Since Oklahoma is in the news about Indian reservations it got me thinking. Why do they exactly have special laws for them selves? They are Americans albeit with their own history. How come they have territories? I mean the us state doesn't have an obligation to them in reality? Are they still honouring deals like the Dutch bought Manhattan? They weren't conquered like say Hawaii? Can Hawaii become a reservation? Puerto Rico?
So I'm gonna give you a reading list. But before I do, I must say: we do not enjoy any "special treatment" under American law. The rights we exercise are a result of hundreds of years of bloodshed and oppression. American Indians have secured our rights through treaties with the United States, treaties that have preserved our inherent sovereignty as nations. The United States has an obligation to us because they entered into a legally binding contract that constitutes the supreme law of the land and this case in Oklahoma is a result of the United States being held accountable for treaties they violated time and time again. We fought for these rights--it isn't "special treatment."
For your part on Oklahoma: The US Supreme Court recently ruled that the eastern half of Oklahoma is Native American land. Why did the original "Indian Territory" of Oklahoma in the 19th century not become a state of its own?
For your question on reservations: What is the history of Native American Reservations in America? How did they come about? What status were they given in regards to autonony? How much oversight does the Federal Government get?
For your observation of our citizenship: When were Native Americans finally given American citizenship?
And for your assumption that we receive "special treatment:"
The role of reservations is not one of special treatment. If by special treatment you mean they have looked down upon then that is another matter. The US up till very recently saw Native Reservations as wards of the state, they were the father to these tribes. This stems back hundreds of years, with the slow removal of land through war and treaties with the Natives. For example the Haudneonsaunee were removed from their tribal homeland north of the Great lakes into canada after the war for independence, the Fort Laramie treaty in 1868 created the 'Great' Sioux Reserve. On top of this the Dawes Act of 1887 entrenched a more concrete notion of what is termed civilising. Forcing them into reservations and then dividing these reservations into homesteads.
While this may not be seen as negative to the average American of that time, this degraded their often communal/nomadic cultures and again was forced upon them in an attempt of converting them to the American way of life. The American culture was seen as superior and was being forced onto them for they were seen as Primatives, they did not ask for this, it was a result of centuries of warfare. What is more, by 1900 of the original 180 million acres of reservation land given to the many idigenous people by the Dawes Act, only 78 million remained in the hands of them due to forced sales or forms of extortion. Within this time period the Curtis Act of 1898 attempted to remove the sembelance of self-goverance that these reservations had which would have been the final nail in the coffin for their autonomy and preservation of their culture. This culminated in the 1900 Cherokee Nation V Hitchcock which was based on the right of Congress to deny them their right to live how they traditionally did, this came to a head in 1903 with Lone Wolf V Hitchcock which reversed the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831 and Worcester v. Georgia 1832 which upheld the autonomy of Native Peoples.
The degredation of their rights continued with the 1913 Sandoval case which delcared that Native Americans were not capable of managing their own lands. While the US points to the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act as a point of great progressivism, this really is not the case. The 14th Amendment gave around 1/3rd of Native populations the vote by 1924. Instead the Act can be seen as more another attempt to assimilate the Native populations, forcing the vote onto them. One might come back at my statement by saying, with the vote they can vote for change. However, many reserves were spread across multiple states and the populations on these reserves were not enough to make a large impact like the black population could, therefore this act was more a strawman attempt at looking progressive.
This statement is furthered by Leavitt Bills of 1921, 1923 and 1926 which attempted to remove the right of the Pueblo Natives to do their traditional dances, the Bursum Bill 1922 allowed for the acquisition of their land also.
So far there is no special treatment, and the Meriam Report 1928 showcases this further, it painted a bleak picture of the impact of assimilation, condemned the Dawes Act and described the terrible conditions many lived in and stating they were the most impoverished people in the USA.
The 1930's did start an upswing in their treatment, but one must beg the question of how much lasting damage had already been done. The Indian Reorganization Act can be seen as a positive as it aimed to protect the traditional culture of tribes. It meant tribes would have more involvement in the administration of the reservations and had the right to practise their religion and assert their cultural identity. It also curtailed the sale of Indian lands to individual lands and returned any land not allocated. While I have not researched John Collier enough to make a strong assertation I have read of acusations against him that his keen interest in the Pueblo Natives specifically caused his attempts at preseving the Native cultures to also be harmful in some cases as he tried to use a blanket measure to many complex and contrasting cultures.
Indian Claims Commission 1946 attempted to undo some of the damage that had been done, But, it was slow and disregarded much evidence and only used financial compensation, not the returning of any land. It was planned for 5 years but lasted till 1978 due to the overwhelmning amount of cases filed.
What is more, is the case of Harrison V Laveen 1948 which resulted from two Native men being refused their vote. While it ruled in their favour many states continued to disregard the precedent and continued to deny votes for Native people. Much like we see in the civil rights movements later on, but they did not gain as much populist support as their sister movement did.
The policy of assimilation turned to termination by 1953, ending the recognition of the existence of Native American tribes and the treaty rights. In essence ending the existence of Native Americans and making them just Americans. Thus began attempts at relocation and Indian Vocational Training Act 1956. While this was successful for some, upwards of 70% who tried to move out of the ghettoised reservations ended up returning due to racism. In 1968 the level of Native unemployment was 42%. Not because of laziness, but because of the historic mistreatment of these people. The government were more interested in squashing their cultural autonomy, instead of celebrating multi-culturalism. It was not till Indian Self-determination Act 1975 that the hands on attempt by the government to manage Natives as their ward ended, with the recognition of the right to Native self-determination, allowing them to negotiate contracts with the BIA to take responsibility for their education, health, social services with federal funding. The Education Assistance Act 1975, gave Native Parents greater involvement in their children's education through membership on their school boards. Fisher V Montana 1976 allowed tribal courts to rule on Native Children's adoption. The rights that many took/take for granted were not granted till late 1970s. Even their religious freedoms were limited till Native American Religious Freedom Act 1978, which gave them the right to practice and express their religion, which stimulated action to try and recover sacred objects and sometimes remains from museums resulting in the Charrier V Bell 1986 decision leading the way for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990. Effectively up till 1990 the remains of a great-family member could legally be allowed to be displayed in a museum and there was nothing they could do about that, ask yourself how that would feel to you.
From your post I imagine you are focused on the gambling dens that many Native peoples have on their reservations even if banned by a state, which stems from the Seminole Tribe V Butterworth 1982 supreme court case. Again, this was an attempt by Native people to try gain employment for the lack of investment onto reservations meant the job opportunities was low and the cash flow within them was low. Therefore, they needed a way to draw cash into these reservations and gambling was the way they decided. The government left them in the state of degredation that their actions had created. And that is why even today, the socio-economic position of Native Americans is low.
They are now American, in the sense of European-American. They didn't ask to be American, they were forced through war and broken treaties. That was not all, the American government went one step further trying to eradicate the Native cultures and force upon them culture that had resulted in the death of their ancestors and tribemen. The attempts and 'unrest' that the Native populus caused is not uncommon, as a Brit I look to Soctland, Wales, Ireland. While they were terribly treated by the English, they refused to accept this rule and today remain strong in terms of identity and cultural freedom. The Native populus of America has not been so lucky. They are not given special treatment, they are given what they deserve as a cultural group that has been supressed and torn apart for centuries.