed to make the process of voluntarily contain provisions to allow native people to remain back east it they took up a private property, excepted state law, and became citizens. though a handful of moneyed elite indiansgo generally have a white ancestry made good on this offer, the vast majority who took up the offer suffered of plunder and murder at the hands of white mobs. this was the case example for thousands of muskogee's southern whites robbed of 2 million allotted acres and then drove west of the mississippi in

chains. what can only be called an orgy of violence. 5000 choctaws representing a quarter of their tribe also severed whites fleecing them of theirirei allotments and opporty to remain in their native homeland. state government help to orchestrate this pillage. the federal government stood by and did nothing. the only place where indian successfully became citizens was wisconsin. there, several hundred brother town indians in stockbridge mohicans took the citizenship and private property option what which they called becoming white.e. rather than relocate to kansas. having already migrated from southern new england to escape white persecution. some of them were confident their status is civilize

christians equip them to compete in whites a site despite the obstacles of white race prejudice. most of them spoke and wrote english. they governed their own churches. they ran sonos, grist mills, farms and logging operations. quite a number of them had a command of white law page three of the brother town indianssi would go on to serve in the wisconsin legislature. yet many of them came to regret the transition to citizenship as white creditors, the taxman, and they zeroed in on their allotments. three years into the experiment most of the mohicans petitioned to return their citizenship and revert back to that legal status as indians. they have all their lives been called indians they appeal to congress. it is their desire to continue

adding that nature and dispositions can no more be change within their skins be made white and transparent. they did return their citizenship and managed to secure another reservation which they pertain to this day. the brother towns who remain citizens lost everything. in the state with the seal containing the latin saying civilization replaces barbarism and depicting an indian hunter retreating westward in the face of a wide white man guiding a plow. the pattern continued throughout the 19th century in the midwest and the northern portion of federal indian territory, kansas. repeatedly native people facing dispossession tried to parlay the acceptance of private property and citizenship into the right to remain where they were. hence for example name citizen

of pottawatomie's of oklahoma. by andnd large not entirely buty and large bent native people who made these attempts were mixed indian white backgrounds. which they hoped it would provide them with some measure of acceptance by the white majority. their attempts are written across maps of this era in places called halfbreed tracks. they're all over the midwest. one enrolled member of the tribe, carlton curtis would hisay the profits from halfbreed allotment into a fortune that would contribute to him becoming a federal senator from kansas and ultimately vice president under herbert hoover. almost no one has heard of this guy even among historians that big some conversation. most native people found that citizenship was an empty promise. they are very few charles curtis

is out there. thede united states intended reservations to be way stations to private property and citizenship. not permanent homelands. they did not function the way the u.s. intended. in actuality the federal government failed miserably when making these places reasonably decent places to live. it did not provide sufficient food's assisting people who could no longer support themselves through traditional means. nor did it provide adequate farming implements and livestock to promote the transition to farmland. it did not provide near sufficient medical care for people ravaged by diseases that preyed on their malnutrition, freda psychologies and poor sanitation. its agents routinely built the people they were supposed to protect.

and perhaps worst of all, this is closely related to the issues of citizenship. the government did next to nothing as surrounding whites of plundered the reservations with livestock, fencing and firewood. trespass on grazing lands and trafficked in liquor. in other words native people could see plainly the law found but did not protect indians well it protected but did not find whites a. the government's plan to assimilate indians towards incorporating them as citizens included forcing native children to attend boarding schools. some on the reservations, others very far away. inin these places, white authory subject to the children to a daily regiment of military drills, roll calls, work details and corporate punishment with little time for rest and leisure.

none of this resembled mainstream white american life. this is not preparation for participation of white america. the education was rudimentary and outrightly white supremacist. including theth relentless message the student background were savage and inferior. health conditions were abysmal marked by sickness and death from communicable diseases that rates the government never would would've tolerated for white people. following school, most native alums come no more acceptance and white society than ifev they had never attended school the first place. little opportunity to apply the skills they learned on the reservation. it was during the reservation boarding school regimes that congress passed the act of 1887 in the curtis act of 1898 named after the aforementioned charles curtis himself.

