• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Cherokee, famously, were perfectly happy to leave Georgia and Florida on the grounds that “Hey its not like we really recognize a claim to the land you guys can just have it” and never once contested the confiscation of land, much less by taking it all the way to the Supreme Court and winning an unenforceable injunction against their forced removal.

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Each tribe was/is an independent nation, with their own ideals, beliefs, social structures, etc… There’s a reason why I said “most” and not “all”.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The differences are heavily overstated, primarily as a means of dismissing native people as “primitive” and necessarily subservient to the arriving colonists. The main difference with the Cherokee was simply geographic. They lived in land not heavily settled until later in the colonization process and had more time to acclimate to western legal norms. It didn’t save them, but it gave them these neat little anecdotes that we can pretend made them “some of the good ones”.

          • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well I hope it was clear that I wasn’t even remotely implying they/we are primitive and should be subservient. I am Cherokee, and Choctaw. My great grandmother, and great grandfather are on the final rolls of the Dawes Act.