Sources for the Top and Bottom image:

Heart, Michael No, et al. “Grassley on Vawa: ‘the Non-Indian Doesn’t Get a Fair Trial’.” Indian Country Today Media Network.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20151120023211/http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/21/grassley-vawa-non-indian-doesnt-get-fair-trial-147823.

“2022: NATIONAL VETERAN SUICIDE PREVENTION ANNUAL REPORT .” Veteran Suicide Data and Reporting, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Sept. 2022, https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/data-sheets/2022/2022-National-Veteran-Suicide-Prevention-Annual-Report-FINAL-508.pdf. 

Table of Contents:

1. The Ongoing Tragedy of the Native Americans in the US (2015)
2. Why are Registered Sex Offenders still allowed to enter Native American reservations to rape and murder Native American men, women, and children? (2023)
3. There is No American Exceptionalism for Genocide (July 2023)
4. A Plea for Help: Calling Our US Senators to Demand Equal Rights for Indigenous Americans by Overturning Oliphant vs Suquamish (1978)(January 2024)
5. President Biden formally apologized on behalf of the United States for Federally-mandated Christian Boarding Schools that tortured, raped, and killed Indigenous children for 150 years. A proud moment for America. (October 2024)

---

Over this past year, I’ve been calling my Congressional representatives in the US Senate. I’ve been asking the Congressional aides or possible Congressional interns who pick-up my calls a litany of questions that I formulated about my honest concerns about the human rights of Native Americans living in US reservations and throughout the US more generally. Admittedly, the questions were likely rather weak in the early months, but I worked on them and improved upon them throughout the past year in the hopes of making a positive change in the service of human rights. I live in New York, so I was obviously calling the US Senators of New York. After approximately eight months, Senator Gillibrand’s office seemed to stop taking my calls and automatically sent them to voicemail. After a full twelve months, Senator Schumer seems to have done the same as of now. I never get anything but automatic responses from Gillibrand’s office when emailing to both US Senators from using their official webpages. I felt as if it wasn’t enough, so I started emailing both Civil Rights groups and two Indigenous non-profits. I have emailed basically every State branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and sent an essay I wrote with verifiable citations explaining my concerns and yet, the only responses I received were from two emailed responses saying they couldn’t do anything, but would keep my email to make a note of the issues that I mentioned. I sent the litany of questions I formulated and asked what else I could possibly do to help to two Indigenous non-profit groups (NIWRC and Sacred Hoop), but after one emailed response for a possible meeting that was never followed-up on, I never heard anything back from either. Prior to any of this, I sent messages to the UN office of genocide prevention from the list of emails they provided on their website to the public, two of them had an auto-response that they don’t accept emails and another that their box was full on various days when I sent it. All of this has been incredibly disheartening for me. It honestly feels like nothing that I do matters.

I have seen news of more positive changes in attitudes and minor policies towards Native Americans, but I can’t be sure if its just me viewing positive news due to seeing algorithms based upon my search history or my actions making any sort of genuine difference. The policies I did read about are still far short of allowing Indigenous “Tribal” police officers to have “Tribal jurisdiction” over violent sex offenders who come into Indigenous reservations to rape and kill Indigenous people because “Tribal” police cannot legally arrest them and “Tribal” courts aren’t allowed to prosecute them, if they’re non-Native criminals coming in to purposefully do harm. The only meaningful solace is that “Tribal” officers can now detain them until local police officers come in to arrest them; but that begs the question, why does such a stupid and pointless limitation exist? The obvious and more optimal use of manpower and resources would be to allow “Tribal” police to arrest them and Indigenous “Tribal” court systems to be allowed to prosecute them with laws equal to State or Federal laws instead of being imposed with weaker laws on purpose by the US Federal government. Yet, this continued policy of purposeful discrimination and harm persists and it is disheartening to think how much of US society would agree to such barbaric legal practices imposed upon Native Americans; why else is the majority of the US public indifferent to it continuing to have major influence in US law? Why are the majority of US Senators keen on protecting the abusive behavior of non-Native, registered sex offenders over the lives and welfare of Native American communities? Ignorance? Hate? Indifference? All of the above? It just makes me feel completely depressed to think about.

It’s important to recognize that these are institutional issues that can be rectified and resolved, they’re not bleak and unalterable realities about life. They’re purposeful decisions that the US Federal government has historically as an institution and contemporarily as a system continues to impose upon Native Americans. Unfortunately, they may be a result of deep-seeded racist beliefs about Native Americans that were often perpetuated by Hollywood and its usage of redface, which often portrayed Native American men as rapists and which Indigenous children in Christian boarding schools were forced to watch after being isolated from their families in the early 1900s. I have seen claims from various Youtube comments sections argue that this was always somehow a Native-on-Native problem or even false claims that Native men raped White women as much as White men raped Native women historically. As much as it may disturb or possibly humiliate US public sensibilities; Indigenous communities of North America, especially those of the North-East, did not suffer these problems until the US government imposed European value systems upon them. Soldiers of the early US who committed forced expulsions of Native Americans admitted that the “savages” did not rape. These inconvenient facts are demonstrated by the writings of early Colonial settlers including the very soldiers who pushed Native Americans out of their homes for White expansion:

