we can put some of the initiation of the cabal at that stage gates, washington, it his superior officer in gates is not corresponding with him frequently or directly. great job gary, thank you. [applause] the house will be in order. >> this year at c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 when your primary source for capitol hill providing balance unfiltered coverage of government taking two of the policies that abated and decided with the support of america's cable company. powered by cable available to watch online go to c-span.org

good history type in your topic of interest all available online at c-span.org/history. we are honored to have you join us here for this important commemoration. we gather today and the candidate caucus room records were in that region and manahawkin peoples. this is a washingtonas d.c., everybody claims c it. since the stroke land we gather to tell stories people believed

in the honor to set the day in a good mode pause for a moment of reflection for larry wright junior. the tenant rolled served as a tribal chairman for 11 years. it is currently the executive director of the national congress of american indians. which describes itself as the oldest, largest, most representative american indian and alaskan serving the broad

interest of tribal governments and communities. this position mr. wright is responsible for managing the organization's day-to-dayni success and its public education arm. he is a military veteran and from lincoln nebraska. mr. wright. [applause] proxies should have said recovering social studies teacher him so working on that. it's an honor to be here and give the all set in my language they will transits with all due respect i ask you to pray in your own weight while i do this. so thank you.

[talking in native tongue] [talking in native tongue]. great y spirit, we thank you for this day. thank you for the blessings we still pot us all of those it made this day possible right about the past and talk about our future thank you for the strength and guidance you gives

us gifts a partial prayer all of those who come together and work on our behalf to help our sovereignty. to help our people and pray for strength and guidance and 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. some of your with us last night some of you are. the story will sound familiar but now i want to tell you something to put in perspective. spoke with the young elected officials you have to say

something 12 times before people hear it. so if you are hearing the story for the second timeow you know, you're only partway there. five years ago i was the newly appointed ceo of the capitol historicalal society. so one of the things you do and you are new we should go around and you talk to the leaders. one of those leaders was congressman tom cole who was one of our congressional providers. at the time is the ranking membere of the rules committee. and so he sat down with me and questioned me about my plans and what were we going to do at the historical society it was 2019. i told that we were planning a symposium in 2020 that women had earned the right to vote who wanted to look at the struggle for the right to vote and the impact of having the women to have the right to vote. he looked at me and said look, i

am good with women voting. that is a fine thing. my mother was in the oklahoma legislature. i am all about it. i want you to promise me that in 2024 you will do something equally significant toth commemorate the hundredth anniversary of by people earning the right to vote. that was the beginning today's events as part of the delivery on that promise. he then gave me a handful of books to read. he is a phd historian who was a professor turn congressman. take these home and read them including at that time tours of the flower moon i learned a lot. today we come together to

commemorate the snyder act have been there g and have an opportunity to go see it the snyder act was passed citizenship to native americans native americansborn within thel limits. the 15th amendment granted citizen and thereby created indigenous suffrage. it would be a vast oversimplification snyder act guaranteed american indians

access to the polls across the country and years of continuing activity to try to secure those rightst oversimplification to y concepts of citizenship and sovereigntyes continued to this day for me and my team that we benefited greatly who we want to acknowledge the honorable andre jacobs, maria bunche, heidi, and hilary tompkins.

we are grateful for all of them for helping us put this together. we are also grateful partners who invested in this program. our presenting a platinum partner that chickasaw nation are bronze partner mcguire woods.at each has made contributions to this effort. at some point today i'm going to introduce you to a very special young woman who did the art on the l program. are going to meet cedar hunt from montana, who entered her archon into the congressional at competition.

