-=> Quoting LORRAINE PHILLIPS to JIM CASTO <=-
 LP> I guess I didn't give enough detail about this legislation.  From
 LP> Professor Miller's account, it seems that it was directed at native
 LP> Indians only, and that they would cease being 'Indians' and would be
 LP> given the vote and ownership of some reserve land after they had
 LP> proven themselves.
 
 No, I understood what you were saying. The Dawes Act tried that back in 
 the late 1870s. Universally recognized as a total disaster.
 LP> This was an attempt at social engineering,
 
 IMHO, virtually ALL attempts at "social engineering" fail. That's kinda
 sorta like trying to "legislate" respect. And... IMHO, some "social
 engineering" is generally a kinder, gentler sounding way to say
 "exploitation".
 LP> and it differs from what
 LP> was expected of white homesteaders, I think.  I think European settlers
 LP> had to 'prove' 40 acres within a certain period of time and then the
 LP> land was theirs.
 
 Actually, that wasn't hard to do. Plus the land could still be _given_ to 
 someone that didn't "prove" it, but the land would then revert back to the
 U.S. Government, not the original tribe that occupied the land.
 LP> teach me some real history.) I don't think there was any stipulation
 LP> about being educated or debt-free in order to qualify for land.
 
 There were some stipulations in the Oregon Donation Land Claims Act but most
 of them had to deal with the fact that the government allowed occupation of
 the land before it was "taken" from the native peoples. (That and 
arriage")
 LP> Orillia in 1846 that they wanted no part of provisions that would allow
 LP> the conversion of lands that bands held in common to individual plots
  
 Well, that was exactly what the Dawes Act did. Contrary to popular belief,
 some of the reservations in the U.S. are a veritable "checkerboard" of land
 owners. They are not necessarily totally contiguous pieces of sovereign 
nd.
 LP> I see two subjects here:  1. The pesky Gradual Civilization Act, which
 LP> was a device of the Canadian government meant to turn land already
 LP> designated as reserve land into land plots owned by individual Indians
 LP> (who would then be Indians no longer).  2. Settlement of white
 LP> settlers on now-disputed land.  I guess this comes under the vexed
 LP> heading of 'aboriginal rights', which are the topic of constant
 LP> bickering to this day.  The very subject makes my head ache and my ears
 LP> ring.   Have you a view on 2.?
 
 Oh, that's exactly what happened in the Oregon Donation Land Claim (ODLC).
 The government gave away land it didn't own by _any_ stretch of the
 imagination. The ODLC was/were passed in the early 1850s and the treaties
 weren't signed until the mid to late 1850s. (The debate over whether or not
 the treaties were "legit" is a different issue.)
 Jim
 
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------