Introduction

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Nicolas G. Rosenthal ◽  
Liza Black

Together, the articles in this special issue of the American Indian Culture and Research Journal offer a discussion of how Indigenous peoples have represented themselves and their communities in different periods and contexts, as well as through various media. Ranging across anthropology, art history, cartography, film studies, history, and literature, the authors examine how Native people negotiate with prominent images and ideas that represented Indians in the dominant culture and society in the United States and the Americas. These essays go beyond the problems of cultural appropriation by non-Indians to probe the myriad ways Native Americans and Indigenous people have challenged, reinforced, shifted, and overturned those representations.

Author(s):  
John Corrigan ◽  
Lynn S. Neal

Settler colonialism was imbued with intolerance towards Indigenous peoples. In colonial North America brutal military force was applied to the subjection and conversion of Native Americans to Christianity. In the United States, that offense continued, joined with condemnations of Indian religious practice as savagery, or as no religion at all. The violence was legitimated by appeals to Christian scripture in which genocide was commanded by God. Forced conversion to Christianity and the outlawing of Native religious practices were central aspects of white intolerance.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherry Smith

For years, scholars of Native American history have urged U. S. historians to integrate Indians into national narratives, explaining that Indians' experiences are central to the collective story rather than peripheral to it. They have achieved some successes in penetrating and reworking traditional European-American dominated accounts. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the field of colonial history. In fact, for several decades now colonialists have placed Native Americans at the center, seeing them as integral to imperial processes and as forces that simply can no longer be ignored. To omit them would be to leave out not only crucial participants but important themes. Native people occupied and owned the property European nations coveted. They consequently suffered great losses as imperialists bent on control of land, resources, cultures, and even souls applied their demographic and technological advantages. But conquest did not occur overnight. It took several centuries for Spain, France, the Netherlands, Russia, Great Britain, and eventually the United States to achieve continental and hemispheric dominance. Nor was it ever totally achieved. That 564 officially recognized tribes exist in the early 2000s in the United States demonstrates that complete conquest was never realized.


Author(s):  
Andrew Sturtevant

Although often attributed to the Odawa ogima, or headman, Pontiac, the conflict that bears his name was the work of a large and complicated network of Native people in the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, and Mississippi Valley. Together Native Americans from this wide swath of North America identified their collective dissatisfaction of British Indian policy and, through careful negotiation and discussion, formulated a religious and political ideology that advocated for the Britons’ removal. In 1763, these diverse peoples carried off a successful military campaign that demonstrated Native sovereignty and power in these areas. Although falling short of its original goal of displacing the British, the coalition compelled the British Empire to change its policies and to show, outwardly at least, respect for Native peoples. Many of the peoples involved in the struggle would wage another such pan-Indian campaign against the United States a generation later. In many ways, the anti-British campaign of 1761–1766 mirrored another anti-imperial campaign that followed a decade later. Like the American Revolution, the anti-British advocates of Pontiac’s War developed an ideology that specifically critiqued not only British policy but often questioned imperialism altogether, built an unstable and delicate coalition of diverse and sometimes antagonistic peoples, and sought to assert the participants’ independence from the British. However, the participants in Pontiac’s War were sovereign and autonomous indigenous nations, only recently and nominally allied to the British Empire, not British colonists, as in the American Revolution. Together these anti-British activists mounted a serious challenge to the British presence in the trans-Appalachian West and forced the British Empire to accede to many of their demands.


Author(s):  
Roxanne T. Ornelas

This research paper is a review of ten years of sacred lands management and policy in the United States. The author reports from the unique position of having been involved in national and international meetings with communities of indigenous peoples and intergovernmental stakeholders during this time. Discussion includes an historical overview of such topics as environmental justice and the 2001 Native American Sacred Lands Forum, one of the first national meetings in the United States to specifically address the sacred lands of Native Americans. Further discussion draws attention to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 as a gateway to better sacred lands management and policy for Native Americans in the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Randall Akee ◽  
Stephanie R. Carroll ◽  
Chandra L. Ford

