Native American Hardships

Since Christopher Columbus landed in the Caribbean in 1492, Native Americans have suffered at the hands of foreign invaders. Sometimes it was overt oppression (Spain would force Natives to “submit to spanish authority”) while other times, it was more subtle, such as when their children went to boarding schools for “better education” (Hurtado et. al. 63, ). Whatever the method, Native Peoples would continue to experience hardship even into the present day.

1492-1500s
Native Americans were often regarded with the same critical eye with which livestock might be appraised and as peoples to be subjugated. Columbus would describe the Caribs as “very well built, with very handsome bodies and good faces[,]...hair...coarse almost like the hairs on

a horse's tail and short[;]...They should be good servants and of quick intelligence” (63). Further, the Spanish threatened to “forcibly enter into [their] country and...make a war against [them] in all ways and manners that [they could], and...subject [them] to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses” (65). There were also attempts at conversion “for it appeared...that they had no creed” or that their beliefs were superfluous (63). Overall, there was simply no respect for the native sovereignty.
On the other hand, Natives originally thought the Europeans gods, though they eventually realized they were humans “with whom...they could do business as they did with any other foreign group” (81). This is largely due to “their traditional religious beliefs” which would give way to “rational appraisals of Europeans and what they had to offer” (81, 84). After coming to the conclusion that Europeans were not divine beings, Native Americans began fostering “a growing demand for some European tools...even though it rendered native groups reliant on European suppliers” (83). Unlike the Europeans, the Native Americans came to see the others as equals.

1600s
At the turn of the century, the Spanish established colonies and made greater conversion efforts and the “white superiority complex” continued well into the 17th century (96). Fray Francisco Casanas lamented the “poor wretches” and expressed that “it will be easy for [the Catholic missionaries] to free these barbarians from their evil ways” (101, 103). However, after enduring decades of maltreatment, the native peoples rose up in the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 (97). Stefanie Beninato calls the Pueblo Revolt “the high point in the Pueblos’ long struggle against Spanish economic, political, and religious dominion” (112). While the Pueblos had had trouble coming together against the Spanish prior to this time, “the situation had reached crisis proportions” following a long and devastating drought (113). Unfortunately, the Revolt was a fairly isolated incident that did not extend past the New Mexico area (97).
A French missionary would call the Iroquois “our Savages” and “an obtrusive phantom, [that] besets [the French] in all places” (107). On the other hand, a Micmac would be “greatly astonished that the French have so little cleverness,” especially in sailing to the Americas and “[risking their] life and [their] property every year...to the storms and tempests of the seas in order to come to a strange and barbarous country which [they] considerest the poorest and least fortunate of the world” (109, 110). While the French considered the Natives as inferior and at times obstacles to their mission of colonization, some Native Peoples considered it the French’s folly for even daring to come to the Americas.
In response to the English pressing into his territory, Powhatan addressed Captain John Smith, asking that the English “come in friendly manner to see [them], and not thus with...guns and swords as to invade...foes” (138). Further, he questioned how it would benefit the English “to take that by force you may quickly have by love, or to destroy them that provide you food” (137). While Powhatan attempted to maintain mutual diplomatic ties with the English, they would continue “[to push] ever further into Renápe lands, and conflict [would] come to mark much of the Native-English encounters in seventeenth century Virginia” (134-135).

1700s
Europeans continued to take land from Natives. In 1752, the Mashpee Wampanoags petitioned the Massachusetts General Court, essentially begging that they “hear [their] weeping, and hear [their] beseeching” (175). They wrote that they would “not give it away, nor [would] it be sold, nor [would] it be lent, but [that they would] always as it as long as [their people] live” (175). While it is unclear whether the General Court heeded their plea, Native Peoples would experience many more instances in which their land was taken from them and/or they were driven from their land.
The Seven Years War, also known as the French and Indian War, was among the first major Europeans conflicts in the Americas.

Although the French and Indian War was largely a Anglo-French dispute, Native Peoples were forced to take sides (167). However, Delaware Indians argued that “the land [was theirs], and not [the French’s]; therefore,...[they would] send the French home” (169). Additionally, they charged the French with starting the war and pointed out that they had superior war practices: “when we take any prisoner from you, we treat them as our own children...and...we clothe them…, though...our children are as naked as at the first. By this you may see that our hearts are better than yours” (169).
Towards the end of eighteenth century, the United States would issue the first of several legal documents concerning the Native Americans (246). The Northwest Ordinance, Article III, asserted that
“the utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them and for preserving peace and friendship with them”

(247).
This article, while possibly created for the protection and the best interests of Native Peoples, would later allow Congress to pass other laws that would do more harm than good.

