PDF Summary:An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Think back to your US history classes—how much time did you spend studying Native American perspectives? According to some experts, it probably wasn’t much. History professor and activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz fills that knowledge gap with An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Published in 2014, this book is a retelling of US history that makes two major arguments: First, the US’s global success can be traced directly to its genocide of Native Americans. Second, indigenous resistance holds the key to a more peaceful future.

In this guide, we’ll discuss life in precolonial America and explain what led Europe to colonize the Americas. Then, we’ll explain how patterns of genocide and resistance have played out over the course of US history. Our commentary will provide additional information and alternative ideas about the historical events Dunbar-Ortiz covers. We’ll also explore social issues related to colonization, explain how Native American resistance efforts intersect with other movements, and provide an update on US-indigenous relations in the 21st century.

(continued)...

The Westward Expansion of the United States

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that when the British withdrew from the Americas to focus on colonial exploits in Asia, the colonists won the war for American independence, formally established the United States, and continued the pattern of genocidal violence against Native Americans. In this section, we’ll discuss how the US perpetrated violence against Native Americans as it expanded westward over the course of its first 100 years. Then, we’ll explore how indigenous Americans resisted this treatment.

US Violence Against Native Americans During Westward Expansion

Dunbar-Ortiz says that after the US became an independent nation, it was an immediate priority to expand westward beyond the Appalachian Mountains. (Shortform note: The Appalachian Mountains span nearly 2,000 miles from Alabama in the southern US to Newfoundland and Labrador in northeastern Canada. They served as a natural barrier to westward expansion because they were difficult to traverse; prior to westward expansion, settlers were confined to the east coast region bordering the Atlantic Ocean.)

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that for the purposes of westward expansion, the US government gave itself the Constitutional right to take ownership of native land via treaties. The first presidents sent the newly minted US Army into those regions to terrorize indigenous peoples, confiscate their land, and coerce native leaders into signing treaties that enabled the US government to sell that land for profit. Settler militias also continued their pattern of violence against Native Americans to usurp their lands independently of the government. For example, squatters led by John Sevier expanded into present-day East Tennessee by waging a ruthless total war until the Cherokee ceded land in the Treaty of the Holston.

(Shortform note: As Dunbar-Ortiz says, treaties often followed warfare, but in other cases, US negotiators threatened to wage war if native peoples wouldn’t cede their lands. These threats weren’t empty, but they were reluctant; Native Americans used this fact to negotiate for greater resources and privileges in exchange for peace. Since settlers couldn’t make legal treaties, they vied for land by force and hoped the US would back them up. This was the case, for example, following Sevier’s war against the Cherokee: Governor William Blount negotiated the Treaty of the Holston, under which the Cherokee ceded some land but were empowered to restrict further settlement of remaining lands. However, the US didn’t hold up its end of that bargain.)

Once the US secured lands just beyond the Appalachian region, it decided to expand even further westward. The first step in this process was the purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France; the second step was the annexation of Mexican lands after Mexico gained its independence from Spain. In both cases, the US government endeavored to remove indigenous peoples from newly acquired lands so that these regions could be settled by US citizens.

(Shortform note: With the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, the US doubled its landbase, acquiring over 800,000 square miles spanning 14 present-day states between North and South Dakota and Louisiana. The US acquired slightly less land from Mexico—only 525,000 square miles, which spans nine present-day states. Altogether, these lands constitute about 35% of the US’s total landbase.)

Andrew Jackson carried out much of the work in the Louisiana region. As a general, he led a ruthless total war against the Muscogee nation, which he then forced to sign a treaty agreeing to give up their lands and move to designated Indian territory (land set aside by the US government for Native American survivors to live on). According to Dunbar-Ortiz, these events launched Jackson to national prominence and eventually to the presidency, where his administration oversaw the signing of almost 90 treaties laying claim to indigenous lands. This pattern culminated in the Trail of Tears—the forced migration of 16,000 Cherokee (half of whom died during the march) from their homelands to Indian territory.