These suffragists regularly read newspaper accounts of everyday Iroquois activities: a condolence ceremony to mourn a chief’s death and to set in place a new one; the sports scores when the Onondaga faced the Mohawks at lacrosse; a Quaker council called to ask Seneca women to leave their fields and work in the home (as the Friends said God commanded but as Mott opposed). Newspaper readers in New York also read interviews with white teachers who worked at various Indian nations testifying to the wonderful sense of freedom and safety they felt, since Indian men did not rape women. These front-page stories admonished big-city dandies to learn a thing or two from Native men’s example, so that white women too could walk around any time of the day or night without fear. Rev. M. F. Trippe, long a missionary on the Tonawanda, Cattaraugus and Alleghany reservations, told a New York City reporter: Tell the readers of the Herald that … they have a sincere respect for women— their own women as well as those of the whites. I have seen young white women going unprotected about parts of the reservations in search of botanical specimens best found there and Indian men helping them. Where else in the land can a girl be safe from insult from rude men whom she does not know? 14 In the United States, until women’s rights advocates began the painstaking task of changing state laws, a husband had the legal right to batter his wife. A North Carolina court ruled in 1864 that the State had no business meddling in wife battering cases unless “permanent injury or excessive violence” was involved. The batterer and his victim should be left alone, the court determined, “as the best mode of inducing them to make the matter up and live together as a man and wife should.”15 Suffragists knew that wife battering was not universal, living as neighbors to men of other nations whose religious, legal, social, and economic concept of women made such behavior unthinkable. To Stanton, Gage, Mott, and their feminist contemporaries, the Native American principles of everyday decency, nonviolence, and gender justice must have seemed the Promised Land. A Vision of Power and Security As a feminist historian, I did not at first pay attention to such references to American Indian life because, without realizing it, I accepted the stereotype that Native American women were poor, downtrodden “beasts of burden” (as they were often called in the nineteenth century). I read right past the suffragists’ documentation of Native women’s superior rights without seeing it. I remembered that in the early 1970s, some feminists flirted with the idea of prehistoric matriarchies on which to pin women’s egalitarian hopes. Anthropologists soon set us straight about such nonsense. The evidence just wasn’t there, they said. But Paula Gunn Allen, a Laguna Pueblo/ Sioux author and scholar, believed otherwise: Beliefs, attitudes and laws such as [the Iroquois Confederation] became part of the vision of American feminists and of other human liberation movements around the world. Yet feminists too often believe that no one has ever experienced the kind of society that empowered women and made that empowerment the basis of its rules and civilization. The price the feminist community must pay because it is not aware of the recent presence of gynarchial societies on this continent is unnecessary confusion, division, and much lost time.16 Allen’s words opened my eyes, threw into question much of what I thought I knew about the nineteenth-century woman’s movement, and sent me on an entirely new course of historical discovery. The results shook the foundation of the feminist theory I had been teaching for almost twenty years. A National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship allowed me to replicate the suffragists’ research, and I tracked down Stanton’s and Gage’s citations, poring over books, newspapers, and journals they had read. I visited Onondaga and slowly began to know some of the women. I sat in the kitchen of Alice Papineau—De-wasenta—an Onondaga clan mother, on a hot summer day, drinking iced tea as she described the criteria clan mothers use to choose—and depose, if necessary—the male sachem who represents their clan in the Grand Council, a responsibility of which Stanton and Gage were well aware. But neither suffragist had explained the sachem job requirements, which De-wa-senta listed: “First, they cannot have committed a theft. Second, they cannot have committed a murder. Third, they cannot have abused a woman.” And the overriding qualification: the chief needs to have shown that he can take care of a family, behave as a responsible family man, since he will be responsible for the well-being of the larger families of the clan, the nation and the confederacy—through seven generations.

Wagner, Sally Roesch. Sisters in Spirit: Iroquois Influence on Early Feminists: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influence on Early American Feminists. Book Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.

