An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States

Dunbar-Ortiz details the impact of the Doctrine of Discovery in European colonialism around the world as a “legal cover for theft” (198). The Doctrine of Discovery was created as international law in the 1455 papal bull, and it was the means through which Christian European monarchies could claim lands outside of Europe. The Treaty of Tordesillas in 1493 further divided lands between Spain and Portugal, drawing a line indicating which side of the line was open for one or the other of these two countries. The Treaty also stated that the Doctrine of Discovery only applied to non-Christian lands. Through the doctrine, Europeans claimed title to lands “discovered,” meaning Indigenous peoples automatically lost the right to it. The doctrine came to be relied upon by all European nations and the U.S. government as it colonized the rest of North America. In 1792, Thomas Jefferson declared the doctrine to be international law that applied to the U.S., and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this in 1823, holding the doctrine to be established law of the United States and reducing Indigenous rights. Through persistent Indigenous resistance, however, there has been increasing rejection of the Doctrine of Discovery as a valid source of authority, including by several churches and religious institutions. 

Dunbar-Ortiz identifies a contradiction between the origin myth of the United States related to its independence struggle against the British and the means through which it built an empire based on the Doctrine of Discovery. She finds particularly “baffling” (201) the way in which the wars against Indigenous peoples throughout U.S. history manifest in the cultural memory of U.S. Americans. As an example of this, she cites a case in which a government lawyer likened Seminole resistance to the U.S. to the actions of al-Qaeda and characterized their resistance methods as violating “the customs and usages of war” (201).

Dunbar-Ortiz describes the struggle of self-determination as relating to peoples without their own states that may be dealing with living within an existing state that is not receptive to their insistence of autonomy. For Indigenous nations in the United States, fighting for self-determination and autonomy is part of nation-building through development of their own governance and economy without sacrificing their culture and values. This struggle manifests itself for Indigenous nations in the United States through the efforts to ensure the U.S. honors treaties as it should between two sovereign nations. The International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) successfully organized the first conference on Indigenous peoples of Americas at the United Nations in 1977. The 1999 U.N. Study on Treaties for the Indigenous peoples of North America was a crucial investigation that concluded treaty rights as remaining effective under U.S. Constitution and law. In 2007, the U.N. General Assembly passed the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was initially opposed by Anglo settler-states of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States until they changed their vote. Indigenous peoples saw this as a path toward truth and reconciliation similar to Germany’s adoption of Holocaust-denial laws to reconcile the crimes of the Nazis.

Another key part of Indigenous rights and activism is efforts to win claims for reparations and restitution. The 1960s Indigenous Rights movement helped push for restoration of land guaranteed under treaties instead of just monetary compensation that would be inadequate, especially for sacred lands seized. Monetary compensation, however, is a remedy sought in cases related to federal trust mismanagement. Lastly, Indigenous peoples have also sought to recover the remains of ancestors and burial items taken in the past, which was the purpose of the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The importance of land restitution and treaty rights to Indigenous rights activism can be seen in the Sioux Nation’s continuing struggle to recover Paha Sapa, which the Supreme Court ruled had been illegally taken and an award of $106 million was owed in 1980. The Sioux refused, and the money remains in an account that has since accumulated more money, but the significance of the land is too important to them to settle for money.

The 1975 Indian Self-Determination Act affirmed Indigenous nations’ ability to control their economic situations and funding. While at first many Indigenous nations fought for mineral rights to establish mining as the primary means of economic development through the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), many young Indigenous people challenged this route as environmentally damaging. Thus, in the 1980s, many nations looked to gaming and casinos instead, but the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act limited their sovereignty by giving states partial control over gaming. Nevertheless, gaming has become a large industry for Indigenous nations with many using profits for lobbying.