and one montana's first district. she is even bringing her mother. we will see her at some point acknowledge her. we also want to thank senator mark wayne mullin in the senate rules committee for making this room available to us. so now like to invite to the podium our first panel on native american citizenship, suffrage, sovereignty and history. joining us today are two distinguished scholars. doctor lyla dictators noel doctor david j silverstein. doctor noel is a lecturer at harvard university history and literature program. she holds degrees from vassar college, from columbia at university andnd university of w hampshire. in 2021 lyla was a j willard

hurst fellow with the american society for legal history and that university of wisconsin law school as wellie as a recipientf the charlotte w knew from fellowship with the institute for citizens and scholars. her current project is entitled native citizens, the fight over native american citizenship in the u.s., 1887 to 1924. david silverman is a professor of history at george washington university where he has taught since 2003. he is the author of several books on native americans, colonial americans including this land is their land plymouth colony and the troubled history

of native america which appeared under in 2016. he is writing a new book about indigenous people and raceit making would you please welcome these to the stage. we are there presentations i have an opportunity for questions. >> i'm going to sit right there. i will be able to see you. excellent. thank you so much for having me here t today. i i'm looking forward to the

conversations that happen over the course of the day. soai set i am primarily a legal historian. my specialty is the passage of the 19204 indian citizenship act. when i started doing research into this legislation the predominantga understanding, at least among legal historians was that by 19204 native american citizenship in the u.s. was a relatively uncontroversial. congress passed the legislation of the belated patriotic during world war i. that citizenship was a belated gift to native americanan people would likely be convinced of this interpretation the

legislation was reported by the department of interior paid the bureau of indianff affairs and some of the most well-known native americans at thehe time including charles eastman, arthur parker, montezuma, it seems as if there was this consensus the time had come for native american citizenship. it is clear just how controversy will native american native amen citizenships is in the united states. so for example in the winter of 19203 many congressional representatives and native american activists came to d.c. to form a committee of 1002 reflects on the state of native american policy and to make recommendations to congress and

the secretary of the interior. in their final report they noted the american populace was largely in support of native american citizenship. they also c noted the cold fact that every time i built conferring citizenship has been introduced in congress indians themselves have led an opposing." the evidence they said historians and activists of the native communities that on one hand citizenship is a powerful tool that comes with the essentialrights that can help br sovereignty. it also can be coercive and threatening to sovereignty. so in my allotted time today i thought i would talk a little bit about the controversy surrounding native american

citizenship, and that lead up to 19204. as a way to understand why some native americans thought u.s. citizenships was the best path forward for native americand nations and why others opposed it. i will also gesture towards how those debates continue to shape suffrage debates over the course of the 20th century. so, as i alluded to there are py of people who supported the legal and social integration of native americans into the american body politics. the primary indigenous activists were members of the society of american indians which was an reform organization founded in 1911 works closely with non- native reform groups to congress and thedr bureau to address corruption, policy changes, and the general well-being of native

american nations and individuals. we spent a lot of time in these halls. for many of the leaders of this sought society since president charles eastman, citizenship in the u.s. was the beste away to protect f and ensure the futuref native americans. citizenship would open up greater access to the courts, would allow many native americans to serve on juries and would make suffrage a greater possibility. they traveled around the nation and galvanizing not native americans to write to their congressional leaders urging them to support native american citizenship. as society members chickasaw citizens that has long been due to him." their efforts were incredibly successful.

i really think they are the linchpin and turning non- native american sentiment pro citizenship in this. their efforts led to the passage of the 1919 indian veterans act which allowed native veterans to apply for citizenship. the other groups eager to make native american citizens congressional representative. before the 19204 act the primary way for native americans to become citizens with with the act of the general allotment act of 1887. this piece of legislation was determined to break up tribal reservations, tribal communities and held land this was conceived as a definite and purposeful blow to tribal sovereignty and tribal nations. i believe doctor silverman will talk more about the act.

