Indigenous People's Day

for inviting me here today. Of course Garrison is also here. Garrison Hello, Hello. I'm I'm currently also doing writing about indigenous stuff, but within the context of Canada, which people should will probably here later this week. UM 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. Um yeah. So Indigenous People's Day, UM, as many people know,

is replacing I'm gonna say it, Chris chrispher Columbus Day. Um. That is still like a federal holiday, but multiple cities and states have opted to use Indigenous People's Day instead. Um. And The reasoning for that is acknowledging the atrocities that were committed by Christopher Columbus, who, first of all did not discover America UM, but UM continue to UM not only use slavery, but UM commit different forms of genocide, rape, etcetera,

all of these terrible atrocities. And so rather than celebrating UM somebody like that UM, Indigenous People's Day UM has been implemented in order to recognize the people who are actually here first UM and in Diigenous people's across the America's, their histories, cultures, and contributions. Yeah, Columbus, real piece of ship, worst Christopher, Like, yeah, it really cannot be overstated how

bad that guy was. Even 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 you're a You're already in the ship list of the worst people in human history. And even they saw what Columbus was doing, it was like what on earth, bad bad guy, bad name.

Things are going to continue to go badly, And yeah, that that wasn't everything that I wanted to talk about, which is federal Indian policy. And you know this, this is an incredibly broad This is 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 the 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 when talking about federal Indian policy, I always like to contextualize it within a larger um sort of like euro American like teleology of colonial conquests and then moving on to Setler colonialism and where we are with federal federal Indian policy currently. UM, So how do we connect

Christopher Columbus to where we are currently? UM? And this is the history of federal Indian policy and Western legal discourse and how UM European powers throughout history have defined what it means to be an Indian person in relationship to UM indigenous people's rights to their own land and to self governance. UM. So when we're looking at the different periods of federal Indian policy UM, prior to their being the United States government, we have the colonial period UM,

which is fourteen ninety two to seventeen seventies six. UM. This is how federal Indian policy illegal scholars divide that UM. And it's really important to kind of give the difference between what is um 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 um, different

governments globally. UM. But I want to talk just a little bit about what I mean by the difference between a colonial government and a suttler colonial government, because they're tied together, UM. So by a settler colonial government, I mean what I mean is that it is defined by

the d 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, etcetera, UM is rather than a state and sovereignty being conceived as all these resources are going back to the metrical All these resources are going back to England or to Spain, etcetera.

And colonial occupation is in is um conceptualized within this way in settler colonial governments, UM, 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, UM, 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, UM was just the depletion of

a lot of our indigenous populists. UM. And so when I mean about the United States UM being a settler colonial state, I mean that this is current and ongoing. And so when we talk about federal Indian policy, UM, federal Indian policy is always in this conversation with what started with Christopher Columbus as the doctrine of discovery and UM. So that's how we define the colonial period. And feel

free to like stop me and ask me questions. Else I'm just going to try to move quickly because there's a lot I think we probably should briefly talk about what the doctory discovery is, um least before we get to set the martial trilogy and stuff. For sure, what does that actually mean legally? Um? So legally um, it's the discovery of a quote unquote New found Land UM

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 UM land use was that um. Indigenous peoples didn't have the same concept of property um, and same with their relationship with resources

and resource extraction. So when um, Christopher club this and all of these other colonizers clunky clunkys doors came to the quote unquote New Land, UM, 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. Um. And we're going to take this back to two hours because obviously their inferior beings and don't know what property is.

So um. Legally um it the doctrine of Discovery conveyed legal title to an ownership of American soil to European nations UM a title that devolved to the United States and so UM. This definition is expansive UM 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 UM.

So when we're talking about this legal title, it devolves to the United States. Later on, UM in history, after the American Revolution UM, and so rather than being colonial states UM as the United States like thirteen original colonies, given um, 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 you have this elaborate legal 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 there's not a colony. They're not colonies anymore. They just are the state and so yeah, but what happens next after the sort of formation of the United States. So after the formation of the United States, um, so, we have this period the American Revolution, it's all not really diving 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 since

the 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, um these nations that are with our within our own settler colonial borders.

