Hello.
This is Mia from the Future. The whole crew is off this week, so you'll be getting a series of episodes from our past, and this episode in particular, I wanted to rerun for Indigenous People's Day, but it is also from before I came out, So hope you all enjoy and we will be back next week.
Welcome to I Could Happen here, a podcast that is on the cycle of being sort of okayly introduced. When this episode goes out, it will be Indigenous People's Day, and so to talk about that more where we're going to talk to Dalia Killsback, who is a member of the Northern Cheyenne or has a Northern Cheyenne tribal citizenship and has studied and worked in Federal India tribal policy. Dahlia, Hello, how are you doing?
I am doing well. Thank you for inviting me here today.
Of course Garrison is also here. Garrison Hello, Hello.
I'm currently also doing writing about indigenous stuff, but within the context of Canada, which people should we'll probably hear later this week.
So yeah, I guess first thing I wanted to talk about is a little bit is about what Indigenous People's Day is and why it is that and not the other thing.
Yeah, so Indigenous People's Day, as many people know, is replacing I'm gonna say it, Chris Christopher Columbus Day. That is still like a federal holiday, but multiple cities and states have opted to use Indigenous People's Day instead, And the reasoning for that is acknowlogy the atrocities that were committed by Christopher Columbus, who first of all, did not discover America, but continue to not only use slavery but commit different forms of genocide, rape, et cetera, all of
these terrible atrocities. And so rather than celebrating somebody like that, Indigenous People's Day has been implemented in order to recognize the people who were actually here first, and indigenous peoples across the America's their histories, cultures, and contributions.
Yeah, Columbus, real piece of shit, worst Christopher, Like, yeah, it really cannot be overstated how bad that guy was, even you know, even people in that era who had committed their own genocides like Isabelle and Ferdinand, who you know, expelled the Jews from Spain, where it's like, you know, if once you've reached the sentence expelled the Jews from X like you're you're already in the shit list of
the worst people in human history. And even they saw what Columbus was doing, it was like what on Earth Earth, bad bad guy, bad name. Things are going to continue to go badly. And yeah, that was another thing that I've wanted to talk about, which is federal Indian policy.
And you know, this is an incredibly broad it's an incredibly broad area spanning like three hundred years, So we're not gonna be able to go into like an enormous amount of depth in it, but I think it's important that people have an understanding of, I mean a just what the US did and how everyone else has had this sort of deal with it, and then also the fact that this is something that changes over time and has has looked different, It's looked it's been bad in different ways.
Yeah, and so in talking about federal Indian policy, I always like to contextualize it within a larger sort of like Euro American like teleology of colonial conquests and then moving on to setwlare colonialism and where we are with
federal federal Indian policy currently. So how do we connect Christopher Columbus to where we are currently, and this is the history of federal Indian policy and Western legal discourse and how European powers throughout history have defined what it means to be an Indian person and relationship to Indigenous people's rights to their own land and to self governance.
So when we're looking at the different periods of federal Indian policy prior to their being a United States government, we have the colonial period, which is fourteen ninety two to seventeen seventy six. This is how federal Indian policy legal scholars divide that, and it's really important to kind of give the difference between what is a colonial state versus a settler colonial state when you're talking about not just the United States government, but also the Canadian government
and different governments globally. But I want to talk just a little bit about what I mean by the difference between a colonial government and a settler colonial government, because they're tied together. So by a sutler colonial government, I mean what I mean is that it is defined by the de territorialization of indigenous population populations, and so rather than in a colonial government as you had with Christopher Columbus and the Spanish and with the English et cetera.
Is rather than a state, and sovereignty being conceived as all these resources are going back to the metropol, all these resources are going back to England or to Spain, et cetera. And colonial occupation is in is conceptualized within this way. In Setlic colonial governments, the colonists come to these lands and stay and they're what they define as sovereignty is within this land that they define now as
their own. So and in order for that process to happen, there needs to be different forms of genocide of the indigenous populations. And so that's what we saw with Christopher Columbus and throughout history was just the depletion of a lot of our indigenous populace. And so when I mean about the United States being a Setlic colonial state, I
mean that this is current and ongoing. And so when we talk about federal Indian policy, federal Indian policy, he is always in this conversation with what started with Christopher columb This as the doctrine of discovery, and so that's how we define the colonial period and feel free to like stop me and ask me questions. Also just going to try to move quickly because there's a lot.
