Intertribal Slavery

              This paper discusses the similarities and differences between three groups of slave-holding North American Indian tribes and their considerable evolution, from recorded history to the late 19th century. The Cherokee and Chickasaw were subtly different tribes in the present southeastern United States, while the Haida inhabited a very small coastal portion of northwestern British Columbia.

              Haida are currently located in their historical locale, which is intuitive given the remote access and infrequent contact from outsiders. Due to their proximity to the Russia-North American land bridge, they have been in the area for at least 17,000 years.1 The Haida did not necessarily need slaves because land and labor was plentiful; slavery was more likely to be a token of wealth, and some controversy exists as to their share of the populace (1% to 25% of the population)2 The tribe was averse to European contact, and would attack those attempting to trade or survey.

              Although the population is now at historical levels, smallpox had eliminated 90% of the population during the mid-19th century.3 As such, the tribe was no longer a domineering powerhouse in the region, amenable to Canadian and American government diplomacy as a survival mechanism. The Haida subsisted on fishing with canoes and 3,000 ancestors remain, some of which still ply the trade of fishing.4 Many of the Haida have traded their canoes (in the 1800s, they occasionally added cannons to their vessels)5 and fearsome warrior skill for carving and weaving The tribe boasts many artists, whom without exaggeration are world-renowned6,7.

              Cherokees were one of the most sophisticated Indian tribes, with intermarriage between whites and self-described “reds” not too frowned upon by the proletariat. Of note, the Cherokee never held more than a nominal number of slaves and most of those were held by mixed race families. Although a lenient constitution was drafted in 1827 and slaves were freed concurrently with the United States before the civil war, litigation for former so-called Cherokee Freedmen is still ongoing.8
The Chickasaw peoples were theoretically allied with the English settlers. However, generally speaking, the English universally enslaved tribes, even up to the Northwest, and even traded with the Haida9. While the French and Spanish attempted to justify their actions legally, the English purposefully omitted any justification for their enslavement. 2 to 4 million Indians were enslaved during colonial times10, and the majority of this paradigm occurred before 1750. After this time period, the import of Africans exceeded that of Indian enslavement.11 The Chickasaw population reached a nadir of 1,600 during the turn of the 18
th century; during this time period they were allied with Spanish traders as well.12

              The Cherokee and Chickasaw were ostensibly natural enemies prior to colonial discovery of the Americas. This is not exceptional considering general alliances appear to be more rare among Indian tribes without any kinship ties. The Cherokee during the 1700s were in the coastal Atlantic, while the Chickasaw were in Louisiana, so either entity would have to make a concerted effort to attack one another. The land between the two was largely unclaimed until a strategically placed Shawnee group was invited from the north, at the confluence of Spanish, French and English interests.13 In order to war within another tribe, the Cherokee or Chickasaw would have to traverse through hostile Shawnee territory (the Shawnee had a uniquely fierce reputation not common among the Civilized Tribes and agrarian-focused southeast corridor).

              From the perspective of the self-admitted materialistic Spanish, the Cherokee did not need slaves but still kept them. In fact, the slaves were perceived to be treated so well that they were allowed to leave, but did often did not. Their social placement within the tribe was akin to many other tribes, that of lower social class and deviants.14

               The Cherokee had a warrior rank of slave-catcher, which despite their ability to keep their slaves, held little true power within the hierarchy. The word for a Chickasaw slave was called atsi nahsa’i, or one who is owned, so in name these slaves were chattel15. Those that were captured could intermarry within the tribe and there was little focus on hereditary retention, the women and children captured had a similar fate.16

              These warriors did not have a desire to trade their slaves which were essentially like medals in modern battle, but their chiefs much desired the material goods and became dependent on the wares of the Europeans. This desire caused obvious intra-tribal conflict and the elites pressed for more slave raids to retain bargaining chips.17 When this pool of proximal captives dried up in the mid-1700s, the Cherokee decided to begin capturing escaped African slaves or even stealing them and re-selling them. This caused conspicuous quarrels with fringe English and soon American militia and regulars. In order to stop this diplomatic impasse with its main trading partner, the Cherokees used their newfound albeit minute wealth to begin acquiring African slaves legally and essentially abandoned the war captive or kinship slavery, and began their history of Western-style chattel slavery.18

              Perdue comments on the spiritual similarities of Cherokee and their West African captive, including the practice of kinship slavery within their histories.19 Despite this, these slaves were treated worse as they were very much the “other”. The American land grab diminished and demasculated the Cherokee, quelling their ability to hunt and develop their land for agrarian purposes. The women in the tribe saw their almost egalitarian power diminish with the advent of chattel slavery, as they were less important in their traditional agrarian and domestic roles. Elderly chiefs ceded power to the young slavecatchers in the early 1800s, and neither had much experience in diplomacy, furthering misunderstandings with the impinging American threat.