i just want to give you a brief overview so you can understand the importance. allows each tribal member had a family 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 land would be immune from local and state taxation. act elect citizens of the united states. it is hard to overstate the effect of this legislation. conceived of as a progressive piece of legislation that led to millions of land loss. and it attempted to strip native americans other cultures and land practices. in 1906, congress altered the terms of the act through the burke act. were going to get into some

legal ease here but i urge you to stay with me. while the act made native americans allotting the citizens upon receiving their allotments, 1906 act u delayed that until te trust. for the individual land allotment was terminated. meaning that now citizenship, taxation, the end of the trust relationship the personal trust relationship all coincided at one moment. you could only become a citizen once you receive for your allotments you became vulnerable to taxation. congress also declared the 25 year trust. could be terminated early. so long as the secretary of the interiorro approved. this meant that the secretary could declare it native american individual ready for citizenship which would terminate the trust provision on an allotted land

early. which would then make them liable to state and local taxation. this it could be done without an individual's consent or application for citizenship. and this could be done against their explicit wishes. forth congressmen who lived in states with large native american populations, particularly those who had been allotted they now had the potential to open up a new, incredibly large tax base. and these congressmen are constantly hearing from constituents their state government counterparts about how difficult it was for non- native citizens to fund local government areas open by this act quote unquote. congress is being pushed by their constituents to release indian land to taxation. in the act seemingly gave the secretary of the interior

permission to do just that. so, in other words for many native americans citizenship came to look like just anotherto way to take native american land out of indigenous possession. fight 1917 it p was an bureau policy to release native americans as quickly as possible from the trust. to make them citizens. to make them vulnerable to taxation. citizenship was just a way to appease citizens who are committed to native american citizenship. native americans as being essential to american identity on those driven by more material concerns. against this backdrop that's probably very easy to see the opposition to citizenship. i want to emphasize this next

part verse this will come as no surprise. their sustained abjection to impose citizenship because of the tax obligation to came along with this. these weren't large tax bills these tax bills and force of fattening as the process came to be known was incredibly destructive. many native americans could not afford thehe 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 that was patented would be lost. resistant to force pat into the early release of the trust and thens imposition of citizenship was swift.

the patents would appear by certified mail which led to extended stand also treat native american individuals and postal workers. also we have numerous court cases coming out of indian countryly to fight for surfactat which are ultimately successful by 19202 the courts have decided at an illegal process. every citizenship bill interest 188719202 had allotment provisions included in it. citizenship in this period was intimately tied with allotment and assimilation. native americans were there forget citizenship maintain indigenous people to write their culture and history allotment threatened tribal patients ability to practice foley their

culture and to memorialize her history. and of course allotment would be lead to taxation. one of the loudest infective advocates against allotment of any of cultural sovereignty it was pablo of the pablo people. we both congressional representatives repeatedly to reject citizenship because of the repeated reliance on allotments and the assimilation represented. the pablo work with many famous artists including dh lawrence to publicize thees protests. this led to congress abandoning at least two citizenship bills it created a pr nightmare for congress. and the last rejection of citizenship i want to cover at this time came and they are probably the most well-known for their projection of u.s. citizenship. they rejected up based on

political sovereignty and international law. the triballe council wrote many letters to congress personally or through lawyers. reminding congress that imposing citizenship upon them would be a violation of their tribal sovereignty. a violation of treaty, an assault on internationalal law. as one lawyer reminded congress quote their independent nations they still have complete control over their internal affairs." the legacy of world war one hung heavy in these protests. one lawyer wrote quote we proclaimed yesterday the right weak people to self-determination we did denoue that yesterday other people broke their treaties solemnly made wage war on them. more weight hypocrites search only for world praise"?