So whose job is that to solve this issue? Um? 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. Um. And so this this movement from just relying 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 are a matter of

domestic interest something. It leads it's to one of the sort of complicated questions that the changes to this whole era, which is about what does sovereignty mean for these tribes and to what extent to the even continue to possess it, and how does that even sort of how does that work if you have when you have this new state that's sort of just has his clean control here, right And also during this period, um, well, well later on when we have um started jumping ahead of myself, when

we have the extermination of the treaty making process, and this completely removes seeing tribes as independent sovereign nations. UM. So I think that will kind of get more into that later. But the thing with federal Indian policy, UM, is that it's sort of self prophesizing. So as settlers are moving across America, UM, the United States government also has to create these policies UM in order to legalize

these land cessations and movements. And a pattern that we do see here UM throughout history and throughout time is that the United States federal government, as a settler state is um over the rights of over the UM rights to land and rights of indigenous peoples themselves. You have a priority of the settler state in order to acquire land.

So that a lot of the reason why UM later these treaties will be broken, etcetera, is because settlers are moving into these lands and the United States is then breaking these treaties in order to UM have more more land, more land secessions. Yeah, the laws are of just following the violence and it just becomes a retroactive justification. Yes, it's it's a self justifying sort of sovereignty. So this is the removal period and what a lot of people

may have heard of. So it's from 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 UM. One of the most notable acts is the Removal Act, which was authorized by President Andrew Jackson, which moved Um Indians from the east to the west of the Mississippi River into what was called Indian Territory UM.

And what brought about this UM Federal Federal Act UM was a series of three foundational statutes within federal Indian policy UM dictated by Chief Justice John Marshall. So first we have Johnson B. Macintosh Cherokee Nation be Georgia and Worcester be Georgia. And I won't go into too much detail, but what this these essentially UM 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 is trying to do was UM solve some issues that tribes such as the Cherokee Nation had with different states when it came to land and UM jurisdiction over said land. UM. But that is kind of the basis of a lot of federal Indian policy and

still remains truth day. And what is notable uh in each one of these statutes UM, I believe, particularly in Worcester the Georgia, although it seems that it was supporting tribal sovereignty in them and that they were above state jurisdiction, a lot of these UM statute sided racist president and

the doctrine of Discovery. So what you see for federal Indian policy is that a lot of the fount well all the foundation for federal Indian policy based on President is the Doctrine of Discovery, which is reliant on the idea that American Indians were savages and needed um federal

benevolence and um 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 this is, there's this, there's also Yeah, this is also the period of use. 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 yeah, one thing that you know, I think one of one of the sort of running themes of this is that, you know, the the law in this context is just sort of becomes a sort of retroactive excuse to do whatever 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 tellings between court to funk Off so that he can do so he can do

with trail of tears. Yeah. Um. So the Removal Act happened after all of these statutes that you already had that supported um, federal Indian sovereignty. And so the Cherokees in Georgia were one of the tribes that were removed. Um. And so you kind of see what you talked about, the the retrograde kind of justifications for said removal despite um,

the statutes that are there. So although that like Marshall Um in Worcester f Georgia determined that the State of Georgia did not have jurisdiction over Cherokee territory all this territory, although this territory was in the state's borders. Um. Later on, you see with the Removal Act that although these statutes are still president in federal Indian policy, those were noll in order for UM there to be more UM 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 over past the Mississippi so that they're out of side, out of my right. So we see more of this um justification for settler expansion. And so again we bring back to these themes of like settler colonialism in order to

UM 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 um 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 are like they don't know what they're doing, so we're

gonna push them and like take their land again. So I I don't know if you want me to go too much into the trail of tears, but um, 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 acting Canada as well, which was did a very similar thing, especially starting in the nine it's starting in the twenty century as well with the like expansion of the like

assimilation programs. Yeah, and I think I guess the only thing I want to point out about this is that, you know, so one of one of the things that happens trailers here is at the Streme Court like tells Jackson that he can't do this, and j actually 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's Supreme Court to funk off, right, and there's nothing that Streme

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 a 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 this is what sovereignty is right. The ability to break your own rules sort to sort of into or toning the system.