              Before their power’s demise, George Washington suggested another switch to cope with the loss of plantation land, to a less-land intensive practice of hog and sow farming.20 The gains by the tribe were not only tangible but were demonstrated in education, with a retrospectively amazing 39% of Cherokee reported to be literate in English,21 up from zero a century prior. Adapting the European way of chattel slavery cemented the tribe as a power in the region, but the novel commerce solution was unceremoniously terminated by their grueling and impending displacement.

              By 1831, the Chickasaw and Cherokee tribes were removed from their much-desired lands, although the Chickasaw suffered less simply due to their shorter distance and residency, as they were already west of the Appalachian region.22 Both the Chickasaw and Cherokee adapted traditional chattel-style slavery and were allies to the Confederates during the U.S. Civil War, but even their remaining local stakes were not located in areas ravaged by battles. After the elimination of non-American antagonists disguised as trading partners, a treaty between the two tribes was brokered by the Confederacy in 1861.23

              As a caveat, large plantation owners and chattel purveyors were Native American only in contrast to upper-crust English ancestry aristocrats, in modern times perhaps they would just be referred to as Caucasian. John Ross was a slave-owner that would not qualify as being Native American using the modern quantum blood requirements as he was only 1/8th Cherokee, and had blonde hair and blue eyes.24 His rival was the Ridge family, a group that also held slaves and was responsible for the trail of tears relocation. Ross firmly believed in education and was relocated with slaves, and executed the Ridge family after his arrival to Oklahoma.25

              While these two tribes paint a linear and understandable evolution of slavery through a Western lens, a discussion of the Haida is more unique and intriguing. In candor, this paper would be solely about the Haida if a more diverse base of readily-available sources were present. Due to that dearth, the terms Haida and Tlingit will be used interchangeably, even though this is semantically incorrect (as a heuristic, it would not be uncommon for a Haida’s cousin could be Tlingit).26
The northwest tribes of North America, namely the Haida, were slavery connoisseurs.
A universal axiom throughout history (mentioned in a Greek treatise27 and abolitionist pamphlets28) was no exception in the far reaches of North America — “The life of a slave depended entirely upon the character of his master”. The Haida were a character of intrepid brutality. They practiced hereditary slavery and what essentially was tantamount to chattel. The Haida were consummate gamblers, and like other First Nations tribes offered slaves as collateral for gambling or even their own daughters.29 McLeod suggests the anomalous region of originally non-chattel slavery was actually the southeast, and chattel slavery was widely practiced elsewhere. He also hints the rationale for this lies in their strong Asian roots. Most compelling, slaves captured by the Haida that were highly esteemed in their former tribes only to be shunned by their families.

            At the peak of chattel slavery in the late 19th century, the Haida may have not numbered more than 1,000, with 1/3rd of them being slaves.30 So, to a degree, this exploration is in perhaps gratuitous detail. What is intriguing is the dominance of the Haida and Tlingit in literature versus the dozens of geographically-proximally tribes when they numbered so few. Their hereditary slavery practices made them unique.

              In candor, this paper would be exclusively devoted to to the fascinating practices of the Haida, even considering it was not uncommon for Indians writ large throughout North America31,32 to perpetuate what is frankly tantamount to medieval torture of their captives — in terms that exceeded scalping, but slowly burning captives alive while being scalped. Upon further examination the sole idiosyncrasy about Haida slavery is the hereditary aspect of the bondage (when a male slave was rarely not murdered at the behest of the chief). This manifested as perpetual personae non gratae. Commentary suggests this was restricted to male slaves and their kin; the ones left alive were stripped of their masculinity and could have been servants for women, with captive women taking the same role.33

              Giving slaves a degree of independence but still keeping them captive would probably yield a net negative effective in terms of energy expenditure. Haida were not particularly agrarian and were hunters, and slave amalgamation into this milieu presents obviously difficulty. Many other tribes had the eventual fade of the black mark of slavery and ritualistic integration of captives, like the Natchez34, or in Plains Indians, tacitly allowing a means to escape or permission of suicide when carrying capacity was exceeded.