the threatened to tie these issues up in court. lawsuits filed or threatened, public protests, the uproar made by these type of bills and passing indian citizenship nearly impossible as the committee of 100 recognizing 19203. when the 19204 act passed not becausee it was uncontroversial, but because it was done so swiftly and quietly. as a much different piece of legislation that congress had previously envisioned. therefore main changes so it's a highlight. one, the citizenship act did not remove tax protections early. two, and did not have any continued allotment provision in it. three, and did not affect tribal

citizenship status or claim to tribal property. went for comic-con days no cultural assimilation provision. although i do want to recognize obviously assimilation would continue and continue today. of course citizenship was still imposed was still nonconsensual. it would be up to the next generation of indigenous americans to leverage that citizen to not only preserve indian sovereignty but to strengthen it fight for greater suffrage rights and the nation n that declare them citizens. in a particularly cruel bit of ironing the very victory of 19204 the exclusion of early taxation provisions on the continued ability to claim tribal status would become some of the major ways that states would try to limit native american sovereignty.

until this is a fight that would continueth from 19204 and that e are living with today. thank you. [applause] looks good morning everybody. i am honored to be on this program today with such luminaries. i am also humbled this morning whether i'm addressing a history that some of the people in this room have a lived, or whose ancestors have lived. i would like to begin this morning by offering a theoretical and historical framework for approaching the subject of the citizenship act. might theoretical framework which i offer for those here and online who are unfamiliar with indian country native americans are not just another american racial 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 were here first. as such they did not come into the '90s voluntarily the vast majority of them never asked to join his 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 of the power to engage with other foreign states. put another way, the focus of native peoples aspirations, unlike say african americans has

not been equal rights with white people though most of them today certainly expect that status the exercise of the greatest sovereignty possible. the second central reason native people differ from other racial and ethnic groups is they are organized into qualities tribal nations that govern their members and their territory though the united states does not permit them to engage in foreign relations like other sovereign powers. these tribal nations exist on by virtue of their members inherent indigenous rights, by virtue of recognition by the united states or senate ratified treaties which under the constitution are the supreme law of the land on by supreme court rulings. thus, tribal nations engage in governmentnt relations of the federal government which makes

native people different than any other group in america. against that background like to electedabout the rest of my time to discussing historical background to the indian citizenship act. by contending in the century plus proceeding the indian citizenship act native people experience the granting of u.s. citizenship as a tool by which white piece dispossessed and subjugated that not just as a gift promising equality and opportunity. from the countries very founding u.s. authorities voiced the desire to christianize, civilize and absorb native people into the nation in the hope this offer would encourage indians to surrender their land and authority voluntarily. american leaders also hoped this program with the two posterity which is to say us.

to see some moral purpose the countries expansion at native expense. precious few native people took up the offer. not only because they found it unattractive on its face, but because they had witnessed white americans exploitation and even extra patient of christian civilized indians who tried. ak pattern that stretched back into the 17th century i'll be happy to elaborate on that pattern in our discussion. in other words from the start native peoples saw the fundamental problem in the utopian dreams of white reformers for indian simulation citizenship. the main obstacle was not indian opposition formidable as it was. the unwillingness of most white americans who treat those they deemed as racial inferiors with dignity. never mind a quality. no matter how culturally similar

they were. this is a pattern played out repeatedly throughout the 19th century. the most glaring early examples came during the indian removal. our histories of that dark chapter tend to overlook that most removal treaties which were designed to make the process look violentnt terry contained provisions to allow it native ne people to remain back east if they took a private property accepted state law and became citizens. though a handful of moneyed elite indians generally of white ancestry made good on this offer the vast majority who took up thee offer suffered plunder and murder at the hands ofis white mobs. this was the c case for thousans from muskogee's whom southern

southernwhites robbed of 2 milln allotted acres and then drove west of the mississippi in chains. and what can only be called an orgy of violence. 5000 choctaws representing a quarter of their tribe also suffered whites fleecing them of their allotments and the opportunity to remain in their native homeland. states and governments help to orchestrate the spillage while the federal government stood by and did nothing. the only place where indian successfully became citizens was wisconsin. there come several hundred indians in mohicans took the citizenship and private property option which they called becoming whites rather than relocate to kansas. having already migrated from southern new england to escape white persecution.

