What is the best-case scenario for Native Americans with a POD after 1900? By best case scenario I mean a parallel universe in which Native Americans do not suffer from disproportionate poverty and its symptoms (drug use, obesity, childhood mortality, etc) and a universe in which the retain as much dignity and autonomy as possible.
Best Case scenario for Native Americans?
- Thread starter Sirius
- Start date
Best case scenario depends on your POV after the holocaust of the 1800's.
Cultural survival vs prosperity vs mainstream acceptance is the dilemma every marginalized community faces.
Here's a fun fact- Indians weren't counted for the Census from 1790 to 1924 when memebers of Indian tribes could elect American citizenship at long last.
Blacks and anyone else born or naturalized were finally granted citizenship rights with the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
However, in 1871, thanks to the Indian Appropriation Act, Indian tribes went from members of a soveriegn independent state to wards of the state subject to the whims of Congress and the BIA.
Reversing the cultural genocide and restoring some sense of agency and dignity is a tall order.
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-timeline6.html details the way things went somewhat better in the 20th c.
AIM tried with their stunts at Alcatraz, the Trail of Broken Treaties tour, and Wounded Knee to get the federal govt to honor its responsibilities and their grievances. Whether their flavor of civil rights-themed agitprop would've gotten a better hearing earlier is possible but unlikely IMO.
YMMDV.
When there's such a powerful disconnect between Anglo society's priorities (developing individual success via mobility, inititative, and getting your own "stuff") and tribal societies' emphasis on tradition, family, communal ownership, it leaves Indians in a profound state of schizophrenia.
Depending on the tribe, those who leave to go work or live off the res are ostracized or profoundly alienated.
How well folks acclimate to mainstream society and feel welcome factor in as well.
In my home state of Texas, Indians were seen as so vestigial to be almost quaint but folks are terrified and fascinated with blacks and Mexicans as exotic "others" with enough power to be respected.
LSS, IMO nobody cared enough about Indians to really be hateful.
In northern states, Minnesota and N Dakota, they could care less about blacks but kicked the s^&* out of Indian kids.
S/b's the greenest monkey to be picked on in every pecking order for different "reasons".
IOW, for Indians to do better by tribal standards, they need to be able to live more or less apart from white society.
For Indians to do better by Anglo standards, education levels, access to capital, and developing the Anglo work ethic to more fully participate in the hurly-burly of commerce, politics, and society are what well-meaning liberals have pushed on Indians since the 1890's.
Sorry for the disjointed reply but it's not an easy question.
Cultural survival vs prosperity vs mainstream acceptance is the dilemma every marginalized community faces.
Here's a fun fact- Indians weren't counted for the Census from 1790 to 1924 when memebers of Indian tribes could elect American citizenship at long last.
Blacks and anyone else born or naturalized were finally granted citizenship rights with the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
However, in 1871, thanks to the Indian Appropriation Act, Indian tribes went from members of a soveriegn independent state to wards of the state subject to the whims of Congress and the BIA.
Reversing the cultural genocide and restoring some sense of agency and dignity is a tall order.
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-timeline6.html details the way things went somewhat better in the 20th c.
AIM tried with their stunts at Alcatraz, the Trail of Broken Treaties tour, and Wounded Knee to get the federal govt to honor its responsibilities and their grievances. Whether their flavor of civil rights-themed agitprop would've gotten a better hearing earlier is possible but unlikely IMO.
YMMDV.
When there's such a powerful disconnect between Anglo society's priorities (developing individual success via mobility, inititative, and getting your own "stuff") and tribal societies' emphasis on tradition, family, communal ownership, it leaves Indians in a profound state of schizophrenia.
Depending on the tribe, those who leave to go work or live off the res are ostracized or profoundly alienated.
How well folks acclimate to mainstream society and feel welcome factor in as well.
In my home state of Texas, Indians were seen as so vestigial to be almost quaint but folks are terrified and fascinated with blacks and Mexicans as exotic "others" with enough power to be respected.
LSS, IMO nobody cared enough about Indians to really be hateful.
In northern states, Minnesota and N Dakota, they could care less about blacks but kicked the s^&* out of Indian kids.
S/b's the greenest monkey to be picked on in every pecking order for different "reasons".
IOW, for Indians to do better by tribal standards, they need to be able to live more or less apart from white society.
For Indians to do better by Anglo standards, education levels, access to capital, and developing the Anglo work ethic to more fully participate in the hurly-burly of commerce, politics, and society are what well-meaning liberals have pushed on Indians since the 1890's.
Sorry for the disjointed reply but it's not an easy question.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
What if some maverick oil man with an idiosyncratic personality,
decides he's going to give a tribal people the same deal he gives everyone else?
decides he's going to give a tribal people the same deal he gives everyone else?
Yeah because totally giving up is the best fucking idea ever. What could possibly be better than turning our backs on thousands of years of tradition and ways of life. I mean, look how awesome it worked out for the Blacks in the USA. Everything is just going great there.
One problem with casinos is that the tribes that need the money aren't in places people go.
Two ideas for that:
Allow off reservation casinos so some tribe in Montana can have one in Las Vegas.
A percentage of casino revenue goes into a fund for all tribes.
What about tribes getting first refusal on land sales? Whenever land is sold the tribe that claimed it gets first dibs. It would take a long time, but it would allow a buy back of land.
Two ideas for that:
Allow off reservation casinos so some tribe in Montana can have one in Las Vegas.
A percentage of casino revenue goes into a fund for all tribes.
What about tribes getting first refusal on land sales? Whenever land is sold the tribe that claimed it gets first dibs. It would take a long time, but it would allow a buy back of land.
