US HISTORY 8WISCONSIN INDIAN HISTORY AND TREATY RIGHTS

Joe Waite, Cumberland Middle School, Spring 2007

Objectives: 1) Learn the locations of indigenous Wisconsin tribes, 2) learn the definition of treaty and explain it as a compact between two or more sovereign nations, 3) define and explain the three treaties signed between the Federal government and the tribes of Wisconsin in the 1800’s, 4) define the difficulties the Native Americans had in communicating with the Federal Officials during negotiations, 5) explain what rights Native Americans procured as a result of the treaties.

Day 1: 1) Display: The map and the powerpoint to identify the locations of tribes in Wisconsin. 2) Discuss: Does this mean that the boundaries were firm and easy to located? Who decided the boundaries? Do you think boundaries are even necessary? 3) Review: Thirteen original colonies... discuss how America should have grown... should states increased their own land, or should new states be created... and if so, who decides those boundaries? 4) Show: Map of Northwest Territories and discuss. 5) Disseminate: Day 1 Activity and Map sheets... go through the text on page 1, and discuss the three activities on the page 2. Any time left in class will let them begin reading and working on the activities.

Day 2: 1) Define: Sovereignty. Discuss if Wisconsin is sovereign... or is the United States sovereign? Do we have a right to tell other sovereign nations that they can’t have nuclear weapons? Discuss why it is important that the Indian Nations were treated as sovereign nations in the 1800’s, and still are. 2) Display: powerpoint (by Sue Wallin) to define the three main treaties signed with Wisconsin Indian Tribes. Students will note these. 3) Disseminate: Day 2 activity sheet, which lists the main points of the three main treaties. Discuss: How did this help the American nation grow? What did it mean for Native Americans? 4) Allow: Students time to write their thoughts on the sheets.

Day 3: 1) Display: The painting of the Treaty of Prairie du Chien by James Lewis. 2) Discuss: What can you infer from this primary source painting? Have the students raise and volunteer points of view and make inferences. 3) Simulate: Divide the class into five tribes (four members each). Each much elect a chief to negotiate with the government (me). Have each chief come to the middle and begin negotiations with me. I will speak French to simulate the difference in language. 4) Discuss: The advantages and disadvantages that each negotiating team had.

Day 4: 1) Disseminate: Text packet describing Ojibwe Treaty Rights 2) Discuss: The packet by going through the document with the class. Each student should have a highlighter and as a class will decide which parts should be highlighted. 3) Assign: The students will complete the definitions and essay question at the end of the reading.

Day 5: 1) Introduce: Web Quest ... directions are posted on sheet.... 2) Place: the students in groups of three, and in that group, each student will take a role. 3) Allow: Students time to go to the computer lab and print out paper that they can use for their research. Any paper they print should be included with their final drafts.

Day 6: 1) Show: Video on Spearfishing (Casting Light Upon the Waters) 30 minutes: 2) Read: Popular Misconceptions about Ojibwe Treaty Rights (Page 31 of Treaty Rights, 2003). 3) Allow: the groups of three to meet together and set the ground rules for their debate.

Day 7: 1) Allow: Volunteer groups to present their debates in front of their classmates. 2) Collect: Writing assignments from Web Project.

The Northwest Ordinance was an act of the Continental Congress of the United States that was unanimously passed. The main thing that happened with this important piece of legislation is that it created the first organized territory for the new country in the frontier lands.

It established a precedent (or something that would become a habit) of Americans moving westward across the continent, by making new states rather than adding to the lands of existing states. That is why Wisconsin is an “independent” state, and not part of Virginia, or any other state.

When the United States became a new nation, it inherited rights to lands to the west from the English. No consideration was given to the Native Americans living on these lands.