To contrast Indian-style divorce in an 1891 speech to the National Council of Women, Stanton called on the memoirs of Ashur Wright, long-time missionary (among the Seneca) whose wife, Laura, had published a dictionary of the Seneca language. Ashur Wright related: Usually the females ruled the house. The stores were in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children, or whatever goods he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pick up his blanket and budge; and after such an order it would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey. The house would be too hot for him; and unless saved by the intercession of some aunt or grandmother he must retreat to his own clan, or go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other.4 Suffragist Alice Fletcher delicately explained that “offense and injuries which can befall a woman”—marital rape and battering—when they occurred, “would be avenged and punished by the relatives under tribal law, but which have no penalty or recognition under our [United States] laws. If the Indian brother should, as of old, defend his sister, he would himself become liable to the law and suffer for his championship.”5 … the wife never becomes entirely under the control of her husband. Her kindred have a prior right, and can use that right to separate her from him or to protect her from him, should he maltreat her. The brother who would not rally to the help of his sister would become a by-word among his clan. Not only will he protect her at the risk of his life from insult and injury, but he will seek help for her when she is sick and suffering …6 Carrie S. Burnham, the legal genius of the National Woman Suffrage Association, analyzed women’s position under common law. As the women had claimed in 1848, men had the right to beat their wives. The husband being bound to provide for his wife the necessaries of life, and being responsible for “her morals” and the good order of the household, may choose and govern the domicile, choose her associates, separate her from her relatives, restrain her religious and personal freedom, compel her to cohabit with him, correct her faults by mild means and if necessary chastise her with the same moderation as [if] she was his apprentice or child.7 Under common law, a husband had the right to beat his wife so long as the battering wasn’t too harsh. Blackstone explained that “the husband, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction; for, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, he ought to have the power to control her.”8 The courts generally concurred. In an 1864 case where a husband and wife had separated, he entered the home, “seized her by her hair, pulled her down upon the floor and held her there for some time,” injuring her head and throat, the pain continuing for several months after the attack. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed his right to do so in an 1864 ruling that “A husband is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself, and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as show that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law … prefers to leave the parties to themselves, as the best mode of inducing them to make the matter up and live together as man and wife should.”9 A far different fate awaited Native wife batterers, as writer Minnie Myrtle interpreted the teaching of Handsome Lake about the eternal punishment awaiting any wife batterer: “A man, who was in the habit of beating his wife, was led to the red-hot statue of a female, and requested to treat it as he had done his wife. He commenced beating it, and the sparks flew out and were continually burning him, but yet he would not consume. Thus would it be done to all who beat their wives.”10 In the Journal of American Folklore, Beauchamp related an Iroquois story in which “A man who had beaten his wife cruelly upon earth, struck a red hot statue of woman. The sparks flew with every blow and burned him.”11 Minnie Myrtle attributes this story to the Code of Handsome Lake, the Haudenosaunee spiritual guide. Fletcher was concerned about what would happen to Indian women when they became citizens, lost their rights and were treated with the same legal disrespect as white women, as she explained to the International Council of Women in 1888: Not only does the woman under our laws lose her independent hold on her property and herself, but there are offenses and injuries which can befall a woman which would be avenged and punished by the relatives under tribal law, but which have no penalty or recognition under our laws. If the Indian brother should, as of old, defend his sister, he would himself become liable to the law and suffer for his championship. 12 She was referring, of course, to sexual and physical violence against women. Native men’s intolerance of rape was commented upon by many eighteenth and nineteenth century Indians and non-Indian reporters alike, many of whom contended that rape didn’t exist among Native nations prior to white contact. 13 “That the woman of every Christian land fears to meet a man in a secluded place by day or night, is of itself sufficient proof of the low state of Christian morality,”14 wrote Gage. Family friend Mary Elizabeth Beauchamp also described how, “It shows the remarkable security of living on an Indian Reservation, that a solitary woman can walk about for miles, at any hour of the day or night, in perfect safety.” She elaborated, saying that Miss Remington, for example, a teacher at Onondaga, “often starts off, between eight and nine in the evening, lantern in one hand and alpenstock in the other, and a parcel of supplies strung from her shoulder, to walk for a mile or more up the hill-sides.” Without fear.15 [Miss Remington, “had long been in charge of the mission house. She was adopted into the Snipe Clan of the Onondaga in 1886, and given the name “Ki-a-was-say,” A new word.] Gage is likely to have had this information. William Beauchamp’s daughter-in-law dedicated her “The Battle Hymn of the Suffragists,” to Matilda Joslyn Gage. Gage also wrote short stories for The Skaneateles Democrat— a paper edited by the father of Mary Elizabeth and William’s father—in the 1850s. Coming from a European tradition which legalized both marital rape and wife battering, it is difficult to comprehend a culture in which rape was not allowed. Living in a country where one out of three women are raped, according to current FBI statistics, it is tempting to believe—as some current scholarship would have us believe—that rape is biologically inherent. Our feminist foremothers knew better, since they knew women who lived in nations where men did not rape. A Tuscarora Chief, Elias Johnson, wrote about the absence of rape among Haudenosaunee men in his popular 1881 history. As far as he knew, among white men, it was only the Germans who held the same respect for woman, Johnson wryly added, “until they became civilized.” Maintaining that sexual violation of women was virtually unknown among all Indian men, Johnson celebrated the “marvelous” fact “that whole nations, consisting of millions, should have been so trained, religiously or domestically, that [nothing] should have tempted them from the strictest honor and the most delicate kindness.”16 Another Tuscarora, J. N. B. Hewitt (whose publications with the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution are widely read and cited by anthropologists), substantiated Johnson’s claim: This great regard for the person of woman was not limited to the persons of native Iroquois women, but women of alien blood and origin shared with them this respect. For example: In the face of circumstances adverse to the Iroquois, Gen. James Clinton, commanding the New York division of the Sullivan punitive expedition in 1779, with orders to disperse the hostile Iroquois and to destroy their homes, paid his enemies the high tribute of a brave soldier by writing in April, 1779, to his lieutenant, Colonel Van Schaick, then leading his troops against the Onondaga [one of the six Iroquois nations] and their villages, the following terse compliment: “Bad as these savages are, they never violate the chastity of any woman, their prisoner.” And he added this significant admonition to his colonel, “It would be well to take measures to prevent a stain upon our army. ”17

Wagner, Sally Roesch. Sisters in Spirit: Iroquois Influence on Early Feminists: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influence on Early American Feminists. Book Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.

The use of rape as a tool of war was more one-sided and while seemingly ubiquitous in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa; the evidence suggests Indigenous cultures and civilizations did not have this purportedly “universal” problem. Western thinking seems to have assumed Indigenous raids and capturing meant rape of women was implied when Indigenous war parties committed raids, but the evidence doesn’t support it. Rape was overwhelmingly a European upon Indigenous act of violence as a tool of conquest. I know this can seem perplexing or even possibly magical thinking, but the evidence speaks for itself and it helps to destroy any notion that rape has any innate biological element with being male as some men and women seem disturbingly prone to believe and argue in comments sections. For example, author R. Scott Bakker’s infamous belief that male propensity for rape is unalterable. I only mention this, because it’s unfortunately more than just one or two anecdotes and many criticisms of feminist discourse seemed to genuinely involve men viewing their behavior as an unalterable fact back in the early 2010s as a defense for the male gaze and justifications for sexual assaults upon women. Likewise, it seemed to be the defense of Feminist extremists. I was disturbed by those arguments then, just as I am now. I am equally disturbed by the sheer indifference and institutional harm this sort of belief system has done upon a culture that was originally free of it prior to European influence according to the evidence I’ve learned.

All that being said, I am writing this as a plea for help from my fellow Americans who are willing to read and listen to what I have to say. Regardless of what you think of me as a person or your perspective on political issues, I would like to think that we can all set aside differences and agree that discriminatory laws that allow registered sex offenders to enter reservations to rape and kill innocent people is something that must absolutely be stopped and that all of our fellow Americans are deserving of equal protection. Why should Native Americans be subject to weaker laws imposed by the US Congress? Why should “Tribal” police not be allowed to arrest and prosecute registered sex offenders who come in to rape and kill Native Americans living in reservations? Why should the bigotry and hate towards Native Americans by dead US founders like Thomas Jefferson still matter in the year 2024 and why should such hate continue to guide deliberately violent federal policies that harm Native American people living here and now? Why does the US mainstream media and US Federal government remain hush about the consequences of these policies and deliberately lie about the legal facts of corrosive Supreme Court decisions that have done serious bodily and psychological harm to Native Americans throughout the US? Despite how much I am struggling with these notions and have struggled with them for years, I would like to believe despite all our faults as Americans, that we can agree that fellow Americans should never have to live in fear for their lives because the Federal government refuses to provide equal protections to a subset of Americans due to their cultural background, genealogical background, political beliefs, or political status. If Native Americans of the US want to live on ancestral lands or reservations, then the US Federal government should have no ability to infringe on their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness and it is a fact that the US Federal government has been infringing upon all three for far too long. That is why I’d argue that the US Federal government must be held accountable by being made to acknowledge the Oliphant vs Suquamish 1978 Supreme Court decision as an act of State-sponsored genocide and be made to formally and publicly apologize to Native Americans for that Supreme Court decision on those grounds. I believe that is a necessary and non-negotiable step, because if the US Federal government simply changes the law but doesn’t acknowledge the Oliphant vs Suquamish 1978 decision as genocide, then it could revert the decision back at a future time and continue ignoring any sort of meaningful accountability.

