The essay critiques Justice Scalia's originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, particularly in the context of Indian treaties. The author argues that originalism is an impractical methodology for interpreting 18th-century documents, as it ignores historical context and nuances. The essay highlights how this approach can disadvantage indigenous peoples and calls for a more holistic interpretation of constitutional documents, which should be seen as living documents capable of evolving with society.

Disclaimer clauses in state constitutions are outdated and not considered "practical reasoning" in American Indian law today, as they lack context and historical understanding. Philip P. Frickey emphasizes the need for a contextual approach in interpreting Indian law. The 1996 Supreme Court case Seminole Tribe v. Florida exemplifies the erosion of tribal sovereignty by requiring tribes to settle disputes with states rather than the federal government. This formalistic approach leads to inconsistent application of Indian law. Frickey advocates for a comprehensive, context-driven approach to reconstruct the legal treatment of tribal Indians.

The discussion critiques Justice Scalia's "originalism" methodology, arguing it's unsuitable for interpreting 18th-century documents and legal texts, such as Indian treaties. Applying originalism obscures meaning and context, especially for treaties with indigenous peoples. Constitutional documents should be seen as living documents, adaptable over time. The appointment of new judges has become politicized, impacting the rights of Indian nations. A contemporary, nuanced approach to Constitutional interpretation is essential for ensuring liberties for all Americans.

My essay this week revolved around the concept of detritus, highlighting Rizzo's article and her suggestions for gender, cultural, social, age-based, and ableist analysis. I reviewed Kramm's entry on postwar prostitution in Japan and Boonstra's article on gendered expectations of behavior in the context of empire. Additionally, I explored the December 2017 issue of the Journal of World History, which covers topics like empire and labor.

Philip P. Frickey's journal entry “Marshalling Past and Present: Colonialism, Constitutionalism, and Interpretation in Federal Indian Law” argues that Federal Indian law does not adequately serve the interests of sovereign Indian nations. Frickey advocates for rejecting colonialism, adopting flexible interpretations of legal documents, and fostering a government-to-government relationship between tribes and the U.S. Federal government. He turns to Justice John Marshall’s majority opinions in landmark 19th-century Supreme Court cases, proposing a return to a "clear-statement canon" to ensure justice and protect the sovereign status of Indian nations.

Jill Norgren's The Cherokee Cases explains that Americans in 1830 believed their westward expansion was a providential mission, influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and nascent social Darwinism. This philosophy elevated liberty but also created a racial hierarchy. President Andrew Jackson harnessed these sentiments to promote white superiority and states' rights, leading to the displacement of indigenous peoples. Today, American political influence is more dispersed, and Jackson's views would be anachronistic. The scientific and geopolitical traditions of modern politicians would prevent such a figure from assuming the presidency.

In articles and interviews by Messrs. Means, Welsch, Hill, and Giago, we learn about differing perspectives on the terms "Native American" and "Indian" with respect to their heritages. Generally, they criticize "Native American" and prefer "Indian," but the discussion also touches on how descendants of Europeans and immigrants should refer to indigenous peoples and how these diverse groups prefer to be identified. The conversation highlights the broader issue of government intrusion and cultural appropriation.

The Dann sisters' situation highlights the long-standing injustice faced by the Shoshone people, who have been systematically deprived of their ancestral lands by settlers and the U.S. government. Despite revised treaties and encroachments, the Shoshone never relinquished their connection to the land. The U.S. government's failure to honor treaty obligations exacerbates the issue, as pointed out by Prucha and DeLoria. It's crucial for Congress to respect and return treaty rights to indigenous peoples.

Early American engagement with Native Americans was driven by a relentless desire for land acquisition to benefit business interests and the profit motive. From fur trading in the 16th century to present-day conflicts like the Dakota Access pipeline protests, the U.S. government consistently prioritized economic interests over Native rights. Resistance efforts, like those of the Cherokee and Shawnee, were ultimately unsuccessful against the powerful tide of expansionism and capitalism.