1800s
As America ushered in the new century, the Natives would see land cessions and even removal. Tecumseh would call on “all red men to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was at first, and should be yet; for it never was divided, but belongs to all, for the use of each” and denounce recent land sales because they were “not made by all…[but] by a part only” (247). Indian Commissioner Thomas L. McKenney also spoke out against maltreatment of Native Americans, but he also brought up the question of what exactly was supposed to be done with them when they stood as an obstacle to expansion except remove them (248). Elias Boudinot, a Cherokee, floundered with the Committee of Indian Affairs’ assumption that they had to be removed and civilized in order to preserve their existence (248-249). Later, George Harkins, a Choctaw, “[would lament] his people’s forced exile” and express their confusion over “the right of the state of Mississippi had assumed to legislate for [them]” (249). This highlights a significant issue that would crop up time and again–the American legislature’s assumption that it had the authority to make legal decisions for Native Americans.
Towards the end of the century, the US Congress passed the General Allotment Act, aka the Dawes Act, which explained the process of allotting land within reservations to individual households (367). While the immediate effects of the Dawes Act were only contained to a few Native tribes, it set the tone for relations between the US and Native Americans in the next century.

1900s
In the interest of assimilating Native Peoples, their children were forced to attend government boarding schools (379). Dorothy Peche, a Shoshone, said of one school, “[The government school] wasn’t a very nice place at all. It was unsanitary...and you dasn’t say anything because you’d get punished every time that you turned around” (371). Additionally, she was certainly not allowed to speak her native tongue, and boys tended to have a harder time (371-373). Peche exclaimed that “they were trying to make white people out of [them]!” and that “they were trying to change [them]” (374).
Brenda Child, an Ojibwe, writes that “boarding schools in the Midwest were seldom located in areas close to Indian communities, making the transition traumatic for children,” especially when this meant years away from family since many families could not afford to visit them (379). Assimilation hoped to “civilize” native children so that they would not “lapse into tribal ways,” as if their identity was something to be ashamed of (379). However, many families “refused to surrender their children to government authorities...and resisted boarding school education” (379). So fervent was their opposition to government-mandated education that some native groups’ children had to be “virtually kidnapped,” and one group in particular, the Hopis, “surrendered a group of men to the military [who would be imprisoned at Alcatraz] rather than voluntarily relinquish their children” (379).
In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act, also known as the Indian New Deal (408). The Act sought to decrease US involvement in Native affairs and promote self-governance by
“[conserving] and [developing] Indian lands and resources; [extending] to Indians the right to form business and other organization; [establishing] a credit system for Indians; [granting] certain rights of home rule to Indians; [providing] for vocational education for Indians;” and more (408).
However, Rupert Costo, a Cahuilla, calls the Indian New Deal another attempt at assimilation (411). He explains that “all else had failed to liberate the Indians from their land: genocide, treaty-making and treaty-breaking, substandard education, disruption of Indian religion and culture, and the last and most oppressive of such measures, the Dawes Allotment Act” (411). Additionally, “the Indians were not and are not fools” and of course wanted “to improve [their] condition,” but assimilation strips them of their identity (411). Further, the self-government promised by the Indian New Deal would first have to be approved by US government authorities, even though Native Peoples had long since had their own bodies of governance (413). Although Congress may have had good intentions, they utterly failed once again with the Indian Reorganization Act.
Unfortunately, Congress did not learn its lesson, and the House would propose terminating the Trust Relationship in 1953 (453). Although the resolution only addressed a few tribes, others feared that the US would terminate all of its trusteeship. Ruth Muskrat Bronson, a Cherokee, criticized the resolution, arguing that the American government was once again trying and failing to act in the name of Natives’ best interests (454-455). She also asserts that termination rose from guilt and pity, which only served to further demean Native Peoples instead of aiding them (454-455). Almost twenty years later, President Richard Nixon would also advocate against termination (492). Instead, he offered the idea of “self-determination without termination,” which would reject the extremes of “federal termination” and “federal paternalism” to “effectively…[foster]” self-determination (493-494).

Clearly, Native Peoples have suffered a long history of oppression thanks to foreigners who would eventually claim the same home. Even today, we see white people encroaching upon their land; the Dakota Access Pipeline was meant to run straight through a Native American reservation, threatening their water supply. Although there have been times where the American government has attempted to protect Natives’ rights, it often gets it wrong (construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline has ceased, but it is simply going to be rerouted). However, Native Americans have always pushed back and will continue to defend their identities and cultures.