Why do this? Obviously, I would never wish any fellow Americans to live under conditions whereby their entire lives are threatened by rape and murder due to the US Federal government instituting policies of legalized genocide. That is regardless of any ethnic, cultural, religious, and so on backgrounds. No one should ever have their lives threatened like that; yet, unfortunately, the majority of our fellow Americans are either unaware or ignore the contemporary violence against Native American communities. However, there are also other reasons: I was born and raised in the US and grew-up under the teachings that the United States of America is a unique country in which no one is discriminated upon due to race, religion, cultural heritage, and later sexual orientation was added. After that, my fellow Americans started adding gender fluidity to that list. Regardless of what you think of current social justice issues; it should not be in any way extreme or politically partisan to agree that nobody should have to live in fear of rapists and murderers coming after innocent people of any background. Unfortunately, these laws imposed upon Native American reservations do exactly that and both the US Federal government and mainstream media shamelessly try to obfuscate the legal precedents that are a direct cause for that violence upon Native American communities throughout the US. They shamelessly hide this knowing that registered sex offenders are the ones benefitting from their silence and deliberate lies on this issue. Why should that be an acceptable standard in the United States of America? If we really champion equal rights, equal opportunities for all people, and equal protection under the law; then why was this ever even allowed to occur and influence legal policy that directly destroyed Native American lives?

Consider this pertinent fact: Native Americans serve in the US armed forces at five times the per capita rate as all other ethnic backgrounds according to both the US Army’s official website information and former President Donald Trump in his speech honoring Native American contributions to the US. Whereas other ethnic backgrounds display an average percentage compared to population size, Indigenous Americans are more likely than others to serve in the US military. From what I’ve read, approximately eight to ten percent of the US Army alone is filled with Native American service members. In the world we live in today, they are being sent off to wars, fighting, getting seriously injured, and they can expect to come home to learn that their mothers, sisters, aunts, and daughters have been raped or raped and killed or gone missing and never found; then the US Federal government and we, the US public, that are benefitting from their service to protect us from terrorist threats are then victim blaming their families by falsely claiming Native American reservations are sovereign when they’re legally defined as domestic dependent nations under US Federal law and then shut our eyes and ears to service members living in grief over their losses directly caused by US Federal law in its current state today. These circumstances are all because the US Federal government privileged the ability of registered sex offenders to rape and kill the family members of Indigenous service members over protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the families of Indigenous service members. That is not an exaggeration or any deceptive tool to influence your behavior; that’s how US Federal law currently operates. How is this acceptable? How has this even been allowed to continue on for so long? How is it that the US public and US politicians didn’t even think about this? Why am I able to put these pieces together just by looking at the facts, yet the mainstream media couldn’t even be bothered to even think on these social issues that are undoubtedly happening when you consider the statistical evidence? And if you think I’m being “partisan” just how and why? Why was this ever considered a partisan political issue? How can either major political party in the US and either side of the US public find these circumstances acceptable? And if they aren’t acceptable, why haven’t they been overturned and amended to protect the wellbeing of Native American communities?

Finally, for those who possibly aren’t convinced on these grounds alone and who wrongly believe there’s some valuable purpose to the current state of affairs or who wrongly view granting equal rights to fellow Americans as some sort of threat to be fearful of; consider the fact that we will honestly never know how much damage this has done to the United States in the long-run. People who make breakthrough inventions in industries such as medicine, create businesses that make for great job opportunities, and promote social changes that can benefit communities come from all walks of life. It is random. Being born rich certainly doesn’t mean that you’re more likely to be brilliant and invent new ways of doing things. Imagine a world where American inventor Alice H. Parker had been killed early in life before she could invent the gas furnace, which is used as the model for furnaces within all modern American households throughout our entire country. Imagine the majority of our population of approximately 330 million people never having this invention or having this invention delayed by decades or even centuries resulting in our population correcting the fire hazards of the invention at a later period with potentially more deaths as the rest of the population taking more time to figure out safety standards for it. Imagine how much of our current standard of living would be delayed because this one apparently working-class woman never got the opportunity for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in the United States. Now, think about how often this probably has already happened with young, inquisitive Native American children with a thirst for knowledge having their lives and opportunities for growth robbed from them because the US Federal government privileged the ability of a registered sex offender to be allowed to enter their community, rape these children, and then murder them. We can never possibly know the opportunity cost or real long-term damage that such events have had, because the US Federal government robbed these children of the opportunity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Lastly, one might think it ridiculous to quote Thomas Jefferson while also calling him a bigot, but I am under the belief that his ideals in democracy and the US Republic should supersede his racist views of Native Americans. I can appreciate his brilliance and recognize when he was wrong in his bigoted views towards other groups of people. His ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should supersede his views of Native Americans being “merciless Indian savages” and yet, the US Federal government still largely bases its judgment of an entire group of people on the latter quote.

What We Can Do: In Manageable Steps

Here is my plea to my fellow Americans, I don’t believe that I’ve really made any meaningful change so far – or at least, not enough to make a clear difference to protect the human rights of Native Americans to the extent that I want them to be safe from violence. I just cannot accept the current circumstances and I don’t believe I will ever trust the mainstream media without fact-checking from either independent US news sources or even foreign sources with a more neutral slant like Reuters or NPR when it comes to domestic human rights issues in the US.

