Advocates for civil rights

11/19/2025

11/18/2025

The 1st Annual “Alyssa’s Magical Christmas” is just a few weeks away! On December 13th and 14th, myself, Rebecca Franchione from A&E’s “The Mother Flip” and many others will be spreading holiday cheer to families in North Little Rock! We could use your help! Either by purchasing items from the Amazon wishlist or a monetary donation. This link provides easy instructions: https://linktr.ee/alyssasmagic 🎄Thank you!

11/17/2025

Today marks the 118th anniversary of Oklahoma statehood, a moment commemorated in this 2003 painting by Mike Wimmer that hangs in the Oklahoma State Capitol.

The scene shows President Theodore Roosevelt signing the statehood proclamation in 1907, surrounded by federal officials. What it doesn’t show, and what the historical record makes clear, is that no Native person was present in the room.

Tribal Nations were pushed into Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) decades earlier under the Indian Removal Act. They were forced from their homelands with federal promises that this new land would belong to them “as long as the grass grows and the water runs.”

Through removal treaties, the United States recognized their right to govern themselves and hold title to the land, declaring Indian Territory would be their permanent home.

Those promises were undone by federal actions like allotment and the Curtis Act, which dismantled tribal governments and opened millions of acres to non-Native settlement.

When Oklahoma entered the Union, it did so without the presence, consent, or participation of the very Nations whose lands made its creation possible.

Statehood caused deep and lasting harm to tribal communities who were stripped of land, sovereignty, and political power. Yet despite these actions, the tribes of Oklahoma survived, rebuilt, and today remain strong, sovereign governments. ATALM honors their resilience and the generations who held their Nations together through one of the most difficult chapters in American history.

11/17/2025

=^.^=

Why were no Native people present when President Johnson signed the Indian Civil Rights Act in 1968? The official photographs, the White House attendance lists, and the congressional reports from that day do not show a single tribal leader or Native representative in the room.

The reason is simple. Native nations did not ask for this law. They were not consulted in drafting it. Many tribal leaders argued that Congress was imposing federal standards on sovereign tribal governments without understanding tribal law or respecting self-governance. The bill was written and debated as if tribal nations were administrative units of the federal government rather than distinct governments with their own legal traditions.

To Congress, ICRA was part of the broader civil-rights agenda of the late 1960s. They framed it as extending constitutional protections, not as a nation-to-nation policy decision. The people affected by the law were not invited because the law was not created with them in mind. Instead, the room was filled with members of Congress and staff who viewed themselves as the architects and guardians of these “reforms.”

The absence of Native leaders at the signing is not a mystery. It is evidence of how federal policy was made at the time. Laws about Native people were routinely written without Native participation, and tribal sovereignty was treated as an afterthought.

Remembering this matters. It shows why consultation, consent, and self-determination are not abstract principles. They are the safeguards that prevent history from repeating itself.

UPDATE - To clarify, the ICRA did not provide any new federal protections for Native people. As U.S. citizens, they were already afforded those rights. It’s also important to note that the ICRA did not create any new protections against discrimination for Native people. In the 1960s, Native families were still being denied hotel rooms, service in restaurants, equal treatment in courts, and basic public accommodations, yet the Act did nothing to address those injustices. Instead, it focused solely on placing federal restrictions on tribal governments while leaving widespread discrimination by states, businesses, and federal institutions completely untouched.

11/15/2025

Art tells a story, but the art in the U.S. Capitol often tells the wrong one. It not only misrepresents Native people, it also erases them. One of the clearest examples is “Negotiating the Purchase of Louisiana,” painted by Constantino Brumidi around 1875 and displayed in the Senate wing.

The painting shows American and French officials studying maps and drafting the deal that doubled the size of the United States. What it suggests is that Native Nations were not part of the story.

But they were. Native Nations of the Plains, the Prairie, the Mississippi River Valley, the Gulf region, and the Northern Plains governed and cared for the lands being discussed.

From a Native viewpoint, this painting shows two European powers talking about land that was not theirs to transfer.

Before the Louisiana Purchase, Native Nations held full ownership, jurisdiction, and sovereignty over their territories. France did not. France held only limited administrative rights, similar to tenancy rights. It controlled its own forts and settlers, but it did not own Indigenous land and had no lawful authority to sell it.

This is why the Louisiana Purchase Treaty contains very specific language. Article VI states:

“The United States promise to execute such treaties and articles as may have been agreed between Spain and the tribes and nations of Indians until by mutual consent of the United States and the said tribes or nations other suitable articles shall have been agreed upon.”

The treaty refers to Spanish agreements because France ceded Louisiana to Spain in 1762, and Spain governed the region for nearly forty years. Spain was the active diplomatic power negotiating with Native Nations. When France briefly regained the territory in 1800, it did not reestablish those relationships. Spain’s agreements were the ones in effect in 1803, and those were the obligations the United States accepted.

Even with this clear language, the United States did not keep its promise. Instead of honoring existing treaties, it opened Native homelands to settlement, pressured Nations into new agreements that were not mutually made, and changed terms without the consent required by the treaty.

The painting may hide the truth, but the treaty does not. The United States accepted clear obligations when it accepted the Louisiana Purchase, including the requirement to honor existing agreements with Native Nations and to negotiate new ones only with mutual consent. By refusing to follow these terms, the United States violated the purchase agreement itself.

This breach is not a distant historical detail. It is an ongoing legal and moral failure that continues to shape Indian Country today.

Moving forward begins with truth. The United States should openly acknowledge this breach and ensure that our education systems finally teach the full story, not the myth. Until the real history is taught, the harm of erasure continues, and the promises made to Native Nations remain unfulfilled.