As you can see on the map above, the Ojibwe Nation oc-cupied most of Northern Wisconsin, the Dakota the far west, the Menominee Nation occupied much of the central and east, the Ho-Chunk (called Winnebago by white Americans) the south central and the Potawatomi the south east and south western corners of the state. The Indian nations themselves didn’t have specific boundaries... the boundaries were created by the Ameri-can government to define which tribe they should negotiate with in certain areas. The Indian people did not believe that anybody could own the land and this was a strange concept to them. The government also did this to keep the peace between Native American tribes. At different times different tribes would get into fights about hunting grounds. The Ojibwe and the Dakota were in conflict off and on for several years during the 1800’s. As the government wanted different land for different things (timber and copper in Wisconsin), they would negotiate with a tribe or tribes that lived on particular parcels of land. The U.S. government dealt with the Indian Nations as sovereign nations... in other words, they saw the tribe of people as an in-dependent group of people that had rights guaranteed to them in the form of nationhood. Since the U.S. wanted Indian lands, they agreed to give the Indian people certain rights and privileges to the lands they ceded... or gave up to the American government. These rights included hunting, fishing, rice gathering. It also included the right to maintain activi-ties on tribal lands... that is why Indian Casinos are able to operate in Wisconsin.

This map is an interesting piece of prima-ry source history. Thomas Jefferson drew this and was thinking that it would become the boundaries and names of states as the nation moved westward.

Activity: Use a sharpie or marker to draw the modern boundaries of the states cre-ated by the Northwest Territories Ordi-nance from Jefferson’s original plan.

This map shows land ceded to the United States by the Ojibwe in three different treaties.

Activity: Put a * where Cumberland is located.

Name: ____________________________

The map on on the reverse side shows tribes (or na-tions) of Native Amerians as they lived in Wisconsin before and after contact with white Americans.

Activity: Redraw the map from page 1 on the blank of map of Wisconsin found below, and label the tribes.

TREATY OF 1825

•held in September at Prairie du Chien•1st of grand intertribal treaties•defined Indian land and boundaries •helped stop wars between Indian tribes•laid groundwork for future land cessions

TREATY OF 1837

•known as the Pine Tree Treaty•held at St. Peter’s Agency in Minnesota•1st of several treaties that sold land areas•provided government legal access to the land for lumbering•secured hunting and fishing rights

TREATY OF 1842

•known as the Copper Treaty•held in La Pointe on Madeline Island•provided government legal access to the land along Lake Superior for mining copper•secured hunting and fishing rights

Day 2: Name: ____________________________________________

What did these treaties mean for the growth of the United States?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

What did these treaties mean for the Ojibwe people... both then and now?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Day 3: Negotiations: Name: _________________________________________________________________

View of the Great Treaty Held at Prairie Du Chien, Wisconsin by James Otto Lewis

1) By looking at the painting, who do you think had the advantage at the negotia-tions and why?

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

2) What other disadvantages did the Indians have to deal with (and suffer with) at the negotiations?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Day 4: OJIBWE TREATY RIGHTS (http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/ICW-110.html)NAME: __________________________________________________________________

Peace Treaties

The first U.S. treaty the Wisconsin Ojibwe signed was in 1825 at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, involving the Ojibwe and other Great Lakes and Midwestern tribes. Some of these tribes fought wars amongst themselves, and the United States wanted to end their disputes by establishing boundaries between the tribes. In particular, the Ojibwe and the Santee Dakota (also called the Santee Sioux) had fought for possession of northern Wis-consin and Minnesota for over a century, and thus a boundary line was established between them. The Prairie du Chien Treaty was reinforced the next year when federal officials visited Fond du Lac, Minnesota, to affirm the boundaries with Ojibwe chiefs who were not at the Prairie du Chien council. A final treaty council was held between the Ojibwe, Menominee, and Ho-chunk at Lake Butte des Morts in Wisconsin in 1827 to establish boundaries between those tribes. The treaty provided the three tribes $15,682 in goods and $3000 to establish schools.

None of the tribes present at the Prairie du Chien or Buttes des Morts treaty councils ceded any lands to the United States. Nor did the boundary treaties curb intertribal warfare, which actually intensified after the treaties. However, the boundaries agreed to in these treaties formed the basis for later land cession treaties. The estab-lishment of boundaries between tribes was necessary for the United States to later acquire land from each of them.