My plea is this: I would humbly request that anyone able and willing to assist in supporting Native American human rights to try calling your US Congressional representatives, especially both of your US Senators, either monthly or whenever you have the opportunity, and asking them the following questions that I’ve taken the time to research and write down in the pursuit of real equal rights for Native Americans. These calls should only take about thirty to forty-five minutes, if you call all three of your representatives and probably even less if you call one or two of them. I must stress: Please, please do not send them hate or joke messages or even joke about reducing the legal rights of Native Americans living in reservations, because they will seriously do it and the only ones who will benefit are the violent sex offenders. The questions that I made were my best attempts at being direct and maintaining respect. Generally, it is recommended that you ask the Congressional aide or intern picking up the call to speak with the legislative aide directly in charge of specific policies that the US Senator or House Representative works to put into bills to make into laws or that the Congressperson otherwise votes on. However, please feel free to proceed with any calls in whatever way you’re comfortable with when making any calls to assist in this issue and choose whichever questions you prefer. If you feel that you can make better questions to ask to further help correct this human rights travesty imposed upon Native Americans, then please feel free. I would recommend calling them once a month and asking the questions. If you’re willing to do this, then it should only be thirty or forty-five minutes out of your day, per month. If the person on the other side of the phone tries to ignore or deflect, then consider emphasizing these are serious legal issues that impact Native Americans across the country and are voted upon by your Congressional representative. If calling seems too daunting, then consider emailing them your own concerns or even emailing them any or all of the questions I’ve been sending to my US Senators and occasionally my House representative. Please note that research indicates calling has a bigger influence than sending emails, though.

I’ve mainly been focusing on calling the Senate, because the House passed the Violence Against Women’s Reauthorization act of 2021 which according to NIWRC has a clause that would allow “Tribal” police to arrest sex offenders, whereas the Senate has not passed it on the demand that grant programs be given more penalization if found to be misused, despite the statistics listed in the bill itself on the rate of physical and sexual violence that Native Americans suffer from predominately violent sex offenders. Some Congressional aides seemed to be confused by the first question, so you may want to skip it for the others that more directly question the ongoing human rights issues. I’ve also added the final statement that I usually say after asking the questions:

1. What is the Senator’s current stance on H.R. 1620: Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2021 which passed the US House of Representatives?

2. Why does the updated Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 still limit cases of murder and rape in Native American reservations to three-years imprisonment or a $15,000 fine and why aren’t Native Americans allowed to set their own standards upon which they can resolve cases of murder and rape in Native American reservations?

3. Why aren’t Native American reservation police and court systems allowed to prosecute non-Native registered sex offenders who come into Native American reservations to rape and kill Native American children, women, and even men? If US Congresspeople really cared about ending violence against women, why don’t they ban sex offenders from entering Native American reservations and give Native American reservations the ability to enact their own laws to prosecute sex offenders? In fact, why is there time spent on the fentanyl crisis in reservations, but not the underlying causes such as the legalized genocidal policies imposed upon Native Americans even now?

4. Why is the US Congress indifferent to the fact that many of the Indigenous victims raped and killed by non-native registered sex offenders on reservations are statistically likely to be the families of Indigenous service members in the armed forces; since it is nationally recognized that Indigenous people serve in the armed forces at five times higher per capita than other ethnic backgrounds? Do Congresspeople really care that the families of our armed forces keep getting raped and killed due to federal government decisions like Oliphant vs Suquamish of 1978, the Major Crimes act of 1885, and the lack of ability for Native Americans to have any sort of veto power over their human rights being violated? Why shouldn’t this be seen as support for State-Sponsored genocide by the US government upon Indigenous people primarily in reservations, but also outside of them due to how sex offenders feel empowered by these genocidal laws still in effect?

5. The trust responsibility which gives Congress unilateral powers to modify and remove reservations, the forceful imposition of Christian boarding schools upon Native American children under federal mandate from the 1870s to the 1960s which led to cases of rape and murder that Indigenous people still cannot sue Catholic Churches for even today, the sterilization campaigns by many US States in the 1970s without Indigenous women’s consent, the dumping of toxic pollution that led to various health problems including infant mortality, and the Oliphant vs Suquamish Supreme Court decision of 1978 which has allowed registered sex offenders and even serial killers to enter and do serious bodily and psychological harm to Indigenous communities living in reservations; Why shouldn’t all of this be recognized as purposeful state-sponsored genocide by the US government upon Native American people?

6. Why has Congress limited aid to Indigenous reservations to conditional grant programs involving the Violence Against Women’s Act and not simply allowed police in reservations to be able to arrest and prosecute registered sex offenders, arrest and prosecute potential serial killers, or simply passed a bill to ban registered sex offenders and non-natives with violent criminal history from being allowed to enter Indigenous reservations when the most recent Violence against women’s act reauthorization 2021 bill passed by the House acknowledges that 96% of Indigenous women and 89% of Indigenous men have been physically or sexually violated by non-Natives, predominately registered sex offenders? Furthermore, why was there inordinate focus on the grant programs being misused despite these statistical facts compiled by the US Congress listed in the 2021 bill?

7. Why shouldn’t the Supreme Court decision of Oliphant vs Suquamish of 1978 be seen as the US federal government pressuring underaged Indigenous girls into sex due to credible fears of their first and perhaps only experience being registered sex offenders raping and then killing them? Why do Congresspeople still allow these registered Sex Offenders to enter Native American reservations? What national interest does it serve to allow the families of our armed forces or even possibly armed forces members themselves who suffer from disabilities as a result of serving our country to be raped and killed after putting their lives on the line for our country?

8. Federal prosecutors often fail to prosecute and historically ignored cases of Indigenous women being raped and killed, and even now, the US government still doesn’t allow Native American courts to prosecute and imprison these sex offenders, and federal authorities close Indigenous missing persons’ cases because they can’t get permission from local authorities outside of reservations to investigate. So, why shouldn’t this be seen as anything other than state-sponsored rape campaigns by the US government upon Indigenous people, especially since there were sterilization initiatives among several US State governments conveniently prior to the Oliphant vs Suquamish 1978 Supreme Court decision which led to a widespread rape epidemic upon Native American women by predominately White Male sex offenders due to US legal policy? Moreover, the only reason these policies exist in the first place is due to US law unilaterally infringing upon the human rights of Native Americans, so why shouldn’t this be recognized as an ongoing policy of legalized genocide still happening today?