some of them are confident their status as civilize christians equipde them to compete it white society despite white race prejudice. most of them spoke and wrote english. they govern their own churches. they ran sawmills, grist mills, farms and logging operations. quite a number of them have a command of white law. three of the brother tout indians were going to serve in the wisconsin legislature. yet, many of them came to regret citizenship asto white predators the taxman and hucksters zeroed in on their allotments. three years into the experiment most of the stockbridge mohicans petitioned to return their citizenship and revert back to the legal status. that all of their lives been called indians they appealed to

congress. it is their desire to continue. adding their natures and dispositions can no more be changed then their skins beat be white and transparent. theyey did return their citizenship and managed to secure another reservation which they pertain to this day. the brother towns have remained citizens lost everything. in the state with the seal contain the latin saying civilization replaces barbarism. depicting an indian hunter retreating westward in the face of a white man guiding a plow. the pattern continues at the 19th century in thef midwest in the northern portion of federal federalindian territory, kansas. repeatedly native people facing dispossessioned try to parlay te acceptance of private property and citizenship into the right

to remain where theyy were. hence, for example, mislaid citizen pottawatomie of oklahoma. by and large, not entirely but by and large the native people who made these attempts were of mixed indian white backgrounds. which they hoped it would provide that was some measure of acceptance by the white majority. their attempts are written across maps of this era in places called halfbreed tracks are all over the midwest. one enrolled member charles curtis f would parlay the profis from his halfbreed allotment into a fortune that would contribute to him becoming a senator from kansas and ultimately vice president under herbert hoover. almost no one has heard of this guy even among historians. that begs some conversation. most native people found the

citizenship was an empty promise they were very few charles curtis is out there. the united states intended reservations to be a way stations on that road to assimilation, private property and citizenship. not permanent homeland. these places did not function the way the u.s. intended. in actuality the federal government failed miserably in making these places reasonably decent places to live. it did not provide sufficient food to sustain people who could no longer support themselves through traditional means. nor did it provide adequate farming implements and livestock to promote the transition to farming. it did not provide anywhere near sufficient medical care for people ravaged by diseases that. other malnutrition, freight frat psychiatrist and poor sanitation. it's agents routinely built the

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

little time for rest and leisure. none of this resembled mainstream white american life. this was not preparation for participation of white america. the education was rudimentary and outrightly white supremacist. including the relentless message the students backgrounds 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 of white society that if they had never attended school in the first place. and little opportunity to apply the skills they learned of the reservation. it was during the reservation boarding schoolha resumes congrs passed the act of 1987 and 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 into tracks, usually 160 acres or less. the allotment of those parcels among nativedu individuals. as we have already heard this argument a 25 year restriction on the selling the track. the tracks to provide time for him or her to learn how to manage the land as a source of capitol. once that instrument. it lapsed, each indian will receive a feet patent lifting all restrictions on alienation, mortgages and leases. from thent on he got to say thee things 12 times. the titleholder it would be responsible to pay property taxes and run the risk of having

the tract confiscated for dead. furthermore he or she would become an american citizen. judge the a lot easy to become civilized before the end of the 25 year wait as for the remaininghe undivided lands of e reservation, the government would purchase the surplus from the tribe is an interest-bearing account to fund it civilization programs. including the boarding schools. i find a freight strange species of cruelty to force people to fund amounted to the kidnapping and cultural reprogramming of their own children. as if to twist the knife for that the government's plan was to sell the indian surplus territory to white homesteaders. the idea here at the west by the time indians became private

property holdings citizens they would be enveloped by a white whitesociety and ready to join . allotment legislation has been in the works for years the reservations were failing to turn indians and as economic interest net zeroed in on that natives remaining profitable resources. as early as 1876 the commissioner of indiany affairs was already a questioning and i quote any high degree of civilization is possible without individual ownership of land. an notion reflective of the teachings ofra that anthropolog. over the next several years white progressives who styled themselves as friends of thehe indians gathering at an annual conferenceon in the upper hudson river valley turn this principle