Yeah, I think we probably should briefly talk about what the doctory discovery is, at least before we get to the Marshall trilogy and stuff for sure. So what does that actually mean legally?
So legally, it's the discovery of a quote unquote newfound Land by European colonial forces. And the reason why it's called the doctrine of discovery was that indigenous peoples on these lands were deemed unable to govern themselves and they did not know how to utilize their land up to the definition of what the European powers thought land use. Was that indigenous peoples didn't have the same concept of property and same with their relationship with resources and resource extraction.
So when Christopher Columbus and all of these other colonizers Conkystick Doors came to the quote unquote New Land, they saw all of this rich, plentiful resource and thoughts of themselves, well, obviously these people don't know what they're doing because there's just so much they have not done anything with it. And we're going to take this back to two hours because obviously their inferior beings and don't know what property is.
So legally, the adoptionne of Discovery conveyed legal title to and ownership of the American soil to European nations, a title that devolved to the United States, and so this definition is expansive and expansive Discovery implies that Native nations have a right to lands as occupants or possessors, but they are incompetent to manage those lands and need a quote unquote benevolent guardian such as a federal government who
holds legal title. And so when we're talking about this legal title, it devolves to the United States later on in history after the American Revolution, and so rather than being colonial states as the United States like thirteen original colonies, given the American Revolution and its own constitution and its creation of itself as a nation state, then that turns into a settler colonial government.
Yeah, I think we can. Yeah, we can get to what happens next then, because yeah, yeah, you have this elaborate label or framework that lets you steal people's land and murder them and then control it. And then the outgrowth of that is this sort of weird event where the colonies go into rebellion and suddenly, yeah, there's not a colony. They're not colonies. Anymore, they just are the state. And so yeah, what happens next after the sort of formation of the United States.
So after the formation of the United States, so we have this period the American Revolution, that's all not really dive that into. It is seventeen seventy six to seventeen eighty nine, and it's called the Confederation period. But next we have the Trade and Intercourse Act era, which is from seventeen eighty nine to eighteen thirty five. And so this is defined with the United States Constitution and Congress's exclusive right to regulate trade relations and make lands and
land secessions, and enter into treaties with tribes. So this is a treaty making era with the tribes that only the United States federal government is able to And there's a distinction there because there had been a lot of contestation between states and the federal government as to who is going to now deal with these nations that are within our own settler colonial borders. So whose job is
that to solve this issue? So within the United States Constitution, there are three clauses that define the United States legal relationship to American Indians, and so these are the treaty making clause, the commerce clause, and the property clause. And so this movement from just lying on the doctrine of discovery and treaty making processes between different European powers now
is between the United States federal government and tribes. And so what this does is now tribes are located within the United States territory, and this places Indians within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the United States, and now they're a matter of domestic.
Interest something at last.
It's one of the sort of complicated questions that that changes through this whole era, which is about what does sovereignty mean for these tribes and to what extent they even continue to possess it, and how does that even sort of how does that work if when you have this new state that sort of just has his clean control.
Here, right, And also during this period, well later on when we have, sorry jumping ahead of myself, when we have the extermination of the treaty making process, and this completely removes seeing tribes as independent sovereign nations. So I think that will kind of get more into that later. But the thing with federal Indian policy is that it's sort of self prophesizing. So as settlers are moving across America. The United States government also has to create these policies
in order to legalize these land cessations and movements. And a pattern that we do see here throughout history and throughout time is that the United States federal government, as a settler state, is over the rights of over the rights to land and rights of indigenous peoples themselves. You have a priority of the settler state in order to
acquire land. So a lot of the reason I later these treaties will be broken, et cetera, is because suttlers are moving into these lands and the United States is then breaking these treaties in order to have more more land, more land successions. Yeah.
Yeah, it's like the law sort of just following the violence and it just becomes a sort of retroactive justification for yes, just looking everything.