            The difficulty of deep exposition lies in the intrinsic absence of sources readily available; the majority of the narrative relies on Russian accounts (Haida were more friendly to them, as they were not necessarily new faces) and the works assimilated by Donald but parsed here in terms of individual ethnographies. Since the Haida were essentially undefeated by small parties of European settlers and/or potential traders, details are limited to Russian mariners and post-facto accounts after their decimation to smallpox, discussed later.
The Haida would enslave the Tlingit, sell surrounding tribes from 200 miles inland, and the Tlingit would enslave their own clan. The Tlingit, who bought slaves from Haida (the only true slave capturing entity on the far Northwest coast) have limited literature on slaves integrated into their society, because they worked beside them, invisibly.35 If a slave is defunct he or she could have been refunded; a slave frequently costs about 100-200 blankets. One Tlingit slave (enslaved as compensation for a homicide) was kept for 40 years, and when they passed, the slaveholder asked and was given renumeration for their death from the offending family’s coffer.36 According to testimony by a Captain Golovin, Tlingit slaveholders killed their property as of 1862, against the urging of Russians to be sold. If slaves were killed by a fit of alcohol, chiefs and brokers would seek compensation from the Russian pioneers, who had supplied the killers with said alcohol.37 Debt slavery was also a possibility yet less common.

            The Haida and other Northwest Coast tribes started wars which were de facto slave raids. At most 25% of the population was likely enslaved here, with 25% of the titleholders owning slaves. The remaining 50% were common people.38 As Alaska and Canadian government pressed in on the tribes in the mid-nineteenth century, more child adoptions and wiving occurred, but these new family members were not actually kin and were on the lowest rung of the social ladder.39

              The Chickasaw and Cherokee were presented with the same problem the South was after the Civil War, but the consequences were worse. Outside of the elite, Native American tribes were poor and many of the freedmen were illiterate. There was not even the false hope of 40 acres and a mule as the Chickasaw’s land was being redistributed. Since the Five Civilized Tribes were being repatriated, no safety net existed with regards to their freedoms and they were not immediately offered land (the Dawes Rolls, discussed later, were implemented 20 years later by the Curtis Act).
Jeltz establishes the argument that the Chickasaw and the Choctaw adapted chattel slavery full saddle, and the Chickasaw were the exception to the rule of intermarriage. Select tribes banned miscegenation with slaves. Slaveholding tribes sided with the confederacy and in turn ostensibly severed the treaties held with the northern government. This an abject humanitarian crisis after the South’s loss in the civil war, with black freedmen being released to an Indian territory infrastructure fully unable to handle mass quantities of destitute former slaves.40 Chickasaw’s did not grant rights to their former freedmen at the time of the Dawes Rolls41; this was in contrast to the rest of the Five Civilized Tribes offering some token compensation, even if it was not plausible.
At the time of the slave treaty in 1886, the Cherokee (including 2,000 blacks) amounted to 23,000. Only 1% of full blooded Cherokee owned slaves. Among the total tribe, $300,000 was split on a per capita basis. Over the period of 1890 to 1930, the Five Tribes lost 18 million acres of land42, mostly due to self-sale but also to the occasional illegal scam. (An oft-repeated statistic about African American land loss is from 1910 to 1997 [neglecting between these years], approximately 13 million acres43
,44 brewing many works about dozens of contributors to this phenomena). The courts of the United States always dictated the freedmen should receive their fiscal allotment, but the issue of tribal sovereignty45 posits a tough question about their jurisdiction in the matter.

              The Chickasaw were the least scrupulous of the civilized tribes in terms of recognizing the rights of freedmen within their purview. The reason for this indifference towards the plight of their former property was the implicit infrequency of Chickasaw-African intermarriage throughout texts. Moreover, Chickasaws had been strongly allied with the English since first contact, supplied with guns to fend off intertribal slavery, and switching sides between the most powerful colonists in the region by virtue of their coveted geographic location46. Their trade location made their firepower so profuse they went challenged but never broken by European enslavement. A quote of Snyder, in Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America, is as follows: “Chickasaws and their ancestors had captured their enemies, whom they felt they could kill, adopt, or sell according to Chickasaw needs. After all, war captives lack kin ties in Chickasaw communities, and thus they had no rights”47.             