Land Cession Treaties

The Ojibwe of Wisconsin signed three major land cession treaties with the United States in 1837, 1842, and 1854, ceding their entire homeland to the U.S. and establishing reservations for four Ojibwe bands in the state. The 1837 land cession treaty between the United States and the Ojibwe was concluded at a conference held near present-day Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesota. There, the Ojibwe traded the majority of their Wisconsin lands for a twenty-year annuity of $9500 in cash, $19,000 in goods (blankets, rifles, and cooking utensils), $2000 worth of provisions, $3000 to establish and maintain three blacksmiths’ shops, and $500 worth of tobacco. Con-gress appropriated another $75,000 to pay debts the tribe owed to fur traders. A final treaty provision reserved the Ojibwe’s right to hunt, fish, and gather wild rice on ceded lands.

The 1842 treaty was negotiated at La Pointe on Madeline Island in northern Wisconsin, ceding the last of their lands in northern Wisconsin and part of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to the United States with compensation greater than that in the 1837 treaty. Each year for twenty-five years, the Ojibwe would receive $12,500 in cash, $10,500 in goods, $2000 in food and tobacco, $2000 for the support of two government blacksmiths, $1000 to support farmers and teach them agricultural skills, $1200 to support two government carpenters, and $2000 to support schools. Additionally, $5000 was placed in an agricultural fund for the tribe, and $75,000 was allotted to pay their debts with traders. A final treaty stipulation stated that they would reserve their right to hunt, fish, and gather on the lands they ceded to the United States until they left the area.

The United States had originally planned to remove all Ojibwe from northern Wisconsin and was also deter-mined to purchase remaining Ojibwe homelands in Minnesota and, to be binding, all Ojibwe bands in Upper Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota had to agree. The Ojibwe refused to sell the land until the United States guaranteed that the Ojibwe could remain on their current homelands and continue to use lands already ceded to the United States. Federal commissioners sent to make the treaties agreed and established four reservations for the Wisconsin Ojibwe.

Additionally, the United States agreed to an additional twenty-year annuity of $5000 in cash, $8000 in goods, $3000 in farming equipment, carpenters’ tools, and cattle, and $3000 to support schools. The United States also

agreed to give the young men of the tribe a one-time gift of rifles, traps, ammunition, and clothing. The black-smith shops promised under the previous two treaties were also to be continued for an additional twenty years.

State Ignores Rights

The provisions reserving the rights of the Wisconsin Ojibwe to hunt and fish on lands they had ceded in the 1837 and 1842 treaties went virtually ignored by the state of Wisconsin during the nineteenth and twentieth cen-turies. The state even tried to regulate fishing on the Ojibwe reservations. In 1901, John Blackbird, an Ojibwe, was arrested for netting fish on the Bad River Reservation. Later, a federal court ruled that the state of Wiscon-sin did not have the right to regulate hunting and fishing on Ojibwe reservations, and Blackbird was released. The court decision did not address hunting and fishing rights within territories ceded in the 1837 and 1842 trea-ties or off Ojibwe reservations.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ignored the federal court’s finding in 1908 when ruling another case involving an Ojibwe fisherman, stating that Wisconsin’s admission to the U.S. in 1848 effectively abrogated--or ended--Ojibwe off-reservation hunting and fishing rights. In addition, the court ruled that the state could also regulate hunting and fishing rights on Ojibwe reservations. This decision was modified slightly in 1933 when the Wis-consin Supreme Court ruled that the state of Wisconsin could only regulate hunting and fishing on privately owned reservation lands.

Early Efforts to Regain

With the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, the United States Congress attempted to assimilate Indians into their concept of Western living by dividing up the reservations so each family could own their own farm land in fee simple, a legal term for owning land outright, rather than communally. The northern Wisconsin land oc-cupied by the Ojibwe was too poor to support agriculture, so many sold their plots to lumber companies. Thus large portions of land which had been granted to individual tribal members ended up in non-Indian hands. This in effect made these lands--and those owned individually by Indians--subject to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 1933 ruling on state-regulated hunting and fishing laws.

One of the earliest adovocates for Ojibwe hunting and fishing rights was Thomas L. St. Germaine, a lawyer and member of the Lac du Flambeau Ojibwe band. He argued the 1933 case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but failed to exempt the Ojibwe from state hunting and fishing regulations on privately held reservation lands or to regain off-reservation rights on their ceded lands.

Recent Efforts

However, things soon began to change. In 1934, the United States Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), which ended several longstanding policies aimed at destroying Indian culture. Lands were no lon-ger patented in fee simple to individual Indians, and reservation lands sold to non-Indians could now be bought back by tribes. More importantly, the IRA encouraged tribes to form their own governments, providing them a tool to reassert their sovereign powers.

