People increasingly ask one another, as not to misgender, “what are your pronouns?”
We rarely ask one another though, “Upon whose stolen tribal lands do you now live and work?” “Upon whose stolen tribal lands have you purchased?” Who knows the answer? If not, why not? And who considers these questions significant?
Unless you are a member of a tribal nation who continues to live upon your tribal lands, the land on which you reside has been stolen by white European-heritage primarily Christian men for their personal use and financial advantage.
A concept that some people find extremely difficult to understand is that the notion of “American exceptionalism” and “meritocracy” is a lie, a myth perpetuated by the white male Christian ruling capitalist elite to erase the foundational racist hierarchy of power and privilege on which the country was founded and continues for “function.”
While literally millions of First Nations people inhabit what is today known as the United States, they as a group remain largely invisible to most other U.S.-Americans. The image of so-called noble “Redskins” in football and “Braves” in baseball, and countless other sports teams were constructed through a historically capitalist revisionist and romanticized lens, back to some fairy-tale time and place when the European “settlers” (a.k.a. “invaders,” “thieves,” “murderers”) broke bread in some mythological first Thanksgiving with “the natives,” where all was fine forevermore.
The so-called “Foundering Fathers” were rebelling against white Christian rule from Europe but advocated for rule by white European-heritage Christian men in North America.
Historian Joel Spring refers to “cultural genocide” defined as “the attempt to destroy other cultures” through forced acquiescence and assimilation to majority rule and standards. This cultural genocide works through the process of “deculturalization,” which Spring describes as “the educational process of destroying a people’s culture and replacing it with a new culture.”
An example of “cultural genocide” and “deculturalization” is evident in the case of Christian European American domination over Native American Indians (First Nations people, Indigenous peoples], whom European Americans viewed as “uncivilized,” “godless heathens,” “barbarians,” and “devil worshipers.”
White Christian European Americans deculturalized indigenous peoples through many means: confiscation of land, forced relocation, undermining of their languages, cultures, and identities, forced conversion to Christianity, and the establishment of Christian day schools and off-reservation boarding schools far away from their people.
The expansion of the republic and movement west, in part, they justified by overriding philosophical underpinnings since the American Revolution. Called “Manifest Destiny,” it was based on the belief that God intended the United States to extend its holdings and its power across the wide continent of North America over indigenous peoples from east coast to west. The doctrine of “manifest destiny” embraced a belief in American Christian Anglo-Saxon superiority.
“This continent,” a congressman declared, “was intended by Providence as a vast theatre on which to work out the grand experiment of Republican government, under the auspices of the Anglo-Saxon race.”
A mid-19th century Christian missionary wrote: “As tribes and nationals the Indians must perish and live only as men, [and should] fall in with Christian civilization that is destined to cover the earth.”
Throughout the Alaska territory, Christian missionaries, including Presbyterians, Catholics, Moravians, vied to win converts. Simultaneously, the United States government issued laws barring Alaskan Indian ceremonies regarded as “pagan” and contrary to the spread of Christianity.
During the early years of the new republic, with its increasing population and desire for land, political leaders, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, advocated that Indian lands should be obtained through treaties and purchase.
President Jefferson in 1803 wrote a letter to then Tennessee political leader, Andrew Jackson, advising him to convince Indians to sell their “useless” forests to the U.S. government and become farmers. Jefferson and other government leaders overlooked the fact that this style of individualized farming was contrary to indigenous peoples’ communitarian spiritual and cultural traditions.
Later, however, when he inhabited the White House, Jackson argued that white settlers [a pleasant term for “land thieves”] had a “right” to confiscate Indian land. Though he proposed a combination of treaties and an exchange or trade of land, he maintained that white people had a right to claim any Indian lands that were not under cultivation. Jackson recognized as the only legitimate claims for Indian lands those on which they grew crops or made other “improvements.”
The Indian Removal Act of May 28, 1830 authorized President Jackson to confiscate Indian land east of the Mississippi River, “relocate” its former inhabitants, and exchange their former land with territory west of the River. The infamous “Trail of Tears” during Jackson’s presidency attests to the forced evacuation and redeployment of entire Indian nations in which many died of cholera, exposure to the elements, contaminated food, and other environmental hazards.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 excluded Native American Indians from citizenship, considering them, paradoxically, as “domestic foreigners.” They were not accorded rights of citizenship until 1924 when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, though Asians continued to be denied naturalized citizenship status.
In addition, though Jackson founded the Democratic Party and brought greater popular control to government, as a farmer, his wealth increased enormously through his enslavement of Africans, and he gave the lash to any who attempted escape.
