Indians on reservations vs. slaves in society

Did the government do the Indians any favors by setting aside reservations in the late 1800s? Or would it have been better to turn them out into society like they did they freed slaves. I know they were forced to stay on the reservations until some point. When were they allowed freedom to leave? I know we are talking about different cultures here. You couldn’t turn a african loose but a slave was acclimated to the society. So can we project what would have happened if we would have herded the slaves up and gave them a reservation, like we did the indians?

But overall the question is: why is the indian population of today below the standard?

The only times that Indians have been forced to stay on reservations was when they chose to act as actual autonomous societies. Indians who chose to join the encroaching white society were generally allowed to do so (with whatever discrimination they would have faced based on any specific time and location).

As the U.S. population moved across North America, taking the land from the indians, the government “reserved” land to be set aside for use by the indians. Aside from some localized confinements at the end of various wars, the indians were “free” to do whatever they wanted or go wherever they wanted as long as they did not attempt to follow their earlier lifestyles. Of course, when they stayed on the reservations, the Bureau of Indian Affairs established English-only schools, prohibited the free exercise of their religions, and interfered in most “tribal” governance, but aside from a few specific incidents, the indians were always “free” to either “become white” or to live on a mismanaged, government-controlled reservation.

Well Actually, there are gargantuan differences between the Native Americans and the Slaves. First of all and most importantly The Native Americans are this continents indigenous peoples, the slaves were horrendously plucked from there continent and made to come here.
SecondThe Indians who ‘we’ first encountered here were for the most part peaceful and tolerant, they helped out for the most part. But as soon as we started to advance westward we encountered groups of indians who we killed for there properties, their lands, their resources. Then ** AS THEY SHOULD HAVE** they defended their homes and their familes against these peoples who came bringing disease and capitalism and greed…Very foreign to what any of those early indians had ever seen before.

Then as the years passed, as governments started to form as rules and regulations and taxes and taxation and expansion and capitalism moved steadily west…Different generations of indians evolved into a way of life where the white guys always took without asking and even killed without warning.

As far as the OP is concerned…Justinh says:

The plain truth answer to this is NO The U.S. Gov’t did not do any favors to the Indigenous peoples of this hemisphere. Later on when some traditions were acknowledged and said to be ‘honorable’ did the Native Americans finally get some of the recognition they deserve. Granted even today many many Native Americans live in poverty on the reservations the gov’t set up for them. Alcoholism is rampent through some areas of the reservations systems [ Alcoholism is rampent everywhere as well…not just on the rez…this said…] Some indigenous tribes however are doing well right now…Case in Point The Mashantucket Pequots in Connecticut, they own and opperate the LARGEST single casno on the planet called Foxwoods Resort and Casino. This place is monsterous and the tribe has gone from a couple thousand dollar a year bingo hall to a multi billion dollar a year casino. Rock on go to it.

But as for the post, Indians were always allowed to leave, except for a few reservations in the late 1800’s where there were groups of Natives who were killing many US soldiers. Then they were quarrantined into their reservations. But throw someinsight onto what you were saying about how Afican Americans were just let go after the civil war and then ‘set loose’ into society…Thats not what I see as being accurate. African Americans were ridiculed, and made a mockery of as not being of equal intelligence. Damn the KKK still exhist. Also there were some African slaves that were never told of the freedom they received and were still forced to be in slavery years after 1867…It was not a very easy transition and to this day some African Americans are still persecuted. That definitely really stinks to say the very least.

Possible solution to the OP’s Q. Had the Europeans who moved west, not been so greedy and not been so dangerous to the native peoples we may have never established reservations and the word itself may never have existed. But there was a fundamental problem with standards of living and simple mores and folkways the euro’s brought with them. Fundamentally, the white peoples that came west that virtually erradicated the indigenous populations with either expansion or disease could not have lived in harmony with the earth, or with the earthen neighbors they had at the time.

Why is the Native American pop of today so below the standard???

Well I have to ask what is the standard you are refering to? Why do most Native peoples live in seeming poverty, Well they don’t have much choice…Some may say oh yes they do everyone has a choice…but thats really not the case now is it…Would you care if your neighbor performed a corn dance in their back yards, with high fires and much spirited chanting??? Ask yourself that.

Personally, I’d welcome the notion…

There may actually be some examples of post-slavery black societies of the sort you posit. The Gullah-speaking people near Hilton Head, SC appear to have developed their own sub-culture. There are also some pretty interesting examples of freed and escaped slaves forming new tribal societies in the Guianas of South America. Another, very different, example might be that of Liberia, the first President of which was from Petersburg, Virginia. Sadly, that’s about all I know about that subject.