into a mantra. in one of the conference series more memorable speeches marilee gates the president of amherst college declared we have what ie meant white reformers, most make the indian more intelligently selfish before we could make him unselfishly intelligent. we need to awaken in him once discontent with the tepee and the starving rations of the indian i camp and winter is need to get the indian out of the blanket and into trousers. in trousers with a pocket in them. with a pocket that aches to be filled with dollars. massachusetts senator whose surname became synonymous with allotment little ache of the sort we business to the turkeys

in 1885. white cherokee officer boasted to him and i quote, 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 and built its own schools and hospitals. in other words, leave us alone. it was unimpressed by the shared security afforded by the communal p principles. they have got as far as they could go he judged because they own their land in common. consistent with the ideology of his republican party he wanted to see individuals striving for wealth to create a rising economic see that lifted all boats. practically every commissioner of indian affairs from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries agreed wholeheartedly with him as did the vast

majority of the many organizations created by the friends of the indians. most native spokesmen included in congress insisted this legislation proved to be nothing more that a massive plundering of indian land and they were correct. it did not take 25 years after allotment for the pillage to beginod because during the interim. the government repeatedly granted citizenship and the right to sell the land to indians it deemed competent. which usually meant nothing more than those of mixed indian backgrounds. theree have been more than 155 million acres of indian land in 1881. by 1934 att that number was 48 million. so one or 55 million acres to 48. two thirds of native people were left either completely landless or so land poor that they could

not earn subsistence. it became minorities on their own reservations. nowhere more so than in federal indian territory promise of the removed tribes forever or write 1907 when oklahoma became a n state a number of whites stood at almost five at 50000 compared to 80000 african americans and just 61000 native people. superintendent of indian affairs charles burke surveying the wreckage in 19203 lamented a race of landlords has been transformed into a race of tenants. what i am saying here is the allotment act and their supporting legislation had not turned indians into white citizens. instead these measures became yet another example of hope home in white america exploits native people with impunity will

claiming to act in their benefit. reducing them to destitution and then blaming them for the results. virtually no white people during this entire era conceived of the system like wee have now. in which tribal patients have secure land bases, exercise self governance in practice religious and cultural lies however they choose. now, that vision almost certainly exists in the minds of some native people before 19204. but not as a realistic political possibility because whites simply would not consider it. the range of options were very, very narrow. throughout american history as far back as the colonial era most white americans had responded to native american difference, quite frankly with campaigns to exterminate them. the only dissenting voices from white america came from progressives of the day who

conceived that indian to became christian and civilize could become citizens with all the same rights and responsibilities as white people. and here's the rub, these reformers would not confront most of the fellow white americans would notot grant nate people 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 just a slower path to extinction than outright extermination. the desperation of native people in the face of these limited options, largely explains why some of them who founded the society of american indians in 1911 advocated for the

citizenship act. it helps to explain why some veterans of world war i did so too. their options were meager. the only alternative is to concede to the destitution of reservation life was full corporation into the united states. today things are different. the results of generations of native american activism lawyering, lobbying and sheer resilience it's also a result of people being willing to listen. but if your for the future. the current eras exist at the sufferance of the american majority in the will of congress. i contend the current status quo is not based on informed

commitment to indian self-determination. but instead on a passive acceptance of a state of affairs handed to us by lawmakers and activists in the 1970s. most americans know nothing about the history i have discussed here this morning. most americans know nothing about the current state of indian country and its place within american federalism. even if americans didn't possess this knowledge i fear a sizable portion of them would revert to the position of reformers in the 19tht and early 20th century. native american difference is unacceptable and even dangerous. or that native american sovereignty is somehow a special handout rather than an inherent indigenous right. grounded in an awareness of this country's history and the current state of our society. thanks.