The pendulum of American Indian law has swung between supporting and undermining Indian sovereignty. Key events include the 1896 Ward v. Race Horse decision, which denied Indians access to traditional hunting grounds, and the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, which legalized segregation. However, by 1905, the court supported Indian rights in United States v. Winans and Winters v. United States. The 1919 American Indian Citizenship Act offered citizenship to Indian veterans, and the 1928 Meriam Report highlighted poor conditions on reservations, prompting federal changes in the management of Indian lands and culture.

Reading the Washington SHB 1495 progress report and the WSU Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) revealed a disparity in the scope of activities and funding between the two documents. The WSU committee had limited influence over policy or spending, while state-level progress aimed to coordinate resources across diverse K-12 districts. Leonard Forsman works hard to facilitate activities between schools and tribes, but rural districts face significant resource shortages. The disconnect between the public, OSPI, and administrators hinders progress. Federalizing education could address these challenges, but without such changes, significant progress may remain elusive.

The Duwamish Tribe did not sign the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, which denied them reservation lands but allowed them to retain traditional fishing and hunting rights. Despite facing adversity and urbanization, they established a community in West Seattle and built a longhouse in 2009. Efforts for federal recognition have been repeatedly challenged, with the BIA citing a lack of central government and documentation. Larger tribes, like the Tulalip, have also resisted their recognition efforts. The Duwamish continue to strive for recognition and deal with the repercussions of past treaty negotiations.

This document discusses various historical and social issues concerning Native American tribes in the United States, focusing on termination policies, reproductive rights, self-determination movements, and federal recognition.

The film "Black Robe" (1991) portrays the complex relationships between Indian tribes and French fur traders in the 17th century. The story follows Daniel, a trapper, and LaForgue, a Catholic priest, as they journey to find the Huron, guided by Algonquin individuals. Both groups come to rely on each other for survival amidst disease, war, and natural challenges. This theme of mutual dependence and cultural exchange is echoed in historical accounts, highlighting how both Indian tribes and Europeans relied on each other's expertise and resources.

Certain events like the Claims Commission Act of 1926, HCR108 and PL280 in 1953, and the Termination of the Menominee Indians in 1954 reflect government efforts to avoid treaty obligations with Indian tribes. These actions, along with congressional and judicial decisions, eroded tribal sovereignty. While some individuals might have benefited, most American Indian people saw these events as detrimental to their status as sovereign nations. The late 1950s and early 1960s marked a period of declining support for Indian rights, which would not see improvement until the following decade.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is seen by many scholars as embedding the language of sovereignty, crucial for maintaining the nation-to-nation status between tribes and the federal government. Key court cases like Johnson v M'Intosh and Cherokee Nation v Georgia have had significant impacts on this relationship, often undermining tribal sovereignty. The forced relocation of the Cherokee during the Trail of Tears exemplifies the historic consequences of these legal decisions. Despite the granting of citizenship in 1924, issues like taxation, tribal sovereignty, and cultural heritage preservation persist today.

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel uses materialist analysis to explain the rise and fall of civilizations, focusing on factors like geography, resources, and diseases. Professor W. Crosby's article highlights the impact of epidemics on indigenous North American populations. Scholar Pekka Hämäläinen's essay examines the Plains Indian horse cultures, noting both their success and the detrimental effects of horses on their societies. Together, these works provide a materialist perspective on the influence of environmental and economic factors on the development and decline of societies.

The Supreme Court ruling in Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States (1955) held that indigenous nations had no rights based on their original occupation of lands, despite earlier legislation like the 1884 Alaska Organic Act that acknowledged indigenous land use. This discrepancy highlights competing definitions of discovery and the ongoing struggle for indigenous land rights, influenced by historical and legal perspectives from as early as the 16th century.

In his essay "Making Peace with Crow Dog’s Ghost: Racialized Prosecution in Federal Indian Law," Steve Russell examines key Indian Law events—Crow Dog, the Major Crimes Act of 1885, and Kagama—through the lens of racialized criminal justice. Russell argues that these cases were used to erode tribal sovereignty, portraying tribal citizenship as race privilege. He highlights the Court's role in expanding and then contracting Indian national sovereignty, ultimately suggesting that only Congress or the Court can restore Indian jurisdiction over their lands.