This is the second volume of a two-volume special issue of the American Indian Culture and Research Journal dedicated to the indirect impact of COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples. The first, 44.2, reports on COVID-19’s extensive impact on Indigenous Peoples and the resulting variety of responses at community and local levels. This second volume, 44.3, provides specific research and insights for improving reporting, identification, and prevention of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Several contributors to this issue respond to the urgent need to ensure, for small populations, and Indigenous Peoples in particular, that data collection provides detailed information on race and tribal nation identifiers. Like this lack of data disaggregation, data inaccuracy also impedes understanding of the impact of a pandemic. Other researchers find that a hallmark of this pandemic—the shift from in-person to virtual interactions in many aspects of life—has clarified that innovative telehealth and virtual methods already underway for Indigenous Peoples may represent the frontiers of better health care, access, and service. “Moving Forward: No Scientific Integrity without an Acknowledgment of Past Wrongs,” a commentary emphasizing the necessary actions the US government must take if progress is to be made, concludes this special issue.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Schroedel ◽  
Ryan Hart

The struggle for Native American voting rights has lasted more than two centuries. Although the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to indigenous peoples born within the geographic boundaries of the United States, it did not ensure the right to vote. Because the Constitution gives states the power to determine the “times, places, and manner of holding elections,” many states statutorily denied Native Americans the franchise until federal lawsuits forced them to change. Having the statutory right to vote, however, did not ensure that it could be exercised in a meaningful way. Since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act there have been more than ninety voting rights cases involving Native Americans. While the overall historical trend has been toward extending the vote, periods of enhanced voting rights often have been followed by periods of retrenchment. In this article, we argue that the traditional frameworks used to explain racial inequalities fail to account for the unique character of relations between indigenous peoples and the U.S. government, and we propose a tripartite approach that draws from studies in core–periphery development and “racial institutional orders,” but also considers the many ways that tribal identities intersect with these.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002234332098727
Author(s):  
Brian R Urlacher

The colonization of the Northern Hemisphere between 1500 and 1900 produced nearly 150 separate conflicts between colonial powers and Native American communities. These conflicts have been largely overlooked in studies of international relations, particularly the quantitative tradition of scholarship. This article introduces a new dataset on conflicts involving Native American groups and colonial actors. As a starting point, this article briefly examines how the discipline has approached Native Americans and indigenous peoples. Next, the criteria for a new dataset on Native American Conflict History (NACH) is introduced. The challenges of navigating the historical record are discussed. And finally, a descriptive statistical overview of the data is presented that explores temporal and geographic patterns in the frequency, scale, and duration of conflicts. The article notes different patterns between European state combatants and ‘settler’ state combatants. Notably, the frequency of conflict increases dramatically in both Mexico and the United States during the second half of the 19th century while the scale of conflict remains largely unchanged.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 55-61
Author(s):  
Amy May ◽  
◽  
Victoria McDermott ◽  

Indigenous Peoples represent the smallest group of ethnic minorities in the United States, and they are significantly underrepresented in the academy. The tumultuous relationship between institutions of higher learning and First Nation Peoples can be explained in part by the use of education to colonize and force the assimilation of Native Peoples. The end result of centuries of dehumanization and marginalization is invisibility, “the modern form of racism used against Native Americans” (the American Indian College Fund, 2019, p. 5). Educators are challenged to identify institutional inequities and redress barriers to promote social justice through informed and genuine practice, indigenization, and curriculum development that reflects intercultural communication competence.


2020 ◽  
pp. 003464462096603
Author(s):  
Stephen Cornell ◽  
Miriam Jorgensen

This article presents the concept of social inclusion as a means of addressing problems of poverty and social welfare and reviews the place of social inclusion in U.S. policies toward Indigenous peoples within U.S. boundaries. We argue that there are a number of problems with the present policy application of social inclusion to Indigenous peoples in the United States, including external conceptions of needs, individualization, an orientation to distributional as opposed to positional politics, and the conditionality of inclusion. We review some of the ways that Indigenous peoples are challenging the assumptions that underlie inclusionary policy goals. We then consider how a revised concept of social inclusion that comprehends the distinctiveness of Indigenous aspirations for self-determination, nationhood, and collective self-government might benefit not only Native Americans but the United States itself and how it might contribute to a postracial America. Our argument throughout is not with social inclusion as an ideal but with the particular version of it that has characterized late 20th and early 21st century policy toward Native peoples in the United States.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document