9. Why is there not clearer recognition by the US federal government of the contribution and influence of the Haudenosaunee, more popularly known by their French name, the Iroquois Confederacy, which showed active examples of and provided inspiration for two of three of the most active American womens’ rights advocates to argue in favor of women having modern forms of property rights, divorce rights, women’s exclusive custody of children, and even voting rights? Moreover, why is there no recognition that Native American women in Matrilineal confederacies like the Haudenosaunee had women holding the power to vote; prior to the US ever having been formed according to the most recent anthropological and archaeological information?

10. After the Flint, Michigan water crisis failed to hold anyone within the State accountable, the 2019 statement to the UN by Adviser Brian Kelly in which he stated safe and sanitary drinking water isn’t a serious human right, and the Supreme Court decision on the Navajo nation’s water crisis; Why shouldn’t these current policies and statements be taken as an admission of severe institutional incompetence and a complete self-destruction of US soft power in matters pertaining to advancing democratic norms and standards, since no rational human being could ever regard such policies and statements as anything short of an insult to the intelligence of any person who understands the basics of human welfare?

Finally, I am completely disappointed in the fact that this clear and present human rights violation has not been resolved and that the US Congress still privileges registered sex offenders being allowed to rape and kill Native Americans over the lives and welfare of Native American communities.

You can find your House of Representative or US Senator by going to the following links:

To find your Senator:

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

You can find your House of Representative by typing your zip code on the official government link:

https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

If neither of the other two links are working, and although this one is more cumbersome to use, try selecting “Member” from the drop down menu on the top-left and searching from the searching box for your Congressional representatives:

https://www.congress.gov

If you believe I’ve made inaccurate information, exaggerated, or written falsehoods then please see the blog posts where I repeatedly cite my sources and elaborate more in-depth on these issues. I can’t make an exhaustive list, but the following are the best I can offer, if you want to be more informed before committing to any decision on this topic:

Why are registered sex offenders allowed to enter Native American reservations to rape and kill Native Americans with impunity?

There is No American Exceptionalism for Genocide

Critical Analysis: Why I Reject Sam Harris’s Arguments about the Superiority of Western Values and Why I Hate myself for having believed His Arguments

If you can’t or don’t wish to call your US Senators and / or House of Representatives, please consider donating maybe $10 or however much that you want to Native American non-profit groups working to help Indigenous rape survivors. I’m not affiliated with them, but judging from what I have learned, they do seem to be doing important work such as NIWRC’s letter appeal to the United Nations and Mending the Sacred Hoop’s publications attempting to revitalize Native American culture as a way of using communal methods to fight against collective trauma:

Donated $500 to Mending the Sacred Hoop

Donated $250 to National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center (NIWRC)

Thank you for reading. Please seriously consider helping in any way that you can.

---

1/18/2024 Update: If any readers are distrustful of the links and would like a more concise version of the issue with verifiable citations, here’s the email I sent to the ACLU which they said that they couldn’t help with, but would keep for their records. It’s an amalgamation of the three blog posts I’ve written and fully cited, so it comprises of material that I’ve already written in the other blog posts but in shortened form. The citations for this one will be below it. Please note, this doesn’t go into the full range of details in the other blog posts, such as the cited sources pertaining to information involving Indigenous service members and the higher per capita rate of Indigenous people joining the US armed forces compared to other ethnic backgrounds:

“Besides justifying unquestioned abrogation and unilateral determination of tribal treaty and property rights, the plenary power paradigm has been interpreted to permit the denial of other fundamental human rights of Indian people in the United States.”‘154 Violent suppression of Indian religious practices and traditional forms of government,155 separation of Indian children from their homes,156 wholesale spoliation of treaty-guaranteed resources,157 forced assimilative programs’158 and involuntary sterilization of Indian women,’159 represent but a few of the practical extensions of a false and un-Americanized legal consciousness that at its core regards tribal peoples as normatively deficient and culturally, politically and morally inferior to Europeans. For half a millenium, whether articulated in this notion of plenary power possessed by Congress in Indian affairs, or through the Law of Nations, or in Coke’s English common law, European-derived legal thought has sought to erase the difference presented by the Indian in order to sustain its own discursive context; European norms and value structures. Animated by a central orienting myth of its own universalized, hierarchical position among all other discourses, the white man’s archaic, European-derived law respecting the Indian is ultimately genocidal in both its practice and intent. This un-Americanized collection of legal rules and principles seeks to silence a radically-opposed teaching that in the American way of life, freedom is built on respect for my brother’s vision and his respect for mine.” – Robert A. Williams Jr, THE ALGEBRA OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW: THE HARD TRAIL OF DECOLONIZING AND AMERICANIZING THE WHITE MAN’S INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE, from the Wisconsin Law Review.

 

In the Supreme Court decision of Oliphant vs Suquamish (1978), Supreme Court justice William Rehnquist in the majority decision stated that Native American reservations, upon becoming domestic dependent nations to the United States, had no jurisdiction to arrest and prosecute non-Native people coming into reservations. It also stated that the plenary power of the US Congress extended to being able to limit, modify, or remove any legal powers that Native American reservations had. In effect, non-Natives could not be arrested or prosecuted by Native American “tribal” court systems. This has led to widespread rape epidemics and murder sprees of Native American women and even men by predominately white male registered sex offenders for over forty years. These rape and murder sprees are not some bygone era of the past, they still occur to this day and have never stopped. The Supreme Court of the United States under Rehnquist effectively legalized rape upon Native Americans living in reservations because only Federal prosecutors were allowed to prosecute non-Native registered sex offenders coming into reservations to harm Native Americans. Indigenous court systems and Native American police could not arrest or prosecute them for over forty years and I’ve read articles where Indigenous police essentially admitted that if they did attempt to, then registered sex offenders could call on local police in their towns outside reservations to shoot and kill Indigenous reservation police because it isn’t a crime to harm Native Americans living in reservations and Indigenous police are committing a crime by trying to stop registered sex offenders from raping and murdering Indigenous people. Even worse, this doesn’t cover the litany of historical abuses upon Native Americans even prior to Oliphant v. Suquamish (1978) that the US still legally defends in modern times: the downright genocidal boarding schools of the 1870s – 1960s which brutalized Indigenous children, the US government legally owning the Indigenous reservations and not allowing Indigenous people to legally hold them, the dumping of toxic waste that has increased child mortality among Indigenous mothers, the failed “Termination Era” policies by the US Congress trying to end Indigenous reservations by forcing Indigenous people into cities which began a legacy of sex trafficking forcing Native American women into prostitution with local law enforcement penalizing Native women after they were drugged and pimped out by non-Native men, the sterilization campaign by several US State government agencies upon Indigenous women along with other minority women and even lower-income white Americans, and the ongoing legal justification for violations upon the human rights of Native Americans today.

