American Indian Landowners, Leasemen & Bureaucrats: Property, Paper, and the Poli-Technics of Dispossession in Southwestern Oklahoma (original) (raw)
Related papers
Complexity's Shadow: American Indian Property, Sovereignty, and the Future
Michigan Law Review
This Article offers a new perspective on the challenges of the modern American Indian land tenure system. While some property theorists have renewed focus on isolated aspects of Indian land tenure, including the historic inequities of colonial takings of Indian lands, this Article argues that the complexity of today’s federally imposed reservation property system does much of the same colonizing work that historic Indian land policies—from allotment to removal to termination—did overtly. But now, these inequities are largely overshadowed by the daunting complexity of the whole land tenure structure. This Article introduces a new taxonomy of complexity in American Indian land tenure and explores in particular how the recent trend of hypercategorizing property and sovereignty interests into ever-more granular and interacting jurisdictional variables has exacerbated development and self-governance challenges in Indian country. This structural complexity serves no adequate purpose for I...
An Introduction to American Indian Land Tenure: Mapping the Legal Landscape
Property, 2019
This Article provides an introduction to land-related legal issues facing tribal governments and Indigenous peoples in the United States and is intended to encourage deeper and more widespread engagement on these important topics. Forced property law reforms have been used throughout history as this country’s primary tool for implementing its colonial objectives, and today unique property rules continue to apply in Indian country with complex effects—and, often without significant public or scholarly attention. This Article seeks to help close this attention gap by providing an accessible introduction to important American Indian land tenure topics, including both the lessons of historic uses of property law in federal Indian policy and more modern reservation land tenure dynamics. Additional topics include the complex relationship between property and sovereignty in Indian country, the many and varied efforts to resolve historic land and Aboriginal title claims in the United States...
Complexity\u27s Shadow: American Indian Property, Sovereignty, and the Future
2017
This Article offers a new perspective on the challenges of the modern American Indian land tenure system. While some property theorists have renewed focus on isolated aspects of Indian land tenure, including the historic inequities of colonial takings of Indian lands, this Article argues that the complexity of today’s federally imposed reservation property system does much of the same colonizing work that historic Indian land policies—from allotment to removal to termination—did overtly. But now, these inequities are largely overshadowed by the daunting complexity of the whole land tenure structure. This Article introduces a new taxonomy of complexity in American Indian land tenure and explores in particular how the recent trend of hypercategorizing property and sovereignty interests into ever-more granular and interacting jurisdictional variables has exacerbated development and self-governance challenges in Indian country. This structural complexity serves no adequate purpose for I...
MCGIRT V. OKLAHOMA AND THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF RESERVATION BOUNDARIES
Pennsylvania Law Review Online, 2021
“Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law.” So reads McGirt v. Oklahoma, the most important reservation boundary case in the history of the Supreme Court. But before McGirt, courts often rewarded unlawful acts with reservation diminishment. This Article first places McGirt in the context of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s century long fight to restore sovereign rights illegally denied after allotment, and the even longer fight by the Muscogee Nation and others to survive a trail of broken treaty promises. It then corrects the false assumptions about the past and present of reservation boundaries that led the Court to turn lawbreaking into law. As to the past, I show that the allotment-era Congress knew that reservations did not depend on land tenure, and that its statutes distinguished between allotment acts that diminished reservations and those that did not. States, however, regularly broke the law, asserting jurisdiction in violation of federal Indian law rules. Before McGirt, however, the Court falsely assumed that “[t]he notion that reservation status of Indian lands might not be coextensive with tribal ownership was unfamiliar at the turn of the century,” and so justified relying on state violations of tribal sovereignty as “evidence” of congressional intent. As to the present, I show that reservation status is not disruptive for non-Indian communities, and often benefits tribal and non-tribal citizens alike. In high-profile cases in Tacoma, Washington and Pender, Oklahoma, life in those communities began to improve at the same time reservation boundaries were affirmed. Throughout the country tribal governments contribute to the economies and social welfare of their surrounding communities. The Muscogee Nation, whose sophisticated law enforcement, health care, governance, and economic development arms already partner with non-tribal governments throughout its territory, exemplifies the benefits that strengthening tribal self-governance can provide.