(Shortform note: The war Andrew Jackson waged against the Muscogee is known as the Creek War. Jackson’s victory in the war destroyed native resistance efforts in the region, and the ceded land amounted to 23 million acres across present-day Alabama and Georgia. Other experts note that it wasn’t Jackson’s idea to remove the Muscogee to Indian territory; it was Thomas Jefferson’s a decade earlier. But as president, Jackson did accelerate the US’s program of Indian removal—he used treaties to usurp 25 million acres across the South, which enabled white settlers to expand slavery. The Trail of Tears was particularly brutal, but experts disagree about how many Cherokee died along the way; some sources claim 4,000 fatalities.)

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that the US viewed newly independent Mexico as an unstable indigenous nation whose lands were destined by God to belong to the US; historians call this belief manifest destiny. A territory could only become a state once there were more Anglo-American settlers than Native Americans living there—so the US was motivated to wipe out indigenous Mexican populations or remove them to Indian territory. As with earlier westward expansion, the US accomplished this via military occupation and progressive settlement of Mexican territories (the Mexican-American War). The genocide escalated during the Gold Rush (an influx of gold miners to California)—more than 100,000 native people were killed in 25 years.

(Shortform note: Experts note that while the US’s victory in the Mexican-American War didn’t bode well for indigenous peoples, a Mexican victory wouldn’t have, either—both nations had genocidal intentions for Native Americans. As Dunbar-Ortiz notes, the genocide of western Native Americans was escalated by the Californian Gold Rush; experts say this and other gold rushes also harmed native peoples via ecological damage, which resulted in reduced resources and ill health. Experts also explain that manifest destiny didn’t end with the Mexican-American War; the US used this concept to justify its annexation of Hawaii and Alaska, and in 2020, President Donald Trump applied it to the exploration and potential colonization of outer space.)

How Native Americans Resisted Westward Expansion

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that Native Americans continued to resist efforts to seize their territories and perpetrate genocide against them in the US’s first hundred years. For example, the Shawnee hero Tecumseh and his brother, Tenskwatawa, organized a resistance movement in the early 1800s that intended to unite all native peoples in a refusal to cede or sell any more indigenous lands to settlers. However, as they’d done during the colonial period, settlers generally responded to such acts of resistance with even greater violence—future president William Henry Harrison’s forces waged total war against Tecumseh’s people and destroyed the resistance movement.

(Shortform note: Experts suggest that Harrison’s use of coercive treaties is what spurred Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa to resist further settlement by the US: In one case, Harrison won 51 million acres across present-day Illinois, Wisconsin, and Missouri by plying native representatives with alcohol. Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa grew up in the shadow of such violence and coercion by settlers and developed a two-pronged resistance approach: Tenskwatawa outlined a spiritual vision of indigenous victory while Tecumseh led warriors in battle. Their movement lost power when Harrison’s forces killed Tecumseh in 1813; Tenskwatawa eventually helped convince the remaining Shawnee to relocate to Indian territory.)

In addition to these methods of resistance, Native Americans survived by migrating when settler violence threatened to overtake their communities. For example, many members of the Muscogee resistance forces Andrew Jackson fought against joined the Seminole Nation, a Florida conglomerate of indigenous survivors and Africans who had escaped slavery. Similarly, when the US tried to force indigenous nations to move to Indian territory, many people fled to Canada or Mexico instead, and others outright refused to move. They lost legal claim to their ancestral homelands and sometimes even their legal identities as Native Americans, but Dunbar-Ortiz explains that their decision to remain helped later generations restore those rights.

(Shortform note: After the Muscogee joined the Seminole Nation, the Seminoles continued to lead a fierce resistance movement against the US over the course of three Seminole Wars between 1817 and 1858. The majority of Seminoles refused to migrate until their leader, Osceola, was captured by US forces as he tried to negotiate with them during a truce during the Second Seminole War. Even after that, a non-negligible amount of Seminoles remained in their Florida home—the Third Seminole War erupted when the US attempted to remove them. Because they’d been significantly weakened, the Seminole resistance faltered and most of their people were removed westward.)

