Summary Of Dred Scott Vs Sandford

In Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Justice Roger Taney advances the argument that Black people were not “intended to be included” as citizens under the constitution, meaning that they are unable to claim the “rights and privileges” bestowed upon citizens of the United States (Dred Scott v. Sandford). To advance this argument, and to prove that the decision in Dred Scott was not a race-based one, Taney makes a comparison between black and indigenous individuals, asserting that indigenous freedom has “constantly been acknowledged, from the time of the first emigration to the English colonies to the present” (Taney, Dred Scott). However, Taney neglects to confront the historical truth that the United States government committed countless genocidal acts
The eradication of indigenous culture, language, and identity through assimilation practices within the industrial schooling system is one of these genocidal acts, a theme that Louellyn White discusses in her piece, “White Power and the Performance of Assimilation.” Within this work, White shares her personal connection to indigenous industrial schooling, discussing her family’s relationship to the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. She praised education as a concept, but then turned to the assimilationist purpose that the schools carried out, stating that her family “lost some of their culture, language, and identity” through their education (White 106). Ensuring the loss of indigenous identity took many forms within the industrial schooling system, and White goes in depth about how musical assimilation, particularly in the form of exaggerating theatrical performances, affected her family and their tribal identities. Within these performances, students were made to act out exaggerated stereotypes about their indigenous culture while uplifting white “civilized” culture, altering their internal senses of tribal identity while also displaying to the
A similar vein of thought exists within the piece, “Proceedings of the Lake Mohonk Conference,” in which speakers push the idea that assimilationist narratives are generous toward indigenous people and helpful for society. Speakers deemed assimilation necessary, not only for the United States as a whole, but for the indigenous population as well, who were not regarded as full persons until they became “civilized” (“Proceedings of the Lake Mohonk Conference” 11). People with indigenous identities were not only treated poorly, but their identities were also mocked and considered unimportant and primitive, and one speaker within the conference claimed that giving up one’s indigenous culture may be necessary if it “will buy them life, manhood, civilization, and Christianity” (“Proceedings of the Lake Mohonk Conference” 11). The loss of one's culture in this context was seen as a slight, unfortunate price to pay for citizenship and civilization, and an assumption existed that indigenous people would want to give up their culture in exchange for a place in white