American Nineteenth Century History, 2016
Though they had been vital agents in the backwoods diplomacy of the eighteenth century, through colonial warfare and treaties, Virginia politically and militarily subjugated the Iroquoian- speaking Nottoway as “tributaries” of the English Crown. Two Nottoway “Indian Towns” were surveyed and the surrounding lands held “in trust.” Eventually, the House of Burgesses appointed “Trustees” to assist with select tribal land sales and the management of monetary distributions. Situated in Southampton County, Virginia, the antebellum Nottoway community was politically active: they petitioned the legislature, governors, and county courts to intercede on matters related to the mismanagement of their funds, distribution of property, illegal seizure, and treaty obligations. In contrast, by the end of the century, the Nottoway were described by contemporaries as “very few left in the county,” all reservation lands had been allotted, and their trustees dismissed. This paper explores Indian–white interactions within Southampton’s antebellum political economy. The financial relationship between the tribe and their trustees is analyzed, as are the catalysts for Nottoway land sales and reservation allotment. The role of matrilineal leadership figures in Nottoway Trustee discourse and a series of asymmetries that emerged as the result of the tribe’s engagement with the capitalist system are considered. This essay also examines Southampton’s competition for control of Indian land and monetary capital in order to explicate the underlying causes of socio-cultural transformation. The prime mover of this change was economic, as community members struggled with their trustees for control of Indian resources and became more fully engaged in the cash-crop economy of the region.
Land, Culture, and Community: Reflections on Native Sovereignty and Property in America
Indiana Law Review, 2001
God created this Indian country and it was like He spread out a big blanket. He put the Indians on it. They were created here in this country, truly and honestly, and that was the time this river started to run. Then God created fish in this river and put deer in these mountains and made laws through which has come the increase of fish and game. Then the Creator gave us Indians life; we awakened and as soon as we saw the game and the fish we knew they were made for us I was not brought from a foreign country and did not come here. I was put here by the Creator. 1 INTRODUCTION Chief Meninock's words describe a world in which the Native people, the land and its resources interact under a Divine plan created for a particular place on earth. The people exist under the same set of laws that governs all other living things, which results in order, balance, and abundance. Contemporary American society, of course, is governed by a system of man-made laws that has created an imbalance of resources, whether measured in tangible ways (e.g., land) or intangible ways (e.g. equality of opportunity). This Symposium addresses that problem by evaluating the continuing inequalities in wealth and property that exist in America. "America" symbolizes many things, among which are a geographical territory, a robust pluralism that highlights values of tolerance and respect for diversity, and a constitutional democracy that has become one ofthe major world powers. Each of these aspects informs the dialogue on property, wealth and inequality. But for the indigenous peoples ofthis land, "America" has a different meaning. Acoma poet Simon Ortiz says that, "[NJative culture is at the heart of everything that is America." 2 Indigenous identity is formed by the intersection
Ethnohistory, 2014
Natural resource management in Indian country today must continually address colonial histories. In the Cherokee Nation, tribal resource managers are acutely familiar with this history because they deal with its current manifestations daily. This situation reflects both structural issues that stem from the imposed land management programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and practical issues in which the results of federal policies like allotment inhibit tribal access to and control over resources within Cherokee Nation boundaries. In this article, I trace the origins of contemporary obstacles to tribal natural resource management in the Cherokee Nation, emphasizing the process of environmental production to explain how myriad actors and forces shaped the western Cherokee landscape. Additionally, I frame tribal resource control and management as an identifiable modern state practice. As such, I explore the dynamics of the Cherokee Nation as a uniquely indigenous state—one that is struggling to balance its ability to assert indigenous approaches towards environmental management with its power to regulate its own citizens’ access to sparse lands and resources.