As I read more deeply into this issue, it sickened me how they’ve imposed legal decisions on reservations for crimes between Native Americans too; please bear in mind, bad actors exist in all groups and I’m not trying to disparage any person or ethnic group. Nearly a century prior to this decision, the Major Crimes act of 1885 passed by the US Congress effectively stated that only the US Congress had unilateral rights to define punishment for crimes like rape and murder on Indigenous reservations; the US Congress limited crimes of murder and rape upon reservations to six months prison or a $500 fine. In 1986, they updated it to one year in prison and a $5000 fine, and only in 2010 has the US Congress updated this to $15,000 fine and a three-year prison sentence. As many of you may know, that is far short of a 25 to life sentence for murder and five or more years in prison for rape. Native American court systems have no legal ability to update their own court systems even on crimes within their communities between their community members. Even outside of the issue that predominately white male sex offenders can come in to rape and murder an Indigenous child, Native American groups have protested and begged for over forty years for there to be updates in the penal code or for federal prosecutors to visit reservations only for prosecutors not wanting to make the trip and closing cases pre-emptively allowing no legal recourse to hold registered sex offenders accountable throughout the United States when they rape and murder Indigenous people living in reservations. There’s a disincentive for Federal prosecutors to pursue these cases due to there being more legal challenges as a result of the jurisdictional nightmare created by Oliphant vs Suquamish of 1978 and Federal prosecutors have discretion on cases they can choose to pursue. Vast majorities of cases were not prosecuted throughout the forty years of rape and murder sprees upon Indigenous people and the US federal government didn’t have a systematized measurement of cases until 2020, despite criticisms over this by Amnesty International back in 2007. Amnesty International’s own research between October 2002 and September 2003 found that Federal prosecutors declined 60 percent of cases of sexual assault in reservations where the perpetrator was a non-Native man who sexually assaulted an Indigenous woman according to their first Maze of Injustice research publication back in 2007. The updated 2022 report found nearly 57 percent of Indigenous women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, it is usually multiple times in their lives, and approximately 30 percent of those sexual assaults were rape. In other words, approximately one in two Indigenous women will be sexually assaulted and approximately one in three Indigenous women will be raped in their lifetime throughout the United States. In both the first Amnesty International report and the local news reports by KX News of North Dakota found that approximately between 84 – 86 percent of the sexual violence comes from non-Native men; KX News of North Dakota clarified that the non-Native perpetrators are overwhelmingly violent sex offenders who use reservations as safe havens to rape or rape and kill Indigenous women.

If not for the studies by Amnesty International USA, US news agencies that originate from Great Britain, independent news organizations like Reveal News, and local news reports from various US State locales; I would never have learned of or known any of this. The majority of US-based national news agencies like NBC News deliberately obfuscate and try to re-contextualize the information as a Native-on-Native problem to protect predominately white male, registered sex offenders. They claim that Indigenous reservations are sovereign territories when they’ve been legally defined as domestic, dependent nations since Cherokee Nation vs Georgia (1831). In Johnson vs McIntosh (1823), Supreme Court justice Marshall legally defined Native Americans as “wards” of the US government and what that meant was that US penal code and US law define Native Americans as having no legal ability for rational thinking faculties. The basis of this was the Christian doctrine of discovery which Thomas Jefferson had reinterpreted into secular terms. Even as recent as City of Sherill v. Onedia Indian Nation (2005), Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the Doctrine of Discovery as the reason for why the Oneida nation had to pay taxes for land it had legally re-purchased that was lost to it during colonial expulsion by white settlers. The reason the Supreme Court would decide on that basis is because currently the two competing legal theories defining US law is the originalist or textualist theories of law. What that means is, the Supreme Court of the United States can only interpret the laws on the basis of either a literalist reading of the text of the law or on the basis of the original intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States in accordance with the US Constitution and US Constitutional amendments. Therefore, because Thomas Jefferson supported the Doctrine of Discovery for all non-Christians, due to legal affirmations like the two Supreme Court cases in the early 1800s, and the Founding Fathers own racist writings such as the Declaration of Independence referring to Indigenous people as “merciless Indian savages” which was written by Thomas Jefferson himself; the Supreme Court of the United States can only pass judgments based upon that and that means the US legal system is deliberately organized to violate the human rights of Native Americans. Unless there’s a Constitutional amendment allowing genuine self-determination or simply allowing Indigenous court systems to prosecute non-Native sex offenders, these horrific conditions will not change at all. In more recent times there have been piecemeal efforts to bandage this barbaric legal system that the US created, the Supreme Court decision of United States vs Cooley (2021) now allows Indigenous police to hold and detain perpetrators while waiting for non-Indigenous police to come and arrest them and the Supreme Court decision of Oklahoma vs Castro-Huerta (2021) allows local non-Native police to arrest and prosecute non-Natives going into Indigenous reservations to harm Indigenous people. However, as Amnesty International USA reiterated, the core problem is the Supreme Court decision of Oliphant vs Suquamish (1978) which allowed registered sex offenders carte blanche access to assault, rape, and murder Indigenous people for over forty years and remains in legal effect to this day. The most recent analysis by the US House of Representatives in the Violence Against Women’s Reauthorization bill of 2021, that seems to have been killed in the US Senate’s Committee of the Judiciary, is that 89 percent of Native American men and 96 percent of Native American women have been physically or sexually violated by a non-Native offender.

