Jump to content

Talk:Dawes Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

If you search on Google, "land fictionalization" you will see that, in all the web, this is the only use of the term... it needs be be replaced with some term people can be expected to know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.169.203 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many (most? all?) scholars agree that the intent of this act was to break the communitarian mindset of native peoples and encourage them to become more independent (not in the self-sustaining sense, but in the capitalist, individualistic sense). This article should at explain that issue, in an NPOV sort of way, of course. Jxn 05:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel is a samurai God--I agree with the above, the act aimed to break up the traditional tribal structure and bring Indians into the mainstream of American life.

"The common field is the seat of barbarism, while the separate farm is the door to civilization" -- according to "Private Property: The Indian's Door to Civilization" by William T. Hagan (http://www.jstor.org/view/00141801/ap020008/02a00020/0), this was said by Joseph R. Brown in 1858 (footnote 2).

Fractionalization

[edit]

I changed "fictionalization" to "fractionalization" "fractionation" to correct a typo. "Fractionation" is the word you're looking for and is the term Google sees most often in association with these issues. "Fictionalization" would be nonsensical. "Fractionalization" may or may not be acceptable, but common use suggests "fractionation." Pulsadinura (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Allotment Act

[edit]

In working on Timeline of music in the United States (1880 - 1919)#1887, I encountered a reference to the General Allotment (Dawes Act). I've redirected that (and General Allotment Act) though I can't really tell from this article if that's the same thing or a closely related act or what. If someone knows the answer, can you make that clear? Thanks, Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GAA is also commonly known as te Dawes Act. That should be made explicit in the article.Verklempt (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Interpretations section

[edit]

The second paragraph in this section seems to come out of the blue. Perhaps Ward Churchill's thoughts should be explained first, or perhaps the sides on the issue should be summarized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.217.55 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the quote about the person refuting Churchill's views, since his views were not previously mentioned or explained in the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Summary of Provisions

[edit]

The summary of the provisions is not very accurate to the actual wording of the provisions in some cases. I am going to change (shortly after this post) parts of it to better reflect the actual wording of the act (I have a copy of it open in another window).

Works of Sweat (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some parts of the summary are simply incorrect, such as the numbers given for the allotment of land. There is no phrase about land for "general living purposes". Rather, one "quarter-section" (160 acres, I beleive) was given to the head of each family for farming, or instead, two "quarter sections" (two 160 acre allotments) for grazing (not specifically cattle, could be any type of livestock, though cattle msot common.) There are also provisions included for single individuals (80 acre allotments), orphans (80 acre allotments, specified in later sectinos that goes to a "Native agent" of the orphan), and all "other" individuals (40 acre allotments).

Works of Sweat (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to incorrectly cite source a[4]: Friedman, Lawrence M. (2005). A History of American Law: Third Edition. Simon & Schuster. pp. 387. ISBN 9780684869889.

The current article text reads, "The act would declare remaining lands after allotment as "surplus" and available for sale, including to non-Natives." However, [4] does not discuss the sale of land, and neither the Act nor the cited source uses the word "surplus" as the current text's use of quotation marks imply. Further, the Act's text states that the land not allotted may be sold by the tribes to the US government:

[1]

And provided further, That at any time after lands have been allotted to all the Indians of any tribe as herein provided, or sooner if in the opinion of the President it shall be. for the best interests of said tribe, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate with Negotiations for such Indian tribe for the purchase and release by said tribe, in conform- ity with the treaty or statute under which such reservation is held, of not alloted. such portions of its reservation not allotted as such tribe shall, from time to time, consent to sell, on such terms and conditions as - shall be considered just and equitable between the United States and said tribe of Indians, which purchase shall not be complete until ratified by Congress,

This is different than declaring land surplus and holding it available for sale, because it merely gives the tribes the option to sell land.

I intend to change the quoted sentence to read, "The act allowed tribes the option to sell the lands that remained after allotment to the federal government."

Zebiklees (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/24/STATUTE-24-Pg387.pdf

[edit]

This article does not cover the newest actions, "Interior Announces Revised Strategy, Policies to More Effectively Reduce Fractionation of Tribal Lands" and "Cobell / Land Buy-back". https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-announces-revised-strategy-policies-more-effectively-reduce-fractionation https://www.doi.gov/cobell

Nantucketnoon (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White attitudes and motivations

[edit]

I have a sense that white attitudes towards the American Indians at this point in history were rather complex, but that one thread was the idea that the Indians were headed toward actual extinction as a race. In part, this was merely rationalization for the land grab that the Dawes Act produced; but also this was a real fear, and whites felt that assimilation was, regrettably, the only way to prevent the inevitable disappearance of these peoples. They didn't realize the strength and persistance of the Native cultures. It was a highly paternalistic attitude, but they really thought that the only way to save a culture was to destroy it. And so the road to perdition was again paved with good intentions.

I don't have the scholarly background to flesh out this idea, but I think it is an important motivation behind the Act, and could make the article seem more balanced. Are there some experts that would agree with this, or am I totally off base?PhilD86 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a scholarly background, just scholarly sources:). It's a novel idea (though one I'm not sure is accurate). Regardless, despite the interesting academic discussion it might make for you and I, the availability of RS is what will warrant its inclusion of exclusion. It's an interesting question...the traditional view of Dawes was a coalition of thinly veiled land grabs with racist overtones of paternal responsibility. But I think you're right in terms of it being more complex. I just don't know of anyone who has made this argument in an objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.101 (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, isn't it presumptuous and offensive of you to talk about "races" and even employ the term "as a race"? Further, the term "race" has a connotation of victor and vanquished, as in a foot race, so you risk offending the next person whose ego is as flimsy as an argonaut's shell. When, O when, will any of you graduate from nursery school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:302:FB9B:A001:B3F9:857:393E (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in Dawes Act article

[edit]

The level of NPOV in this article is off the charts. The text repeatedly makes statements about motives and uses morally-charged words to describe events. The article also makes blanket, one-sided accusations against whole classes of people based on presumptions. This kind of moralizing and social propaganda does not belong in an encyclopedia. John Chamberlain (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how else one could ever talk about a politically charged topic like this without taking a moral stand. It was wrong to force Indigenous peoples to conform to Euroamerican standards of land development. The scholarly consensus is that the Dawes Act was a continuation of Indian Removal policies. You'd be hard pressed to find otherwise. Trentprof —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try growing up? Every word, every letter, every serif that is written has a point of view. If you find this objectionable, why not relocate to a planet of robots in a nearby star system? Is this what they teach in college nowadays, how to bitch about "neutrality"? Perhaps this is why Johnny can neither read nor write.

The Indian vs Native American problems

[edit]

At the time of the act, the phrase "Indian" was used. Names of proposals, discussions, and agencies used "Indian". A number of these cannot be changed to "Native American". Those referring to the people in general have been changed previously.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dawes Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dawes Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawes_Act&oldid=1215704236"