              The custom of intermarriage is more commonly mentioned in Cherokee histories as technically illegal, in practice just frowned-upon, and was still occurring48. Further, by the juncture of reconstruction and emancipation, the Cherokee had been enslaved during periods of instability and weakness — by both Native American tribes49 and Europeans50. Europeans did not covet Cherokees as slaves (it was more likely the Cherokees coveted Europeans for having them), although enslavement did occur and usually through a middleman, like the Chickasaw.

                            While the Cherokee Nation offered substantial legal challenge against the freedmen, they               were most accepting of them, even before the Dawes Rolls were required.51 In contrast, the             Chickasaw did not offer formal segregated education nor offer citizenship. This was at the ex-            pense of proceeds from their sale of western lands to the US government, held in escrow until             Chickasaw rights were bestowed upon their freedmen. These proceeds were forfeited and not dis            tributed.52,53

              The population of the Chickasaw never amounted to more than 5,000 in the 1700s (note that only young men were counted)54, but that population was deeply involved with both English and French colonists, primarily due to their proximity to the Mississippi River. The Chickasaw were allied by the British and the nearby Choctaw’s with the French, while the French frequently attempted to sway the Chickasaw into their camp. This back and forth occurred until their murder of a French fur trader, disallowing them from further flip-flopping.55

              Trading was the trade of the Chickasaw, mimicking their British and French counterparts around the basin of the Mississippi river.56 As such, the Chickasaw found themselves raiding nearby tribes (some closely related by clan) and selling to the English. Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, a French colonist, attempted to wedge a gap between the English and Chickasaw by stating (correctly) that the English were buying Chickasaw slaves taken captive and literally selling them down the river57.

              The predominant similarity between Chickasaw and Cherokee (besides being repatriated to adjacent locales in Oklahoma) is their handling of modern court decisions regards to slavery. Each of the tribes have ever-shifting amendments being adapted, moreso than the U.S. model it was adapted from; a miasma allowing more immediate and dynamic policy decisions.58 Recent decisions have set precedent for the other Five Civilized Tribes to be challenged in court, and legal challenges will certainly continue past November 2017, the date of this paper’s authorship.59

              The substantive difference in each tribe’s standing is the issue of benefits. Even though the Cherokee have adopted a softer stance than the Chickasaw, it is still a contentious issue among quantum Cherokees populace, despite conciliatory efforts at the highest levels of Cherokee government. The legal dissension eventually culminated in the acceptance of Cherokee Nation vs. Nash et al. (originally decided in intertribal court and transferred to federal court), which stated that the Cherokee freedmen are not materially different from their quantum counterparts.60
It is a large task to quantitatively discern the impact of such a tumultuous historical record for these three tribes, especially in such a historical blink of an eye. The Haida, although they are under the purview of the Canadian government now, do not appear to have massively endemic problems due to Westernization. Gradually the discontent against Europeans waned to a dull roar by 1970, focusing on the absence of perfect wealth distribution between the North and South Haida territories.61 By all presented accounts, however, they are flourishing, having never really left being the ultimate player in their (albeit tiny) region.

              The possible detrimental effect and lasting dis-enfrachisement is oft-discussed throughout literature and enslavement of Africans in the United States and Caribbean, especially in consideration of land loss. The Dawes Act and Curtis Act (and their amendments) alone took about 150 million acres of land, and since Native Americans were one of the few inhabitants of North America (plainly) this is likely closer to 1.5 billion acres in total62, as one could simply subtract their current reservation space.

              One aspect that could be investigated is natal alienation, since the tribe was sent to Oklahoma via the infamous Trail of Tears. The city of Chickasaw, Mississippi has effectively no individuals that describe themselves as fully Native American, and they currently represent less than 0.1% of the population there63. This county name was not a misnomer, the Chickasaw were entrenched in the area as late as 1800s64, their grip diminished by the void of French and Spanish expulsion.            

            Native Americans and African Americans are still disproportionately represented in poverty reports. While 10% of Caucasians are under the federal poverty guidelines, 23% of Native Americans and 28% of African Americans are impoverished65, the latter with a dizzying amount of diverse and extant negative economic consequences66,67. Native Americans, despite their robust healthcare system have public health problems within the realms of diabetes68 and alcoholism (highest rates as percentage when racially stratified)69; research is delineated even in Cherokee tribal subsets. The Chickasaw and Cherokee tribes do not have a significant data presence in the top 20 poorest communities with Native American populations70. Now, Chickasaw and Cherokee number 45,000 and 60,000 respectively, higher than their historical norms.71

              Current political policies of Native Americans are (although not homogeneous) are somewhat liberal compared to the country in which they are now ensconced. Health insurance is nationalized72 and casinos are explicitly allowed, providing the impetus for pilot projects like a basic universal income73. What is clear is that each tribe discussed here did not come out on top, but rather stayed afloat by a series of adaptive and diplomatic mechanisms, building on their innovation and sheer presence of will. The ouster of Cherokee and Chickasaw from their homelands could have been a fatal blow to the fortunes of these entities, and clearly endemic problems exist. Yet, their survival alone in spite of remarkable adversity and the aforementioned indicators suggest a steady upward trajectory in their condition and circumstance.

1  Anonymous. 2017. “Civilization.Ca – Haida – Haida Villages – Warfare”.
Accessed November 13, 2017.

2  Donald, Leland. Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of California Press, 1997. pp. 193, 273.

3  Anonymous. 2017. “The Smallpox Epidemic Of 1862 (Victoria BC)–Overview And Timeline”. Accessed November 13, 2017. web.Uvic.Ca.

4  Fedje, Daryl W., and Rolf Mathewes. Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People. UBC Press, 2011. Chapter 1.

5  Civilization.Ca, 2017.

6  Pett, Shaun. 2017. “Canada’s Haida Gwaii Archipelago: Kayaking To The Edge Of The World”. The Guardian. Accessed November 13, 2017.


7  Kowinski, William. “Giving New Life To Haida Art And The Culture It Expresses”. January 1995. Smithsonian. Accessed November 13, 2017.

8  Inniss, Lolita Buckner. “Cherokee Freedmen and the Color of Belonging.” Columbia Journal of Race and Law 5, no. (2015) (October 1, 2017).

9  Civilization.CA, 2017.

10  Snyder, Christina. “Indian Slavery,” December 2, 2014. Accessed November 11, 2017.

11  “Indian Slavery in the Americas | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History,” March 22, 2012. Accessed November 11, 2017.

12  Green, Michael. “Removal of the Chickasaws.” Edited by John Wesley Morris, Charles Robert Goins, and Edwin C MacReynolds. 1986. Historical Atlas Of Oklahoma. Norman, Okla. u.a: Univ. of Oklahoma Pr. pp. 68-71.

13  Lofaro, Michael A. The Life and Adventures of Daniel Boone. University Press of Kentucky, 1986. p. 63

14  Perdue, Theda. Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society, 1540-1866. Univ. of Tennessee Press, 1987. pp. 1-10

15  Ibid. p. 12.

16  Ibid. p. 44.

17  Ibid. p. 26.

18  Ibid. p. 70

19  Ibid. p. 47

20  Ibid. pp. 53-54.

21  Ibid. p. 60

22  Green, 71.

23  Deloria, Vine, and Raymond J. DeMallie. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775-1979. University of Oklahoma Press, 1999. pp. 603-604

24  Johansen, Bruce E., and Barry M. Pritzker. Encyclopedia of American Indian History [4 Volumes]. ABC-CLIO, 2007. pp. 835-836.

25  Ibid.

26  Boelscher, Marianne. The Curtain Within: Haida Social and Mythical Discourse. UBC Press, 2011. Passim.

27  Gulick, Charles Burton. The Life of the Ancient Greeks: With Special Reference to Athens. D. Appleton, 1903. p. 69

28  Wright, Elizur. The Abolitionist. Garrison and Knapp, 1833. “Wright’s Sins of Slavery” section.

29  MacLeod, William Christie. 1925. “Debtor and Chattel Slavery in Aboriginal North America.” American Anthropologist 27 (3): 370–80. 

30  Ibid.

31  Sylvester, H. M. Indian Wars of New England. Рипол Классик, 1910. p. 296.

32  Knowles, Nathaniel. “The Torture of Captives by the Indians of Eastern North America.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 82, no. 2 (1940): 151-225.

33  Hodge, Frederick Webb. Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico: N-Z. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1912. p. 599.

34  Sylvester, p. 34.

35  Emmons, George Thornton, and Frederica De Laguna. The Tlingit Indians. University of Washington Press, 1991. p. 42

36  Ibid. p. 43

37  Ibid. p. 45

38  Donald, Leland. “Paths out of Slavery on the Aboriginal North Pacific Coast of North America.” Slavery & Abolition 10, no. 3 (December 1989): 1–22. doi:10.1080/01440398908574989.