well, you certainly given us much to think about. this is our our moment to have questions. if you are from the audience, have questions. i think we have someone with a mic cards with. cards. okay. k. this is katie ryan and sam holliday, who are the two key staff members who have been putting this together. so raise your hand and they will you a card to write your write your question on and we do that. we have been joined by the artist that i told you about. cedar would you stand up? this is cedar hunt. who? the artist and.

comes to us from montana and even brought her mother. so we welcome we welcome and her mom and if you if you get an opportunity to talk to her the piece is got a whole sense of history. it's it's ledger art and it is imposed the kind of ledgers that were required for so many native people that somehow white folks felt like the native people couldn't handle their own finances. so there was a ledger that they had to go to get their own money. and that's that's a little bit of the story. but you'll see there will be with us a while. so take a moment. talk to this talented young woman. okay. question during 1924, federal

act consideration and it did the legislature consider any state they had to get their own money and that a little bit of the story. consideration. shows so you know as a as mentioned the debates in congress are pretty sparse when it comes to the 1924 act. however, does come up is how the act will affect suffrage for indigenous people. and and so sort of propels congress to a conversation of state level legislation and snyder the man who bears his name on the piece of legislation assure the congressmen that the act would not change any state legislation affecting native suffrage. so that's one way that it it

comes. professor and i would add that, you know, we need to be careful not to conflate the granting of citizenship with the exercise of equal rights, even the indian citizenship act, states like new mexico and arizona continued to prohibit native people from voting. they didn't gain that right in those states until world war two receiving citizenship didn't mean justice. there have been rights commissions that have focused on the unequal application of justice or we might say the unequal application of injustice in states like south dakota arizona and new mexico. these these commissions conducted these investigations almost every decade from 1940s onward. and you know they're patterns that have become all too familiar to us in the context of

the black lives matter movement. but, you know, all of those issues to native america as as well, even states where native people, theoretically or legally had the right to vote, there's a distinct pattern of white obstruction of of native peoples to the polls. you know which i you know if anyone is the news it's a pattern that has continued up to this this very time. so, you know i do sum it up. we need to be very careful not to conflate citizenship with legal and social equality. and we another question from the audience, would you discuss and some this will come up in our later panels but we you're you're the first off the bat so you get the first you know the first the first hit would.

you discuss the significance of the various strategies that tribal nations and active artists are employing in the citizenship struggle, both historically and currently the unique relationship. nations we have. i'll i'll leave the current struggle to the people are fighting it they know far more about it than than i do certainly you know what i can say historically. is that native people. in their early 20th century are in such a desperate strait straight that they are grasping for any means as to protect what little had left and you know you know the thrust of my talk was

to have confront what a narrow of options there were the conception that native people could simultaneously be citizens and sovereign nations did not exist in hardly any white people's minds. it almost certainly existed native peoples minds. but it wasn't even part of the discussion. the state of reservations by and large was so abysmal that some native people said the only other possibility. here is to get with the mainstream to try to integrate and hope hope hope against historical patterns is that doing everything people ask will lead to some measure of justice and dignity in the public square square.

that was and that was an experience that very few of them were able to realize not because of their own shortcomings, because but because of the white supremacy of the majority american population. yeah, i, i add as well that i think we're also in midst of sort of reevaluating the, the 1920s as a time of native american activism, right. as dr. silberman has emphasized, was this very small band possibilities for. native american peoples facing overwhelming odds for a country that was bent on the destruction of their tribal nations. however, i think activism really helped up the future generations is right. there's an establishment of tools that becomes very helpful

so. for example, the the cultural work that the are doing that people like charles eastman are doing that is really trying to explain young to non-native america ends the interim value of native american culture ideas histories. they're pretty successful in making inroads to populations that had been wildly hostile to to rights so for example the 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 league of nations and say this is why you are founded. this is a violation of international law. stand up for us. they don't. however, it sets a precedent. tribal nations using international organizations as a way to bolster claims tribal

sovereignty that will manifest a little bit more productively in 1950s and obviously 1970s and onward. and then also in of this idea of tribal sovereignty existing alongside u.s. citizenship, i think a way that we can u.s. court like u.s. to be nice to some of the taxation cases that i referenced before as certainly intending to leave the door open for sort of almost like a dual citizenship situation or for a way for people to hang on to tribal nationhood while also being members of of the us. there's a way that those cases are sort of providing a precedent that native can use later on to see, to say, look,