to speed along the indian transition to private property and citizenship. the dawes act authorized the division of indian reservations tracks usually one or 60 acres or less the allotment of those p partials as you've already heard there be a 25 year restriction on selling the tracks to provide time for him or her to learn how to manage the land of capitol. once the interim. elapsed each would receive a feed impacting listing all on alienation, mortgages and leases. from thenga on just to repeat te points and you have to say these things at 12 times the titleholder it would be responsible to pay property taxes and run the risk of having it confiscated for debt. furthermore he or she would

become an american citizen. if the government judge the a lot t to be civilized he or she could be granted unrestricted ownership and citizenship early. as for the remaining undivided lands of the reservation, the governmentnt would purchase this surplus from the tribe keep most of theit proceeds as an interest-bearing account to fund its civilization programs. including the boarding schools. i find it a strange species of cruelty to a forced people to fundg what amount to the kidnapping of cultural reprogramming of their own children. as if to twist the knife further the government's plan was to sell the idea by the time indians became private property holding citizens they would be enveloped by white society and

ready to join it. allotment legislation have been in the worksrs for years white reformers concluded the reservations were failing to turn indians into civilized yeomanry. as white economic interests as early as 1876 indian affairs was already questioning and ier quoe height to go civilization is aspossible thought individual ownership of land. an ocean reflective of theof teachings of that era's anthropology. over the next several years whitees progressives who styled themselves as friends of the indianss gathering an annual conference at lake mohawk in the upper hudson river valley turned this a principal into a mantra.

and one of the conference series more memorable speeches marilee marrow egates the president of t college declared we which she met white reformers must make the indian more intelligently selfish before we can make it on selfishly intelligent. we need to awaken in him once at discontent with theng tp the starvingat rations get the indin out of the blanket it into trousers. and trousers with a pocket in them. and in the pocket that aches to be filled with dollars. massachusetts senator whose surname became synonymous many visited the cherokee in 1885. one turkey officer boasted with

him there is not a family in the whole cherokee nation that had not a home of its own. there is not a popper in the nation and the nation did not owe a dollar. it built its own capitol built its own schools and hospitals and other words, leave us alone. dawes was unimpressed by the shared security afforded by because they own their dream land" comment. consistent with the ideology of his republican party he wanted to see individual striving arising economic see that lifted all boats. practically every commissioner of indian affairs from the late 19th to the early 20th century agreed wholeheartedly with him. as of the vast majority of the many organizations created by the friends of the indians.

most native spokesmen more than a few whites including and congress insisted this legislation would be nothing more than a massive plundering of indian land. they were correct it did not take 25 years after allotment for the pillage to begin because during the interim. the government repeatedly granted citizenship in the right to sell the land to the indians it deemed competent. which usually meant nothing more than next indian background. more than 155 million acres of land in 1881. 1934 that number was 48 million. when her 45 million to 48. two thirds of native people were left either completely landless or so land poor they could not earn a subsistence.

it became minorities on their own reservations. nowhere more so than federal indian territory promised to be remove tribes forever. when oklahoma became a state to the number of whites stood five or 50000 compared to 80000 hundred 61000 native people. superintendent of indian affairs charles burke serving the wreckage in 19203 into a race of tenants. when i am saying is the allotment act and their supporting legislation had not turned indians into white citizens. instead these measures became yet another example of how power and white america involved exploiting native people with impunity while claiming to act in their benefit. producing them to restitution and blaming them for the

results. virtually e no white people durg this entire era conceived of the system like we have now. in which tribal nations have secure land basis, exercise self-government practice religious and cultural lives however they choose. that existed in the minds of some native people before 19204. but not as a realistic possibility. whites simply would not consider it. the range of options was very, very narrow. throughout american history as far back as a colonial area most white americans responded to american difference quite frankly with campaigns to exterminate them. the only dissenting voices from white america came from progressives of the day who conceived indians who became christian civilized could become citizens with all the same

rights and responsibilities as white people. and here is the rub. the reformers would not confront that most of their fellow white americans would not grant that option. nor would they consider the united states tolerating native people living in their own way on their own land protected from white exploitation. they considered such a course to be a slower path to extinction than outright extermination. the desperation of native people in the face of these limited options i contend largely explains why some of them, like the formally educated and professionally accomplish native people who founded the society of american indians in 1911 advocated for the indian citizenship act. ithy helps to explain why some

native veterans of world war i did so too. their options were meager. the only alternative they could conceive to the destitution of reservationli life was full incorporation into the united states. i will close just by noting, today things are different. the result of generation of native generation lobbying, sheer resilience is also a result of at least enough white people being willing to listen. i fear for the future. the current era's combination of indian sovereignty and citizenship exists at the sufferance of americanit majoriy and the will of congress. i contend the current status quo is not based on informed of principled public commitment to indian self-determination. but instead on a passive

acceptance of the state of affairs handed to us by lawmakers and activists in the 1970s. know nothings about the history discussed here this morning. most americans know nothing about the current state of indian country and its place within american federalism. even if americans did possess this knowledge i fear a sizable portion of them would revert to the position of reformers of the 19th and early of 20th century. native americance differences on acceptable and even dangerous. sovereignty is somehow a special handout rather than an inherent dizziness rate. grounded in the awareness of history and the state of our society.