It's a self justifying sort of sovereignty. Yeah. So this is the Removal period and what a lot of people may have heard of. So it's from eighteen thirty five to eighteen sixty one, and what we have is the extinguishment of Indian title to eastern lands and the removal of Indian tribes westward. So one of the most notable acts is the Removal Act, which was authorized by President Andrew Jackson, which moved Indians from the east to the west of the Mississippi River into what is was called
Indian Territory. And what brought about this federal federal act was a series of three foundational statutes within federal Indian policy dictated by Chief Justice John Marshall. So first we have Johnson B. McIntosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia. And I won't go into too much detail, but what this these essentially did and legally defined tribes as being
domestic dependent nations. And so it clarified more that again tribal nations are underneath the federal government's overview, not the states. So yeah, it placed tribes above state jurisdiction. And what this was trying to do was solved some issues that tribes such as the Cherokee Nation had with different states when it came to land and jurisdiction overstaid land. But that is kind of the basis of a lot of
federal Indian policy and soilarmage truth day. And what is notable in each one of these statutes, I believe particularly in Worcester v. Georgia, although it seems that it was supporting tribal sovereignty in them in that they were above state jurisdiction. A lot of these statutes cited racist President
and the Doctrine of Discovery. So what you see for federal Indian policy is that a lot of the founder, well all the foundation for a federal Indian policy based on President is the Doctrine of Discovery, which is reliant on the idea that American Indians savages and needed federal benevolence and paternalism in order to regulate their own affairs.
Yeah, and I think that's well, okay, we should probably not just immediately get to allotment, but yeah, because there's there's there's there's also Yeah, this is also the period we used. Yeah, the thing you were talking about earlier, the thing you helped me know about, which is, okay, it's not true to say this is when this starts, but this is Indian Removal Act, Trail of Tears territory.
And one thing that you know, I think one of the sort of running themes of this is that, you know, the the law in this context is just sort of it becomes a sort of retroactive excuse to do whatever like needs to be done from the perspective quote unquote of the sort of of the settler state to just take all of this land. Yeah, and I think maybe like one of the keystones of this is Andrew Jackson just straight up telling of in court to fuck off so that he can do so he can do a trail tears.
Yeah. So the Removal Act happened after all of these statutes that you already had that supported federal Indian sovereignty, and so the Cherokees in Georgia were one of the tribes that were removed. And so you kind of see what you talked about, the the retrograde kind of justifications
for said removal despite the statutes that are there. So although that like Marshall in Worchester fed Georgia determined that the state of Georgia did not have jurisdiction over Cherokee territory all this although this territory was in the state's borders, later on you see with the Removal Act that although these statutes are still president in federal Indian policy, those were null in order for there to be more expansion
of settlers within these areas. So when it was decided that, oh, wait, we do need this land and we don't actually want these Indians here, let's put them to the side overpast the Mississippi so that they're out of mind. Right, So we see more of this justification for settler expansion, and so again we bring back to these themes of like settler colonialism in order to kind of gain more of
this land. And a lot of these statutes are still cited the doctrine of discovery in them, and rather than supporting tribal policy, the relationship between the United States federal government and American Indians was not based on the rights of Indians, but more that they can't they can't govern themselves, right and so so and that's the whole issue is like people were like they don't know what they're doing, so we're gonna push them and like take their land again.
So I don't know if you want me to go too much into the trail of tears, but you're seeing a lot of patterns here, I think, different forms of genocide, different forms of taking land.
This was this is all around the same time as the Indian Act in Canada as well, which was a very similar thing, especially starting in the nineteen hundred. It's starting in the twentieth century as well with the expansion of the like assimilation programs.
Yeah, and I think I guess one other thing I want to point out about this is that, you know, so one of the things that happens to trailers tiars is that the Supreme Court like tells Jackson that he can't do this, and Jackson just does it anyways. And I think that's a very interesting important moment because you know, this is this is this thing right where the federal government can tell there is the Supreme Court to fuck off, right, and there's nothing the Supreme Court could do about it.