Native Americans also sometimes attempted to survive by assimilating—that is, taking on aspects of the dominant (US) culture. For example, some Catholic missions in California imprisoned, tortured, and killed California Indians, and incarcerated Native Americans had to adopt Christianity and European ways of life to survive. Although assimilation can help individuals survive, if it’s carried out on a large-enough scale, it eventually leads to the erasure of subordinate cultures. Dunbar-Ortiz notes that some Native Americans resisted assimilation to ensure that their cultures would live on. For example, natives who escaped from Catholic missions in California engaged in guerrilla war; their descendants carried on their traditions.

(Shortform note: To force California Indians to convert, Spain commissioned 21 Catholic missions (religious settlements). Spanish authorities forced local natives to build the missions and live inside them, where they were watched closely by priests who enforced Catholic rules. Spain thought this would civilize and win the loyalty of Californian Indians. But experts note that forced assimilation is seldom effective—this is clear in the case of the Californian missions, as many indigenous people escaped and returned only to raid and destroy the missions they’d been forced to build. However, their resistance efforts couldn’t prevent every loss—the missions contributed to the extinction or near-extinction of several native Californian languages.)

What’s Lost When Indigenous Peoples Are Forced to Migrate?

As Dunbar-Ortiz mentions, many indigenous nations staunchly refused to migrate at the US government’s behest. The Seminoles went to war multiple times over this issue, and many Native Americans moved to Canada or Mexico instead of Indian Territory. Why did they resist migration so strongly?

For one thing, many indigenous cultures profess a spiritual attachment to their ancestral homelands. It’s also important to note that at the time, travel was exceedingly dangerous and the lands indigenous peoples were assigned to were inhospitable. This meant that migration could threaten their survival. However, in some cases, migration was their best or only option, so they undertook long journeys despite the dangers. This pattern continues in South America today, where indigenous peoples whose lifeways are under attack migrate from rainforests and rural areas to cities but often suffer greatly for it.

Dunbar-Ortiz also mentions that migration (and refusal to migrate) has legal consequences for indigenous peoples. We see this pattern, too, continued in South America: While many indigenous South Americans are being pushed out of their ancestral homelands, others remain to fight for and retain land rights. In many cases, they already have legal claim to their lands, but colonial governments won’t enforce those claims, so they have to stay home and protect their land rights themselves.

The Civil War Years and Industrialization

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that when the US annexed Mexico, which didn’t allow slavery, it sparked a debate over slavery that would culminate in a civil war. During the Civil War years and the period of greater industrialization that ensued, US violence against Native American peoples continued. In this section, we’ll discuss some of the federal policies that led to this violence as well as Native American resistance efforts.

(Shortform note: The American Civil War began in 1861 when several southern states seceded from the Union (the US) to form their own government, the Confederate States of America. The Confederate states seceded because the US government challenged their right to legalized slavery, upon which the southern states’ economies depended. The US won the war in 1865, reincorporated the Confederate states into the US, and federally abolished slavery. In the aftermath of the war, Southern states ratified Jim Crow laws to reinforce Black people’s legal inferiority; these laws were later repealed, but systemic racial injustice remains a contentious issue in American culture, as Michele Alexander explains in The New Jim Crow.)

Anti-Indigenous Policies During and After the Civil War

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that Abraham Lincoln, who was president during the Civil War, won the presidency in part because of an anti-indigenous policy he supported called “free soil,” which invited settlers to take over indigenous lands. Lincoln engaged in other anti-indigenous actions, too: For example, when he recalled military forces that had been stationed in the West to fight the Civil War in the East, he asked settlers to volunteer to take their place and help keep indigenous populations weak and subordinate. This led to many notable instances of genocidal violence—for example, in the Long Walk of 1864, a volunteer militia forcibly marched 8,000 Diné people to a concentration camp, where they were incarcerated for four years.

(Shortform note: You might be surprised to learn that Lincoln took anti-indigenous actions, given that he’s most famous for emancipating Black Americans and ending slavery in the US. However, historians note that while Lincoln is usually remembered positively for making progress toward racial equality, he didn’t personally believe in racial equality. In addition to professing anti-Black views, Lincoln oversaw multiple mass executions of Native American people, and the free soil policies Lincoln supported had, in some cases, merely replaced enslaved Black people with enslaved Native Americans. The Long Walk—a direct result of Lincoln’s actions as president—has been compared to the Trail of Tears, since it resulted in mass Diné casualties.)