As far as the overall question goes, well, how much do you want to know? It’s my job.

First of all, let’s get the politics out of the way. When we’re talking about “Indians,” we are most often talking about “tribes,” which are the political units under which American Indians operate when they are acting as a political entity.

Individual Indians now have all the rights of other Americans, plus a couple of extra benefits which are really not germane to this subject (mostly health care issues).

Recognized Indian tribes have a unique relationship with the United States which is not easily defined. They have a direct relationship with the federal government, as states do. They are also protected by sovereign immunity, as states are. But, no Indian tribe is as large, population wise, as a state, and all of the lower-48 tribes geographically exist within states. Politically, however, they are largely independent from states.

It is almost impossible to generalize about tribes. They have different titles and constitutions (at least one tribe elects a “King”), they have diverse cultural backgrounds, and they have varying objectives regarding their own futures. Some are highly traditional while others operate as lucrative business operations.

There is one thing that can be said about tribes in general. They are all fiercely independent. I think there is a fairly simple explanation for this. If you don’t want to live in tribal relations any longer, there’s nothing keeping you from walking straight away. And many do, leaving only those who are intensely interested in protecting the culture and sovereignty of their tribes.

And protecting that culture and sovereignty is a big, big problem, for they are under attack from all sides.

Most tribes do not have the population necessary to make them self-sustaining economic units. They must, therefore, generate income from outside of the reservation, and that is a big, big problem.

Geographically, tribes are often isolated. It is no joke when I say that tribes were reserved the shittiest land available. I can show you reservation names like “Big Cypress Swamp,” “Bad River,” “Devil’s Lake,” “Oil Springs,” and “Leech Lake.” When tribes were inadvertantly assigned land which happened to contain valuable minerals or other such assets, the land was either bought back by the United States, or rented to corporations at rates frozen in 1872, or allotted to individuals in fee title, or simply stolen. What’s left is not usually “good land.”

Infrastructure is a joke. The Indian Reservation Roads project has been pathologically underfunded since its creation, and can’t even keep up with the maintenance requirements they now have. One of my most beloved clients controls a reservation as large as the state of Connecticut–and it has no clean drinking water.

When tribes attempt to use their sovereignty to their economic advantage, as when they sell tax-free cigarettes and gasoline, they are attacked by powerful lobbies such as the National Governors’ Association and the gas station and convenience store lobbies. Every single year, someone in Congress tries to pass a law that requires tribes to charge an “equivalence tax” in order to keep states “competitive” with the reservations. Gambling has paid off big for a small number of tribes, but public outcry against Indian gaming is increasing and, truth be told, it doesn’t usually work out very well. When it does, it’s hated by neighboring non-Indians.

Sovereign immunity is a problem, sometimes, too. Companies don’t want to enter into agreements with tribes because if the tribe renegs on the agreement, the company has no recourse to sue, except perhaps in the tribal court. While this can usually be averted with a simple waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the tribe, but often neither tribes nor companies trust that option.

Tribes do receive federal funding, to the modest tune of about four dollars per American taxpayer per year, which turns out to be far less than the average American receives as a result of federal funding to states.

And then there is the public perception. There is a tangible–and distasteful to me–misconception that tribes are of no consequence so long as they keep quiet and stay out of the way (and poor). When tribes do start to show progress, they are accused of enjoying special privileges and an unfair advantage. The truth of the matter is that the balance is far in favor of the ignorant finger-pointers, as this short list shows.

As I said, Indians can and do walk away from all these disadvantages. Those who remain, however, are willing to endure the hardships, because it is their heritage and their right to do so. This, above all, is the reason why the standard of living is so low across Indian Country–because they’re trying like hell to fix some very difficult problems instead of walk away from 'em.

Phlosphr,
I am not stating that it was a good thing to take their land. I am asking that after the land was taken then what should have happened. There were 2 choices. reservations or “20 acres and a mule”. the govt chose reservations.

Sofa King,
Thanks for the information. I think the casino issue would be an interesting topic all to itself. I personally know of a lot of racial problems arising from the casino issue.
My OP is not a simple question. But since the land was taken away from the indians then what do you do about it. the choice was to set aside reservations (which stink for the most part I think everyone would agree). But what would have been a better solution. Assimilating them into society,like the slaves, would have given them a better economic future but the culture would have certainly been lost long ago. does giving them beef and blankets and allowing them to live in a shack perserve their culture? Or do we modernize them by giving them TVs and A/C and 8 hour work days?