And if you look at what they did it to do, the thing they did it to do was genocide. And it's I think it's it's just I think this is very sort of I don't know, this incredibly grim, like you know, encapsulation of like what this state actually is, which is this sort of genocide machine and whatever sort of you know, this is what sovereignty is, right, the ability to break your own rules to sort of or
to maintain the system. So you you know, you break your own laws, and you know, as we're going to get to in a second, like you break your own treaties continuously, and you do this because you know, the genoicide machine has to keep moving, right.
And there's a couple of federal Indian policy theorists Bendelari Junior who's one of the most famous ones, and David E. Wilkins who talks about how there is no need for checks and balances within the federal Indian policy system. So you have Congress that is able to pass whatever they want, and then you also have the Supreme Court, and then
you also have executive action. But it wasn't really delineated that well within especially when it comes to this period as to who is going to be dealing with the Indians kind of thing. And so this kind of confusion and not really completely defining what it means to be a domestic dependent nation, I think really just goes to show how much of a fragile edifice like settler colonial policy is for it is within the system. But again
moving on, it comes back again to land. So the reservation area era in eighteen sixty one to eighteen eighty sevens you have a lot of westward expansion of non Indians settlers specifically to California. You also have the creation of Indian reservations and resulting Indian wars. So during this era, what you see a lot of are different types of
attents that assimulation and a lot of warfare. So you have a lot of the plains tribes might tribe for instance, that are going through all of these battles fighting forced removal onto reservations. One of the most famous ones was the Battle of Greasy Grass, was a little big horn where General Custer was killed by Sioux, Cheyennes and Arapahos, and different instances of battles such as those, and also where a lot of tribes were forcibly removed to areas
that there were weren't originally from. So like how the Sheriffes were moved to Oklahoma, there was a terms of my tribe, for instance, Northern Cheyenne to being moved down to Oklahoma as well, and that's why there's some Southern Cheyennes in Oklahoma and then my tribe, the Northern Schance in Montana. Another another thing that is happening during this period are boarding schools the boarding school era, so this attempt at assimilation through education and assimilation is also within
within the settler colonial kind of structure. It's it's defined as a process where indigenous people end up conforming to different constructed notions of settular norms. So if they're not absorbed within the state completely, then their attempted attempt to be assimilated culturally through education, through languages, in terms of economics.
So now you have a bunch of different sort of bureaucratic structures on these reservations trying to make tribal governments appear to be or constructed as settler colonial governments are.
So maybe it's the three branches in ways that aren't just compatible with different tribes culturally, and you also have the attempted eradication of different kind of spiritual and cultural practices, and a lot of Christianity be forse not to different people, and just kind of terrible things that I think more and more people are becoming aware of due to current movements. But we'll get into that mode later. Ye.
Do we want to talk about a lot of pace, because if this is in the.
Same period, yes, a lotment period and force assimilation. So this is like eighteen seventy one to nineteen thirty four, and so this is the end of the treaty making process. So the whole idea of trying to force tribes onto reservations and sign these treaties were to again take land and make sure that the United States has more land and all the land, et cetera that they possibly have. So at this end of treaty making and federal allotment
of Indian lands also happened in the DAWs Act. And so what this was was an attempt to further shrink the reservation lands that tribes are already guaranteed with than treaties. So during this period, I think somewhere like nine million acres were taken from tribal reservations during the allotment process. So what the allotment process did was it counted each
in every individual Indian that was eligible. I think there were adults, yeah, adults that were eligible, and each one of them were given a certain parcel of land, a certain number acreage. And once all of this land was calculated, what you had was an excess of land quote unquote excess of land that the tribes obviously didn't need because they had still to too many people. And so what the excess of land was utilized fors for pioneers and for settlers if it didn't go to the federal government.
It was to incentivize settlers to colonize especial specil on Indian lands. So trying its hardest to not stay true to it's treaty making practices.
I think the every thing that was interesting to me about this is that, like, because one of the other goals of this is to sort of like, oh, it's the civilizing mission. It's like, yeah, we're going to turn them into We're gonna turn these people into like like yeoman farmers, like true American frontiersmen or whatever. And it's just like it just doesn't work because economically it doesn't
make any sense. Like breaking up all these like lands is like it doesn't you can't just give someone like a small patch of like shitty land and have them farm like this doesn't like this, it doesn't. It doesn't. Like they certainly tried, and.