So you know, you break your own laws and you know as we're gonna get you in a second, like you break your own treaties continuously, and you do this because you know, the genisite machine has to keep moving, right and Um. There's a couple of federal and new policy theorists um Findeler Jr. Who's one of the most famous ones, and David E. Wilkins who talks about how there's no need for checks and balances within the federal

Indian policy system. So you have Congress that is able to um pass whatever act they want, and and then you also have the Supreme Court, and then you also have executive action. But it wasn't really delineated that well um within especially when it comes to this period as to who is going to be dealing with the Indians

kind of thing. Um. 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 um colonial policy is for it is within the system. UM. But again moving on it comes back again to land. So the reservation area era in eighteen sixty one to eighteen eighty seven UM has you have a lot of westward expansion of non Indians UM settlers, specifically to California.

You also have the creation of Indian reservations and resulting Indian wars UM. Uh. So during this era what you see a lot out of UM are different types of attempts that assimilation UM and a lot of warfare. So you have a lot of the Plains tribes my tribe for instance, UM that are going through all of these

battles fighting UM forced removal onto reservations UM. One of the most famous ones was UM the Battle of Greasy Grass or a Little Big Horn UM where General Custer was killed by Sue Cheyennes and Arapahos, and different instances of battles such as those, and also where a lot of tribes UM were forcibly removed to era areas that

they weren't originally from. So like how the Sheriffees were moved to Oklahoma, there was attempts of my tribe, for instance, more than Cheyenne to be moved down to Oklahoma as well, and that's why there's some Southern Cheyennes in Oklahoma and then my tribes and with thin Shians in Montana. Another um in. Another thing that is happening during this period are boarding schools UM the boarding school era. So the attempt at assimilation through education UM and assimilation is also

UM within within the settler colonial kind of structure. It's it's defined as a process where indigenous people end up UM conforming to different constructed notions of UM settler norms UM.

So if they're not absorbed within the state completely, then their attempted attempt to be assimilated UM culturally, UM through education, through languages, in terms of economics and how you have a bunch of different sort of bureaucratic structures on these reservations trying to make tribal governments appear to be UM

or constructed as as settler colonial governments are UM. So maybe it's the three branches UM in ways that aren't just compatible with different tribes culturally, and you also have the attemptive eradication of different kind of spiritual and cultural practices and a lot of Christianity course on different people and just kind of terrible things that UM I think more and more people are becoming aware of due to due to current movements. But we'll get into that moment later.

Do we want to talk about a lot of in the same period, Yes, a lotment period and UM course 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 UM trying to force tribes onto reservations and signed these treaties were too again take land and make sure that the United States has more land and all the land, etcetera that they possibly have UM.

So at this end of treaty making UM federal allotment of Indian lands also happened in the UM the Jaws Act UM. And so what this was was an attempt to UM further shrink the reservation lands that tribes are already guaranteed within treaties UM. So during this period, I think that somewhere like nine million acres were UM taken from tribal reservations during the allotment process. So that what the allotment process did was it counted each in every

individual Indian UM that was eligible. I think there were adults um. Yeah, adults that were eligible UM, and each one of them were given a certain parcel of land, a certain number of acreage UM. 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 too too many people. And so what the excess of land um was utilized

force for pioneers and for settlers UM. If it didn't go UM to the federal government, it was to um incentivized settlers to colonized, esscial settle on Indian lands. So trying its hardest to not stay true to its treaty making practices. I think everything was interesting to me about this is that, like because one of the other goals of this is to sort of like, oh is the civilizing mission. It's like, yeah, we're gonna turn them into We're turning these people into like like human farmers, like

true American fintiersman 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. It's 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, 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 already knew how to get their own food, right, they were trying to change this whole system of of of like of of food growth to to this like to this European way of 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 um like you know, instructing like these agents were stationed at these like reservations that to like force people to be doing 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, transitioned to sort of like the next phase. I guess yeah, a very short phase. UM. Yeah. So the next phase, um is the Indian Reorganization Act. And so this only lasted six years from nineteen thirty four in nineteen forty. UM. So this is when allotment ended. As you said, the United States government was like, wait, this isn't working. Um, what else can we do? What the Indians dive off?

