The Declaration of Independence, a document celebrated for its assertion of universal human rights, contains language that is not only deplorable, but also reflective of the colonial attitudes and prejudices of its time. The passage that still refers to Native Americans as “merciless Indian Savages” is a stark reminder of the systemic failures that have entrenched indigenous peoples into poverty and marginalization. It’s high time we acknowledge and address these failures, and work towards a more just and equitable future for all.
The relevant passage in the Declaration of Independence states:
“He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
This language is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it’s derogatory and perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Native Americans. Secondly, it justifies the colonists’ actions by portraying Native Americans as brutal and savage, thereby legitimizing the colonization and dispossession of their lands. Thirdly, it erases the rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples, portraying them as obstacles to the colonists’ goals rather than as people with their own rights and claims to the land.
The language in the Declaration of Independence reflects the colonial mindset that viewed indigenous peoples as barriers to progress and civilization. This mindset has had lasting impacts on the treatment and rights of Native Americans in the United States. It has contributed to the systemic failures that have entrenched indigenous peoples into poverty, marginalization, and disenfranchisement.
One of the most glaring systemic failures is the ongoing struggle for indigenous rights and sovereignty. Despite the principles of equality and natural rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Native Americans have faced centuries of discrimination, dispossession, and violence. The U.S. government has repeatedly broken treaties, forced assimilation, and denied indigenous peoples their rightful place as sovereign nations.
Moreover, the distinction often made between Native Americans and Mexicans, as if they are not part of the same indigenous communities, is a product of racist attitudes that seek to divide and conquer. Both Native Americans and Mexicans are indigenous peoples with a shared history of colonization, dispossession, and resistance. This diversity must be recognized and respected in our efforts to address systemic failures and promote indigenous rights. Only racists make the distinction and raise up Native Americans while vilifying Mexicans. We must reject these divisive tactics and stand in solidarity with all indigenous peoples.
It is crucial to change the language and attitudes that have shaped our understanding of history and the present. This includes acknowledging the harmful language and attitudes in historical documents and working towards a more accurate and respectful understanding of history. It also includes recognizing the sovereignty and rights of indigenous peoples and acknowledging the ongoing impacts of colonization and dispossession.
To address these systemic failures, we must take several steps:
- Acknowledge and Apologize: The U.S. government must acknowledge the harmful language and attitudes in historical documents and apologize for the centuries of discrimination and violence against indigenous peoples.
- Recognize Sovereignty: The U.S. government must recognize the sovereignty of indigenous nations and work towards establishing meaningful relationships based on mutual respect and cooperation.
- Address Economic Disparities: The U.S. government must address the economic disparities that have entrenched indigenous peoples into poverty. This includes investing in indigenous communities, supporting economic development, and ensuring access to quality education and healthcare.
- Promote Cultural Preservation: The U.S. government must support the preservation and promotion of indigenous cultures, languages, and traditions. This includes funding cultural programs, supporting indigenous-led initiatives, and protecting sacred sites and cultural heritage.
- Change the Language: We must change the language and attitudes that have shaped our understanding of history and the present. This includes using respectful and accurate language when referring to indigenous peoples and recognizing the diversity and complexity of their experiences.
The deplorable language of the Declaration of Independence is a reminder of the systemic failures that have entrenched indigenous peoples into poverty and marginalization. It is high time we acknowledge and address these failures, and work towards a more just and equitable future for all. By recognizing the sovereignty and rights of indigenous peoples, addressing economic disparities, promoting cultural preservation, and changing the language and attitudes that have shaped our understanding of history, we can take steps towards a more just and equitable future for indigenous communities. The time for action is now. Let’s tear down the systems that have failed us and build something better.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
In regard to the “land back” movement, I’m wondering why I (or anyone else) has to pay property taxes, if the property/land was sold to us fraudulently.
And for that matter, when we’re going to get our money back as a result of a fraudulent sale.
In any case, shouldn’t we be paying those property taxes to some tribe, instead?
(Just asking, since this seems to be the implication of the “land back” movement. Instead, they’re being given land that would otherwise end up in public hands, since environmental groups and government agencies are pushing that.)
This includes (but is not limited to) a several hundred acre compound along the Marin coast, given to a local casino-owning tribe.
Sometimes, these transactions apparently don’t even include conservation easements.
Media is complicit in failing to report what is actually occurring (including massive amounts of land associated with dam removals).
What does this have to do with Matt’s article pointing out problematic language that remains in the US Constitution?
His recommended steps don’t even touch upon any wording/passage in the Constitution. Seems like your question would be better-addressed to him, regarding that.
Shouldn’t he or you be advocating to change that wording?
My point was that your post really didn’t address the core of the issues raised in the article and instead went toward a long standing trope of yours that’s for the most part not relevant.