-1907: Oklahoma remains an Indian "territory" that becomes, in essence, a federal reservation with expanded rights. Buffalo find a home here, and Native Americans are permitted to live here as they please. Outsiders are permitted only by marriage, written invitation, or proof of tribal membership to a certain quantum (1/8 initially?). Delay the discovery of oil long enough and have the local farmland somehow misadvertised (think a North American 'Iceland' scenario), maybe it works. Promote a very high birthrate - average of 6-7 kids per family - over a few generations using the farmland and focus on technical education/engineering skills as an industrial base for future generations. Starting with 100,000 and presuming a generation every 25 years with an average of 6 kids by 2000 you have a nation of 8.1 million. Cut the generation to every 20 years and
over 24 million by 2000.
-1920: Have the Native American Nations make the Volstead Act a permanent part of their *religious* heritage that never stops.
-1941: The first nations to declare war on the Axis after Washington are the Native American nations. They synergize and cut a deal with the Allies: We provide the codes and scouts, you provide financial and technical assistance to build factories on our reservations way away from German interference (think Wichita but farther south) while leasing the land for 20-50 years. Make the Natives prime parts of the war machine and give them a chance to build infrastructure while learning valuable skillsets.
over 24 million by 2000.
-1920: Have the Native American Nations make the Volstead Act a permanent part of their *religious* heritage that never stops.
-1941: The first nations to declare war on the Axis after Washington are the Native American nations. They synergize and cut a deal with the Allies: We provide the codes and scouts, you provide financial and technical assistance to build factories on our reservations way away from German interference (think Wichita but farther south) while leasing the land for 20-50 years. Make the Natives prime parts of the war machine and give them a chance to build infrastructure while learning valuable skillsets.
Those are both already regular states by the turn of the century. The only territory left is Arizona.
We all have to live in the modern world, the better adapted to it the better. Being in touch with your traditions doesn't mean living like your ancestors.
Thanks for the response. I understand my question has no easy answer and you've highlighted just how much tension there is between the two measures of "improvement" we're discussing.
I hate it, but I feel the best possible outcome may be one that is top down, rather than bottom up. By this I mean a person or persons well positioned within the United States government to help the Native American communities. This is a tall order. Consider this quote from Theodore Roosevelt, the President at dawn of the century:
-Lowell Institute Lecture, Boston, 1892
And here is Roosevelt upon assuming office in 1901:
Those quotes are taken from this blog, which appears to be an excellent resource for this topic. From what I can tell, Roosevelt's presidency saw huge losses of native lands to both private owners and the newly created national parks (which evicted the native residents). This period also saw a stepping up of efforts to assimilate the native peoples into Anglo society. These excerpts from a biography of Francis Leupp, commissioner of Indian Affairs for the second half of Roosevelts term, are revealing.
Francis Leupp was, relative to his predecessors, a very good commissioner of Indian Affairs. His views are, from what I can tell, represent the most "progressive" (in the modern usage of the term) position of Anglo society in this period. Which is abhorrent. The only possibility for change I can see in this time line is somehow maneuvering Congressman Charles Curtis into the position of Secretary of Interior within Roosevelt's cabinet. While the destructive Curtis Act of 1898 does bare him name, Curtis was unhappy with the final version which became law. While Secretary Curtis would not stop the allottment process (which, from what I can tell he supported), he may alleviate the scope of the law and, in his view "ease the transition," leaving the native people's in a somewhat stronger position after the Roosevelt administration.
A specific point of divergence might be the death of McKinley's secretary of the Interior late 1901, seven years earlier than his OTL death. This creates a vacancy just as Roosevelt assumes office. Charles Curtis has a reasonable case to become the next Secretary. Thoughts on this divergence? I know it doesn't go nearly far enough, but I'm thinking it might reasonably set the stage for a powerful change. Perhaps the first butterfly could be the acceptance of the State of Sequoyah?
jahenders
Banned
For a post-1900 POD, they best bet is working hard at full integration -- voting, working on getting candidates elected, court fights, etc. That doesn't mean they have to give up their culture, but by 1900 clinging to tradition and isolation just gets you marginalized.
With stronger advocacy, they can get more public works built on NA land, better funding for schools, etc. They also have to foster a different mindset in their youth. If their kids largely just consider themselves forlorn victims, success rates are going to be low. If, instead, they have the mindset that they have to succeed in American dream terms -- education, jobs, influence, etc. to help their people, they have better luck. With that mindset, NAs who become total washouts might be ejected / shunned as bad examples or, even, "traitors" to the cause -- alcoholism becomes far less common.
With stronger advocacy, they can get more public works built on NA land, better funding for schools, etc. They also have to foster a different mindset in their youth. If their kids largely just consider themselves forlorn victims, success rates are going to be low. If, instead, they have the mindset that they have to succeed in American dream terms -- education, jobs, influence, etc. to help their people, they have better luck. With that mindset, NAs who become total washouts might be ejected / shunned as bad examples or, even, "traitors" to the cause -- alcoholism becomes far less common.
TFSmith121
Banned
ahem...
ahem...
I mean, not to be flippant or anything, but the US in 2014 is not exactly the antebellum south when it comes to opportunity and achievement for Americans of African ancestry.
Assimilation is never easy, but it is a way forward; every societal group that finds itself part of a dominant culture (by emigration, conquest, or whatever) faces that choice.
There are those (see above) who take assimilation up as a surivival mechanism, and there are those (see below) who do not:
Best,
ahem...
I mean, not to be flippant or anything, but the US in 2014 is not exactly the antebellum south when it comes to opportunity and achievement for Americans of African ancestry.
Assimilation is never easy, but it is a way forward; every societal group that finds itself part of a dominant culture (by emigration, conquest, or whatever) faces that choice.
There are those (see above) who take assimilation up as a surivival mechanism, and there are those (see below) who do not:
Best,