According to Dunbar-Ortiz, the Civil War escalated industrialization, which ignited a new era of anti-indigenous policies. First, the US began to break treaties by giving indigenous lands and resources to private companies and citizens for homesteading and for building universities, corporations, and railroads. To protect these interests, the US waged genocidal wars against western indigenous nations such as the Sioux. The US also systematically hunted buffalo (a primary Native American resource) to near extinction, which destroyed ecosystems and economically disabled indigenous peoples. Then, in 1871, Congress passed legislation that put an end to treaty-making and gave the US final authority over indigenous affairs.

(Shortform note: The Civil War escalated industrialization by ramping up demand for machinery, railroads, and manufactured goods to support the war effort. Industrialization threatened Native American life by increasing pollution of natural resources and disrupting natural habitats. The rise of railroads during industrialization also contributed to the extinction of buffalo—buffalo were hunted extensively to feed railroad workers and prevent train delays that resulted when herds crossed the tracks. Many experts also believe the US hunted buffalo in an explicit effort to starve Native Americans. The US hoped to fully assimilate the Native Americans who survived the genocide—that’s why it ended the practice of treaty-making.)

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that in the late 1800s, these developments led to allotment legislation that affected indigenous peoples living in designated Indian territories. Instead of holding collective ownership of community lands, individual families would own smaller parcels (with some families owning none), and the rest would be given to Anglo-American homesteaders. Around the same time, US officials also opened boarding schools that incarcerated and aimed to assimilate indigenous youth, who were banned from (and brutally punished for) expressing their native cultures. Both land allotment and boarding schools exacerbated native poverty and weakened the sovereignty and cultural influence of native nations.

(Shortform note: Allotment legislation was another attempt to forcibly assimilate indigenous Americans into the dominant US culture—proponents believed that private land ownership was integral to a civilized society and that Native Americans would naturally adopt the Anglo-American lifestyle by participating in this tradition. Boarding schools aimed to assimilate those who weren’t old enough to own land—by 1900, about 20,000 native children were enrolled in these institutions, where they were often subjected to neglect and abuse. Many children died as a result; in 2022, the US released a report identifying over 500 such deaths and explaining that many were buried in unmarked graves.)

Native American Resistance During and After the Civil War

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that Native Americans continued to employ violent resistance as a survival strategy both during and after the Civil War. Many indigenous peoples saw the Civil War as an opportunity to divide and weaken the US (and therefore subvert its ability to disrupt native life)—this motivated various native nations to fight alongside either Confederate or Union forces during the war.

(Shortform note: Historians explain that just as the Civil War fragmented the US, it also deepened intra-community conflict among indigenous peoples, especially inside the Cherokee nation: The Trail of Tears had led to a political divide between two segments of the Cherokee, and the leaders of both divisions signed contentious agreements with the Confederates, which prompted some Cherokee to desert their communities and join Muscogee forces aligned with the Union.)

When industrialization threatened their communities after the Civil War, indigenous peoples continued to battle. For example, war leaders Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull led Sioux resistance movements which won significant battles, like the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876, and evaded capture for long periods of time.

(Shortform note: Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull led the Sioux resistance to protect the Black Hills—land considered sacred by its indigenous occupants, who were being displaced by settlers and resource extractors. The Battle of Little Bighorn was part of the Black Hills War, and although the Sioux won that major battle, the US military later forced the resisters to surrender. As of 2023, the Crazy Horse Memorial is in progress in the Black Hills, and it promises to dwarf Mount Rushmore (a monument of four US presidents carved in the Black Hills in 1927, which many indigenous people find insulting). The sculptor who began the Crazy Horse Memorial, Korczak Ziolkowski, also crafted the Sitting Bull Monument that sits in Mobridge, South Dakota.)

However, Dunbar-Ortiz explains that violent native resistance would soon come to an end. The Sioux, who were impoverished and confined to exceedingly small reservations, began the Ghost Dance movement—a dancing ritual that aimed to restore traditional indigenous lifeways. US officials were spooked—and in response, they massacred 300 Sioux at the so-called Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890. By this time, Native American nations had been so weakened by US genocide that this massacre effectively marked the end of US-indigenous warfare.

