Talk:Dawes Act

Untitled

If you search on Google, "land fictionalization" you will see that, in all the web, this is the only use of the term... it needs be be replaced with some term people can be expected to know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.169.203 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Many (most? all?) scholars agree that the intent of this act was to break the communitarian mindset of native peoples and encourage them to become more independent (not in the self-sustaining sense, but in the capitalist, individualistic sense). This article should at explain that issue, in an NPOV sort of way, of course. Jxn 05:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Chapel is a samurai God--I agree with the above, the act aimed to break up the traditional tribal structure and bring Indians into the mainstream of American life.

"The common field is the seat of barbarism, while the separate farm is the door to civilization" -- according to "Private Property: The Indian's Door to Civilization" by William T. Hagan (http://www.jstor.org/view/00141801/ap020008/02a00020/0), this was said by Joseph R. Brown in 1858 (footnote 2).

Fractionalization

I changed "fictionalization" to "fractionalization" "fractionation" to correct a typo. "Fractionation" is the word you're looking for and is the term Google sees most often in association with these issues. "Fictionalization" would be nonsensical. "Fractionalization" may or may not be acceptable, but common use suggests "fractionation." Pulsadinura (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

General Allotment Act

In working on Timeline of music in the United States (1880 - 1919)#1887, I encountered a reference to the General Allotment (Dawes Act). I've redirected that (and General Allotment Act) though I can't really tell from this article if that's the same thing or a closely related act or what. If someone knows the answer, can you make that clear? Thanks, Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The GAA is also commonly known as te Dawes Act. That should be made explicit in the article.Verklempt (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Interpretations section

The second paragraph in this section seems to come out of the blue. Perhaps Ward Churchill's thoughts should be explained first, or perhaps the sides on the issue should be summarized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.217.55 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the quote about the person refuting Churchill's views, since his views were not previously mentioned or explained in the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Summary of Provisions

The summary of the provisions is not very accurate to the actual wording of the provisions in some cases. I am going to change (shortly after this post) parts of it to better reflect the actual wording of the act (I have a copy of it open in another window).

Works of Sweat (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, some parts of the summary are simply incorrect, such as the numbers given for the allotment of land. There is no phrase about land for "general living purposes". Rather, one "quarter-section" (160 acres, I beleive) was given to the head of each family for farming, or instead, two "quarter sections" (two 160 acre allotments) for grazing (not specifically cattle, could be any type of livestock, though cattle msot common.) There are also provisions included for single individuals (80 acre allotments), orphans (80 acre allotments, specified in later sectinos that goes to a "Native agent" of the orphan), and all "other" individuals (40 acre allotments).

Works of Sweat (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

White attitudes and motivations

I have a sense that white attitudes towards the American Indians at this point in history were rather complex, but that one thread was the idea that the Indians were headed toward actual extinction as a race. In part, this was merely rationalization for the land grab that the Dawes Act produced; but also this was a real fear, and whites felt that assimilation was, regrettably, the only way to prevent the inevitable disappearance of these peoples. They didn't realize the strength and persistance of the Native cultures. It was a highly paternalistic attitude, but they really thought that the only way to save a culture was to destroy it. And so the road to perdition was again paved with good intentions.

I don't have the scholarly background to flesh out this idea, but I think it is an important motivation behind the Act, and could make the article seem more balanced. Are there some experts that would agree with this, or am I totally off base?PhilD86 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't need a scholarly background, just scholarly sources:). It's a novel idea (though one I'm not sure is accurate). Regardless, despite the interesting academic discussion it might make for you and I, the availability of RS is what will warrant its inclusion of exclusion. It's an interesting question...the traditional view of Dawes was a coalition of thinly veiled land grabs with racist overtones of paternal responsibility. But I think you're right in terms of it being more complex. I just don't know of anyone who has made this argument in an objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.101 (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in Dawes Act article

The level of NPOV in this article is off the charts. The text repeatedly makes statements about motives and uses morally-charged words to describe events. The article also makes blanket, one-sided accusations against whole classes of people based on presumptions. This kind of moralizing and social propaganda does not belong in an encyclopedia. John Chamberlain (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)