Then yeah, yeah, yeah, Like that was one of the main things. One of the main things in Canada was about getting them to adopt like like European farming practices, which which they they they already knew how to like get their own food, right. They were trying to change this whole system of of of like of food growth to this like to this European way of farming, and it just and they were just forcing them to and there's yeah, it's it's yes, it gets it gets, it
gets super, it gets super like dark and horrible. Once you like look at like the letters that were being written by like the heads of these programs, like you know, instructing, like these agents were stationed at these like reservations to like force people to be doing this horrible farming for like all day every day.
And I think, you know, the sign that this was like like this is this is so bad that even the US government eventually is like wait this this like this is fucked up and doesn't work. So I think that's yeah, you transition to sort of like the next phase.
I guess, yeah, a very short phase. Yeah. So the next phase is the Indian Reorganization Act. And so this only lasted six years from nineteen thirty four to nineteen forty. So this is when a lotment ended. As you said, the United States government was like, wait, this isn't working. What else can we do? The Indians aren't dying off, They're not assimilating, they're not a culturating. We don't know what to do with them, so maybe we'll have them
adopt these constitutions. And a lot of them were just templates, so regardless of whether or not they were I think compatible with tribal different tribes way of life, they were like, you have these constitutions. Now, now you're a tribe, and this is what each tribe has to look like in order for us, the federal government to recognize you as a legitimate entity. And then so you have the establishment of these tribal governments that consist of tribal councils and
big business committees, et cetera. However, this period is fleeting, very fleeting. And next you have the termination era. So this is the period of time where the federal government essentially even more so, wants to just get rid of the quote unquote Indian problem, which is the existence of indigenous peoples that are reminders to the government essentially that they are a setlar colonial force and they don't know what to do with us because they tried to commit genocide,
they tried to remove us, et cetera, et cetera. It's still not working. They decided that our tribal governments aren't legitimate, and they just decide, well, it's too much to try to keep up with our treaties and what we promised them when it comes to health care, education, housing, et cetera, et cetera. How about we terminate our federal responsibility, our trust responsibility that are delineated in federal Indian policy and in our treaties and give them off to this to
the states to decide what to do with. And so during this period you see sort of the federal dissolution of some tribes such as the monogamy and other ones.
As well.
So this is another dark time there. The dark times just keep on coming. And what Federalian policy scholars have characterized federal learn policy as a pendulum, so swing swinging from side to side between this termin this termination of tribes, so the federal Indian government as trying to get rid of tribes, especially as you can see in this era, and then the pendulum of the other side of self determination. But both of these are held within the context of
goals of assimilation. So this is just another phase of terribleness.
Yep.
Well, I think this this phase also like one thing.
I think that also, like is important people understand is it like like it's not like people aren't fighting this like the whole time. I mean even going like even going back to the stuff the seventh Cavalry, like the stuff of cavalry lose like bores, they lose bells all the time. People are fighting constantly. And this is this period. Determination period is also where you see the rise of the American Indian movements.