By the 1960s, a new wave of cultural resurgence began among Indian tribes in the United States. The legal sys-tem became an avenue to accomplish their goals. New understandings began to emerge in the legal community as well, and certain important court decisions upheld the rights reserved in Indian treaties. A major decision for the Wisconsin Ojibwe came in 1972, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the Bad River and Red Cliff Ojibwe bands had a right to fish in Lake Superior without state regulation. The State could only take “reason-able and necessary” measures to insure that the lake’s fish population was not depleted. Another important deci-sion came in federal court in 1978 after two members of the Lac Court Oreilles Ojibwe band were arrested in

1974 for spearfishing off of their reservations. The Lac Court Oreilles band took the case to the federal district court in Madison, but Judge James Doyle ruled against the Ojibwe by arguing that the 1854 treaty, which estab-lished their reservations, effectively ended their off-reservation hunting and fishing rights.

Federal Courts Reaffirm

The Lac Court Oreilles band appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chi-cago. This federal court overturned Judge Doyle’s ruling in an important case called Lac Court Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Lester P. Voigt, et al. The three-judge panel rendered its ruling, called the Voigt Deci-sion or more commonly, LCO I, in 1983, stating that the 1854 treaty did not end Ojibwe rights to hunt and fish on the territory they ceded. The state of Wisconsin, in turn, attempted to appeal this ruling to the United States Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case upheld the Voight decision.

The Seventh Circuit Court then instructed Judge Doyle to change his decision in the case and determine how Wisconsin could regulate Ojibwe off-reservation hunting and fishing. The state then tried to stop the Ojibwe from hunting and fishing on private lands within their ceded territory, but the Seventh Circuit Court returned with a ruling in 1985 (called LCO II) affirming Ojibwe rights to hunt and fish anywhere within their ceded ter-ritories, even on privately owned land. Afterward, Doyle established a three-phase plan to determine the follow-ing:

the nature and extent of Ojibwe treaty rights.the permissible extent to which Wisconsin could regulate Ojibwe treaty rights.the damages the tribe was entitled to for Wisconsin’s infringement of their treaty rights.

Safe Harvest

Shortly before his death in 1987, Judge Doyle completed the first phase. His 1987 ruling (called LCO III) stated that the Ojibwe could hunt, fish, and gather using any method they wished in the ceded territory at a level that would provide a “modest living” off the land. In turn, the state could impose restrictions to preserve certain resources and species and preserve safety.

Doyle’s successor, Judge Barbara Crabb, then undertook the second phase of the decision (called LCO IV). Crabb’s 1987 decision ruled that the state could regulate Ojibwe activities in the interests of conservation and safety, but could not impede them from taking what was legally theirs. In her next ruling in 1988 (LCO V), Crabb determined that the Ojibwe could not earn a “modest living” even if they harvested all the resources on the ceded land, so she suggested a plan to limit the fish taken from the lakes annually. This was issued as a separate decision in 1989 (LCO VI). Crabb established the “safe harvest level”: the number of fish that could be taken without depleting the population. By the decision rendered in LCO III, the Ojibwe were entitled to take the entire safe harvest of fish.

Regulation of Resources Harvested

In her next decision, (LCO VII), Crabb ruled in 1990 that the Ojibwe were entitled to take fifty percent of the permissible deer harvest on the ceded territory, although the state could ban hunting in the summer and af-ter sundown for safety reasons. Her decision in LCO VII ended phase two of the negotiations, and she began assessing damages Wisconsin owed to the Ojibwe for infringing on their treaty rights. Her 1990 ruling (LCO VIII), stunned the Ojibwe and other treaty-rights advocates when she determined that the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution protected states against lawsuits pursued by Indian tribes. Another blow came in 1991 when, in a separate decision, Crabb stated that harvest of timber resources was not a “usual and customary” activity for the Wisconsin Ojibwe, and thus they were not allowed to harvest trees for timber. The Ojibwe were allowed,