They're not assimilating, they're not a culturating. We don't know what to do with them. Um, so maybe we'll We'll have them adopt these constitutions and a lot of them were just templates. So regardless of whether or not they were um I think compatible with tribal different tribes way of life, they were like, you have these constitutions. Now, um, now you're 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. Uh and um. And then so you have the establishment of these um tribal governments that consist of tribal councils and the business committees, etcetera. However, this period is fleeting, very fleeting, um.

And next, um, 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 UM that are reminders to the government essentially that UM, they are a settler colonial force and they don't know what to do with us because they tried to commit genocide,

they tried to remove us, etcetera, etcetera. It's still not working. UM. They decided that our travel governments UM aren't 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 healthcare, education, housing, etcetera, etcetera.

How about we terminate our federal responsibility, our trust responsibility that are delineated in federal in the policy and in our treaties UM and give them off to this to the states to decide what to do with and says during this period it you see UM sort of the federal UM dissolution of some tribes such as the monotymy Um and other ones UM as well. So this is another dark time there. The dark times just keep on coming.

And what federal policy scholars have UM characterized federal unw policy as a pendulum, the swinging swinging from side to side between this terminal, this termination of tribes, So the federal India 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, um, this is just another phase of terribleness. Well, I think this this phase is 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 Cafrey, like the seventh 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 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. Um, and every instance, in every instance of federal Indian policy, you have resistance, which we are not covering here right now. Um, but you have instances throughout history where indigenous peoples have fought for their rights to land, to UM, for their community, to being sovereign nations, etcetera.

And that's why the federal Indians, the federal government, not federal Indian government, the federal government has not been able to aradicated us, much to their dismay um UM. And so now I'm going to switch into the era that we are considered to be in, which I have mentioned when I talked about the pendulum of federal Indian policy. So now we are in the self determination era UM, which began in nineteen sixty two, UM, and we have

UM the right. It's characterized with the revitalization of tribal entities. So UM going kind of back to when there was the Indian Reorganization Acts that we have our tribal councils. UM. There's restoration of some tribes under federal recognition who are terminated again not all of them. We also have the Indian Civil Rights Act. So this this kind of guaranteed individual Indians UM some rights UM, not just characterized by

their tribes. Also the self determination call say, so this is when UM Nixon condemned determination policy and gave more control to Indians rather than the Bureau of Indian Fairs, which just a federal bureau and just kind of like other policies that UM have given the tribes more rights to UM determine for themselves in their own trust, their own people, UM to a certain degree underneath the federal

government as a mess of dependent nations. And again I I think that we have seen a lot more movement, but within the context of being within a settler colonial state. UM. 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 UM to take more and more. And I think UM for since when it comes to issues of fishing rights, issues of UM hunting rights with states,

not even just with the federal government. So you have a lot of states throughout throughout history but still ongoing UM that attempt to encroach on UM tribal treaties UM. And again, treaties are the basis of federal Indian policy. Without these treaties, that lands would have never been succeeded

to the United States. And so UM there's just this sort of like legal legal conundrum I would say, of where all these all treaties in the history of the United States with India with Indian tribes have been broken in some way, shape or form um, but still um American Indians have to live on their reservations instead of having their their land back. And so now of days a lot of movement has been towards um 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 four federally recognized tribes and so it's not one monolith of ideas, the monolith of the 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 with the topic, because like specifically, like the past five years, it has really gain a lot more like um popularity as like a slogan UM. But I think for a lot of a lot of people who chanted and here it don't always really know exactly what it means. That there's a lot of like

mixed opinions on what it means UM. Of course, on like the more like reactionary side it's like people be like, what you're going to 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. Um. And I'm sure most people are listening to this podcast that's not what they think, um, But they may not really know exactly what it means either. Um. They may think it sounds like a good idea, but they're not

quite sure what it is. Do you mind kind of talking about how land backs like developed as as an idea and what like what like you mean by it personally? At least? Yeah, I think I can 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, um, 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 contextualize it with and a lot of the sort of act activism that we've seen in their recent years. UM. So for instance, no Jack all the Dakota Access pipeline in two thousand and 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 UM indigenous movements, UM sovereign movements,

and especially when it comes to environmental justice. But what you saw there was encroachment on tribal treaty land within UM that we when it had to do with the Dakota Access pipeline UM. 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 the same thing was stop line three, how it encroached on the hunting land and the farmland that was not technically in the like residential like like UM like the 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. So people 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 federal loving policy is the different ways that Indigenous rights to land and sovereignty has been attacked in different forms by settler

and colonial governments. Um. And I think that the day and age that we live in now has allowed for um sort of more widespread solidarity, especially over social media. Um. 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 um valid? Right?