(Shortform note: Experts explain that there were actually two Ghost Dance movements: First, around 1870, Wodziwob taught that the Ghost Dance could revive those recently lost to disease. Then, in 1890, Wovoka (who was heavily influenced by Christianity) prophesied that Native American life would be restored and coexist peacefully alongside Anglo-American life. Many of Wovoka’s followers believed the Ghost Dance would resurrect indigenous ancestors, repopulate the buffalo, and wipe out white settlers—which is why US officials were so spooked. Some experts believe that in addition to worries about the Ghost Dance, US officials carried out the massacre at Wounded Knee out of anger over their defeat at the Battle of Little Bighorn.)

The 20th Century and Beyond

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that by the early 20th century, Native American populations had been effectively suppressed in terms of both number and power. In this section, we’ll explain how the US continued to enact policies that aimed to assimilate Native Americans and thus erase their cultures over the first half of the century. Then, we’ll discuss how Native Americans mobilized during the Civil Rights movement to demand better treatment. Finally, we’ll explore some of the ramifications of these developments in the 21st century and beyond.

Genocidal US Policies During the Early 1900s

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that as industrialization ushered in the 20th century, the US began to apply the tactics it had used to suppress Native Americans against other indigenous peoples in places like Hawaii, Alaska, and the Philippines. This process, known as imperialism, helped the US achieve its position as a global superpower by concentrating wealth, power, and control of lands and natural resources in the hands of US institutions. The US also used these resources to increase its military power—for example, the military tested nuclear weapons in Pacific territories it controlled as well as in deserts belonging to Native Americans—which decreased oppressed peoples’ willingness and ability to resist occupation and colonization.

(Shortform note: Some experts use “colonialism” and “imperialism” interchangeably, while others argue that there are important differences between them. One difference is that colonialism involves the migration of settlers from a dominant region to exert control over another region, while imperialism involves any means of overpowering a subordinate region. You might call the US’s actions in places like Hawaii, Alaska, and the Philippines “colonialism” because US settlers migrated to these places, which were officially labeled “colonies” until the term became politically incorrect. The practice of testing nuclear weapons in colonized regions, known as “nuclear colonialism,” harmed the health of indigenous peoples.)

In the early 1900s, Congress introduced three pieces of legislation that significantly affected Native American life. First, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (ICA) bestowed US citizenship upon all Native Americans whether they wanted it or not. Dunbar-Ortiz explains that this law was intended to promote assimilation and the eventual erasure of indigenous cultures. These goals were also supported by blood quantum laws, which mandated that to legally identify as a Native American, you must prove that a certain percentage of your ancestors were indigenous. However, Native Americans had a hard time assimilating because at the time, the US was experiencing an intellectual wave of pro-eugenics and other pseudoscientific racist beliefs.

(Shortform note: Experts from the Onondaga Nation note that the ICA didn’t bestow full citizenship on Native Americans, since Native Americans were targeted by Jim Crow-like voter suppression policies in various states until the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act (some experts believe this problem is ongoing). Blood quantum laws (which persist today) were also effectively pro-eugenics: The eugenics movement aimed to produce genetically perfect (meaning white) humans by controlling reproduction, and blood quantum laws were established to prevent the birth of mixed native-white children. Pro-eugenics US policies also resulted in the mass forced sterilization of Native American women from 1970 to 1976.)

Second, in 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was passed. The IRA halted allotment, required the government to expand reservations, and empowered native nations to form their own governments if they wanted to. Dunbar-Ortiz explains that despite its promise, the IRA didn’t really slow assimilation—tribal governments were usually led by elites who embraced Anglo-American culture to the detriment of indigenous traditions. Third, in the 1950s, the US introduced termination legislation. Termination involved erasing the special status of Native American populations, transferring native governance matters to state and federal agencies, and trying to break up reservations by paying for native youth to relocate to cities.