however, to gather miscellaneous forest products such as maple sap, birchbark, and firewood without regulation. That year, Wisconsin declared that it would no longer attempt to appeal the 1983 Voigt Decision; it remains in effect.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, there was huge outcry among some non-Indians in northern Wisconsin over the issue of Ojibwe treaty rights. Many mistakenly believed that the federal courts “gave” the Ojibwe their special rights, which were actually “retained” rights: rights the Ojibwe originally possessed and reserved during treaty negotiations. Others disliked the traditional Ojibwe method of spearfishing for muskellunge and walleye. The Ojibwe and other concerned people have attempted to diffuse these tensions in a variety of ways. Although the law allows them to take all of the safe harvest of fish and half of the safe harvest of deer, they take signifi-cantly less and leave more than enough fish and deer for sportsmen. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission regulates the harvest of treaty resources in cooperation with the State of Wisconsin to ensure conservation. Indeed, the bag limits for fish and deer have not changed dramatically for non-Indians in northern Wisconsin, and Indian spearfishing and hunting have not negatively affected tourism. Moreover, the six Ojibwe bands in Wisconsin all run their own fish hatcheries, and stock more fish in the lakes than they take out annu-ally.

Activity: Define and describe the following words as they pertain to Treaty Rights....

1) Ceded Territory: ________________________________________________________________________

2) Sovereign Nation: ________________________________________________________________________

3) Assimilate: _____________________________________________________________________________

4) Retained Rights: ________________________________________________________________________

5) Negotiations: ___________________________________________________________________________

Agree or Disagree with Judge Crabb? Do the Ojibwe retain the right to spear fish, harvest wild game, gather wild rice, and operate casinos in Ceded Territories? Explain:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

QUIZ OF THE DAYTuesday, September 21st

Match the following vocabulary words with definitions as provided.

1. _____ Means an independent nation of people.

2. _____ Means a group of people trying to present an argument to get a better deal for themselves.3. _____ Means things that people have always had, not that they got recently.4. _____ Means land given away by one group of people to another group of people.5. _____ Means to absorb one group of people into another group of people.

6. Shade land below that was ceded by native people to the US Government in the treaties of 1837 and 1842.

A. Assimilate

C. Ceded Territory

N. Negotiations

R. Retained Rights

S. Sovreign Nation

8. Who had the advantage at the negotiations in Prairie du Chien?Explain in detail why.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Shade in the area of the Northwest Territory made by the new US Govern-ment after the American Revolution.

QUIZ OF THE DAY KEYTuesday, September 21st

Match the following vocabulary words with definitions as provided.

1. S Means an independent nation of people.

2. N Means a group of people trying to present an argument to get a better deal for themselves.3. R Means things that people have always had, not that they got recently.4. C Means land given away by one group of people to another group of people.5. A Means to absorb one group of people into another group of people.

6. Shade land below that was ceded by native people to the US Government in the treaties of 1837 and 1842.

A. Assimilate

C. Ceded Territory

N. Negotiations

R. Retained Rights

S. Sovreign Nation

8. Who had the advantage at the negotiations in Prairie du Chien?Explain in detail why.

THE US GOVERNMENT HAD THE ADVANTAGE:1) WAS MUCH MORE ORGANIZED. NATIVE TRIBES HAD THEIR OWN SEPARATE GOVERNMENTS AND DID NOT PROVIDE A UNIFIED FRONT. 2) AMERICAN MILITARY WAS PRESENT AN USED MODERN WEAPONS TO INTIMIDATE. 3) NEGOTIATIONS WERE DONE PRIMARILY IN ENGLISH WHICH MANY NATIVES DID NOT UNDERSTAND. 4) CONDITIONS WERE POOR AND NATIVES WANTED TO LEAVE AND GO HOME. 5) AMERICANS CONFUSED NATIVE AMERICANS WITH LE-GAL DEFINITIONS OF LAND AND BOUNDARIES THAT WAS A NEW CONCEPT TO THE INDIANS.OTHERS?

Shade in the area of the Northwest Territory made by the new US Govern-ment after the American Revolution.

Examples of Protests from the Early 1980’sMoving Beyond Argument Racism & Treaty Rights by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Hank Aaron Steps Up to the Plate On the use of Native American Names and Mascots in Sportby Richard E. Lapchick

Special for the Sports Business Journal

In one day, Hank Aaron did more for the campaign to stop using Native American names and mascots for sports teams than the 30 plus years that the campaign has been active.

