These two quotes from d'Errico's "straight to the bone" argument indeed lay bare the utter fatuity of anything other than domination as the governing rule here. Thanks for the clarity!
"Even though congress claims a ‘trustee’ relationship to Indigenous peoples, 'Congress is in the driver’s seat'. In Alito’s fancier words, 'the unique position of the Government as sovereign' allows it to violate ordinary trust law.
The 'bar' trust is a new twist on 'the emperor has no clothes.'
Regarding: “The Untrustworthy Trust Doctrine of Federal Anti_Indian Law” article by Peter d’Errico - emeritus professor of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts.
This recent decision by the Supreme Court has been duly covered by several articles in the New York Times.
But Mr. d’Errico’s article is much leaner, more condensed and surgically cuts through the the layers of extraneous detail and lays out the important points with clarity.
The history of the United States dealings with indigenous peoples is more recent as the Civil War which is a topic of many books, films and re-enactments. Much less true of the Indian Wars which were a combination of incidents and rulings that developed over an extended time.
Peter d’Errico goes beyond the standard news coverage and legal terminology and describes the historical and legal context. And that is everything.
He discusses the Supreme Courts ruling on a water use claim involving the Navajo Nation.
The problem is that the term “trust” as we commonly understand it can be enforceable and binding, or the wording can be changed to “trust doctrine” which is not enforceable - it might sound good, but it is really an empty promise - an “empty promise” just like so many of the empty promises that became the hallmark of treaties between the United States and indigenous people.
It’s as fraudulent as the promises of food to the starving Mankato Indians which resulted in the Minnesota Indian Wars and the mass -hangings of men in the town square.
Thanks! The Mankato mass hanging is yet another buried piece of US history.... And it happened in the Abe Lincoln administration... the 'great emancipator'... So much history to study!
These two quotes from d'Errico's "straight to the bone" argument indeed lay bare the utter fatuity of anything other than domination as the governing rule here. Thanks for the clarity!
"Even though congress claims a ‘trustee’ relationship to Indigenous peoples, 'Congress is in the driver’s seat'. In Alito’s fancier words, 'the unique position of the Government as sovereign' allows it to violate ordinary trust law.
The 'bar' trust is a new twist on 'the emperor has no clothes.'
Regarding: “The Untrustworthy Trust Doctrine of Federal Anti_Indian Law” article by Peter d’Errico - emeritus professor of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts.
This recent decision by the Supreme Court has been duly covered by several articles in the New York Times.
But Mr. d’Errico’s article is much leaner, more condensed and surgically cuts through the the layers of extraneous detail and lays out the important points with clarity.
The history of the United States dealings with indigenous peoples is more recent as the Civil War which is a topic of many books, films and re-enactments. Much less true of the Indian Wars which were a combination of incidents and rulings that developed over an extended time.
Peter d’Errico goes beyond the standard news coverage and legal terminology and describes the historical and legal context. And that is everything.
He discusses the Supreme Courts ruling on a water use claim involving the Navajo Nation.
The problem is that the term “trust” as we commonly understand it can be enforceable and binding, or the wording can be changed to “trust doctrine” which is not enforceable - it might sound good, but it is really an empty promise - an “empty promise” just like so many of the empty promises that became the hallmark of treaties between the United States and indigenous people.
It’s as fraudulent as the promises of food to the starving Mankato Indians which resulted in the Minnesota Indian Wars and the mass -hangings of men in the town square.
Thanks! The Mankato mass hanging is yet another buried piece of US history.... And it happened in the Abe Lincoln administration... the 'great emancipator'... So much history to study!