39  Ibid.

40  Jeltz, Wyatt F. “The Relations of Negroes and Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians.” The Journal of Negro History 33, no. 1 (1948): 24-37. doi:10.2307/2714985.

41  Ibid.

42  Sturm, Circe. “Blood Politics, Racial Classification, and Cherokee National Identity: The Trials and Tribulations of the Cherokee Freedmen.” American Indian Quarterly 22, no. 1/2 (1998): 230-58.

43  Lewan, Todd, And Dolores Barclay. “‘When They Steal Your Land, They Steal Your Future.’”  Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2001. Accessed November 11, 2017.

44  Mitchell, Thomas. “Destabilizing the Normalization of Rural Black Land Loss: A Critical Role for Legal Empiricism.” Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, June 1, 2006. Accessed November 11, 2017.

45  Sturm, 1998.

46  Snyder, Christina. Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America. Harvard University Press, 2010. Passim.

47  Ibid. p. 58

48  Yarbrough, Fay A. Race and the Cherokee Nation: Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Passim.

49  Warren, Stephen. The Worlds the Shawnees Made: Migration and Violence in Early America. UNC Press Books, 2014. p. 94.

50  Davis, J.B. 1933. “Chronicles Of Oklahoma”. Digital.Library.Okstate.Edu. Accessed November 13, 2017.

51  Linda Reese. 2017. “Freedmen,” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture.

Accessed November 13, 2017.

52  Tosee, Mike and Carmaletta M. Williams. 2007. “Of Two Spirits: American Indian and African American Oral Histories.” Accessed November 13, 2017. p. 250.

53  Edwards, Lydia. “Protecting Black Tribal Members: Is the Thirteenth Amendment the Linchpin to Securing Equal Rights within Indian Country?” Bepress Legal Series, May 20, 2005. Accessed November 13, 2017.

54  Greene, Evarts Boutell, Virginia Draper Harrington, and Columbia University Council for Research in the Social Sciences. American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. Genealogical Publishing Com, 1993. pp. 202-204.

55  White, Phillip M. American Indian Chronology: Chronologies of the American Mosaic. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. pp. 39-41.

56   Ibid. pp. 39-41.

57  Iberville, Pierre. Iberville’s Gulf Journals. University of Alabama Press, 1981. p. 12

58  Chin, Jeremiah. “Red Law, White Supremacy: Cherokee Freedmen, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Colonial Feedback Loop” John Marshall Law Review 47, no. 1227 (2014): 1227-1268.

59  Coleman, Arica. 2017. “Slavery In America: The Cherokee Freedmen’s Forgotten Fight”. Time.

60  Ibid.

61  Brink, J. H. Van Den. The Haida Indians: Cultural Change Mainly Between 1876-1970. With 5 Maps. Brill Archive, 1974. p. 265

62  “Interactive Time-Lapse Map Shows How the U.S. Took More Than 1.5 Billion Acres From Native Americans.” Slate, June 17, 2014. Accessed November 14, 2017.

63  U. S. Census Bureau. “American FactFinder – Community Facts.” Accessed November 14, 2017.

64  Chickasaw Development Foundation. “History of Chickasaw County | Chickasaw Development Foundation.” Accessed November 14, 2017.

65  US Census Bureau. “Poverty Rates of Selected Detailed Race and Hispanic Groups:2007-2011.” Accessed November 14, 2017.

66  Hamilton, Darrick, and William Darity. “The Political Economy of Education, Financial Literacy, and the Racial Wealth Gap.” Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2017.

67  Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. “The Inheritance of Inequality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16, no. 3 (September 2002): 3–30.

68  CDC. “Native Americans with Diabetes,” January 10, 2017. Accessed November 14, 2017.

69  French, Laurence A., and Jim Hornbuckle. “Alcoholism among Native Americans: An Analysis.” Social Work 25, no. 4 (1980): 275-80.

70  Bureau, US Census. “American Indian and Alaska Native Poverty Rate for Select Cities.” Accessed November 14, 2017.

71  U.S. Census Bureau“Census 2000 Data for 539 Tribes – U.S. Census Bureau.” Accessed November 14, 2017.

72  National Public Radio. “A Sovereign (And Successful) Chickasaw Nation.” Accessed November 14, 2017.

73  Lapowsky, Issie. 2017. “Free Money: The Surprising Effects Of A Basic Income Supplied By Government”. WIRED. Accessed November 14, 2017.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *