example of the lands lost due to the dawes act
The Dawes Act of 1887 was a post-Indian Wars law that illegally dissolved 90 million acres of Native lands from 1887 to 1934. Signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on February 8, 1887, the Dawes Act expedited the cultural genocide of Native Americans. The negative effects of the Dawes Act on Indigenous tribes would result in the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the so-called βIndian New Deal.β
It authorized the U.S. to divide indigenous tribal land into allotments for heads of families and individuals, leading to a loss of 2/3rds of land (~100 million acres) over the next 50 years.
The law converted traditional systems of land tenure into a state-imposed system of private property by forcing Native Americans to "assume a capitalist and proprietary relationship with property" that did not previously exist in their cultures, according to historian Kent Blansett. The act declared remaining lands after allotment as "surplus" and available for sale, including to non-Natives.
Between 1887 and 1934, indigenous people lost control of about 100 million acres of land, or about two-thirds of the land base they held in 1887, as a result of the act.
The loss of land and the break-up of traditional leadership of tribes had such devastating consequences that many scholars refer to the Dawes Act as one of the most destructive U.S. policies for indigenous people in history.
Hexbear links
- π»Link to all Hexbear comms
- π Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- π₯ Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- β Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- β¨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
- π Share your gains and goals with your comrades in the New Weekly Improvement thread
- 𧑠Disabled comm megathread
reminders:
- π You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- π Hexbearβs algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- π Sorting by new you nerd
- π If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- πΆ Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
- β€οΈFoundations of Leninism
- β€οΈAnarchism and Other Essays
Sometimes when I read some cutting edge theory or whatever from some academic, I can't help but think three things: this is just Marxism with out the understanding of the logic of capital and without the radical conclusions, no westerner can see in front of their own nose (I.e. No internationalism, poor understanding of global exploitation even when they need to note Marx failed to consider race, they fail to see anyone outside the Imperial core), and this is just Deleuze and Guattari in slightly different words.
And at no point is there any discussion of mass politics, just distributed points of organization which somehow(?????) supplant the military death cult of capital. It's "All the Power to the Soviets", but there are no coherent Soviets for the power to be excersized.
Liberals just want to brunch and for the cab driver and waiter not be mean to them when they tip poorly. Where the banannas on the breakfast platter came from doesn't matter, but they should be affordable for me.
Unless people shed their petite bourgeois aspirations, so much of this work is just fucking useless. I should make a rule that I won't read anyone's work who hasn't done political organizing. Why were Marx and Engels, and Rosa, and Kollontai, so interesting? Because they weren't academics, because the words they wrote had meaning in action, not just for pontificating.
And to extend the rant. Where the fuck are these writers now? Are they putting fucking anything at stake? Tenured profs have more job stability than a lifetime Congress ghoul. So what do they do? They write a fucking oped in some liberal magazine about taking the high road or about the "need to ask questions" about how we want society to be. MOTHER FUCKERS, there are groypers in the white house dreaming up anti-trans laws and how to reify patriarchy, warping the nightmare world they dream of into existence. A fucking oped isn't even worth the fucking pixels it's displayed on at this point.
When I started reading alot more books, I picked up on a difference between the people who had interesting life experiences and put it into their writing and people who were mostly shut ins and I found the former much more coherent and interesting. For philosophy this was really obvious but I could even see it in fiction.
I don't want to say absolutely that people who only write have nothing interesting to say and can't make good observations or analysis, but its pretty rare imo. However I do tend to use it as a rule of thumb if a book/author is worth picking up or not.