How come we aren't getting our land back because they'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. Um. So some people might take it to this whole other context of yeah, well maybe this is this is all of our land, etcetera, etcetera.

But in practice, what does this look like, and I think in practice a lot of people UM 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 UM also just people interrupting the narrative UM in their own mind of their euro American identity, so non non UM American Indians and primarily European settlers and their history of their own families taking part of the settler colonial process, and how has that UM what

about their lands? There's everyone who UM descends I guess from these these settlers, and I want to be specific when I'm talking about Euro American settlers UM UM and how they currently benefit from these systems. And I think by saying land back UM, 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 UM searching for justice within the courts of the conqueror, how how do we expect UM for the conqueror to be held accountable for all of these atrocities, attempts at genocide, assimilation, et cetera. By taking it more towards a global scale, such as nod Apple highlighting these two other people as these are injustices. Um, this is this is ongoing genocide. I think that land back has many, like a plethora

of meanings in the in that sense. Yeah, yeah, I hope that answers your question. I myself, UM might use it in in some some different ways. Um, 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 um, moving forward, when we talk about de colonization as a process and not like a metaphor, um 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 lend back would just be a whole other thing that will pay someone more qualified than our

team to talk about on this show. Um, because yeah, that'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 me, Robert and Chris. Um. 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 UM, 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, Yeah, for sure. UM. So in terms of resources and reading UM, I have read Lorenzo Verrocchini's UM Settler book on Settler Colonialism. UM. 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 UM issues impacting tribes UM. The National Congress of American Indians does a lot of work on

the federal level. UM. If you want to talk more about UM kind of lived current lived experiences of American Indians, there's illuminatives UM and getting more involved in those as well. I think that they have some tips, but I would recommend UM everyone getting more familiar with the land that they are on currently, the tribes within their states and what they can do UM, not just on the local level, but on the state level to support tribal sovereignty UM.

Because a lot of issues UH. For instance, I worked on the on the state policy level in Washington and in Montana, and both of those have a significant amount of tribes UM, but you have a lot of legislation that's trying to happen that infringes on tribal treaty rights. And the thing is is UM as ugly as it may be to say, but sometimes voices of non indigenous people's are listened to more within those UM contexts. So you need to get more involved on on those levels.

UM what sort of like at UM nonprofit organizations UM work with your tribes or and what sort of issues are impacting tribes. And again, these are all going to probably be surrounding travel sovereignty, so maybe it's UM fishing access, hunting rights, etcetera. UM. I think that's a really good way to make some more palate UM 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, etcetera, etcetera. And I think also with when it comes to one of one of the larger issues besides UM, environmental justice for indigenous peoples such as pipelines you have right now missing a murdered Indigenous women UM, so looking and looking into that UM a little bit more and who you can

support who's addressing those issues along with UM. There is another movement with boarding schools right now because there's been a lot of UM bodies of young children UM 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. UM. There's still schools that UM although they're not called boarding schools right now that we're boarding schools, but are still an operation under

different names, etcetera. UM. So kind of familiarizing yourself with those histories. And then also there's a UM national UM I think it's called the National Boarding School Healing Coalition based out of Minnesota, and UM looking into them and supporting their efforts UM with this issue is also a good place to start. UM. Is there anywhere that people can find you online? Yes? I don't. I don't really use UM social media that much. Yeah, yeah, I try not to. I don't know. If I want people to

find me, don't don't do it. It's 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 not just just a void. Well that that is. I think going to wrap up what we have today, Chris, I want to close us out with a funny bit. I light your local gas station on fire. Wow, Christ killing it? Oh my god, jeez wow. All right, goodbye for Buddy. It could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media

or more podcasts from cool Zone Media. Visit our website cool zone media dot com, or check us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone Media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening,