Blog Post 8

Native Americans are not a homogenous group. There are many different tribes, subgroups within tribes, and of course, individuals within these tribes with differing values, viewpoints, and experiences. If we are to approach the age of removals as one large removal, we will be ignoring the fact that the experiences of Native Americans was varied, that cultural differences between tribes were massive, and that many removals go unnoticed and ignored in favor of the few larger scaled ones. 

A method that is used for the conquest of a people is putting those people into one stereotype. That way, if one person who fits the stereotype accepts the structures presented by the conquerors, a rationalization for conquest can be made. The Bureau of Indian Affairs makes clear in its creation documents that it seeks to remove ‘The Indian.’ A homogeneous and stereotypical view of ‘The Indian,’ allows to both excuse removal because of the ‘savagery’ of that stereotype and because if all Indigenous peoples are seen as one group, it only takes one treaty of approval to ‘gain’ the approval of all Indigenous peoples in the eyes of the law. If, per say, a Cherokee allows a treaty to pass, the US government would unjustly seize, not only the land of the Cherokee, but also of the Seminole, Sioux, or Ho Chunk. When we categorize the age of removal as a few large removals, we too make the mistake of treating the individual experiences of, by the same example, the Seminole, Sioux, or Ho Chunk, as one– and thereby ignore the complexities therein. Each group was affected, but each to differing extents and in differing places. 

We cannot, in the same vein, group slavery and Indigenous removal in one. While yes, an intersectional view is necessary to see how systems of oppression interact on an individual basis or how one can lead to another, the systems are separate and the stories of oppression from each do not have a homogenous story. Native American removal and oppression led to the gaining of land, slavery then became a debate in congress over whether or not to have it within that same land. The logic used by the oppressors in congress were separate– slavery and Indigenous removal were issues that interacted in a literal way but not in a philosophical or political way. The logic used by those opposed to slavery or Indigenous removal was different as well. Slavery was a moral and financial consideration, but also a battle for regional hegemony– Indigenous removal, while in some regions a moral question, was primarily a question of logistics.

However, as time went on and Jackson ignored the ruling of Marshall, Indigenous Removal became a matter of legal debate. Slavery was legal, unquestionably, and those who sought to destroy it in congress attempted to do so through legal means. A debate over the constitutionality of slavery was never quite a question, at least up until the competing governments of Kansas (and even then it was a matter of territorial logistics). Indigenous removal, on the other hand, was the systemic breaking of treaties, the violation of a Supreme Court ruling, and the stifling of national citizenship laws. The Jacksonian period saw the rolling back of the minor progress made after the end of the American Revolution. Worcester V. Georgia saw US citizens allowed to enter all Indigenous Nations without registration or regulation. Cherokee Nation V. Georgia saw the destruction of the idea that the Cherokee Nation was a “foreign state.” Johnson V. McIntosh saw all deals made between Indigenous peoples and US citizens become made through the state. 

Removals were not only governmental though. Violence was and is a mainstay for Indigenous groups. The Jacksonian period was a cruel violation of human decency. And even today, Native Americans sit on unfarmable land, their historic ancestry lands, having been paved with roads and filled to the brim with Burger Kings.