Shinnecock Debate

Shinnecock Debate - Shinnecock Debate Wednesday, March 02,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Johnson v. McIntosh case First come, first discoverers Chief Justice Marshall that the U.S. acquired the discovery nations in the discovered lands Indians had title of occupancy but not ownership, by Great Britain, next passed to the U.S. Dominance theory to supercede that Indians did not own the land Land was wrestled from the Indians by legalities and treaties Discovery Doctrine Race will die out anyway, future Indians will be assimilated and not on the reservations Land will be null and void and won't own any land anymore Dying Race Thesis Fear of the casinos Labeled Indians as savages and non-christians, why discoverers took the land was justified and settled it bringing economic value Native Americans disagree because the land was destroyed and nature was destroyed, linear thinking is economic value 2005 Sherill N.Y vs. Oneida Nation Vindicate certain lands in Southampton Land was taken away in 1859, break the 1000 year lease treaty they
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/16/2011 for the course ANT 203 taught by Professor Cherney during the Spring '11 term at SUNY Stony Brook.

Page1 / 2

Shinnecock Debate - Shinnecock Debate Wednesday, March 02,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online