While I can appreciate the efforts by the Obama administration in signing the Violence Against Women’s act of 2013 in adding some protections for Indigenous people living in Native American reservations, the signing of the Savannah act and the Not Invisible act by the Trump administration along with Attorney General Barr’s updated policies to enhance Alaskan policing to protect Alaskan Natives, and President Biden’s administration in acknowledging the epidemic levels of rape of Native American and Alaskan Native women by non-Native men along with policy updates for the Bureau of Indian Affairs under Debra Haaland; nevertheless, these are all piecemeal efforts to ignore the dehumanizing and destructive impact of the 1978 Supreme Court decision of Oliphant vs Suquamish and the limitations on “Tribal” governments to impose penalties upon registered sex offenders due to the discriminatory impositions of the Indian Civil Rights act of 1968. I cannot write an exhaustive list of the centuries of history of specific abuses by the US government upon Native American human rights and I don’t believe that I, an outsider looking in, have any right to argue on behalf of what Indigenous communities say that they require to fix a brutal legacy of injustice. What I will say is that from my own perspective, I do not understand how the legacy of US policies upon Indigenous human rights should be considered anything short of grossly incompetent and should serve as a lesson to all forms of democratic government institutions throughout the world that no government should ever have any unlimited power over any human beings. The US government has proven both domestically with regards to its policies upon Native Americans and internationally in its war campaigns of Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan to be grossly unfit and too incompetent to ever be allowed such powers. As I do not want to be misconstrued as speaking for Native Americans, my only real recommendation from my own personal perspective as a human being who believes wholeheartedly in the human rights of all people, would be that Indigenous “Tribal” governments should be allowed to assert and impose their own inalienable rights (whether comporting to international human rights standard or a more culturally-sensitive approach) which the US Congress, US judiciary, and US Presidential office have absolutely no right to infringe or reduce to any capacity similar to the US Constitutional rights granted to the US public. In other words, the best and most effective way to fix the present issues in my personal opinion, would be to allow “Tribal” governments to assert their own self-defined Indigenous human rights within their “Tribal” lands that the US government cannot ever infringe upon via the Plenary powers or Doctrine of Discovery under any circumstances. Restraint on what the US government can do to Native American lands and communities seems to be the only rational recourse in my honest opinion. Whether by uniform plebiscite among all Tribal governments working together or each individually asserting their own intrinsic rights with different legal classifications, I think this is the only rational recourse; however, if Native American communities living in their Indigenous lands disagree and have better ideas, then I would humbly acquiesce to their suggestions.

 

Works Cited

1. “687. Tribal Court Jurisdiction.” The United States Department of Justice, 22 Jan. 2020, http://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-687-tribal-court-jurisdiction#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20held%20in,the%20tribe%20in%20Duro%20v.
2. “City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/197/. Accessed 28 Oct. 2023.
3. Cooper, Renee. “Behind the Grim Statistics for Sexual Violence on Reservations.” KX NEWS, KX NEWS, 22 Dec. 2020, http://www.kxnet.com/news/local-news/being-raped-is-a-right-of-passage-behind-the-grim-statistics-for-native-american-women/.
4. “Doctrine of Discovery.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/doctrine_of_discovery. Accessed 28 Oct. 2023.
5. Golden, Hallie. “US Indigenous Women Face High Rates of Sexual Violence – with Little Recourse.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 May 2022, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/17/sexual-violence-against-native-indigenous-women.
6. Maher, Savannah. “Supreme Court Rules Tribal Police Can Detain Non-Natives, but Problems Remain.” NPR, NPR, 9 June 2021, http://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004328972/supreme-court-rules-tribal-police-can-detain-non-natives-but-problems-remain.
7. Martinez, Clara. “The Evolution of Judicial Power: How the Supreme Court Effectively Legalized Rape on Indian Reservations.” Linfield Journal of Undergraduate Research, Lindfield University, digitalcommons.linfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=quercus. Accessed 29 Oct. 2023.
8. “Maze of Injustice.” Amnesty International USA, 15 May 2017, web.archive.org/web/20111018194106/www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/MazeOfInjustice.pdf.
9. “The Never-Ending Maze: Continued Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA.” Amnesty International USA, Amnesty International USA, 19 July 2023, http://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AmnestyMazeReportv_digital.pdf.
10. Oweiss, Ibrahim M. “Petrodollars: Problems and Prospects.” Economics of Petrodollars, faculty.georgetown.edu/imo3/petrod/petro2.htm. Accessed 28 Oct. 2023.
11. Pastino, Blake de. “Infamous Mass Grave of Young Women in Ancient City of Cahokia Also Holds Men: Study.” Western Digs, 5 Aug. 2013, web.archive.org/web/20221004092858/https://westerndigs.org/infamous-mass-grave-of-young-women-in-ancient-city-of-cahokia-also-holds-men-study/.
12. Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct. 2023.
13. Text – H.R.1620 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Violence against Women …, http://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1620/text?r=6&s=1. Accessed 29 Oct. 2023.
14. “Tribal Governance.” Crow Dog Case (1883) | Tribal Governance, http://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-1/crowdogcase.php. Accessed 28 Oct. 2023.
15. “United States v. Cooley, 593 U.S. ___ (2021).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/593/19-1414/. Accessed 28 Oct. 2023.
16. Vogue, Ariane de. “States Can Prosecute Non-Tribal Members Who Commit Crimes on Native American Reservations, Supreme Court Says | CNN Politics.” CNN, Cable News Network, 29 June 2022, http://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics/oklahoma-supreme-court-mcgirt-castro-huerta/index.html.
17. Wagner, Sally Roesch. “Sisters in Spirit: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influences …” Goodreads, Goodreads, http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/989655.Sisters_in_Spirit. Accessed 28 Oct. 2023.
18. Williams, Robert A. “THE ALGEBRA OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW: THE HARDTRAIL OF DECOLONIZING AND AMERICANIZING THEWHITE MAN’S INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE.” UW Law Digital Repository Media · University of Wisconsin Law School Digital Repository · University of Wisconsin Law School Digital Repository, University of Wisconsin Law Review, repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/media/35536. Accessed 28 Oct. 2023.