(Shortform note: Despite the IRA’s downsides, it also had some positive effects, including the expansion of tribal reservations and children’s access to education. As for termination legislation, experts say that its purpose was to end any responsibility the US had to honor treaties it had with Native American governments. The urban relocation program was part of this plan: US officials hoped they could use it to slowly decrease the populations of—and eventually shut down—reservations so they’d no longer be responsible for their management. The US heavily advertised the benefits of this program, but in practice, many of the relocated youth were abandoned to urban poverty and homelessness).

Native American Mobilization During the Civil Rights Era

The US’s attempt to urbanize Native American youth had unintended consequences—many of these relocated youth were poor and therefore more amenable to radicalization, and living in cities increased their exposure to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Thus, Dunbar-Ortiz explains that Native American resistance efforts exploded during the civil rights era. Native activists focused on restoring three basic native rights: the right to self-governance, the right to enforce treaties between the US and native nations, and the right to land restitution. Native activists also joined multicultural coalitions fighting for the rights of all oppressed people of color, like Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign.

(Shortform note: The civil rights movement began in the 1950s in protest of systemic racism, especially Jim Crow laws. But as Dunbar-Ortiz notes, the movement wasn’t limited to anti-Black racism; urbanized native youth joined the struggle, possibly because their experience of poverty exacerbated feelings of injustice and grievance. In The Autobiography of Malcolm X, civil rights activist Malcolm X explains why multicultural coalitions such as the Poor People’s Campaign (which aimed to redress economic inequality) and Fred Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition (which united socialists of all races, including Native Americans) gained steam during the movement: People of color across the globe could trace their struggles to a single source—white colonialists and imperialists.)

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that some efforts to win back the rights and lands of Native Americans were successful—for example, Pueblo peoples won the return of Blue Lake, which was sacred to them, from the state of New Mexico. Others succeeded only in part. For example, beginning in 1969, native activists occupied Alcatraz Island for a year and a half, demanding that institutions that would support Native American life be built there. That didn’t happen, but afterward, the indigenous professors founded a Native American college called D-Q and a new Native American studies program at the University of California.

(Shortform note: To secure Blue Lake, the Pueblo appealed to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, arguing that since the lake was sacred to them, restricted access to the lake infringed on their fundamental rights as citizens to freedom of religion. Experts explain that activists zeroed in on Alcatraz Island (which is most famously known as the location of a prison that housed notorious criminals like Al Capone) because of its historic importance to indigenous peoples, including refugees of the Californian missions. The Alcatraz occupation spurred long-lasting changes to higher education: Although D-Q closed in 2005, there are now 32 tribal colleges and universities, and many US colleges offer Native American studies programs.)

Dunbar-Ortiz explains that indigenous activism inspired by the civil rights movement also had a long-term, global cultural impact, citing two notable examples. First, as part of a 1972 protest called the Trail of Broken Treaties, activists broke into the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and stole federal documents proving US mistreatment of Native Americans. The activists presented their findings to the United Nations (UN), which eventually led the UN to release a Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.

(Shortform note: According to some sources, the activists didn’t originally plan to break into the BIA. They intended to visit reservations across the country, learn more about their needs, and present a list of demands to both the US presidential candidates of the year. However, once they reached Washington, D.C., they were denied access to the candidates—partly because of the BIA’s interference. Frustrated, they broke in and occupied the BIA. Instead of publicizing the activists’ demands, the press focused on the occupation and acts of vandalism the activists committed. (Researchers have found that it’s common for the press to lose sight of protestors’ messages and focus on their methods instead.) That may partially explain the 35-year delay in the UN’s Declaration.)

Second, in 1973, activists occupied Wounded Knee (where a massacre of Sioux people had taken place in 1890, as we discussed earlier). News coverage of the event educated the American public about the 1890 massacre there and likened the massacre to the My Lai massacre of 1968 (a war crime the US committed in Vietnam). As a result, the American public knew more about the US’s history of imperialist violence against indigenous peoples—in both the Americas and abroad.