As fans gathered for the All-Star Classic in Atlanta, Aaron stepped up to the platform that throwing out the first pitch gave him. He talked to the media about race and sport. This was not new for the man who had his own personal triumph of breaking Babe Ruth’s career home run chilled by innumerable death threats and a barrage of hate mail. What was new was his statement that if the name “Braves” that he wore on his chest for decades was hurtful to many Native Americans, then it should be changed. He instantly became the most prominent athlete to take that position publicly.

I always found it incongruous that Ted Turner never really reacted when people confronted him about owning a team called the Braves that rallied around the Tomahawk Chop. Here was a man who brought the Soviets and Americans together for the Goodwill Games. He hired Hank Aaron, arguably baseball’s most outspoken critic on racial issues, as a high-ranking executive for these same Braves. He donated $1 billion to the United Nations. Nothing in his personal or professional profile would conjure up a question about race other than the Braves.

I had been in that position myself. I played freshman basketball for the St. John’s Redmen. My father coached those Redmen for 20 years, and was affectionately called “the Big Indian.” He never had reason to question the nickname or the wooden Indian mascot.

That all changed late one evening in 1969 at Mama Leone’s Restaurant, near the old Madison Square Garden. Whenever we were there to eat after a game, people would come up to my father to greet him or ask for an autograph. This night started no differently until an older man who appeared to be in his late 60s, like my father, asked if he could join us.

He told my father how much he admired him as a coach and as someone who helped to integrate basketball. (My father had signed Nat “Sweetwater” Clifton, the NBA’s first black player, when he was the coach of the Knicks in 1950). We smiled until he added that these things made it particularly embarrassing that my father coached a team called the Redmen and was called “the Big Indian.” The man was an Indian.

That was the first time that we had ever thought about what the “Redmen” meant. It began to conjure up memo-ries of headlines: “Redmen on the Warpath;” and “Redmen Scalp Braves [Bradley].” The Braves even “hung the Redmen” once. Something was wrong with the picture.

Here was the man who helped integrate basketball being thought of as racially offensive. He died in 1970 and the issue persisted for another 20 years until St. John’s, like other universities that came to understand, rid itself of the Indian symbols and name.

Too many haven’t. More than40 colleges and universities and five professional teams, including the Braves, use Native American names and symbols. Would we think of calling teams names such the “Chicago Caucasians,” the “Buffalo Blacks,” or the “San Diego Jews?”

Could you imagine people mocking African Americans in black face at a game? Yet go to a game where there is a team with an Indian name and you will see fans with war paint on their faces. Is this not the equivalent to black face?

Day 5: Web Quest: Name: ____________________________________________________________________

TASK:You are a member of a three person journalist team. Your team has been asked to travel back in time and inves-tigate this event. Once you have returned from your journey you write a column for your local newspaper on your findings. Work in groups of three, with each member taking a different view. After the papers are writen, they will have an open debate.

PROCESS:You have discovered three points of view to research:

1. Ojibwe Spear fisher

2. Witness for non-violence

3. Spear Fishing Protester

Each member of your journalistic team will choose a point of view to investigate. Use the resources listed below to investigate your story. Make sure to keep a good log or notebook on your fact finding and document your sources. Once you have gathered all of your materials. Work together to write your column.

EVALUATION:Your Article Should:

- Describe the events, which took place pertaining to spear fishing- Explain the nature of the conflict- Describe each point of view clearly- Highlight key information that is important in understanding this story- Define Key concepts and terms important in understanding issues associated with off reservation fishing ac-tivities. (For example: “Ceded Territory”, “Harvest”, “Ojibwe,” “Anishinaabe,” “Chippewa”… etc)

CONCLUSIONYour article will be syndicated in the Associated Press. Everyone who reads newspapers around the country will understand the sovereign rights of members of the Lake Superior Bands of Chippewa (Ojibwe, Anishinaabe) in Northern Wisconsin to hunt, fish and gather within CEDED territory &endash; based on what they read in your article. This is a quite a task… GOOD LUCK!