[applause] >> you have certainly given us much to think about. this is our moment have questions does the audience have questions i think we have someone with a mic, we have cards. this is katie ryan and sam holiday who are the two key staff members who have beenn putting this together. stranger hand they will bring you a card to write your question on. while they do that we have been joined by the artist that i told you about. wouldp? you stand up? this is cedar hunt. comes to us from montana.

even brought her mother. so we welcome cedar and her mom. and if you get an opportunity to talk to her, the pieces got a whole sense of history. it has led your art it is imposed on the kind of ledgers that will were required for so many native people cannot handle their own finances there was a ledger they had to go and get their own money. that is a little bit of a story. we'll beat with us for a while so take a moment to talk to this talented young woman. a quick question, during the 19204 federal citizenship act

that the legislature consider any state-level barriers? was any of that taken into consideration? as i mentioned the debates in congress are pretty sparse when it comes in 19204 accident. however, what does come up is how they will assess suffrage for indigenous people. and so that sort of propels congress to a conversation of state-level legislation. and the man who bears his name on the piece of legislation assured congressman the actle would not change any state legislation affecting native suffrage. so that is one way it comes up.

>> i would also add that we need to be careful to not conflate the granting of citizenship with the exercise of equal rights. even after the citizenship act states like new mexico and arizona continued to prohibit ct native people from voting. they did not gain that right in the states until after world war ii. receiving citizenship did not mean justice. there have been civil rights commissions focused on the unequal application of justice. we might say the unequal application of injustice in states like south dakota, arizona, and new mexico. these commissions have conducted these investigations almost every decade from 1940s onward. their patterns have become all toof familiar to us in the context of black lives matter.

but all of those issues apply to native america as well. even in states or native people theoretically or legally have the right to vote there is a distinctive pattern of white obstruction. of native peoples access to the polls. which if anyone is following the news it's a pattern that has continued up to this very time. to sum it up we need to be very careful not to conflate citizenship with legal and social equality. >> we have another question from the audience. would you discuss in some of this will come up with our later panels. you are the first off the bat league at the first hit. would you discuss the

significance of the various strategies that tribal nations and activists are employing and the citizenship struggle both historically and currently as the unique relationship between nations that we have? >> i will leave the current struggle to the people who are fighting it. they know far more about it than i do certainly. we can say historically is that native people in the early 20th century are in such a desperate straits that they are grasping for any means to protect what little they had left. and the thrust of my talk was to have us confront what narrow

band of options there were. the conception that native people could simultaneously be citizens, and sovereign nations did not exist and hardly any one's mind it certainly existed native people's minds but it was not part of the discussion. the state of reservations by and large it was so abysmal some native people said the only other possibility here is to get with the mainstream preacher try to integrate and hope against hope. hope against historical patterns. doing everything like people ask will lead to some measure of justice and dignity in the public square.

that was an experience very few of them were able to realize. again, not because of their own shortcomings but because of the white supremacy of the majority of the american population. >> yes. i would add as well that i think we are also in the midst of reevaluating the 1920s as a time of native american activism. as has emphasized a very small possibilities. for native american people. they think overwhelming odds for a country that was bent on the destruction of their tribal nation. however there activism really helped set up the future generations. there is an establishment of tools that becomes very helpful.