Dunbar-Ortiz challenges the incompleteness of media portrayals and narratives of social dysfunction within Indigenous communities, such as high rates of alcohol addiction, suicide, and poverty, because they fail to recognize the effects of colonialism in producing such social conditions. She argues that such social conditions are directly linked to loss of and continued limitation of Indigenous sovereignty, which is crucial to survival. Additionally, generational trauma from boarding schools where generations of Indigenous children experienced child abuse, including sexual abuse and corporal punishment, has left its mark. Corporal punishment was not a practice among Indigenous families but something children become familiar with in boarding schools. Indigenous children survived through resistance by running away, secretly practicing their own culture, and not participating. Indigenous women on reservations have also suffered from rape, including from settlers. Justice under Indigenous authority were historically limited by the U.S. with limits on jurisdiction for crimes on Indigenous lands going to federal or state authorities until the 1994 Violence Against Women Act allowed tribal nations to prosecute people not in their tribe who committed sexual violence on reservations. Finally, as another step toward sovereignty, Indigenous nations restructured their governance or created or revised their constitutions.

The 21st century saw more militarism and imperialism by the United States beginning with the election of President George W. Bush and two military invasions that set a template for administrations after. Dunbar-Ortiz discusses legalized torture using the “unlawful combatants” designation instead of “prisoner of war” for Afghans who were subjected to torture by U.S. officials while being detained at Guantanamo Bay. In response to criticisms to the use of torture, assistant U.S. Attorney General John C. Yoo wrote the “Torture Memo” in March 2003. This memo cited an 1873 Supreme Court case, Modoc Indian Prisoners, as precedent to defend the “unlawful combatant” status, arguing that the Modoc prisoners and Guantanamo detainees were homo sacer, or people “banned from society, excluded its legal protections.” This essentially meant such a person could be killed legally by just defining someone as “Indian”—in Yoo’s view, the original terrorists (224).

Guantanamo Bay is just one of many global military bases operated by the United States. These bases increased in the 20th century, and by the 21st century the U.S. had more than 900 military bases globally. Many bases were established through forced removal of Indigenous peoples on islands, such as was done between 1968 and 1973 on Chago Archipelago by the U.S. and Britain to clear the islands of native Chagossians. Dunbar-Ortiz notes this forced displacement of Indigenous peoples for building military bases as a pattern by the U.S. military during and after the Vietnam War. For example, in the 1970s this was done against Micronesians, to which Secretary of State Henry Kissinger replied “There are only ninety thousand people out there. Who gives a damn?” (226). Dunbar-Ortiz refers to Kissinger’s statement as one of “permissive genocide” (226).

Dunbar-Ortiz details the effect of the military and increased militarization over time on Native Americans, including illnesses and injuries due to nuclear weapons testing and uranium strip mining in New Mexico or Nevada. Militarization has increased after 9/11, as seen in an increasingly military culture, which includes an exponential rise in the number of firearms owned by civilians. Dunbar-Ortiz also describes how academia is also affected by military culture, especially anthropologists who are often military advisors. 

Dunbar-Ortiz urges readers to understand the connection between the United States’ imperialism overseas in present day and its past colonialism and imperialism in its invasion and treatment of Indigenous peoples as it was planned from its founding. She rejects the idea of a “race to innocence,” which assumes that descendants of settlers or new immigrants are “innocent of complicity in structures of domination and oppression” (229). Citing historian Jack Forbes, Dunbar-Ortiz emphasizes that although we are not responsible for the past, we are responsible for current society. She explains this failure to come to terms with the past is seen in the legacy of settler colonialism, as evidenced by multiple wars; enormous amounts of money spent on the military and weapons over social services; exploitation and huge profits by corporations; mass incarceration, especially of poor or Black people; sexual violence; homelessness; and gun violence among many other “symptoms […] of a deeply troubled society” (230). Although the 20th century civil rights movements helped move along this confrontation of the past by bringing to the forefront many inequalities, the effort remains incomplete. She asks the following questions: “​​How then can US society come to terms with its past? How can it acknowledge responsibility?” (235). Her proposed strategy is one that involves supporting proper curriculum and education of Indigenous histories; honoring treaties; restoring sacred lands, items, and body parts; and paying reparations. All of this, Dunbar-Ortiz concludes, will require the participation of everyone.