From: TEACHER FORUM ONLINEMAAWANJI’IDINGOjibwe Histories and NarrativesBrain-Box Digital Archives Project

The Right to Hunt, Fish and Gather(http://www.brain-box.com/cf/rights_path.htm)

Native American Nicknames used in Wisconsin High Schools

This issue interests me on two fronts. Firstly, I have heard about the use of Indian nicknames ever since I graduated from Bruce High School, the Red Raiders, in 1982. (Bruce has since dropped the Native American image in favor of a “red masked rider”. Secondly, as a middle school teacher in Cumberland, whose curriculum includes American History and Native Treaty rights, I engage my students in this debate... students who include Native Americans from an Indian Reservation within our district boundaries. As a young man I saw no particu-lar issue with the use of Native American nicknames. I have come to a change of mind.

I started thinking about this in earnest a few years ago, when I asked one of my Native American students what he thought about Indian nicknames. He said, “I don’t like people thinking I walk around wearing feathers and chanting all the time.” My class has discussed how Native Americans have been stereotyped throughout their history by Euro-Americans. Early in our state when new high schools in new communities were searching for nicknames, I’m sure that they chose Indian nicknames to honor the history of their area. Be that as it may, it isn’t right or ethical for a group of people to use a name of a people that don’t want their name to be used. It’s not up to us. It’s not up to the schools. It’s up to the Native Americans of Wisconsin to decide if they want their names and images to be used as school mascots. If any Native Americans object to this, as stated in the As-sembly Bill printed off below, the schools of Wisconsin that use Native American names and imagery should be progressive and choose a new name.

Poynette head coach Davy Tomlinson said that the Poynette School Board decided to change their nickname to be proactive. They could see the state forcing them to do this in the near future. He said that though some people were opposed, most were in favor. The positive effects of this decision was to get the student body in-volved with the choosing of a new name, and to actually be able to use a mascot for the first time in a long time. The Indian logo had not been used by Poynette, and only a block letter “P” was used to represent the school.

Change isn’t a bad thing. If it was, we’d all still be using wood bats and wearing wool uniforms. Times change. Opinions change.

I can almost hear some people saying the “politically correct” chant that is used in our society. This isn’t about politics. It’s about a group of people, how that people have been treated throughout our common history togeth-er, and respect. Some people living in Menominie, Menomonee Falls, and other cities with Indian names will always believe that if they have to drop the name “Indians,” they may as well drop the names of their respective cities. This too is a different issue. No town in Wisconsin is named “Indian” or “Redskin” or “Red Raider.” Cities with native names were adopted because that is what their areas were called by the Native Americans who lived there before they moved either voluntarily or forcibly.

Veronica Kinsel, one of our Native American coordinators here at Cumberland, a member of the Hopi and Na-vajo tribes, and a good friend of mine, said “I don’t like it, but we have so many other issues to discuss before we get to this (issue).” She’s right. We do have much bigger issues in our lives at a societal level, but who are we to say that this isn’t a big issue to Native Americans in Wisconsin. Is it right of us to tell them ‘You’re not being offended because we don’t mean it that way’?

The WBCA has no position on this, nor probably ever will. This is just my opinion, for whatever it’s worth.--by Joe Waite

Exercise: Take a highlighter and highlight every reason that supports the author’s opinion.

Examples of Native American logos in America.

Examples of Nazi Propaganda used against Jews and Blacks. It is a totally different issue (hate and the use of a group of people as logos) but are both examples used to continue and magnify stereotypes?

THE FIRST AMERICANS: FINAL UNIT TEST

Match the following vocabulary words with definitions as provided.1. _____ Means an independent nation of people.

2. _____ Means a group of people trying to present an argument to get a better deal for themselves.3. _____ Means things that people have always had, not that they got recently.4. _____ Means land given away by one group of people to another group of people.5. _____ Means to absorb one group of people into another group of people.

6. Shade land below that was ceded by native people to the US Government in the treaties of 1837 and 1842.

A. Assimilate

C. Ceded Territory

N. Negotiations

R. Retained Rights

S. Sovreign Nation

8. Who had the advantage at the negotiations in Prairie du Chien?Explain in detail why.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Shade in the area of the Northwest Territory made by the new US Govern-ment after the American Revolution.

Label the Indian Tribesof Wisconsin on this map.

Read and interpret the cartoon above. What does the author mean by it?

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________