6.4. The Native Peoples Lose their Land

In the USA, as settlement expanded, the natives were induced or forced to move, after signing treaties selling their land. The prices paid were very low, and there were instances when the Americans cheated them by taking more land or paying less than promised.

As European settlers moved westward in the United States, many Native American tribes were either persuaded or compelled to leave their ancestral lands. They often signed treaties, which were agreements to exchange their land for financial compensation. Unfortunately, these agreements typically involved very little money. Even worse, there were cases where settlers would deceive the natives, taking more land than agreed or paying them even less than promised. This created a significant loss for Native American communities, both in terms of land and resources.

Think of it like a situation where a family sells their home to a new buyer, but instead of receiving a fair price, they are paid only a fraction of the worth. Additionally, even after selling the house, the buyer might go into neighboring properties and claim parts of those as well, further displacing the family. This sense of betrayal is similar to what many Native Americans felt during this time.

Even high officials saw nothing wrong in depriving the native peoples of their land. This is seen by an episode in Georgia, a state in the USA. Officials had argued that the Cherokee tribe was governed by state laws, but could not enjoy the rights of citizens. ... US President Andrew Jackson had a reputation for fighting against economic and political privilege, but when it came to the Indians, he was a different person.

Many influential officials in the United States believed it was acceptable to take land from Native Americans. A notable case involved the Cherokee tribe in Georgia, who had adapted to many aspects of European life but were denied their rights as citizens under local laws. Even though the US Chief Justice recognized their sovereignty, President Andrew Jackson ignored this ruling and ordered their removal, showcasing a stark contradiction between his principles and actions concerning Native Americans.

Imagine a scenario in a school where some students are more privileged and respected than others. Even when the rules state that everyone has equal rights, certain students (like the officials) can manipulate situations to benefit themselves, bullying or forcing other students (the Native Americans) out of shared spaces. This reflects how unjust power dynamics operate to marginalize certain groups.

Those who took the land occupied by the tribes justified it by saying the natives did not deserve to occupy land which they did not use to the maximum... ‘Primitive man will disappear with the primitive animal’ wrote a visiting Frenchman.

Settlers rationalized taking Native American lands by claiming the natives did not utilize their land effectively, deeming them 'lazy' or 'primitive.' They argued that the natives' methods of living were not 'advanced' enough to warrant ownership of land that settlers believed could be farmed more productively. This led to the cruel narrative that both Native peoples and the animals they relied upon would ultimately vanish as more settlers established their farms.

Think about a community garden where some members grow their food sustainably, while others come in and start demanding ownership because they could grow crops faster with machinery. As new residents push the original gardeners out claiming their methods are not aggressive enough, it becomes a vivid illustration of how perceptions and values can justify the taking from others, overlooking their existing contributions and rights.

In 1832, an important judgment was announced by the US Chief Justice, John Marshall. He said that the Cherokees were 'a distinct community, occupying its own territory...’ and that they had sovereignty in certain matters. ... Of the 15,000 people thus forced to go, over a quarter died along the ‘Trail of Tears’.

In 1832, Chief Justice John Marshall made a landmark ruling affirming the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation in their territory. However, President Jackson rejected this decision and proceeded to force the Cherokee and other tribes from their lands, resulting in a tragic relocation known as the ‘Trail of Tears.’ This forced march saw over 15,000 Native Americans endure harsh conditions, leading to the death of approximately 4,000 individuals due to starvation, disease, and exhaustion.

Imagine a neighborhood where the city decides it needs to build a highway, evicting families from their homes despite a court ruling that protects them. As families are forced to leave, many suffer greatly from the transition and the harsh conditions during their relocation. This story parallels the experiences of Native Americans during the Trail of Tears, emphasizing the brutal reality of displacement.

They did not give in without a fight. The US army crushed a series of rebellions from 1865 to 1890... But after that they gave up.

Throughout the period of forced displacement, many Native American tribes resisted the encroachment on their lands and way of life. The US army encountered numerous rebellions between 1865 and 1890 as tribes fought valiantly to defend their territories. Despite their efforts, these uprisings were met with military force, and eventually, many tribes succumbed to the pressures of displacement and the loss of their cultural identities.

Consider a scenario where a community banded together to protest against a factory being built on their land. Initially, they organize rallies and demonstrations, effectively voicing their dissent. However, eventually, when faced with unions of corporate power, their protests are met with legal threats and physical force, leading to the community's disbandment. Such struggles reflect the historical prioritization of growth over tradition that Native American tribes faced.

In 1854, the President of the USA received a letter from a native leader, Chief Seattle... 'How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land?'

Chief Seattle's letter, addressed to the US President in 1854, articulated the deep spiritual and cultural connection Native Americans had with the land. He questions the very notion of land ownership, asserting that natural elements like the sky, air, and water are sacred and cannot be commodified. His words emphasize the indigenous perspective that sees the earth as a living entity to which they are intrinsically linked, contrasting sharply with the European perspective of land as a resource for exploitation.

Think of a community that believes in the importance of preserving local parks for future generations. When developers approach them to buy these lands for commercial purposes, community leaders might respond similarly to Chief Seattle, explaining that these spaces represent heritage and shared histories rather than just plots of land. This entreaty exemplifies the cultural values embedded in interacting with nature, marking the differences in philosophies around land use.

--