Yeah, a lot of these periods can be like dove into more and all of these different things. In every instance, in every instance of federal Indian policy, you have resistance, which we are not covering here right now, but you have instances throughout history where indigenous peoples have fought for their rights to land, for their community, to being sovereign nations,
et cetera. And that's why the federal Indian the federal government, not federal Indian government, the federal government has not been able to eradicate us, much to their dismay. And so now I'm going to switch into the era that we are considered to be in, which I had mentioned when I talked about the pendulum of federal Indian policy. So now we are in the self determination era. Which began in nineteen sixty two, and we have the right. It's
characterized with the revitalization of tribal entities. So going kind of back to when there was the Indian Reorganization Act, that we have our tribal councils. There's restoration of some tribes under federal recognition who were terminated, again not all of them. We also have the Indian Civil Rights Act, so this this kind of guaranteed individual Indians some rights
not just characterized by their tribes. Also the self Determined Nation policy, so this is when Nixon condemned the termination policy and gave more control to Indians rather than the Bureau of Indian ferris which just a federal bureau, and just kind of like other policies that have given the tribes more rights to determine for themselves and their own trust, their own people to a certain degree underneath the federal
government as se message dependent nations. And again I think that we have seen a lot more movement, but within the context of being within a settler colonial state. It's always I think a possibility that the federal Indian government or the federal government I keep saying Indian, the federal government will try to take more and more. And I think, for instance, when it comes to issues of fishing rights, issues of hunting rights with states, not even just with
the federal government. So you have a lot of states throughout throughout history but still ongoing that attempt to encroach on tribal treaties. And again, treaties are the basis of federal Indian policy. Without these treaties, the lands would have never been seceeded to the United States. And so there's this sort of like legal legal conundrum, I would say, of where all these all treaties in the history of the United States with Indian with Indian tribes have been
broken in some way, shape or form. But still American Indians have to live on their reservations instead of having their their land back. And so nowadays a lot of movement has been towards land back. What this means, what is this process? And I think it means a lot of different things for different people, Indigenous people, because again there's there's five hundred and seventy four federally recognized tribes and so it's not one monolith of ideas, the monolith
of beliefs. But by just by saying land back that's like recognition that this is our this was our land first, and you're not keeping your side of the deal and never have been.
Could you maybe go a bit more into land back as the topic, because like specifically, like the past five years, it has really gain a lot more like popularity as like a slogan, but I think for a lot of a lot of people who you like chanted and hear it don't always really know exactly what it means. There's a lot of like mixed opinions on what it means. Of course, on like the more like reactionary side, it's like people will be like, what you're gonna like kick
white people out of these areas? Like that's kind of that's what a lot of like the reactionary takes on land back is. And I'm sure most people are listening to this podcast that's not what they think, but they may not really know exactly what it means either. They may think it sounds a good idea, but they're not quite sure what it is. Do you mind kind of talking about how land back has like developed as as an idea and what like what like you mean by it personally?
At least, Yeah, I think I could talk about more about like what I mean by it personally and what I've understood it to mean to other people, because I think land back itself, it means like a lot of different things, and I don't think that there has been a concrete kind of idea of what it means. But I think a lot of the movement I want to like contextualize it within a lot of the sort of
activism that we've seen in their recent years. So for instance, no Daffle the Dakota Access Pipeline in twenty sixteen, and kind of I think that's one of the more recent events that have really illustrated on a wide scale, like globally about indigenous movements, sovereign movements, and especially when it comes to environmental justice. But what you saw there was encroachment on tribal treaty land within what it had to
do with the Dakota Access pipeline. So although it didn't cross some of the current reservation borders, it was in treaty land, you know that kind of thing.
The same thing with Stop line three, how it encroached on like the hunting land and the farmland that was not technically in that like residential like not in like the reservation area where people live, but it's in the surrounding area that is for hunting that is specified in the treaty. Keeople trying to use these loopholes to get the pipelines.
Through right, right, And so I think what you see is a lot of solidarity across tribes because this is not new. This has never been new, and a lot of tribes can relate to that. And what you've seen and what I've hoped that I've highlighted throughout this kind of very brief overview of vetereral new policy is the different ways that Indigenous rights to land and sovereignty has been attacked in different forms by settler and colonial governments.
And I think that the day and age that we live in now has allowed for sort of more widespread solidarity, especially over social media. And so when we say land back for me, how I interpret it as what people mean when they're saying it is recognition of our tribal sovereignty, of our right to this land that has not been respected. And then I also think that it means, well, if these treaties aren't being respected, then how is this treaty
still valid? Right? How Come we aren't getting our land back because you're not upholding your end of the deal. While some people also might mean and recognize that this whole United States government is a settler state right based on the doctrine of discovery, which is based on denying tribes and American Indians of their rights to this land. So some people might take it to this whole other context of yeah, well maybe this is this is all of our land, et cetera, et cetera. But in practice,
what does this look like? And I think in practice a lot of people are seeing it with reparations or people buying land back for tribes and giving it back to tribes, and we have seen some of that, or also just people interrupting the narrative in their own mind of their euro American identity, so not non American Indians and primarily European settlers and their history of their own families taking part of the settler colonial process, and how
has that what about their lands. There's everyone who descends, I guess, from these these settlers, and I want to be specific when I'm talking about Euro American settlers and
how they currently benefit from these systems. And I think by saying land back, it's we're able to highlight this movement for tribal sovereignty and recognition on a global scale instead of searching for justice within the quote unquote, like searching for justice within the courts of the conqueror, How do we expect for the conqueror to be held accountable for all of these atrocities, attempts of genocide, assimilation, et cetera.