1916, the u. supreme court said that tribal belonging is not income flecked with u.s. citizenship, and that is a way that can sort of manifest as greater rights in the latter half of the 20th century. we got another question from the. and so give a sense of what our audience is like. the title of law was an act to authorize the sit. the secretary of interior to issue certificates of citizenship to. are there any extant certificates and what those certificates say? do you know. yeah. so this is one of the great mysteries of the 1924 acts, right? the mismatch of the name, which seems narrow in its and its ambition and. then the texts which makes it all made of americans in the

territorial states, citizens and honestly don't have a great answer for that. and anyone here does. please come me. but but my understanding is that congress is really trying to handle the fallout from that 1922 decision and which ends patterning. and so they're dealing with revoking a lot of patterns that were forced and while also trying to impose citizenship on certain natives. it's real sort of like crisis moment for a congress in 1922 to 1926 as they deal with the fallout this as far as certificates their. the certificate is actually your your payment fee. it's just that the title to your land so yes you can find them there online and in terms of

what's sort of ironic about this is in the period that i was talking about before there was actually paperwork that could confer from an indigenous person's status as a u.s. so it led to this again, crisis where sometimes americans would try to 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 in providing people with evidence of their citizenship status. yeah, i. i'd like to note that the granting of these certificates when, you know, when they were delivered to native people in reservation settings very often

was by a ritual which will drive home the point that i was making earlier in most white americans minds private property holding civil association were inextricable from citizenship. so the ritual would involve a native man emerging from a teepee shooting arrow off into the distance and then dropping the bow and to a plow and putting his on it and. sometimes, you know, they'd raise american flag. it speaks to the point. okay, we're going to do one more question and then i will take a break. so for those of you who are in person, we're going take a

break, reconvene at 11:00 for our online urs. we'll be back at the podium at 11:00. for those of are here in person, we have a coffee and a little snacks 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 you know, roll with this one. is that one of our one of our audience members was thinking about own experience visiting indian reservation agents 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. and so do you have any thoughts

about that? and then on a more contemporary question, one of our one of our audience members suggests that perhaps there's some similarities to the russian invasion ukraine to take that that might analogous to the white settlers coming on to the native land. so if you would like to either one of those questions please i can take a stab at both of them. the war on poverty is actually an important moment in the beginning of the modern era of native sovereignty and self-determination, not and the reason that's the case is that federal funds began to be through tribal government rather than through federal agents.

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

order to spread christianity opportunity in short, western civilization was a galvanizing force. it served justify all of the horrors of that expansion entailed and. you know let's be clear about what i mean by horrors. these were wars of extermination against native communities that targeted women, children and, the elderly. make no mistake about it. and the idea, again, was that god blessed this endeavor. so, yes, there are certainly parallels. i suffer a and lyla supports it. and so we have for each of you, a small gift from this society today. but the the gifts are, paperweights that are our models of the capital made from marble,

that was from the capital. when they did the restoration, they gave some of the capitol steps. and we have made it into these things. and hope you will display that in your offices and remember that we are so grateful for time you spent with us and for being us today. thank you so very much. about his experience, it's important to know the signs of the day and is based on a lot of assumptions.

one of the fundamental premises was not they were fundamentally emotional beings. it's really being said associated with inability and being mentally weak. the racial signs was never the talk of integration with you talk about the war higher

education emotional beings. lack sit alongside research with the notion of this science. a hostile government while going about