Found some time to watch @The_OAH session on Indigenous Sovereignty which is a continuation from @AHAhistorians conference. Originally i was excitied. But so far disappointed. How can you have a panel on NDN Sovereignty without a single Indigenous person!? #sad #decolonizeHistory

First presentation was the long duree of colonizer history. Second presentation is colonizer documents, medals, objects, and records of their time in Indian Country. Not even discussing Native ideas of sovereignty or our opinions. Why is this panel called "Indigenous Sovereignty"

Oh im sorry the PhD finally got to their one Indigenous document as he runs out of time.
I would have loved if you discussed Chickasaw documents the whole time. Not "briefly".

Finally by the 3rd presentation we are discussing and Indigenous thought and action case study. Legal assertion of sovereignty.

But her argument is about settler decisions, settler policy, and settler "ambivalence".
Aaaand again im disappointed.
Ambivalence? Really? In the 19th century?

I guess im glad they're staying their lane but im mad about the session title.
This is not a panel on Indigenous sovereignty. So far. This is a panel on settler circumvention of Indigenous sovereignty.

Please aknowledge all the Native scholars who have written on the fact that Indigenous notions of sovereignty are distinct from settler notions. Please. Please.
Disappointed at the lack of NdN historiography so far.

4th presentation so far not awful. Also a case study in Kanada. Focus on Indigenous thought and tactics. Settler thoughts only discussed as response not highlighted.
Although some language needs work but
Did say that there is no consent of Indigenous folks for land siezure.

Even quoting Indigenous folks. Instead of summarizing perceptions. Good takes here. Good takes.

Have to pause for another meetings. More hot takes for the end of the round table after my meeting♡

First question for the roundtable is about Law conflicting with Logic...
Duh.
Idk what to yell y'all.
This implicit idea that settlers are supposed to make sense is ... exhausting.
Thats one of the big problems with not having any POC on this panel.

Is settler-splaining a term yet?

Stop bringing up the constitution. Article 6 has been ignored. And according to SCOTUS, Native Folx dont get Bill of Rights, Just ICRA68.
Its a little insulting for you to keep going back to the constitution.

Full stop.
"If the Doctrine of Discovery is a scam, as many of its critics say" IF?!?!?!?!
gtfoh

Any other Indigenous people or scholars watch this panel?? Yall feeling my same feelings?? At all?

"I was wondering if you could say more about the communities you study" YEAH ME TOO
But also can yall not? Im big mad.
Also why is the response to discuss the dang consititution????
#DecolonizeHistory

Re: Indian Gaming question: read High Stakes.
Cattelino is a great ally to the Seminole Nation & wrote a great book.
Your discussion is insufficient & frustrating. Actually this whole segment is frustrating. I kno ur a PhD candidate but plz learn more b4 speaking w/ authority.

Dont say the crown has done anything for Indigneous soverignty.
Also, you wanna push back on the unitary sovereignty idea??
Then CITE SOME INDIGENOUS SCHOLARS WHO HAVE ALREADY DECONSTRUCTED IT I CAN SITE AT LEAST 12 EASY!

Finally you cite Alchemy of Sovereignty at the 90 minute mark.
Do better.

Why did this end with limiting the notion of Indigenous sovereignty to the Haudenosaunee Lacrosse team?
So disappointed. So so disappointed.