By taking it more towards a global scale, such as no adaptable, highlighting these to other people as these are injustices, this is, this is ongoing genocide. I think that land back has many, like a plethora of meanings in that sense. Yeah, yeah, I hope that answers your question. I myself might use it in in some some different ways because land as we conceive it to be property kind of grew. That concept grew in conversation with Euro.
American Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
Conceptions of property. So I think that moving forward, when we talk about decolonization as a process and not like a metaphor, that thinking of land back not within that whole idea of your American property as well. That's that's kind of another thing to consider.
Yeah, I think I think land back would just be a whole other thing that will pay someone more qualified than our team to talk about on this show, because yeah, it's definitely, like you know, like all of the things we've we've discussed, they deserve their own deep dives by people that are uh not to meet Robert and Chris. Let's see. Is there any kind of resources, either books or stuff online that you would recommend for people wanting to learn more about this history and then any kind
of ways to I don't know. I I guess show support in these and these kind of like efforts that are going on.
For sure. So in terms of resources and reading, I have read Lorenzo Vercini's Settler Book on Settler Colonialism. That's really helpful when you're trying to understand that framework in terms of getting to know kind of more of the basics of like current issues impacting tribes. The National Congress of American Indians does a lot of work on the federal level. If you want to talk more about kind of lived current lived experiences of American Indians, there's illuminatives
and getting more involved in those as well. I think that they have some tips, but I would recommend everyone getting more familiar with the land that they are on currently the tribes within their state and what they can do not just on the local level, but on the state level to support tribal sovereignty because a lot of issues.
For instance, I worked on the state policy level in Washington and in Montana, and both of those have a significant amount of tribes, but you have a lot of legislation that's trying to happen that infringes on tribal treaty rights. And the thing is is as ugly as it may be to say, but sometimes voices of non indigenous peoples are listening to you more within those contexts, So you
need to get more involved on those levels. What sort of like at nonprofit organizations work with your tribes, and what sort of issues are impacting tribes, And again, these are all going to probably be surrounding tribal sovereignty, so maybe it's fishing access, hunting rights, et cetera. I think that's a really good way to make some more tangible change, to feel like you're doing something to support tribal sovereignty while you're also educating yourself and making sure that their
voices are at the forefront. And that's also applicable to the federal level, especially with as you already said, like stop line three in Minnesota, contacting your legislators, et cetera, et cetera. And I think also with when it comes to one of one of the larger issues besides environmental justice for Indigenous peoples such as pipelines, you have right now missing a murdered Indigenous women, So looking in looking into that a little bit more and who you can
support who's addressing those issues. Along with there is another movement with boarding schools right now because there's been a lot of bodies of young children that have been uncovered, and this is not an issue that happened a long long time ago, like for instance, my grandmother went to a boarding school. There's still schools that although they're not called boarding schools right now that we're boarding schools but are an operation under different names, et cetera. So kind
of familiarizing yourself with those histories. And then also there's a national I think it's called the National Boarding School Healing Coalition based out of Minnesota, and looking into them and supporting their efforts with this issue is also a good place to start.
Is there anywhere that people can find you online?
Yes, I don't. I don't really use social media that much.
Yeah, yeah, I try not to.
I don't know.
If I want people to find me, don't do it. It's better that people don't find anyone online. It's better we're all just just posting into the void. There's nothing just avoid well. That that is I think gonna wrap up what we have today, Chris, do you want to close us out with a funny bit?
I light your local gas station on fire. Wow, Jesus Christ killing it here? Oh my god, geez wow. All right, goodbye for buddy.
It Could Happen here as a production of cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
You can find sources for It Could Happen Here, updated monthly at coolzonemedia dot com slash sources.
Thanks for listening.