(Shortform note: Experts note that 20 US soldiers who contributed to the massacre at Wounded Knee received Medals of Honor for their participation. In 2019, activists and lawmakers began advocating for the rescindment of these medals. They compared it with the massacre at My Lai, noting that those perpetrators didn’t receive awards—several were charged with war crimes (though only one was convicted). That legislation failed, but paths toward rescindment are still being explored. Some experts believe the massacres at Wounded Knee and My Lai have the same roots—they contend that the US’s involvement in the Vietnam War can be attributed to US support of French colonialism and US imperialist military policies.)

Into the 21st Century

Despite Native Americans’ resistance during the civil rights era, the US has continued its attempt to suppress Native American populations into the 21st century. For example, Dunbar-Ortiz explains that some politicians want to abolish the reservation system, which would result in full-scale assimilation and the loss of Native American cultures. However, indigenous resistance efforts also continue.

Dunbar-Ortiz says that the primary concern of contemporary native activists is self-determination—the right of native nations to act autonomously within the US system or else to withdraw as independent nations. Native activists are also trying to get reparations (amends for harm done by the US). This involves enforcing preexisting treaties and securing the return of sacred lands like the Black Hills (where Mount Rushmore is carved) and their ancestors’ remains and artifacts from museums. Activists also want economic independence, which they believe will help cure high rates of social ills like alcoholism, suicide, and sexual violence.

Dunbar-Ortiz believes that achieving these ends is key to a more peaceful future—not only for Native Americans but also for the world. She argues that the US continues to carry out imperialist projects abroad (for example, in the Middle East); recall that modern imperialism replicates the genocidal tactics the US has used against Native Americans. If the US can learn from its mistakes, make amends, and change its ways, the future will be better for everyone.

How Genocide and Resistance Continue in the 21st Century

Dunbar-Ortiz argues that the pattern of US-perpetrated genocide and Native American resistance continues in the 21st century in many ways—let’s explore how this occurs in greater detail.

Dunbar-Ortiz states that one way the US attempts to suppress Native American life today is by challenging the reservation system. For example, Montana Republican Keith Regier proposed in 2023 that Congress explore alternatives to the system because, in his opinion, reservations are unconstitutionally race-based. Native American officials responded that Regier’s proposal relied on racist stereotypes and would pose a threat to indigenous sovereignty. Ultimately, Regier chose not to introduce the legislation, after an indigenous lawmaker, Shane Morigeau, shared his opposing views with Regier.

Other issues Dunbar-Ortiz explores include the return of sacred land like Black Hills as well as the belongings and remains of indigenous ancestors. The return of Black Hills to the Sioux may be unlikely because Mount Rushmore is a profitable tourist attraction, but that fight is ongoing—and some native activists have advocated that the attraction be transformed into a genocide museum. Investigative journalists noted in 2023 that despite a 1990 federal law, many museums have yet to repatriate the remains and artifacts of indigenous peoples to their descendants.

Another way Native Americans say the US suppresses indigenous life in the 21st century is via environmental injustice, which includes catastrophes like oil spills and wildlife extinction. Native American resistance continues in this realm as well—for example, the Standing Rock Sioux engaged in civil disobedience against the 2016 construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which the activists argued violated an 1868 treaty and endangered both the environment and ancestral remains.

Some economists agree with Dunbar-Ortiz that self-determination is key to alleviating poverty among Native American peoples, arguing that US supervision over indigenous affairs prevents Native Americans from making profits and using money efficiently. Since poverty is linked to the exacerbation of substance abuse, higher risk of mental illness and suicide, and more sexual violence, these economists say that self-sovereignty might help cure high rates of social ills among Native Americans. Activists are also using other methods to attack these problems—for example, the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) movement aims to secure resources for indigenous victims of violence against women.

Finally, Dunbar-Ortiz says that the US continues to carry out colonialist/imperialist projects abroad, pointing specifically to the Middle East. Some global human rights experts support this argument. For example, Amnesty International says the US committed numerous war crimes and human rights violations throughout the Iraq War, during which the US occupied Iraq, ostensibly with the aim of “modernizing” the nation (which echoes the historical justification for boarding schools for native children and other anti-indigenous policies). Additionally, some argue that the US is guilty of colonialism by proxy since it provided Israel with weapons that were potentially used in the commission of war crimes against the Palestinian people.