A definition of “settler” is “a person who settles in an area, typically one with no or few previous inhabitants.” I would add an essential condition that for this person to settle, the area must not have had prior claim by others who call it their home.
How could Columbus have discovered what would later be called “the Americas” when people lived on this land for an estimated 12,000 years after coming over the Bering Isthmus during a glacial age when sea levels dropped? How can one “discover” people who have been here so long? Actually, First Nation people discovered Columbus on their land!
We must interrogate (analyze) the concept of “settler,” of “discovery,” of “the New World” as distinguished from “the Old World.”
Say, for example, I own a house, and someone knocks on the door, walks in, pushes me outside, and claims: “I like your house, and I am now settling here. You be on your way. Goodbye!” And he slams the door in my face.
“Manifest Destiny,” “annexation,” “settlements” represent different terms with similar meanings: unethical and immoral muggings and robbery of other people’s land, and murder of their bodies.
Land Grant Universities
Several universities have begun to acknowledge the people of the lands taken to establish their campuses. My former employer, Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa announces its “Land Acknowledgement” statement at several campus events:
Iowa State University aspires to be the best land‐grant university at creating a welcoming and inclusive environment where diverse individuals can succeed and thrive. As a land‐grant institution, we are committed to the caretaking of this land and would like to begin this event by acknowledging those who have previously taken care of the land on which we gather. Before this site became Iowa State University, it was the ancestral lands and territory of the Baxoje, or Ioway Nation. The United States obtained the land from the Meskwaki and Sauk nations in the Treaty of 1842. We wish to recognize our obligations to this land and to the people who took care of it, as well as to the 17,000 Native people who live in Iowa today.
This statement, however, does not “acknowledge” the reasons compelling tribal nations to sign over their lands to white people who overhunted indigenous peoples’ food sources and invaded neighboring territories squeezing native peoples onto smaller and less productive lands.
Additionally, the phrase “the people who took care of it” virtually whitewashes and downplays the claim to the land by its original inhabitants, as if they were mere caretakers waiting for its rightful owners (white people) to claim it.
I am in the process of crafting a Land Acknowledgement statement to place in my course syllabi at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. It will begin as follows:
I acknowledge that this university stands on unceded Nonotuck land, and other neighboring Indigenous nations: the Nipmuc and the Wampanoag to the East, the Mohegan and Pequot to the South, the Mohican to the West, and the Abenaki to the North. These Indigenous groups are from Kwinitekw, the Connecticut River Valley.
Today, only 0.109% of the student population at the University of Massachusetts identity as American Indian or Alaska Native heritage.
The notion of ceding state or national lands stolen from First Nations people was introduced in the U.S. Congress by Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont in 1857 as his “Land Grant Act.” It was, however, vetoes by President James Buchanan.
Morrill resubmitted the measure in 1861, and the new President, Abraham Lincoln, signed the Morrill Act into law in 1862. Following its passage, the government granted lands to railroads companies, as old-age pensions, homesteads to farmers, and to colleges and universities.
These “land-grants” were given federally to the states for them to sell for the purpose of raising funds or to endow to “land-grant” colleges and universities. As stated in the provisions of the 1862 Act, the mission of these institutions of higher education was to focus on the teaching of practical agriculture, science, military science, and engineering without excluding the humanities in response to the expanding industrial revolution.
As an afterthought, not until 1994 with an expansion of the Land Grant Act, tribal colleges and universities were “given” land-grant status by the federal government.
A Land Without Common Memory
A quote frequently shared by one of my university students, a member of the Nipmuc Nation, one of the original peoples in what is today known as Massachusetts, was stated by the Indigenous Leader George Erasmus:
Where common memory is lacking, where people do not share in the same past, there can be no real community. Where community is to be formed, common memory must be created.
This student refers to a story the U.S. tells itself:
a land of discovered lands, God’s chosen people, exceptionalism, opportunities, a Christian nation etc.” He refers to a land on which its people tell itself a story of its exceptionalism and benevolence, which “is ingrained in our society and inculcated within our system of jurisprudence and our schools.
On the other hand,” he continues, “we have millions of people with the shared and lived experience of genocide, enslavement, forced removals, stolen lands, boarding schools, Jim Crows laws and institutionalized racism and on it goes.
From 1800 to 1900, during the time of expansion in the US, the population of Indigenous people went from 600,000 to 237,000. This is in conjunction with states being added to the Union and Natives being killed or removed. We see here, a genocide rate of 60%.
So,” he emphasized, “we don’t have a ‘common memory.’
And I ask, can we progress as a united people without a basic starting entry point of the history and the legacy of that history that we all share?
This post is republished on Medium.
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
Photo credit: iStock