How about some interesting rules about what makes an Indian? There were some really nasty rules about how much pure blood you need to be considered an Indian - oddly enough, where the government left off, the tribes themselves carried on. Here’s a link to that very question about what makes a Seminole. Caution: Registration with the New York Times required.

For instance, for many years, a native woman who married a white man automatically lost her status and her children never got it, while a native man marrying a white woman kept his, and his children were status. In fact, upon occasion, in the latter case the wife obtained her status papers.

Initial registration issues - a portion of the tribes were never registered as belonging to one. My great-great-great-grandmothers, for two.

In attempting to redress the first issue above, the rules over status were modified to be less blatantly sexist. At least in Canada. But the descendents of the women who married white faced huge problems reclaiming their status, as the tribal council retained approval rights over each membership application. There were and are some absolute travesties of justice carried out here, people with impeccable documentation and obvious first nations status being turned down for band membership for political/personal reasons.

I sortof agree that tribes should decide who gets to be a member, but jeez, being born to it should count for something…
Why are they living below standard? Uhmm, a multiplicity of reasons, especially in the US. Check out the info on the Web for how badly the BIA managed the federal monies for them - after all, they were too childishly foolish to manage it themselves. I’m sorry, if I started rolling my eyes here, they might roll right off my face.

And that’s not even old history. The federal ripoff of the First Nations is on-going - they don’t seem to be making any significant effort to clean up their act…or if they are, it’s not getting reported. Want more links on the trust fund issue? Try here, here, and here. Oh yes, here is the text of the official report. Wish I could find the link to the story about reporters going to a BIA office and finding the required documentation stored outside, in cardboard boxes, loose documents fluttering in the breeze…

Justinh said:

Are you under the understanding that ‘them’ and 'they are not assimilated NOW? Assimilated is a bad word. Back a hundred years ago, the Gov’t knew full well that thousands and thousands of white people will be migrating west, they knew that, that in itself would assimilate the masses of Indians living on reservations.

Assimilating them back then, instead of putting them on reservations, could not have feasibly happened. They were living just fine, they had a life, a meaning in their lives, and a complete culture. The slaves had non of that. So taking the indians and trying to assimilate them then would have been a living hell, and they knew it. Reservations was the best idea. Get it

[Originally posted by justinh

“Did the government do the Indians any favors by setting aside reservations in the late 1800s?”

  1. Yes. The establishment of reservations was better than the policy of, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Better reserves than a complete genocide.

“Or would it have been better to turn them out into society like they did the freed slaves.”

  1. Actually, that wasn’t possible. There wasn’t a “society” in the west, the “west” didn’t have a substantial white population until after the Indians were no longer waging warfare. At the time the slaves were freed, the slaves were in a much smaller geographic area. The slaves spoke English. The slaves were in an area that had been economically developed.

“I know they were forced to stay on the reservations until some point. When were they allowed freedom to leave?”

Roughly, the 1890’s-early 1910’s. At that time an Indian could legally leave a reservation. BUT, being allowed to leave was different from being able to buy property, find property, be a legal citizen, be accepted as a member of white society, etc. A similar question would be, at what time could black people drink from a white water fountain? Legally, after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but remember Rosa Parks? BTW, women could vote before Indians could.

“So can we project what would have happened if we would have herded the slaves up and gave them a reservation, like we did the indians?”

A cynic would point to the ghettos. Black people weren’t forced to live there, but because of discrimination and economics, that is where they moved.

“But overall the question is: why is the indian population of today below the standard?”

Geez, this is both a tough and an easy question. I just came back from 3 days at the National Indian Education Association Conference, where many of the sessions addressed this same question. I’ve spent time on every reservation in Montana and worked with 90% of the Indian schools in Montana. To be all too brief:

  1. Economics: Unemployment on Indian reservations nationwide ranges between 25% and 90%.

  2. Education: Dropout, absenteeism and graduation rates are lower for American Indian students than for whites or other ethnic groups.

  3. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse: Both rates are higher on reservations than in surrounding areas, in most instances. See number 1 and 2 above for reasons why.

  4. Cultural Expectations: Most people grow up in cultures with many prominent role models. Indians may not. See number 1,2, 3 above. One of the hardest things in on the reservation is getting kids to look at those who have succeeded.

Oddly enough, one of the movies you can watch to give you a perspective of attitudes towards Indians back then is, “Little Big Man.” It’s real in it’s attitudes.

Whistlepig