so for example the cultural work people like charles eastman are doing, that is really trying to explain to non- native americans the intrinsic value of native american culture, ideas, histories. they are pretty successful in making and roads to populations that had been wildly hostile exe pueblo are able to create a coalition that is able to protect a lot of cultural practices and i think the you can call like the pr move right actually helps set up some of the conversations that come later in the 20th century that have their own drawbacks which i'm happy to talk more about some point. another sort of strategy i would

highlight is this appeal to international law that the whole notion capitalize on it's not effective in the united states contact in in 1924. however if you know anything about the whole nation, you'll know that their lands are surrounded by two settler colonial nations and the united states of those nations by no are trying to impose on native population at the time the whole nation is surrounded by canada. go to the leag surrounded by canada going to the league of nations and say this is why you were founded. this is a violation of international law. stand up for us. they don't . however, it set the precedent for tribal nations using international organizations as a way to bolster claims to travel sovereignty that will see

manifest a little morely productively in the 1950s and obviously 1970s and onward. also in terms of existing alongside u.s. citizenships, i think there's a way that we can read u.s. courtco cases like soe of the taxation cases that i referenced before and is certainly not intending to leave the door open for almost a dual citizenship situation for ao way for people to hang on to tribal nationhood while also being members of the u.s. there's a way that those cases are sort of providing a president that people can use later on to see, to say in 1916, the u.s. supreme court said

tribal belonging is not in conflict with united states sedition citizenship and that can manifest in the latter of half of the 20th century. >> we have another question from the audience to give you a sense of what the audience is like. the title of the law was to authorize the secretary of interior to issue certificates of citizenship to indians. are there any extent certificates and what do those say, do we know? >> so, this is oneof of the gret mysteries of the 1924 act. the mismatch of the name which seems very narrow in its ambition and then the text, which makes all native americans

in the territorial united states citizens. and honestly, i don't have a a great answer for that and if anyone here does, please, come find me. but my understanding is that congress is trying to handle the fallout from that 1922 decision, and so they are dealing with revoking a lot of patents that were forced, and while also trying to impose citizenship on a certain native. it's a real sort of crisis moment for congress in 1922 to 1926 as they deal with the fallout from this. as far as certificates, the certificate is actually just youry patent mc. it's the title to your land. so, yes, you can find them. they are online. and in terms of what sort of

ironic about this is in the period thatin i was talking abot before, there was actually no paperwork that could confirm and indigenous person status as a u.s. citizen. so it led to this, again, another crisis where sometimes native americans would try to claim rights that were inherent in citizenship but without proof of citizenship it became very hard to do that. and the bureau of indian affairs was only marginally helpful in providing people with evidence of their citizenship status. >> i would like to note that the granting of these certificates when they were delivered to native people in reservation settings very often was

accompanied by a ritual which will drive home the point i was making earlier in most white americans minds holding civilization or inextricable from citizenship, so the ritual would involve a native man emerging from atp shooting an arrow up into the distance and then going to a plowing putting his hands on it. and sometimes, they would raise an american flag. it speaks to the point. >> okay, we are going to do one more question and then we will take a break. so for those of you who are in arson, we are going to take break and reconvene for our

online or as we will be back at the podium at 11:00 and for those of you here in person, we have coffee and a little snack and an opportunity for you to talk informally with one another. so, we've got two questions. i'm going to give you two questions to answer together and they don't really go together so you can rollkn with it. one of our audience members was thinking about his own experience visiting indian reservations in 1968 when he was dispatched as part of a congressional outreach to look at the impact of the war on poverty to see if it was making any headway in native country. so, do you have any thoughts on that, and then on the more contemporary question, one of

our audience members suggests perhaps there's some similarities to the russian invasion of ukraine to take that land that might be analogous to the white sellers coming onto the native land. so if you would like to take either one of those questions, please. >> i can take a stabf at both f them.ov the war on poverty is actually an important moment and the area of modern sovereignty and self-determination. and the reason that's the case is federal funds began to be funneled through tribal government rather than through federal agents and that forced

many tribal nations to create the apparatus to receive distribute and track those funds, so that's an important moment. i am no expert on russian ukrainian affairs, but as an informed person, i've read enough r to know like most natis that invade other nations, the aggressor nation has a historical lithology to justify the aggression. that was certainly the case in the united states where the ideology of manifest destiny the notion that god destined white america to expand at indigenous expense in order to spread democracy,y christianity,

opportunity in short western civilization was a galvanizing force. it served to justify all of the hoarders that expansion entailed. let's be clear about what, i mean. extermination against native communities that targeted women, children and the elderly. make no mistake about it. and the idea again is god bless this endeavor. so, yes, they are. we have for each of you a small gift from the society. the gifts are paperweights that are models of the capital made from marble that was from the capital when they did the

restoration they gave us some of the capital steps and we've made it into these things and we hope you will display that in your offices and remember that we are so grateful for the time that you spent with us and for being with us today. thank you so very much. [applause]