Why aren’t you pointing out that the “core issue” of the article (per your own comment) is not being addressed by the recommended steps?
Also – what I’ve pointed out is no “trope” – it’s an evidence-based fact. It’s not even hidden – you can verify it yourself (though the media is complicit in not widely reporting it, and/or are putting a spin on it when they do report it).
Regardless of what you think of it – it is occurring on a massive scale throughout the country, for that matter. Environmental groups and government agencies have been pushing this.
Because you didn’t make that comment, you went directly to land.
Edit: definition of trope: “a significant or recurrent theme” in this case, in your comments.
“Both Native Americans and Mexicans are indigenous peoples with a shared history of colonization, dispossession, and resistance.”
They sure are – between tribes, and when the Spanish (and subsequently Mexico) colonized the West – including California.
Of course, a rather inconvenient truth one might say (for those pushing a “white” vs. “everyone else” narrative).
MS, a lot of what you’re pointing at is real. Indigenous people on both sides of the border got hammered by colonization, land theft, broken promises, and cultural wipe out. In some cases, the border sliced right through existing tribal nations and families and that’s true to this day, which in some areas makes the ‘border wall’ quite problematic in this context.
Where this goes off the rails for me is when you have “Mexicans” treated like they’re one big indigenous block. Mexico is a mix. Indigenous nations, Spanish descendants, people blended over generations, black Mexicans. Calling all Mexicans indigenous erases the actual indigenous peoples in Mexico just as much as it clears away history. Same with Natives in the US. They’re not just another identity label. They’re nations with treaties, land claims, and political standing that came from hard fights and harder survival. On that last part we may agree. But sovereignty is also a two-edged sword for the tribal people in many cases, enforced by the tribal government who are in some cases those the US government wants to work with for its own interests.
Real solidarity isn’t about flattening everyone into one story. It’s about knowing when histories overlap, when they don’t, and standing up for each group without pretending they’re all the same tribe with different passports.
Alan, I think you’re misreading my argument. The piece isn’t about my own analysis or an academic call for perfect solidarity. It’s about holding up a mirror to the system we’re all forced to live under.
My point is that the system… the colonial state, its enforcers, its media, its bigots… doesn’t give a damn about the nuanced differences you’re rightly highlighting. To the Border Patrol agent, to the ICE officer, to the politician pandering to a base, to the racist on the street, a brown-skinned person crossing the desert is a monolith. They are “illegal,” “the other,” “the invader.” They see a threat to their white, colonial construct of a nation, not a complex individual with a specific ancestral history.
That’s the deplorable reality I’m pointing to. The system’s view is deliberately crude and brutal because its purpose is control, not understanding. It lumps Indigenous Yaqui whose land the border crossed in with a Mestizo from Mexico City because it serves the project of domination. It erases the political sovereignty of a Native nation in the U.S. by treating them as just another “minority group” to be managed.
So when I talk about a shared struggle, it’s not a call to erase identity. It’s a call to recognize that we are all being targeted by the same blunt, racist instrument. We are all being viewed through the same dehumanizing lens, regardless of whether our families have been here for ten thousand years or ten years.
Your point about sovereignty is absolutely critical, and it’s precisely because of its importance that we must confront this reality. The system’s refusal to see these distinctions is a direct attack on that very sovereignty. We can’t afford to get lost in academic debates about who is “Indigenous enough” when the boot of the state is coming down on all our necks. The fight is to force the system to see the complexity it willfully ignores, and to unite against the force that treats us all as disposable.
” . . . white, colonial construct of a nation, not a complex individual with a specific ancestral history.”
I figured that “whitey” would come up in here.
We are all complex individuals with an ancestral history. And we’re all native Americans (don’t know where we’d be a native of, otherwise). In my case, you’d have to divide me into thirds across Europe, I suppose. With about half of me at war with the other half, not so long ago. Actually, perhaps about 60 percent vs. 40 percent at war with each other. (Not sure, but I think the 60% side did win.)
I refer to the 40% side as my evil twin (e.g., like the time that Captain Kirk was divided into two beings).
One of these days, maybe I should get a DNA test so that I can determine which of the two whiteys within me to blame. (In the meantime, let’s just go with “both” of them.)
I would point out that there’s no such thing as “indigenous rights” in the Constitution, or anywhere else. They do have the same rights as every other American.
But tribes (which are essentially private clubs – not open to everyone with indigenous heritage) have “extra” privileges. Tribal members essentially have dual citizenship, though their “nations” are in no way actually “sovereign” – not even close to being sovereign. They are entirely dependent upon the U.S. government for a multitude of exclusive benefits (financial, and otherwise). There’s also an entire federal agency that’s supposedly dedicated to their well being.
It was a massive mistake to create these “sovereign nations” in the first place. Reminds me of the situation with welfare or public housing (when people get trapped by tinfoil handcuffs, so to speak).