A Note on Terms

One of the primary concerns of this thesis is terminology: the recognition of prejudices suffered by one population, and the accurate recognition of a movement of resistance need appropriate terms to be achieved. As a matter of fact, the terminology used to refer to the specific people under study is in itself problematic. Many different nations, with their distinct cultures, constitute this population. Therefore, to comprise them all under a single term is fundamentally essentialist. Depending on time and place, on political correctness or plain racism, many different and unfortunate terms have been used to refer to these peoples.

There is no name, even today, that is universally accepted by the peoples concerned themselves. "Indians," "American Indians," "Native Americans," "Indigenous people," all of these terms refer to different nations as one single population, when specific tribal affiliations would be preferable. Therefore, such terms will always be deceiving and controversial. As I am not a member of any of these nations myself, and because I am studying the discriminations that they suffered as a socially and racially constructed group, a completely arbitrary decision needed to be made for the purpose of this thesis regarding how to name this group encompassing all the different nations. I believe that the terms "Native Americans" and "Indigenous people/peoples" restore this group of people with their original identity -that of the first inhabitants of the American continent -and, as such, underline the injustices that they later suffered.

The plural also has the potential to highlight the cultural diversity of the group. In my opinion, "First Nations" seems to be the term that would give the most justice to all Indigenous peoples of the American continent, but it is strictly applied to the Canadian Indigenous peoples from south of the Arctic Circle.

As a result, throughout this thesis I will be using the terms "Native Americans" and "Indigenous people/peoples" interchangeably, and exclusively "Indigenous peoples" when referring to settler colonialism as a general concept. I apply these terms with an awareness of their shortcomings from a socio-political perspective, but for the purpose of this research project, I have decided that they are the most justice-giving and the most appropriate of the terms in use today.

Introduction

The Red Power Movement (RPM) was a social political movement led by Native Americans in the United States in the twentieth century. It is generally considered to have started in November 1969 with the occupation of Alcatraz Island by a group of Native American students named "Indians of all Tribes," allied with a local inter-tribal organisation. 1 The activists held the island for nineteen months, which received tremendous media coverage and created both sympathies and enmities for the rising movement. They proclaimed that the island should be given to Native Americans after the prison on this location was closed in 1962, basing their argument on the 1868 treaty of Fort Laramie which stipulates that any abandoned federal property should be returned to Native American tribes. 2 This reference to treaties is symbolic, since many of them were infamously not honoured by the American government. The action was significant and achieved its main goal of drawing public attention to the persistent Native American resistance. Moreover, it ignited a more radical and assertive movement of direct actions. The demands of the RPM activists were for self-determination and tribal sovereignty, while advocating a traditional cultural revival. In 1943, Oskar Halecki identified self-determination as "the principle of freedom from foreign rule," based on the Greek historian Thucydides, and argued that the modern conception of self-determinism is interdependent with the one of democracy: "A government of the people, for the people, and by the people cannot be realized as long as one people is governed by another." 3 Tribal sovereignty relies on the principle of self-determination, at the level of Native American tribes, regarding their relation to the federal government of the U.S. The novelist Louise Erdrich (Ojibwa) recalls that Native Americans are an ethnic group combining many different communities: "Native peoples are not a race among others in this country. They are distinctive nations." [START_REF] Lawrence | Source: The Kansas Memory[END_REF] Indeed, Native Americans constitute a socially-constructed group composed of different nations -themselves composed by many tribes, which are more numerous than the 573 federally recognised in the United Statesbelonging to various linguistic families and with distinctive cultures.

The second milestone of the RPM is the "Trail of Broken Treaties" in September and October 1972 -also known as the "Trail of Broken Treaty Caravan" and the "Pan American Native Quest for Justice" -which resulted in "The Native American Embassy." A long march was organized from the West Coast of the U.S. to Washington D.C., where the caravan of activists hoped 1 Paul Chaat Smith and Robert Allen Warrior, Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement, from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee (New Press, 1996). 2 United States, Senate, "Fort Laramie Treaty," General Records of the United States Government, 1778-2006, Indian Treaties, 1789-1869. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/299803 . Accessed 23 March 2020. 3 Oskar Halecki, "The Problem of Self-Determinism," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 87, No. 2, Symposium on Post-War Problems (1943) 195. 4 Louise Erdrich, interview with Julien Bisson, "Nous devons nous battre pour notre mémoire," America, No. 9 (Spring 2019) 142. My translation. "Les Amérindiens ne sont pas une race parmi les autres dans ce pays. Ce sont des nations séparées."

to be heard at the White House in order to present a paper, entitled The 20 Points, defining demands to the federal government. Among those twenty points the withdrawal of the Indian Appropriation Act of 1871 was demanded -this act removed the right of Native tribes to be considered as independent nations, thus eliminating their power to contract treaties with the U.S. government. [START_REF]National Archives at Denver[END_REF] Moreover, the Points stipulated several measures to renew the negotiation of treaties, enforce treaty rights, and give Native American nations a sovereign status, equal to the federal government. With no one to receive them from the Nixon administration, and lacking proper logistics to host the group of about 700 protesters, the caravan decided to invest the national offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). They were soon joined by many other Native American activists, and supported by others, such as the Civil Rights Movement activist and Black Panther member Stokely Carmichael.

The occupation lasted a week. A banner reading "Native American Embassy" was hung on the front of the building, and what was a spontaneous occupation became a political claim: an appropriation of the head-quarters of the department which had managed Indian affairs for the federal government since 1824, in the name of tribal sovereignty.

The third milestone of the RPM is yet again an occupation, of the city of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge reservation, in February 1973. It was led by the American Indian Movement (AIM), one of the movement's organisations which received the most media coverage, allied with the local Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organisation (OSCRO). The location was highly symbolic since it is where the massacre of nearly 300 Native Americans by the U.S. army took place on 29 December 1890. However, it is not the main reason why the occupation in 1973 occurred there. The goal was for AIM to support the claim of Oglala Lakota protesters for the impeachment of the tribal president Richard Wilson, accused of corruption, by giving it national media attention. It added to their continual fight against the federal government for the enforcement of broken treaties for the Pine Ridge reservation. The event also aimed to draw public attention to the life on reservation. The occupation lasted 71 days, until May 1973. The town was surrounded by the FBI, and the conflict, armed on both sides, was more violent than the preceding events of the RPM. In March, a U.S. marshal was paralysed after receiving a gunshot wound, and in April two Native American activists were killed by gunfire. Moreover, Ray Robinson, a Civil Rights Movement activist, disappeared during the occupation and is believed to have been murdered.

The RPM was a movement of direct and symbolic actions relying significantly on media coverage. AIM especially was an organisation which knew how to attract the attention of the media with charismatic leaders such as Russell Means (Lakota Oglala) and Dennis Banks (Ojibwa). The NCAI "wore their steadiness as a badge of pride, a symbol of moral fortitude in the midst of anti-Vietnam rallies and race riots that increasingly seemed to them protest for protest's sake." 6 The emergence of a Native American movement with direct actions just two years later can therefore seem surprising, but should be understood as an opposition to the NCAI's official position by a new generation of activists. According to Bradley G. Shreve, the origin of the RPM is to be found in the creation in 1961 of the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC), which was launched in rejection of the NCAI's lack of action. 7 Nevertheless, Shreve stipulates that the emergence of the RPM was possible thanks to the legacy of previous inter-tribal resistance, such as that led by the NCAI, and that the founding members of the NIYC acknowledged this heritage. 8 Daniel M. Cobb places the influence on the emergence of the RPM later: according to him, it is the War on Poverty, instigated by the Johnson administration beginning in 1964, that shaped the fight for self-determination, notably through the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) and its Community Action Programs which had been used by activists to help Native American communities independently of the BIA. 9

A differentiation has been made in terminology by scholars studying the movement -Smith and Warrior,Cobb,Johnson 10 -between Native American resistance before the 1960s and after.

They usually refer to organisations and activism anterior to this period as "inter-tribal", and tend to use the term "pan-Indian" afterwards, although the terms can be used as synonyms. Pan-Indianismsometimes called pan-Amerindianism or pan-Indigenousism -designates the union of Native peoples in the Americas, regardless of their tribal affiliation. The term originates from the United States to refer to the union of the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee and Chickasaw tribes opposing the allotment program from the 1887 Dawes Act. 11 In the United States, the term pan-Indianism is favoured, when pan-Indigenousism tends to be preferred in Canada. The influence of pan-Africanism's assertion along with the African American movements starting from the 1950s also explains why the term pan-Indianism came to be favoured from that time.

Regardless of the NCAI's position, young Native American activists participated in the Civil Rights Movement, such as Clyde Warrior (Ponca) who took part in the 1968 Poor People's March on Washington D.C. The influence of the African American movements on the RPM is undeniable, the name of the movement itself indicates it. Likewise, some actions adopted by Native American activists were influenced by their African American counterparts, such as the "fish-in" campaign started in 1964 to defend Native fishing rights in the state of Washington which was named after the "sit-in" movement initiated by African American students in North Carolina in 1960. However, an important distinction needs to be made. The Civil Rights Movement fought for the equality of rights before the law for African Americans, and for the enforcement of rights to which they were constitutionally entitled but were actually denied. It also fought for the end of segregation in the South of the U.S. and of all racial discriminations whatsoever. The movement resulted in significant changes in the United Stated, in consideration of federal law application and the passing of federal constitutional amendments. Among them, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 helped Native American rights as well. 12 The former prohibits any racial discrimination and unequal applications of voter registration requirements. It was strengthened by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, designed to ensure the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments of the United

States Constitution are enforced everywhere in the country, for each and every citizen. 13 The 1968

Civil Rights Act contributed to Indigenous rights as well by specifically extending most of the Bill of Rights to Native American tribes -titles II to VII of the Act comprise the so-called Indian Civil Rights Act. In her master's thesis, Nadège Roques observes that the 1968 Act participates in recovering some of the tribal sovereignty. 14 Nevertheless, the first milestone event of the RPM started the following year with the occupation of Alcatraz island. It highlights the main difference between the Civil Rights Movement and the RPM, which Roques notes in her thesis: African Americans were demanding equality, in order to be a fully integrated group into American society, whereas Native Americans were after autonomy, to be separated from the American government's authority. 15 Fighting for self-determination -i.e. "freedom from foreign rule," as phrased by Halecki -denotes the rejection of a relation of domination. Moreover, if the Native American resistance, as stated previously, did not begin in the 1960s, it also indicates that this domination it was fighting was not new either, but an everlasting domination which started with the colonisation of Native Americans by European and Euro-American colonists. The specificity of the RPM, compared to the NCAI for instance, was this call for tribal sovereignty, for the independence of Native American nations. Nevertheless, scholars refer to the RPM as a civil rights movement -as Troy R. Johnson's book title points out. 16 Therefore, the nature of the movement can be questioned: was it a civil rights movement indeed, or was it leading a struggle for decolonisation ? To answer that question, the period preceding the emergence of the RPM needs to be examined, in order to better understand and to determine the kind of domination it opposed.

In 2005, the City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York case was tried. 17 In the late eighteenth century, the Congress ratified several treaties to establish the Oneida Indian Nation reservation in the state of New York, along with the Non-intercourse Act of 1790 which prohibited any transaction regarding Native American territory without U.S. Congressional ratification. [START_REF] Patty | giving the Red Power salute moments after being removed from Alcatraz Island[END_REF] However, the reservation was gradually sold out in the nineteenth century by the Oneida tribe, which relocated to Wisconsin, without congressional ratifications. In the 1990s, members of the tribe endeavoured to buy the ancient reservation back one lot at a time. The city of Sherrill, in which most of the lots were located, tried to enforce the usual property taxation on these parcels.

The Oneida Indian Nation sued Sherrill in federal district court, claiming that the renewed Native American owners were to be exempted from any taxation due to tribal sovereignty since, without the ratification of the Congress as stipulated in the 1790 Act, there had never been federal consent for the land to lose its reservation status. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the Court's decision ruling for the City of Sherrill, citing the "Doctrine of Discovery".

The Doctrine of Discovery originates from Papal Bulls of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, stipulating that the world was under the Pope's jurisdiction, as God's representative on earth. Following that doctrine, any land not under the sovereignty of a Christian ruler should be 15 Roques, 29. 16 Troy R. Johnson, Red Power: The Native American Civil Rights Movement (Infobase Publishing, 2007). 17 City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, argued on 11 January 2005, decided on 29 March 2005, 544 U. S. 197 (2005). 18 This act is also known as the Indian Intercourse Act or the Indian Non-intercourse Act. It is the first of a series of six acts setting the Native American reservation boundaries; United States, Congress, Non-Intercourse Act of 1790, Pub. L. 1-33, U.S. Statutes at Large 2: 137, July 22, 1790.

conquered in the name of God. The pre-existent peoples and their history were ignored, and lands were considered as Terra Nullius -land belonging to no one. In the nineteenth century, the concept of "Manifest Destiny" prolonged the doctrine in the United States. It presented the expansion of the new nation towards the West as a providential duty in order to bring the light of its civilisation, due to the consideration of the American people, institutions and Christian moral values as superior and righteous. The doctrine was invoked by European Empires to legitimise its colonisation of most of the world, including Northern America. Later, the newly independent United States nation combined this doctrine with the concept of Manifest Destiny to colonise the rest of its current territory. The Doctrine of Discovery remains to this day part of the U.S. legal system, notably since the Johnson v. M'Intosh case in 1823. 19 The example of Justice Ginsburg ruling a case of Native American land claims with the Doctrine of Discovery in 2005 shows the extent to which past colonial narratives can still impact the present, and, as a result, the importance of questioning these narratives retrospectively.

The period of colonisation of Native Americans is generally considered to have ended in the late nineteenth century, when the "Indian Wars" ceased, ending the Indigenous armed resistance, and the "assimilation period" started. 20 The Indian Boarding School system (IBS) was implemented, both in the United States and in Canada, as a less expensive alternative to armed conflict, with the same aim of neutralising Native resistance to Euro-American expansionism under the Manifest Destiny and Discovery doctrines. [START_REF]The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia[END_REF] The goal of these institutions was to "civilize" those considered as "savages," according to the hegemonic evolutionist ideology of the time, by instilling Euro-American culture. Evolutionism is an anthropological and sociological theory, which was dominant in the nineteenth century. It believes that every society follows a linear evolution from a primitive backward state -or savagery -to the most evolved state of the educated civilised man. This theory, based on racial hierarchy, considers the European civilisation -specifically the Anglo-Saxon society -to be the acme of evolution. Evolutionism is therefore a theory based on determinism. It was fundamental to the ethnocentric certainty of Euro-American and early American colonists that Native Americans were bound to disappear, hence the reference to them as the "vanishing race" in the nineteenth century. The IBS was seen as a device of a civilising mission to help Native 19 Thomas Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. William M'Intosh, argued 15-19 February 1823, decided on 28 February 1823, 21 U.S. 543 (1832). 20 Anne Garrait-Bourrier and Monique Venuat, Les Indiens des Etats-Unis: renaissance d'une culture, Collection "Les Essentiels de la Civilisation anglo-saxonne" dirigée par D. Frison (Ellipses, 2002), 62-71. 21 David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928 (University Press of Kansas, 1995) 27.

Americans evolve as much as possible toward the state of civilised humans. Captain Richard Henry Pratt, who founded the first facility in 1879 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, infamously recommended to "kill the Indian, save the man." 22 Twelve years after the opening the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, the federal government of the United States made school attendance compulsory for every Native American child starting from four years old, most often in off-reservation schools that were too far away from relatives to permit them to see each other even once a year. 23 Resistance from the families to sending their children to school exposed them to the risk of having the food rations they received from the BIA on reservations cut off, or even to face imprisonment. 24 However, some parents willingly sent their offspring hoping that they would receive a better nutrition than the one they were able to provide living on reservation, or because they adhered to the assimilationist purpose of the IBS.

Many scholars have thoroughly described the harsh treatments children faced in those facilities, such as Adams, Coleman,or Trafzer,Keller and Sisquoc. 25 On their arrival, student's hair was cut, in spite -or precisely because -of the sacred importance of long hair in traditional Native cultures (in the Lakota Sioux nation, for instance, the cutting of hair is associated with mourning).

Speaking Native languages was strictly forbidden and punished, according to a BIA regulation passed in 1890, albeit no program to properly learn the English language was implemented for newly arrived students. The schools were run with a rigorous military discipline, and children wore exclusively military uniforms. Moreover, the days were divided between class and chores for running the school, or vocational training. Male students were taught farming or industrial skills such as blacksmithing, shoemaking, or carpentry, and female students were taught domestic work.

The goal was to prepare Native Americans for self-sufficiency, but Adams remarks that only lowclass occupations could result from these programs, and that the schools economically exploited children's labour. 26 Moreover, the health conditions were devastatingly poor. Diseases, malnutrition and resulting high death rates of pupils are highlighted by each study of the IBS. Furthermore, an overwhelming number of cases of moral, physical and sexual abuses have been reported. 27 22 Richard Henry Pratt, "The Advantage of Mingling Indians with Whites," Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association, 1895 (National Educational Association, 1895) 761. 23 Attendance remained compulsory until the 1930s. 24 Andrea Smith, Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide (South End Press, 2005) 36-37; The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was named the Office of Indian Affairs (OIA) until 1947. For historical accuracy, the latter abbreviation should be used here, but the federal department will be mentioned numerous times in this thesis, regarding different periods, sometimes including the date of its change of name. Therefore, for more clarity, the abbreviation BIA will be favoured in this thesis. 25 Michael C. Coleman, American Indian Children at School, 1850-1930 (University Press of Mississippi, 1993); Clifford E. Trafzer et al., Boarding School Blues, Revisiting American Indian Education Experiences (University of Nebraska Press, 2006). 26 Adams, 153. 27 Ward Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man: The Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools (City The boarding schools represent only one of the aspects of oppression Indigenous Peoples suffered in North America, but it might be the most linked to the evolution and persistence of their cultures. The schools are systematically referred to as devices for assimilation or for acculturation.

One of the main goals of assimilating Native Americans was to end tribal property by instilling the individualism of the Euro-American culture, and therefore seize the last remaining tribal territories.

The term assimilation was first theorized by the American sociologists Robert E. Park and Ernst W. Burgess in 1921, and later developed by the American sociologist Milton Gordon in 1961. 28 According to him, it is a blanket term which designates a process in seven possible steps during which a minority group acquires the behaviours, culture and values of a dominant group. In Gordon's view, acculturation is only the first step in the process of assimilation, referring to the stage of absorption of the "host" society's behaviours, which results in a slight alteration of the "immigrant-receiving" group's or individual's cultural pattern. In 1974, sociologists Raymond H.C. Teske, Jr. and Bardin H. Nelson differentiated assimilation and acculturation. 29 Although presenting many similarities, acculturation in their definition does not require a change of values, it can occur as an exchange between both cultures, and it does not require the acceptance of the dominant group.

On the contrary, the process of assimilation requires both a change of values and the acceptance of the minority group by the dominant one. Moreover, in their definition assimilation is a unidirectional process towards the dominant group. In the case of the United States, the term Americanisation is often used to depict this process toward the dominant Euro-American culture.

However, the processes of assimilation depicted by the sociologists in their different definitions are pursued by "immigrant-receiver" groups, as Gordon phrased it, that is to say minority groups which arrive in a new society they try to adapt to. Accordingly, in these cases, it is generally an intentional process that occurs.

In the case of Native American assimilation into mainstream American society, it was a forced process which was attempted by a dominant settler group. This is the reason why there is a consensus among scholars to refer to the forced assimilation of the IBS as a cultural genocide. A cultural genocide, also called an ethnocide since the 1970s, is a crime which consists in the attempt of destruction of a group by another dominant group, by annihilation of the culture, language, religion, political or social institutions essential to the life of the oppressed. The term was coined by Light Books, 2004) 51-65; and Smith, 38-41. the jurist Raphael Lemkin in 1944. [START_REF] Wolf | Principal Chief of the Kiowas[END_REF] He defines it as a variation of a genocide with the specificity of not necessarily being an attempt on the lives of the persecuted. The targeted people are discriminated against because of their identified cultural identity as members of a group, even if the actions are directed against individuals. The reasons of this persecution are defined by the oppressors, they can originate from ethnic, racial, religious, or social class prejudices. However, the U.N. Convention of 1948 on genocide decided not to recognise cultural genocides as crimes against humanity, in spite of the original definition coined by Lemkin. For that reason, scholars have been debating since the 1970s on the appropriate terminology to describe the IBS. If there appears to be a consensus to say it was a device for cultural genocide, not all concur with going as far as referring to it as plainly genocidal. 31 The crime perpetrated through the IBS is all the more striking since examples of willing acculturation from Native Americans, preceding the implementation of the system, show that coexistence was possible. Indeed, as Roques recalls, the "Five Civilized Tribes" from the South East of the U.S. owe this name to their voluntary adoption of several colonial attributes -as Christianity, literacy, centralized governments, written constitutions, plantation slavery practices -while retaining their independence and part of their traditional cultures. 32 Moreover these five tribes -Choctaws, Cherokees, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole -set up their own schools with bilingual instruction and published journals written in Native languages, such as the Cherokee Phoenix published in the late 1820s. Nevertheless, the five tribes were removed from their ancestral territories in the 1830s and sent to reservations West of the Mississippi river, and later suffered the same policies of forced assimilation as their Native American counterparts in the IBS. The Indian Boarding School system offers compelling evidence of how racist ideologies can come to be acted upon and can result in systemic oppression throughout national policies.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted United States citizenship to all Native Americans. 33 However, similarly to African Americans, they were considered as second-class citizens since many of the rights provided by citizenship were only de jure for them -such as enfranchisement. Moreover, the IBS system continued its mission of forced Americanisation. The educational system offered by the federal government to Native Americans was solely managed by the BIA -when the other citizens had access to an education run by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This exclusive control by the BIA lasted until the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which authorized federally recognised tribes to draw up contracts with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,

in order to open tribal schools. 34 Nonetheless, after this date, many schools continued to be supervised by the BIA up until today. Since this situation only started to change in the late 1970s, many former students of the institution run by the federal government are still alive, and can offer accounts of their experiences, and sometimes traumas.

Notwithstanding, the system has been altered several times since its creation in 1879. After a devastating account of the conditions of life on reservation and in the IBS given by the Meriam Report in 1928, the Roosevelt administration reformed American Indian policies in the 1930s, during a period called "The Indian New Deal", epitomised by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. 35 The goal of these policies was to revive tribal sovereignty and self-determination, and to minimise the forced assimilation of the IBS by setting up a cross-cultural instruction. However, the Eisenhower administration changed direction with the "Termination era" beginning in 1953. Aiming for equalitarian legal status for Native Americans, these reforms were designed to abolish the tribal system and abandoned the cross-cultural approach in the IBS. Therefore, inter-tribal initiatives rose to oppose the Termination policies, such as the NCAI, and the Regional Indian Youth Councils which organised meetings all across the country in order to uplift a cultural revival. Moreover, anthropologists from the University of Chicago founded summer workshops on American Indian Affairs for Native American students in 1956 in order to help them reaffirm their Indianness -Native American identities -through a cultural revival and assertion of tribal affiliation. Some of them created the National Indian Youth Council in 1961, the pan-Indian organisation which has launched the Red Power Movements according to Shreve.

Because Native Americans have become citizens of the United States, the RPM is seen as a civil rights movement. However, this study proposes to analyse the evolution of the federal Indian educational policies in order to identify the nature of the power dynamic at stake between the federal government and Native Americans from 1924, the year the Indian Citizenship Act was passed, to 1969, when the RPM officially started with the occupation of Alcatraz. The goal of this analysis is to determine if the colonial period of Native American-White relations really ended in the nineteenth century. Because the IBS institution was initially implemented in line with the nineteenth century evolutionist ideology, and because it was operated by the federal government, it offers an incomparable view on the evolution of the American society's relation to Native

Americans. Moreover, it presents an example of how ideologies can be endorsed by policies. The ultimate goal of this thesis is to provide an answer to the question over the nature of the Red Power Movement, whether it should be seen as a civil rights movement or as a decolonisation struggle, in the light of the four preceding decades.

Questioning the terminology of the situation faced by Native Americans and their status in the first half of the century is important. If scholars were to reach an agreement with regard to designating a 'colonial' context and 'genocidal' crimes in the IBS system beyond 1924, they could influence legislation in recognition of these terms. Legal impacts would be of tremendous significance for Native American communities, especially concerning tribal sovereignty and reparations. This study does not claim to have the ability to solve this debate, but to contribute to it.

Native American studies emerged in the United States in the 1950s but developed in the late 1970s, in the aftermath of the RPM. Indigenous peoples had been cast aside in American historiography -which started as a professional discipline with the American Historical Association founded in 1884 -and relegated to anthropology and sociology. The 1990s witnessed a revival in Native American studies, most probably kindled by the Wounded Knee Massacre Centennial of 1990, and the general tendency of revisionism and retrospective of the end of the century. This field of study was then marked by a resurgence of crossover with genocide studies in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The 2010s will likely as well be seen as a period of revisionism in the future, especially with the rise of gender studies. A popular trend in contemporary research is to analyse the origins and influences of historical events or movements. In that regard, the present study is well set in its time.

Postcolonialism also developed worldwide in the 1970s. Whilst influenced by Frantz Fanon's writings as well -Les damnés de la terre especially, published in 1961 -Edward Said's book Orientalism published in 1978 is the major milestone in the emergence of this discipline. 36 Said theorises "the Other of the West", and the "Us-and-Them" paradigms to designate the binary social relation according to which Western Europe intellectually divided the world. He writes that the stereotyped cultural representation of a backward Orient and an advanced Occident is a social construct which helps imperialist expansion. Although Said addresses the West and East opposition, the concept concerns the foundation of imperialism, and is relevant in the study of North American 36 Frantz Fanon, Les damnés de la terre (Maspero, 1961); Edward Said, Orientalism (Pantheon Books, 1978).

colonisation.

This research primarily draws from postcolonial, genocidal, and Native American studies. At the opening of American Settler Colonialism: A History, historian Walter L. Hixson highlights the distinction between "postcolonial" and "post-colonial." 37 The hyphenated term refers to a temporal understanding of the subject, namely the period of decolonisation following the Second World War in different countries and its aftermath, whereas "postcolonial" relates to colonialism in a broader, almost timeless, sense. "Postcolonial studies link the colonized past with the present and the future," Hixson writes, and "thus [challenge] the historian's penchant for tidy periodizations, insofar as while there are beginnings, there is no end; the legacies of colonialism persist." 38 This thesis is precisely in line with this perspective on postcolonial studies since it proposes to question the common conception in American historiography that the colonial past concerning Native Americans ended in the late nineteenth century. Moreover, this research is centred on political history, social history and cultural history alike: the impact of federal Indian policies on Native American populations, and what these policies reveal of the level of systemic domination. Links will be drawn between historians' theses in diverse fields of study -law, history, philosophy, Native American studies, postcolonial studies -supported by personal analyses of primary sources.

In order to identify colonial power dynamics, the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak will be studied as secondary sources of this thesis' corpus, as well as more recent works on settler colonialism to observe the specific case of the United States, such as those of Walter L. Hixson, Patrick Wolfe and Erich W. Steinman. 39 Some scholars studied more precisely the relation between colonialism and genocide, such as Robert Jaulin, Daniel Feierstein, and Katherin Elinghaus, whose research will prove to be of great importance to further analyse the implication of the IBS system in the history of Native American-White relations. 40 Moreover, as stated previously, many scholars thoroughly studied the IBS, especially since the 1990s revisionist period in Native American historiography. This thesis will notably rely on the 37 Walter L. canonical work of David Wallace Adams, but also on the detailed overview of the evolution of the system in the first half of the twentieth-century offered by Margaret Connell Szasz, in order to observe the institution in the light of postcolonial theories. 41 Since the RPM was an American movement, and because self-determination and tribal sovereignty were at its core -that is to say the relation between Native tribes and the federal government -this research is narrowed to United States policies. That being said, the IBS system was originally developed identically in the U.S. and in Canada. Therefore, this thesis will also rely on Canadian primary and secondary sources to examine the impact of the institution on the lives of former students, such as documentary films reporting interviews, and articles published by the psychiatrist Charles R. Brasfield and the anthropologist Joseph P. Gone, specialist in the psychology and mental health of North American Indigenous peoples. 42 Moreover, governmental documents -such as the ARCIA 43 -and institutional statistics used as primary sources will provide figures and details on how the boarding schools were run between 1924 and 1969, as well as information on the contemporary health issues faced by Native communities to evaluate the after-effects of the institution voiced in the interviews. The association of personal testimonies from former students with official documents proves to be complementary to study the IBS system. This combination offers a diversification of perspectives, from the official intentions of the BIA to how the institution was experienced by the population. It helps to perceive the dichotomy between political goals and their implementation, or to unveil the possible persistence of oppressive practices.

Finally, in order to analyse the type of activism the emerging RPM adopted in the 1960s, the works of scholars focused on the movement and on Native activism during the Cold War will be used as references, such as Bradley G. Shreve, Daniel M. Cobb, Paul Chaat Smith and Robert Allen

Warrior. Testimonies of the players of that period will provide primary sources to study the ideologies and goals of the movement, such as those collected in the edited book of Kenneth R. , 1999). 42 Charles R. Brasfield, "Residential School Syndrome," BC Medical Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2 (2001) Press, 2004).

With the help of this corpus, this thesis will be articulated in three sections. The first section will consider postcolonial theories in order to be able to identify colonial power dynamics, and will develop the debate over the terminology and definition of genocide to provide the required theoretical basis for the following analyses. This part will study colonialism and genocide as concepts, and therefore will not be limited to the time frame set to analyse the genesis of the RPM, or to Native American history. The second section will examine the evolution of the federal Indian educational policies and their reception by Native Americans from 1924 to 1969, with a special focus on the effects that the IBS system has produced on the population. In light of the previous part, the second section will attempt to determine what status should be given to the persecution perpetrated through the IBS. Finally, the third section will observe the rise of pan-Indian activism in the late 1950s and in the 1960s as an ambivalent counter-power and as a genesis of the Red Power Movement.

Part I

Colonialism and Genocide

In 1990, a Native American burial mound in the town of Dixon, Illinois, was opened and its remains were transferred to a newly built museum nearby for public display. Protests arose from local Indigenous communities demanding that they be returned to their burial. The Illinois Governor Jim Thompson -of Swedish descent -opposed the protesters arguing that he was as much Native as American Indigenous peoples in the late twentieth-century were, and that he was therefore as much legitimate as they were to decide what to do with Indigenous remains. Andrea Smith describes the event arguing that the Illinois state government "conveyed the message to Indians that being on constant display for white consumers, in life and in death, is acceptable," and that "Indian identity itself is under the control of the colonizer, and subjects to challenge or eradication at any time."1 In her book Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, Smith presents the Native American-White relations as those of colonised-colonist, still under the Bush administration in the early twenty-first century when she writes these lines. In this book, Smith links closely colonialism and genocide, identifying the latter as a device for the implementation and maintenance of the former, and sexual violence as a strategy of that device.

In order to identify if a colonial power dynamic indeed persisted in the twentieth century in the United States, the first step is to understand what colonialism is, how it can be implemented and what maintains it over time. Similarly, to understand and try to untangle the debate over the status the oppression perpetrated through the Indian Boarding School system, whether it should be defined as a cultural genocide or a genocide, the origins of these words and the opposed arguments of the debate need to be overviewed before delving into the history of the IBS.

A-Colonialism

In the mid-twentieth century, decolonisation struggles emerged internationally in opposition to European dominations. From that period onwards, scholars developed theories to explain colonialism. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre notably analysed the colonial domination of France in Algeria. Striking parallels emerge between his remarks and Native American history.

Among postcolonial scholars, Lorenzo Veracini and Patrick Wolfe theorised settler colonialism in the early twenty-first century as a specific form of colonialism. 2 Nevertheless, the principle of settler colonialism was known to the first postcolonial writers. In the preface he wrote for Fanon's prominent work The Wretched of the Earth in 1961, Sartre lists the multiple forms assumed by colonialism:

Here, the mother country is satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in her pay; there, dividing and ruling she has created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end; elsewhere she has played a double game: the colony is planted with settlers and exploited at the same time. Thus Europe has multiplied divisions and opposing groups, has fashioned classes and sometimes even racial prejudices, and has endeavored by every means to bring about and intensify the stratification of colonized societies. Fanon hides nothing: in order to fight against us the former colony must fight against itself: or, rather, the two struggles form part of a whole. 3 The issue of decolonisation in settler colonies was already identified in 1961, that is to say that the colonists and their descendants have become part of the invaded territory and the created nation to the point that they can arduously be removed. Walter L. This sub-part will detail the theories developed by postcolonial studies to understand and identify colonialism and settler colonialism.

A.1. Recognition of a System

The term colonialism comes from the Latin "colonia," which means "to cultivate," but the Greek term for "colony," "άποίκις," means "settlement." Colonialism originates from the Roman Empire which started with the installation of farming settlements on neighbouring territories conquered in war. The Empire grew based on physical power in warfare for the conquest of land, establishing its domination over pre-existing inhabitant groups differing in culture and economic development. Therefore, since its first apparitions, colonialism has concerned the conquest of land and peoples.

Although the process of colonisation is similar, colonialism in postcolonial studies mainly refers to the conquest, settlement and ruling -through administrative, economic and military control -by European empires of territories all over the world (in Europe as well, notably in Ireland) in the modern era. Pramod K. Nayar's Postcolonial Studies Dictionary states that modern colonial empires were "founded on a clear racial binary: the advanced, progressive and modern European ('Us') versus the backward, primitive and non-modern native ('them'), as theorised by Edward Said, in Orientalism. [START_REF]National Archives at Denver[END_REF] In 1956, in the midst of the Algerian War, the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre published an essay deconstructing colonialism. 6 He argues that it is primarily an economic system, which serves the benefits of the colonists only, and relies on the cheap man-power provided by the subjugation of the colonised. Sartre also draws attention to education. However, he does not shed light on the one provided to the colonised, but on that received by the colonists. He recalls that the system can only work because so many men, and their children after them, perpetuate it, because they "have been shaped by colonialism and [they] think, speak and act according to the very principles of the colonial system."7 This attention to the elaboration of the colonial mindset reminds us that a system has to be taught, and that no position in a binary power situation is natural but constructed. It also reminds us that if a system can be taught, it can also be untaught, or rather, another system can be taught as well. It recalls the political power of education.

Sartre points out that since domination is at its core, colonisation prevents social mobility.

The Marxist philosopher highlights the determinism caused by this system which maintains the colonised in poverty, while the colonists thrive from the exploitation of the population and of the conquered land's natural resources. A striking parallel between the colonisation of Algeria by the French Empire and the one of North America can be made when Sartre describes how the French Civil Code was brought to the conquered country in order to break the existing social structure and serve the interests of the colonists. As soon as 1956, Sartre condemns discourses about positive effects of colonisation, pointing out with an ironic tone hypocrisy in the colonist rhetoric:

So we decided to give a handsome present to the Muslims; we gave them our civil code.

And why all this generosity? Because tribal property was usually collective and we wanted to fragment it to allow land speculators to buy it back bit by bit. [...]

Here, with premeditation, with cynicism, they imposed a foreign code on the Muslims because they knew that this code could not apply to them and that it could have no other effect than to destroy the internal structures of Algerian society. If the operation has continued in the twentieth century with the blind necessity of a law of economics, it is because the French State had brutally and artificially created the conditions of capitalist liberalism in an agricultural and feudal country. That has not stopped speakers in the National Assembly, quite recently, from vaunting the forced adoption of our legal code by Algeria as 'one of the benefits of French civilization'.8

Similarly, the General Allotment Act -or Dawes Act -was passed in 1887 in the United States in order to bring an end to the collective property of tribal lands. Once tribal lands were divided in lots owned by individuals, they were easier to purchase by the state or by non-Natives, one plot at the time. In this extract, we can see how Sartre emphasises the intentionality of the domination:

"premeditation," "imposed," "brutally and artificially created," "forced adoption.". However, he also specifies that the destructive effects of colonialism are due to the characteristics of the system itself, not to the intentions of the colonists. Sartre asserts that their intentions are irrelevant when he writes: "It is untrue that some colons are good and some are bad; there are colons, that's all."9

According to him, the system he describes is driven by its inherent subjugation and impoverishment of the exploited, by its intrinsic destruction of their social structures and disruption of their social relationships. The intentions of Captain Richard Henry Pratt are discussed at length in most of the studies on the implementation of the Indian Boarding Schools. In Education for Extinction, David

Wallace Adams highlights that in an evolutionist era, Pratt's attitude towards Native Americans was surprisingly not racist. Adopting a culturalist position ahead of its time, he was certain that education, rather than race, shaped the character of an individual, and rejected the determinism at the core of evolutionism..10 Adams stresses that the creator of the institution, as well as many of the teachers, were animated by the philanthropic idea of saving the "vanishing race" by educating it in the way of life of the dominant White population. However, this perspective on Pratt must be nuanced: if he did not fully share the evolutionist views of his time, he nevertheless considered Native American cultures to be inferior, as is revealed by his famous motto advocating assimilation "kill the Indian, save the man."

In Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, Andrea Smith (Cherokee) draws attention on assimilation in the implementation of colonialism. She points out that this process is only allowed up to a certain point by the colonists: the colonised need to be somehow assimilated not to oppose too much resistance, however, they must remain inferior to colonists, otherwise they could be challenging the system by becoming equals. 11 Sartre goes further by stating that the overtly racist system that is colonialism dehumanises the colonised in order to maintain the social hierarchy:

But the colon, whose interests are directly contrary to those of the Algerians, and who can base exploitation only upon pure and simple oppression, can accept these rights for himself to enjoy only in France, among the French. To this extent he detests the token universality of French institutions. Precisely because they apply to everyone, the Algerians could claim these rights.

One of the functions of racism is to compensate the latent universalism of bourgeois liberalism: since all human beings have the same rights, the Algerian will be made a subhuman. 12 In Les damnés de la terre -translated The Wretched of the Earth -Frantz Fanon writes about a refused "integration," which therefore would have to be differentiated from assimilation. 13 It seems that for Fanon, integration means accession to equal social statuses, when total equality is not possible with the process of assimilation. Both Smith and Fanon analyse that the processes of assimilation or of forced assimilation endured by the colonised result in self-hatred, with an internalisation of racism. Fanon points out that this hatred manifests itself through violence against each other in Indigenous communities, and Smith adds that it fuels racism by producing images of Native peoples as "inherently violent, self-destructive, and dysfunctional," creating a vicious circle. 14 Jean-Paul Sartre wrote the preface to Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth. Both authors famously address the violence felt and expressed by the colonised populations in this book.

They explain that it is a contradictory feeling, born from a reversed violence: the violence of the domination they suffer from the system is internalised, because the expression of this reversed violence is firstly morally repressed. Fanon builds up from that observation to develop the idea that violence is necessary to any decolonisation movement. He asserts that in colonial context, it has the effect of recovering authority and agency, of rebalancing the power relationship, and that it ultimately becomes a process of rehumanisation for the colonised peoples. "For the colonised, this violence represents the ultimate praxis," Fanon writes. 15 In the preface, Sartre corroborates Fanon's opinions about violence, pointing out that non-violent emancipatory impetus are not taken seriously by the dominants, and are even interpreted as a positive effect of the civilising mission colonists often claimed to endorse:

We listened without displeasure to these polite statements of resentment, at first with proud amazement. What? They are able to talk by themselves? Just look at what we have made of them! We did not doubt but that they would accept our ideals, since they accused us of not being faithful to them. Then, indeed, Europe could believe in her mission; she had hellenized the Asians; she had created a new breed, the Greco-Latin Negroes. We might add, quite between ourselves, as men of the world: "After all, let them bawl their heads off, it relieves their feelings; dogs that bark don't bite." 16 In the collective book Beyond Empire and Nation, Raymond F. Betts signs a chapter in which he draws up a history of decolonisation. 17 He describes the phenomenon as a process, rather than an event or a simple episode of rejection of Western civilisation. However, Betts observes that even after decolonisation, former colonised countries can still be in a position of inferiority and dependency towards their former colonists. Based on Walter Rodney's work, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, he explains that the years -sometimes centuries -of exploitation of human and land resources enriched the former colonist empires and impoverished the former colonies to such an extent that the economic unbalanced power maintains the colonial domination. [START_REF] Patty | giving the Red Power salute moments after being removed from Alcatraz Island[END_REF] Moreover, Betts notes that cultural colonisation can persist beyond political decolonisation as well:

decolonization was not solely achieved with national independence. Economic control also had to be obtained but was not. Nonetheless, '[t]he oppressed and exploited of the earth maintain their defiance: liberty from theft'. So wrote the Kenyan novelist Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. But Ngũgĩ's concern (1986:3) was not primarily economics; he added, 'the biggest weapon wielded and actually daily unleashed by imperialism against that collective defiance is the cultural bomb'. That bomb caused cultural destruction, the annihilation of a people's culture through the imposition of the colonial power's cultural system. The mind had to be decolonized as well.

Such was the thought of Ngũgĩ (1986), well expressed in the eponymous title of his small but provocative book Decolonising the mind. 19 Betts shows us that there are several forms of decolonisation, and that they can happen independently of each other. He also demonstrates that colonisation can still exist without the name.

A.2. The Specificities of Settler Colonialism

History textbooks date colonisation in the U.S. history up to the creation of the United States, or more precisely up to the Revolutionary War -the beginning of this period however varies.

It is either considered to start from Columbus' first voyage to the Caribbean in 1492; from the first settlement within the borders of the continental United States by Spain in Pensacola, Florida, in 1559; or more often from the first English settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. The Enduring Vision: A History of American People, for instance, writes about the new nation taking example on "the colonial era" for shaping its administration in a section entitled "From Colonies to

States." 20 It also writes about "annexing Texas or Cuba" in a period when the United States refused "colonization by any European power," and about "white settlements," and "this westward movement" for the expansion to the West of the continent. [START_REF]The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia[END_REF] The process undertaken by the United States to conquer territory West of the Mississippi and impose through warfare its domination, its administrative, social and cultural systems, and its economic and military control over Native Americans is not acknowledged as colonisation in popularising history books, but simply as expansionism, or conquest. In La résistance indienne aux États-Unis, Élise Marienstras addresses this paradox in her introduction:

And what about using Christian periodisation for a population whose time is broken down into generations, moon phases or seasons? And the breaking down of time adopted by American historiography which divides the history of this continent into a Colonial Period and a National Period, without taking into account the several thousands old year Native presence ?22

However, Marienstras avoids this problem in the rest of her book by not addressing colonialism directly as such, until the epilogue: "After a significant [demographic] decrease, imputable as much to massacres as to pandemics and to inhuman conditions of life caused by colonisation and dispossession […]."23 Indeed, it is in specialised books and studies dedicated to Native American history that the phenomenon is acknowledged, but it is often in vague terms -unless it is specifically the subject under study -and without definite dating. Talking about colonisation of Native Americans and defining its periodisation is a thorny issue since it questions their status of nations within a nation from 1783 to 1871, when the Indian Appropriation Act brought an end to tribal sovereignty, or from 1783 to 1924, when the Indian Citizenship Act provided them citizenship. Bearing in mind the definition of colonialism primarily as an economic system relying on the exploitation of the colonised as seen previously, the subjugation and massacres of Native Americans, their forced removal to reservations and spoliation of their lands in the nineteenth century do not correspond to such a process in the sense that it did not intent to exploit them as man-power. Native Americans were rather considered as a hindrance to land conquest, and therefore meant to be eliminated. Nevertheless, the treatment they suffered in the nineteenth century, and the process of forced assimilation to solve the "Indian problem" in a cheaper way than through warfare resemble strongly to a process of colonisation. Hence, scholars developed a new term addressing this particular form of colonialism: settler colonialism.

Nayar's Postcolonial Studies Dictionary gives this definition of settler colonialism:

In the case of Canada, Australia and the northern American continent, Europeans arrived from various places in Europe with the clear intention of remaining in the new place. Settler colonialism is the term used to distinguish this form of colonial occupation from the mode followed in, say, India. The latter is called 'colony of occupation', where the Europeans spent some time for economic and political reasons, dominated the natives, but did not intend the colony to become their permanent home. [...] If in colonies of occupation the Europeans worked with existing systems (trade, law, markets, even cultures), in the case of settler colonies, they sought to erase all native cultures, even as they made use of the natives as labour. The settlers very often carried political, cultural and historical baggage from Europe. In fact, the early settlers would replicate the structures and political order from their home country, and were even supported in this by their home country. Later, the settlers, after a generation or two, would seek to move away from this legacy (the settling of the United States is an example) and evolve their own distinct culture in the new land. 24 The emphasis, compared to 'classic' colonialism, or colonialism of occupation, is put on the intention of the colonists to seize the land for themselves and never depart, rather than occupy it to exploit it from afar. Moreover, for the following generations, born in the "new" country, the emancipation from the European former home country's authority becomes an act of identification:

they are themselves 'natives'. The oppositions between immigrants and Euro-American 'natives' in the nineteenth century shed light on the link settler colonists felt with the land. 25 In American Settler Colonialism: A History, Walter L. Hixson defines settler colonialism building up on Patrick Wolfe's statement that this form of colonialism is "a structure, not an event."

He writes:

Because it was structural rather than contingent, settler colonialism extended widely and outlasted colonialism and European imperialism.

[…] The triangular relationship between settlers, the metropole, and the indigenous population distinguishes and defines settler colonialism. Settlers sought to remove and replace the indigenous population and in the process to cast aside the authority of the "mother" country. Settler colonies created their very identities through resolution of this dialectical relationship, in which indigenes disappeared and metropolitan authority was cast aside-the American Revolution being a prominent example. Thus, the ability to make both the indigenous and the exogenous metropolitan other "progressively disappear" established "the constitutive hegemony of the settler component". 26 According to this definition, settler colonialism is a political and social structure which outlasts successive political systems -in the United States namely the period traditionally called colonial, ruled by European empires, and all the successive administrations of the U.S. history. In this structure, Indigenous peoples are depicted as a "premodern primitive" population whose fate is to disappear and make way for the modern and civilised society of settlers. 27 However, they did not. It is their survival, and the continuity of their subjugation in a second-class status by the hegemonic society of settler colonists which constitutes the persistence of the structure, long after the ties with European empires were cut, according to Hixson. Patrick Wolfe observes that in the American case of settler colonialism, if Native Americans were granted some rights, it was in a game of 24 Nayar, 137-138. 25 See for example in Boyer et al., The Enduring Vision: A History of American People, the section "Newcomers and Natives" in chapter 13 "Immigration, Expansion, and Sectional Conflict, 1840-1848," 279. 26 Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology, 2; cited in Hixson, 5. 27 Hixson, 185. oppositions between European powers, in order to create alliances, not out of generosity or justice. 28 He compares it with Australia, where the British Empire faced no European enemy, and points out that no rights at all were granted to Aborigines. This observation emphasises the "triangular relationship" mentioned by Hixson.

Hixson rejoices that Native American studies started in the 1980s to draw attention on the Indigenous resistance which opposed the process of settler colonialism as soon as its implementation, as testified by Élise Marienstras' work. This revision of history goes against the traditional and stereotypical vision of the "vanishing race" which presents Native Americans as passive victims. Nevertheless, in American Settler Colonialism, Hixson highlights that the complex social and political structure that is settler colonialism, is not Manichean, with cruel colonists against brave Native resistance. According to him, Native American tribes participated in the phenomenon through trade, alliances in warfare, social and cultural exchanges. He relies on Homi Bhaba's theory on colonial ambivalence to comprehend Native American-White relations. 29 Bhaba analyses that colonists are dependant on the colonised to build up their identity as members of a more evolved and civilised state of humanity. An ambiguous relation constituted both of hatred and desire takes place in both sides, resulting in figures such as "The Noble Savage" which idealises and reduces Native Americans on the one hand, and on the other hand giving place to willing assimilation from the Five Tribes for instance. Hixson states that "ambivalence enabled the colonized other the capacity for agency and resistance because the relations were not as fixed as they appeared to be, but rather were inherently unstable and malleable." [START_REF] Wolf | Principal Chief of the Kiowas[END_REF] Bhaba names third space this colonial dynamic which enables cultural encounters and the possible creation of social and cultural hybridity. Nevertheless, Hixson also points out that this ambivalence destabilises the colonists' identity and, in the case of American settler colonialism, their faith in their destiny to conquer the land, as foretold by the Manifest Destiny doctrine. He explains that this destabilisation, combined with Native American resistance to settler colonialism "had a traumatic impact on the colonizer," and that "Euro-Americans thus engaged in often indiscriminate violence aimed at fulfilling the self-serving vision of Indians as a 'dying race'." 31 In other words, Hixson observes that if the social and cultural permeability of settler colonialism provides the colonised tools of resistance, it also paradoxically fuels the colonists' will to subjugate or even eradicate them. Andrea Smith notes that in the "colonial" period, several cases of Europeans going to live among Native American tribes were reported, but only very few cases of Natives similarly going to live with settlers are known. 32 She points out less patriarchal societies, and the absence of capitalist systems among traditional tribal cultures to explain that phenomenon, albeit misses to contemplate the possibility of rejection from settlers of Native Americans who would have attempted this cultural encounter. Nevertheless, Smith refers to Ella Shohat and Robert Stam to argue that the real purpose of colonial subjugation was more to prevent settlers from adopting Native American ways of life than to force Native Americans to become Europeans. 33 Therefore, forced assimilation could be contemplated as a way to preserve Euro-American societies over its aim of annihilating other cultures.

Nevertheless, Patrick Wolfe stresses that the real problem for settler colonists, both in North America and in Australia, was tribal property. Therefore, the goal behind forced removal in reservations, massacres, discriminatory policy, and any other form of colonial subjugation, was to seize the land, and ultimately to individualise Native Americans through forced assimilation: "tribes and private property did not mix. Indians were the original communist menace." 34 This is the reason why, initially, Native American tribes were acknowledged as distinctive nations, with which different treaties could be made, each time promising a more favourable negotiation for the colonists. Later, Native Americans were all considered alike in order to force them to move into reservations, to force them to assimilate, and finally in the 1950s to force them to abandon reservations. Land expropriation has always been at the core of American settler colonialism in its relation to Indigenous peoples.

In 2016, Erich W. Steinman wrote an article discussing the possibilities of decolonisation under settler colonialism in analysing the forms adopted by Native American resistance. 35 He refers to Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Mary Bernstein who developed the multi-institutional politics approach -or MIP approach. 36 According to this methodology, any social or political movement of protest reflects the power it challenges in its goals, targets and strategies. Steinman writes that domination can adopt a broad variety of forms, and that resistance can therefore be developed in an equally large variety of fields rather than simply oppose the government. Following this logic, silent dominations can be uncovered by analysing activism, since a movement of resistance denotes a preexisting oppression. 32 Smith, 18. Interestingly, Smith herself writes "'colonial' period," using As seen at the beginning of this section, this work of "uncovering" the colonial past of U.S.

history is indeed necessary, because of historical denial. Walter L. Hixson asserts that historical denials and historical distortions are symptomatic to settler colonialism, for several reasons. Firstly, because settlers need to create a national narrative for themselves, in order to root their identity into the land and establish the origins of the nation. 37 This mythology cannot suffer the presence of preexisting population, or the epic settlement would reveal itself to be an invasion. Hence, the "discovery" of the "New" world by Christopher Columbus, and the Manifest Destiny doctrine legitimising westward expansionism. Settler colonialism steals the land and the history of Indigenous peoples. Secondly, in the case of the United States' history, acknowledging colonialism persisted after the American Independence would be in contradiction with the role of guardian of the free world the country has adopted since the Cold War. However, Hixson asserts that a colonial past has been acknowledged, but only associated with the Spanish-American War, and the annexations which resulted from the conflict. 38 The specificity of settler colonialism addresses a much longer process than colonialism of occupation, which compels to the recognition of ongoing active imperialism. Postcolonial studies, usually referring to European empires with the term 'colonialism', distinguish 'imperialism' as the notion of total domination at the core of colonialism, therefore the latter is often favoured to refer to American colonial dynamics. More recently, the term became the definition of contemporary colonial dynamics in the economic, political, social and cultural domination of Western countries over less economically developed areas. 39 Hixson stresses that historiography itself is difficult to change when he points out that the development of specialised fields, such as ethno-history, since the 1960s failed up to this day to integrate and transform mainstream American history. Consequently, the "vanishing race" narrative continues to be part of the "relentless westward march of Anglo-Saxons [as] the grand narrative framework [without] any hint that things might have worked differently." 40 Therefore, it is not uncommon to find scholars writing about the positive effects of forced assimilation on the survival of Native Americans, considering they were otherwise bound to disappear, and neglecting to contemplate the agency of the population in question and above all the unpredictability of human social interactions. at the time, and that the cultural genocides suffered by these populations, as well as impact of these persecutions, are often not acknowledged. Notwithstanding, the genocides Jaulin considers as well and soundly recognised are sometimes also questioned by academics. Controversies in the definitions of the terms used to address the crimes, and in their legal recognitions can be blamed for these disagreements.

This sub-part will firstly develop the history of the terms at stake before analysing the arguments of the debate.

B.1. Lemkin and International Legislation

In 1933, the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin attended the International Conference for Unification of Criminal Law in Madrid. He presented the definition of two crimes, those of barbarism and of vandalism, which he proposed to be declared as crimes under the law of nations in order to make them punishable by any country in which they would be perpetrated. Lemkin defined these crimes as follows:

Art. 1) Whoever, out of hatred towards a racial, religious or social collectivity or with view of its extermination, undertakes a punishable action against the life, the bodily integrity, liberty, dignity or economic existence of a person belonging to such a collectivity community, is liable, for the offence of Barbarism, to imprisonment for a period of ... unless punishment for the action is not envisaged in a more severe provision of the respective Code. Art. 2) Whoever, either out of hatred towards a racial, religious or social collectivity or with the goal of its extermination, destroys its cultural or artistic works, will be liable, for the crime of vandalism, to a penalty of ... unless his deed falls within a more severe provision of the given code.

The above crimes will be prosecuted and punished irrespective of the place where the act was committed and of the nationality of the offender, according to the law of the country where the offender was apprehended. 41 His proposal was rejected. In 1944, after he had fled to the United States to escape the persecutions of Jews in Europe, he published his most famous work, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, which is still to this day regarded as the foundation of genocidal studies. In this book he examines Nazi occupation and ruling during the Second World War and develops the definition of genocide, the term he coins from the Greek genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing).

By ''genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.

[…] Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. 42 In 1933, Lemkin defines the crimes of barbarism and vandalism as being motivated by "hatred towards a racial, religious or social collectivity." The intention of destruction -introduced by the conjunction "or" in "or with the goal of extermination" -is presented as optional, whereas in 1944

Lemkin does not specify the motivation behind a genocide, but the intention of destruction becomes central. Nevertheless, in both cases, the author focuses on the actions, emphasising in 1944 that a genocide designates a compound of different actions to carry on the objective of destruction.

Moreover, the beginning of his definition stipulates that a genocide does not necessarily include murder, therefore the destruction intended does not always target the actual lives of the victims.

Furthermore, his 1944 definition develops the idea that the crime of barbarism is an episode, in the idea that a genocide is a process made of two phases, corresponding to destruction on the one hand, and to colonisation on the other hand:

Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor's own nationals. 43 Therefore, if killing were to be involved in the process, it would not constitute in itself a genocide, neither would the imposition of the oppressor's social structure -or "national pattern" -without the attempt at destroying the one of the oppressed population first. In other terms, Lemkin distinguishes genocides from massacres alone and from colonisation alone, but designates a plan of actions combining both. Applying this part of the definition to Native American history would show that the different massacres which occurred from the beginning of the colonisation to the end of the nineteenth century could correspond to the first phase of destruction. The second phase of a genocide is more controversial among scholars, as will be discussed further

Lemkin develops the definition of genocide by elaborating eight variations to it, or "fields"

of "technique," using the example of Nazi occupation in Europe. These fields are political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, religious and moral.

A political genocide refers to the destruction of the political system or institutions of the oppressed, and their replacement with the one of the perpetrators. In the case of Native Americans, the Indian Appropriation Act of 1871, which ceased tribal sovereignty, can be interpreted as the destruction of their political power, replaced by the domination of the United States government.

A social genocide designates the annihilation and replacement of social structures -Lemkin four, Native languages were forbidden, such as the practice of traditional celebrations. This system is targeted by many Native American communities and scholars, who charge it with having endorsed the first and second phases of a cultural genocide according to Lemkin's definition.

An economic genocide is the destruction of the oppressed group's resources. Lemkin adds that it can lead to damages on the physical and cultural survival of the targeted population. In the case of Native Americans, the slaughter of buffaloes in the late nineteenth century could be argued to have played a role of economic genocide, in order to starve Native Americans into submission, as well as the removal to reservations which significantly diminished the resources for fur trade many

Native American tribes economically relied on.

A biological genocide aims at preventing the sustainability of the targeted group's demography, by different means, which is contrasted by encouragements to increase the birthrate of the oppressor's population. Lemkin cites controlling marriages, separating men and women with forced labour, or malnutrition resulting in the weakening of parents and higher children death rates.

Hence, as he adds in his 1947 article, genocides can also consist in "the prevention of life" rather than the destruction of life. 45 In this article, he also mentions forced abortions and sterilisations. In the case of Native American history, this form of genocide as well raises controversies among scholars who discuss its occurrence. Some, such as M. Annette Jaimes, have argued that it took the form of strategies of elimination, notably through the establishment of blood quantum, which without killing Indigenous people would cease their legal recognition as Native Americans in case of inter-racial descent. 46 A physical genocide, in Lemkin's 1944 definition, can be carried out in three manners:

through racial discrimination in feeding, through the endangering of health, or through mass killings. It is therefore important to take into account that the extermination of lives only consists in the third possible way of perpetrating one of the eight forms of a genocide according to the creator of the term. In Native American history, the rationing of food on reservations, the few attested occurrences of the army providing infected blankets to Native American tribes during winter in order to spread diseases, and massacres such as the one perpetrated at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, on 29 December 1890, can be debated as being manifestations of physical genocide. 47 A religious genocide consists in forced conversion of the population to the religion of the oppressor, or in the plan of actions set in order to influence the population in converting.

Christianisation of Native Americans started as soon as the beginning of the colonisation of the Americas, but was not always forced. However, the IBS carried on forced Christianisation along with forced assimilation.

Finally, a moral genocide concerns the attempt at weakening spiritual resistance of the oppressed population by setting "an atmosphere of moral debasement," such as encouraging alcoholism and gambling, individual loose behaviours rather than collective activities.

The most important aspect of Lemkin's definition for this study is that he considers none of these eight techniques of genocide as more important, or serious, than another. Each of these variations are distinguished as being in themselves genocides. According to Lemkin, a physical genocide and a cultural genocide are equally reprehensible.

In Axis Rule of Occupied Europe, Lemkin ends the definition of genocide by advocating for the amendment of the Hague Convention Regulations in order to include this crime. 48 He also stresses the importance of creating an "international controlling agency vested with specific powers" in order to prevent genocides from happening, or to prosecute their perpetrators. 49 Lemkin was invoking in 1944 the creation of an intergovernmental organisation which would be achieved the following year with the establishment of the United Nations. In 1948, the U.N. issued the Hixson, 18. what it refers to, either genetic characteristics or cultural features. He also criticises the convention for setting a definition "focusing on the character of the victims," hence violating "the principle of equality before the law, giving human life a relative rather than an absolute value," and therefore writing an unequal law. 53 To remedy these problems, he offers two new definitions of a genocide, one "unbiased" for legal uses, and another for social sciences.

Feierstein agrees with Lemkin that genocide "is a process that starts long before and ends long after the actual physical annihilation of the victims," and adds that the intention behind that process is to permanently change the identity of the survivors and therefore the society as a whole. [START_REF] Garry | A Declaration of Indian Rights," 28 February 1954; cited in Rosier[END_REF] That is the reason why a genocide is not simply a massacre and entails different procedural phases. His legal definition of a genocide is "the execution of a large scale and systematic plan with the intention of destroying a human group as such in whole or in part," and which "main objective [...] is the transformation of the victims into 'nothing' and the survivors into 'nobodies.'" 55 Moreover, in order to study genocides as the long processes he also identifies them to be, he provides this sociological definition:

I will define a genocidal social practice as a technology of power-a way of managing people as a group-that aims (1) to destroy social relationships based on autonomy and cooperation by annihilating a significant part of the population (significant in terms of either numbers or practices), and (2) to use the terror of annihilation to establish new models of identity and social relationships among the survivors. 56 However, the legal definition Feierstein offers is still unclear concerning the nature of the destruction intended by a genocide, whether it should only be considered as physical destruction, or as a variety of different fields of "techniques" such as Lemkin wrote. Furthermore, this distinction between legal and sociological definition is likely to perpetuate debates between scholars, who might differ on the valid one, whether the legal or the sociological should be used to identify genocides.

Since the 1945 U.N. convention, only two genocides have been recognised as such by international courts: the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and the Yugoslavian genocide in Srebrenica in 1995. The convention was criticised for being difficult to apply in practice and many perpetrators managed to escape trial or reduce their sentences. Therefore, in 1998 an International Criminal Court (ICC) was created with the establishment of the Rome Statutes. The Rome Statutes reproduce faithfully the 1945 genocide definition but enlarge the possibilities of recognition of crimes with 53 Feierstein, 17. 54 Feierstein, 12. 55 Feierstein, 36-38. 56 Feierstein, 14. Article 7 about crimes against humanity:

Article 7: Crimes against humanity 1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crimes against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. [START_REF] Paul | Serving Their Country: American Indian Politics and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century[END_REF] Section "(h)" recognises persecutions perpetrated for political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious and gender reasons, therefore covering the void left by the 1945 convention. However, the statutes came into force on 1 July 2002 stipulating that they can only be used to prosecute crimes committed from this date, not retroactively. Therefore, the recognition asked by Native Communities and some scholars for the past crimes in North America, and elsewhere, cannot be achieved legally under the Rome Statutes.

B.2. A Debate, from Denial to Trivialisation

Daniel Feierstein identifies three points of controversy in the concept of genocide: the question of proving the intention behind the crime, the nature of the groups targeted, and the importance of physical destruction. Another problem emanates from the different definitions of Raphael Lemkin and the U.N. convention: the definition of ethnocide.

In 1944, Lemkin offers the term ethnocide as a synonym of genocide in a footnote to the definition: "Another term could be used for the same idea, namely, ethnocide, consisting of the Greek word 'ethnos' -nation -and the Latin word 'cide'."58 However, today the word is largely understood as a synonym of a cultural genocide, as the definition of Pramod K. Nayar's

Postcolonial Studies Dictionary shows:

ethnocide: The term refers to a policy of the extermination of a group or community's culture. In contrast to genocide which is about the extermination of peoples, ethnocide is about cultural practices, territories and belief systems, including language, religion, arts and social modes. This extermination could take many forms with assimilation being the principle mode. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (adopted in 2007) uses the word 'ethnocide'. The best example of ethnocide would be of the Native Americans in the USA in the 19 th century. The blacks remained a distinct cultural and racial group but the Native Americans were promised equality provided they assimilated and integrated into white culture. Ethnocide in this case therefore meant the loss of a cultural identity altogether -all those features that made the Native American tribes distinct (from the whites but also from each other) were erased. Ethnocide became a mode of imposing so-called equality by rejecting cultural difference. [START_REF] Thom | Indian War 1963[END_REF] However, in this definition, only the destruction phase is addressed. The second phase of imposition of the oppressor's national pattern, as theorised by Lemkin, is not stressed but simply implied in the process of assimilation, which is only presented as one possible form of ethnocide. According to this definition, a situation in which only destruction of cultural practices would take place could be considered as an ethnocide, rather than as a crime of vandalism for instance.

There are two reasons explaining this change of meaning from its creator's definition. As seen previously, Lemkin defined a cultural genocide as a genocide, unlike the U.N. convention.

Therefore, evolutions of terms were bound to happen since the legal definition's authority cast aside Lemkin's in international law and practice. Moreover, in 1970, scholar Robert Jaulin re-evaluated and popularised the term ethnocide as a synonym for cultural genocide, while paradoxically advocating its recognition as a genocide, in line with Lemkin's views. 60 Jaulin argues that 'ethno' designates a people in the sense of a collective entity characterised by its culture, which is also a definition of a civilisation. He describes a civilisation as being constituted of several interdependent aspects -economy, religion, politics, etc. -forming the culture. Jaulin defends that attacking any element of a civilisation is damaging the whole, and therefore that a cultural genocide constitutes a genocide in the sense that the whole civilisation is impacted. 61 Two schools of thoughts are opposed in this debate: one emphasises the distinction between physical and cultural exterminations, and considers that only the former should be called a genocide; and another relying on Lemkin calls for the consideration of both as equally serious crimes. The term ethnocide is used by both sides with different meanings and implicationsphysical destruction, cultural annihilation, or both -therefore, it is of little help in the debate. In the case of Native American history, scholars who fall in line with Lemkin's school of thought tend to consider as obvious that Native Americans were victims of several forms of genocides from the beginning of North America's colonisation, and discuss if some continued to be perpetrated in the twentieth century, such as a cultural genocide in the IBS. Ward Churchill, David Stannard, Andrea Smith, Walter L. Hixson or George E. Tinker all endorse the idea that a Native American genocide happened before the twentieth century. 62 Other scholars, who support the definition of genocides as physical destruction only, debate the veracity of this idea, such as Guenter Lewy or Gary Clayton Anderson. 63 The different views about the definition of genocide compel the debate over Native American history to consider events before the twentieth century.

Sociologists Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, in The History and Sociology of Genocide, constrain the definition of genocide to mass killing, emphasising the importance of intentionality: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." 64 Sharing this view of the importance of physical extermination, philosopher Steven T. Katz and historian William D.

Rubinstein consider that no genocide occurred in North America because there is no evidence of the intentionality of physical destruction from the states in charge (the British, Spanish and French Empires first, and the United States after). Katz writes that "the greatest demographic disaster in history, the depopulation of the New world, for all its terror and death, was largely an unintended tragedy," a tragedy for which he blames pandemics, and which "was assuredly horrific, but it does not represent an instance of genocide, given the intentionalist requirement for the attribution of genocide: that the destruction be the result of conscious intent." 65 In Rubinstein's opinion, the intentions of American policies, either those of removal from tribal territories in the East to reservations in the West, or policies of assimilation, were benevolent:

Although the policy of the enforced removal of Indians to reservations came to symbolise Indian-white relations […] this policy was enacted in order to preserve Indian existence in some form, not, paradoxically, to destroy it. […] From the mid-nineteenth century, the American policy towards the Indians was hallmarked by an attempt to bring about Indian 'assimilation'. This policy deliberately attempted to eliminate 'all vestiges of their traditional tribal consciousness and classical forms of life, but did not entail either the physical destruction of the Indians or the elimination of an Indian consciousness. 66 In an article addressing comparative methodology in genocidal studies, historian David B.

MacDonald points out that the historiography of the Shoah and the recognition of this genocide have become so significant, both in genocidal studies and in mainstream society, that the word genocide itself became a direct and unavoidable reference to it. 67 The Shoah became the paradigm of a genocide. Moreover, he agrees with the definition of a genocide as a physical extermination.

Therefore, he condemns any attempt to have the IBS recognised as a genocide. According to him, trying to erase the difference between physical and cultural destruction trivialises the former. He also considers that framing history with the Shoah decontextualises the studied events and eventually misleads readers by pulling on their sympathy for the traumatic experiences of the Second World War. Nevertheless, in another article co-written with Graham Hudson, MacDonald and Hudson agree that calling the forced assimilation of the IBS by any other term than a cultural genocide would be minimising a crime, because the public concerned by the system was targeted as a group defined by its cultural identity, not as individuals. 68 Furthermore, MacDonald suggests the study of the consequences of alleged genocidal or cultural genocidal crimes in order to avoid problematic comparisons with the Shoah.

Ward Churchill wrote several books and articles advocating the recognition of genocides in

Native American history, and notably of the IBS as being guilty of genocide. To him, the original definition of Lemkin should prevail to assess allegations of theses crimes rather than the one of the U.N. convention which he deems reductive. In Kill the Indian, Save the Man, he also refers to Irving Louis Horowitz who noted that a "genocide is always and everywhere an essentially political decision;" building up on that idea, Churchill asserts that "to defend a policy is to defend what happens under its mantle; […] to make crimes possible is to be complicit in the very act(s) of their commission." 69 In this controversial book, he builds his argumentation on Lemkin's definition: first that a cultural genocide is a genocide, and second that a genocide is a two phase process. He analyses the IBS as having carried out policies of destruction and imposition of the Euro-American culture, and therefore concludes that the system is genocidal by essence. Moreover, he follows MacDonald's advice in examining the consequences of the IBS on the Native American population.

Nevertheless, he is often criticised for having a radical and biased stance, notably by MacDonald, who regrets the several parallels Churchill has drawn between the Shoah and the IBS. For instance, he states that the schools, with their military discipline, correspond to the definition of total institutions as much as concentration camps. 70 In A Little Matter of Genocide, he also calls (Transaction Books, 1976), 39; cited in Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man, 62. 70 "A leading expert on the topic [Erving Goffman] lists concentration camps, labor camps, prisons, mental hospitals "American holocaust" the massacres of Native Americans before the twentieth century and engages in a comparative measure of seriousness between genocides:

The American holocaust was and remains unparalleled, both in terms of its magnitude and the decree to which its goals were met, and in terms of the extent to which its ferocity was sustained over time by not one but several participating groups. 71 Moreover, he pushes Lemkin's stance by stating that cultural genocide is the central feature of the definition of genocide, and that any voice that fails to acknowledge the genocide perpetrated in the IBS is guilty of denial.

In an article about ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, Damir Mirković supports the definition of ethnocide as a genocide. 72 He contributes to the debate with his consideration of the term ethnic cleansing as a concept overlapping those of genocide and cultural genocide. According to him, ethnic cleansing is a process resulting in the physical destruction of a group: through the annihilation of its culture, it transforms the targeted group into second-class citizens who are "demonized," ostracised, and finally in the long-term physically erased from the territory -either because they leave it or through a demographical decrease. In the vision Mirković gives of ethnic cleansing, there is a physical destruction -or disappearance -without mass killing: in its broader meaning, it implies differential treatment and discrimination with a view to putting on pressure to comply, to emigrate, to give up and to assimilate, and in its narrower or restrictive meaning, it denotes destruction, which, through acts of terrorism, forceful relocation, and expulsion, leads ultimately to genocide. 73 As emphasised by Katz, Rubinstein, Churchill, and many others, the notion of intention is central to the one of genocide and to the debates it arouses. Katz claims that only the Shoah is a genocide, since he sees it as the sole occurrence of an actualised intent to physically destroy an entire human group:

When I argue for the uniqueness of the Holocaust I intend only to claim that the Holocaust is phenomenologically unique by virtue of the fact that never before has a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people. 74 The U.N. definition stresses the importance of intentionality, yet it is significant to remember that it and army barracks as salient examples of 'total institutions'"; cited in Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man, note 128, p. 92. 71 Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to Present (City Light Publishers, 1997), 4. 72 Damir Mirković, "Ethnic Conflict and Genocide: Reflections on Ethnic Cleansing in the Former Yugoslavia," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 548, The Holocaust: Remembering for the Future (Nov., 1996), 191-199. 73 Mirković, 197. 74 Steven T. Katz, "The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension," Is the Holocaust Unique?

Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, 3 rd ed., edited by Alan S. Rosenbaum (Westwiew Press, 2009), 55.

was written in the aftermath of the Second World War. As this quotation by Katz highlights, the industrial way in which the Shoah was made possible by Nazi policies is striking and emphasises the intentionality behind the process. However, what is significant in one case scenario might not be as important in another. Building up a definition from a particular case is therefore narrowing the possibility for different cases to be recognised.

In Missionary Conquest, George E. Tinker studied the lives of four missionaries in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. 75 He reports that all four were armed with good intentions in their goal at Christianising Native Americans, acting in their genuine faith for the salvation of human souls, but that genocidal results were nevertheless witnessed. This statement is enough to understand that Tinker supports the consideration of cultural and religious genocides as plain genocides. He argues that intentions should not be considered as a criterion to assess genocides, since "the conscious intent to destroy a people is not necessary for an act to be genocidal or for it to succeed in destroying." 76 In American Settler Colonialism, Hixson comes to a similar conclusion, arguing that the intention of genocide can be unconscious. He recalls that being animated by their faith in the "Manifest Destiny" doctrine, in their legitimacy in conquering lands inhabited by Native Americans, colonists perceived their actions positively. Therefore, Native American resistance was seen as a hindrance to what Hixson calls "their fantasies," and bound to be repressed:

By intruding into settler fantasies and disrupting their good works, the indigenous people were responsible for the consequences that followed -removal, destruction of their societies, death. In these ways fantasy, rationalization, narcissism, projection, and guilt permeated the conscious and unconscious mind of the colonizer, enabling genocidal violence as well as historical denial. 77 As they were studying Australian Aborigine history, Raymond Evans and Bill Thorpe developed in 2001 a new term which could offer a conclusion to the debate over the definitions of genocide and cultural genocide in Native American studies. 78 The term indigenocide was created to reflect the impact of settler-colonialism on native cultures, notably the consequences on the lives, the cultures and the land of Indigenous peoples like the Australian Aboriginal peoples. However, Evans notes that the term can apply to Native American history alike. It is significant to note that these two populations were subjected to forced assimilation in a strikingly similar way. The need to develop a new term came from their observation that the "formal genocide definition was both providing too little and demanding too much." 79 They defined indigenocide as follow:

First indigenocide usually occurs when an invading group intentionally invades and colonizes another group or groups who are the first peoples of that region, or who have proof of such origins.

Secondly, the invaders must conquer the Indigenes and maintain their advantages over them as long as is necessary or possible.

Thirdly, as conquerors, the invaders must kill sufficient numbers of Indigenes, or render their ways of sustaining meaningful life so difficult that they come close to extinction and may disappear altogether.

Fourthly, and this reinforces the actively genocidal aspects, the invaders must classify the Indigenes as "the lowest form of humanity," rather like Eichmann classified Jews as a "garbage nation," who deserve to be exterminated.

Fifthly, indigenocide, notably with Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, involves destroying, or attempting to destroy, Indigenous religious systems and imposing binaries between the material and spiritual realms. Above all, indigenocide implies in theory and practice that Indigenous people are less valued than the land they inhabit and which the invaders desire. 80

The third section, using the conjunction "or," indicates that intentional physical destruction is not required in the phenomenon of indigenocide. The emphasis is put on the intention of land expropriation -rather than of killing Indigenous people -which becomes such a high motive that it results in total indifference for the consequences falling upon the previous inhabitants.

Moreover, Evans and Thorpe purposely emphasise the link between life, culture and land which is fundamental to both Native American and Australian Aborigene cultures. The term indigenocide shows us that all previous definitions of genocide setting a hierarchy of importance between physical genocides and other forms, such as cultural, are deeply Eurocentric. Indeed, to consider that killing human bodies is above killing spirits or ecosystems is symptomatic of a Western mindset, and perpetuates a colonial disrespect for Indigenous animist cultures in which humans are part of a whole.

In

C-Links Between Colonialism and Genocide

The definition Evans and Thorpe wrote of indigenocide clearly refers to a context of settler colonialism: the perpetrators of the crime are called the "invaders" who "conquer," they intend to maintain their domination "as long as is necessary or possible," and their concern goes primarily to the possession of the land, disregarding the consequences of their actions on the "first peoples of that region." The fourth section of the definition, stating "actively genocidal aspects" to the crime, asserts a connection between the notions of colonialism and genocide.

Similarly, many other postcolonial authors pointed out direct links between colonialism and genocide, arguing that the latter is a strategical device to impose the former on the colonised populations. This sub-part will present their main arguments.

C.1. Domination and Destruction

Walter L. Hixson points out that settler colonialism, such as colonialism of occupation, was built on a Eurocentric vision of the world. This mindset was based on religious, social, racial and gender hierarchy. Associated with the Christian idea that Nature is meant to be at humans' disposal, these evolutionist and patriarchal conceptions legitimised White settler men in the conquest of land and Indigenous peoples because they allegedly were not "using" the land properly, that is to say they were not cultivating it, controlling it, and dominating it:

Eurocentric notions of racial superiority, progress, and providential destiny thus propelled settler colonialism. Europeans denied or derided "primitive" concepts of land use, creating a colonial binary between land wasted by indigenes and land mobilized for progress by settlers.

Framing indigenous people as indolent and wasteful justified removal and relocating them onto less desirable spaces.

[…] Competition, aggression, control, power, and other traits of colonialism were distinctly male. Settler colonies exalted manliness, and regeneration of manhood, as they subdued savage foes and "tamed the frontier". 82

This idea of European or Euro-American White men being entitled to the conquest of land and people connects domination and destruction. Daniel Feierstein reminds us that this Eurocentric supremacy, also based on the binary of "Others" versus "Us" as theorised by Edward Said, is socially constructed on the rejection of the "Other". 83 Nonetheless, as seen previously, the subjugation and destruction of Indigenous peoples in North America was not only motivated by their difference but primarily for the conquest of the land. Nayar's definition of settler colonialism, quoted previously in this study, adds that "settler colonialism is now seen as an extremely violent invasion, usually accompanied by the massacre and complete extermination of the local inhabitants, such as the aboriginals and the Native Americans -and this genocide-ethnocide is one of the central features of the settler colony." 84 It seems that settler colonialism and genocide are fundamentally intertwined.

Both Daniel Feierstein and John Docker recall that Raphael Lemkin explicitly made the connection between genocide and colonialism. In Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, he refers to the German "occupant," who "organized a system of colonization" in conquered territories. 85 Moreover, in the very definition of genocide, Lemkin writes about the "removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor's own nationals" when addressing the second phase of the process. 86 Furthermore, Feierstein provides the link with settler colonialism as well by pointing out that for the creator of the term "genocide," it "makes little difference whether the group is oppressed by a colonial power -as was generally the case in Lemkin's time -or by members of the same national group." 87 Even if the oppression does not fall within colonialism of ocupation, and even when settler colonialism is not acknowledged, a colonial dynamic of power can still take place within a nation, without the pressure of a foreign colonial empire, and result in genocidal practices. Because

Lemkin described genocide as a process made of two phases -rather than an event -which can occur over a lengthy period of time, the link with the process that is settler colonialism is salient.

During his research, Docker was given access to unpublished works Lemkin was working on before he died. He reports that the lawyer was studying this link between genocide and settler colonial societies, especially concerning the intentions behind the crime. He was analysing the history of the Americas, Southern Africa and Australia, and notably the Native American case. 88 Docker notes that for Lemkin, there was no doubt that Indigenous peoples of Northern America have been victims of a genocide.

When writing about the French colonial Empire imposing its civil code on Algerians in "Le colonialisme est un système," Jean-Paul Sartre identifies a process corresponding to the second phase of genocide as defined by Lemkin. The imposition of the colonists' national pattern in this case was motivated by land expropriation using the strategy of breaking the local social structure of collective property. Interestingly, although Sartre does not point out the link with genocide himself in that example, he uses the term "destroy the internal structures of Algerian society" to describe the process at stake, making the correspondence salient. 89 In the previous section, we have seen that the paradigm of a genocide is the Shoah, and that one of the first arguments opposed to the recognition of cultural genocides as genocides is that it trivialises the one perpetrated by the Nazis. In American Settler Colonialism, Hixson dismisses arguments concerning the Shoah such as those of MacDonald about the risks of trivialisation, or those of Katz about its uniqueness. Building up on Jürgen Zimmerer's and Carroll P. Kakel's work, he argues that although the Shoah indeed demonstrated unique features in its enforcement, all genocides do, since all were perpetrated in different places, different times, and different contexts. 90 He asserts that if the form of genocide adopted by the Nazis was extreme or radical, it is nonetheless part of the "broader history of colonial genocide." 91 He points out similarities between American and Nazi expansionisms, notably based on Kakel's book American West and Nazi East. In this book, the first to study in parallel these two episodes of expansionism in history, Kakel argues that both were "violent national projects of territorial expansion, racial cleansing and settler colonization." 92 She informs that Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler actually drew from the American westward expansion and the removal policies of Native Americans to the point that they referred to Slavic populations as "Redskins." The American and Nazi settler colonial projects were both based on land conquest and racial hierarchy, with "lethal consequences for alien out-groups." 93 Feierstein offers an explanation to understand why the Shoah has overshadowed all other possible forms of genocide in historiography and mainstream historical narratives, to the point that the nature of colonial genocide was not addressed until recently. He assumes that the reason is yet again Eurocentric: contrary to other modern colonial genocides, the socially constructed "Other" who was targeted by the Shoah was in the midst of the European population. It follows that the trauma of the crime was more acknowledged. 94 In an article titled "Le Génocide" in 1967, Jean-Paul Sartre asserts that cultural genocides are inherent in colonialism. 95 He writes that they are a necessary component of the system, meant to establish and maintain the colonists' domination:

In fact, colonisation is not just a simple conquest -as was the case in 1870 when Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine -it is necessarily a cultural genocide. One cannot colonise without systematically destroying the particular character of the natives, at the same time denying them the right of integration with the mother country and of benefiting from its advantages. 96 A few years before, in the preface to The Wretched of the Earth, Sartre wrote that dehumanisation of the colonised is necessary to install the domination at the foundation of the system. He states that the destruction of the colonised' culture, and the imposition of the colonists', is a way to achieve dehumanisation. Therefore, according to Sartre, forced assimilation is a colonial strategy to subjugate the colonised population and perpetrates a cultural genocide.

In Kill the Indian, Save the Man, Ward Churchill bases his argumentation on Sartre's observations to argue that genocide is inherent to colonialism -since he relies on Lemkin's definition that all forms of genocides are equally genocidal -which entails that to fight the former, one has no choice but to fight the latter. He goes further when he provocatively asserts there can be no moderate position in that political standard: "To be consciously antigenocidal, one must be actively anti-imperialist, and vice versa. To be in any way an apologist for colonialism is to be an active proponent of genocide." 97 Sartre, who appears to be Churchill's guide, wrote the essay "On Genocide" in order to determine if the U.S. was guilty of committing genocide in Vietnam. He considers the Vietnam war to be colonial because, unlike total wars, there is not a real possibility of reciprocity in strength from the opponent, therefore, Sartre argues that this war is only meant for the 93 Kakel, 7. 94 Feierstein, 35. 95 Jean-Paul Sartre, "Le Génocide," Les Temps Modernes, No. 259, (décembre 1967), republished in Situations VIII (Gallimard, 1972). U.S. to show the world its power in the Cold War context. He concludes his argumentation by charging the United States with the crime of genocide, and forges Churchill his model when he accuses any who will not denounce it of becoming their accomplice. 98 Daniel Feierstein points out a specificity to the process of genocide which could make its close link to colonialism more explicit. According to him, genocide is a process whose purpose is to change the oppressed group, but that ultimately transforms the whole society:

My contention is that modern genocides have been a deliberate attempt to change the identity of the survivors by modifying relationships within a given society. This is what sets modern genocide apart from earlier massacres of civilian populations, as well as from other processes of mass destruction. The fact that genocide has proved so effective in bringing about social changes -equaled only by revolutionary processes -suggests that it is not simply a spontaneous occurrence that reappears when historical circumstances are favorable. Rather, it is a process that starts long before and ends long after the actual physical annihilation of the victims. 99 The nature of genocide as a social modifier finds its logical use in the process of colonisation during which a group endeavours to assert domination over another, and constructs its relations in order to establish a system for its exclusive benefit. The quality of length of this process in time is also significant, in order to maintain domination. The development of several forms of genocide as defined by Lemkin is therefore relevant, since all these forms serve the same purpose of subjugation of the targeted people. Nevertheless, Feierstein refers to the French historian and political scientist Jacques Sémelin who differentiated only two types of destruction in his major work Purifier et détruire: one to subjugate, and the other to eradicate. 100 Sémelin attributes the former to crimes targeting victims for their political opposition, and the latter when aimed at ethnic or national groups. However he considers only destruction for eradication to fall into the category of genocide, which he reckons as physical extermination. It brings us back to the issue of differentiation between physical and other forms of genocide, but the distinction between subjugation and eradication is worthy of consideration. Moreover, the identification of genocides as social modifiers entails the study of their impact on the targeted population and the whole society, which opens many leads of research. 98 Sartre, On Genocide, 21. 99 Feierstein, 12. 100 Jacques Sémelin, Purifier et détruire: usages politiques des massacres et génocides (Éditions du Seuil, 2005).

C.2. The Logic of Elimination

Similarly to Sémelin's concept of destruction for eradication, Patrick Wolfe offers another perspective on the subject to step out of the issue of comparison with the Shoah. 101 In opposition to David MacDonald, Wolfe believes that this comparison belittles all other instances of genocides. He also regrets the use of compound terminologies as cultural genocide, ethnocide, indigenocide or politicide -when the victims are targeted for presenting political opposition to the dominant group -accusing them of "[devaluing] Indigenous attrition."102 Instead, Wolfe offers to talk about the logic of elimination, particularly in a context of settler colonialism. He argues that this kind of colonialism, being a complex social structure which continues in time, needs another term to refer to its inherent destructions targeting Indigenous peoples, but clearing itself of the word genocide.

Very simply, Wolfe defines the logic of elimination as "[requiring] the elimination of the owners of [the] territory, but not in any particular way."103 He adds that this open definition is larger than genocide, and therefore encompasses all of its forms.

Moreover, Wolfe argues that assimilation is to be considered as a mode of elimination, even more effective than "conventional" elimination through physical annihilation, since it is not illegal.

He judiciously points out that abiding by the rule of law is an ideology central to the cohesion of settler colonial society. If murder is frowned upon in most human civilisations, education, however forced, is enhanced. The goal of Native American forced assimilation was to "kill the Indian" in order to "save the man," although the killing was in the mind rather than in the flesh. It is indeed a form of elimination: a successful assimilation would result in the disappearance of a cultural distinct entity, of people identifying as Indigenous and of all Indigenous cultural and social practices and structures, whereas mass killings nearly always leave survivors who might strengthen their sense of identity in memory of the dead. Erich W. Steinman points out the idea as well, and that assimilation is used in settler colonialism in order to make the Indigenous group completely disappear, rather than to create a cultural hybridity merging both cultures. 104 Nevertheless, Wolfe continues his article by offering yet another term, structural genocide, as a substitute for genocide. He claims that this phrase would solve the issue of degree between the different forms of genocide, and therefore the hierarchy between victims, while keeping the specificities of settler colonialism. This statement by Wolfe is unclear as it contradicts his previous assertion about hyphenated genocides, but the notion of genocide as structural to society is fruitful and corroborates Feierstein's idea of genocide as a social modifier.

In his article "On Genocide," Jean-Paul Sartre contributes to the debate concerning cultural genocides asserting that they turn out to be more useful to colonial societies than physical elimination. 105 According to him, killing the colonised population would basically suppress colonisation altogether, because colonists would deprive themselves of cheap man-power, and of a population to assert their superiority on. Thus, colonised populations are protected from total physical extermination by their economic value. It also implies that other forms of genocide are to be endeavoured in order to maintain the domination, and eliminate any resistance to it, hence the cultural genocidal policies.

However, in settler colonies Indigenous peoples were rarely exploited as cheap labour, or at least that was not the primary goal of their subjugation, they were rather killed or forcefully relocated and assimilated. Nevertheless, as Hixson points out, "class tensions, closely intertwined with race, played out in colonial encounters."106 Not only land expropriations were fundamentally economical, but the "visual othering of indigenous population" also played a role in the implementation of social hierarchy: poor whites and indentured servants would always feel socially more advanced than Native Americans and slaves. However exploited, they could boast of belonging to the "master" race, and dream of social mobility. Therefore, elimination of Native Americans, whether physical or cultural, contributed to the whole society. As Wolfe and Feierstein point out, this elimination is structural. Furthermore, Steinman notes that settler colonisation aims at creating a new version of the home country in another territory, which entails the erasure of Indigenous presence and even traces, hence the absence in mainstream historiography as noticed previously. For that reason, if colonialism of occupation is based on labour exploitation, Steinman points out that settler colonisation builds its domination through substitution or elimination. 107 Other forms of elimination are examined by Katherin Elinghaus in the article she wrote about "biological absorption." She asserts this phenomenon was purposefully undertaken in the Australian and American settler societies during what she calls the "assimilation period" -although she unfortunately does not date this period. She describes biological absorption as the intention to eliminate Indigenous peoples through demographic decrease, notably caused by interracial relationships. 108 Elinghaus states that this phenomenon stands at the frontier between cultural and physical eliminations -albeit it appears to perfectly correspond to what Lemkin contemplated in the notion of biological genocide.

In the first chapter of Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, Andrea Smith examines sexual strategies deployed during the process of colonisation. She asserts that rape was turned into a tool of colonisation targeting people and land: "The project of colonial sexual violence established the ideology that Native bodies are inherently violable -and by extension, that Native lands are also inherently violable."109 This strategy makes the link between colonialism and patriarchy all the more salient. It also ultimately participates in the phenomenon of biological absorption, although it is certainly not the primary intention of rapists.

The other form of elimination noticed by Elinghaus also partakes in the phenomenon. The use of blood quantum has been common since the nineteenth century in the United States, but was only legalised along the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. Blood quantum determines the amount of Native American blood of an individual, based on the number of tribal members one has in one's ancestry. It still regulates today the right of tribal land ownership, among other prerogatives. A certain amount of "Indian blood" is necessary to claim that social status. Mixed descendants can see their rights to inherit tribal lands from their parents and their membership of Native tribes denied if the amount of "Indian blood" is deemed insufficient. Thus, this requirement is yet again a strategy for land expropriation. As previously evoked to illustrate biological genocides, M. Annette Jaimes deems that blood quantum falls in a "strategy of elimination," as explained by Elinghaus, since it involves a decrease of demography based on the recognition of tribal membership. 110 The logic of blood quantum operates in opposition to the "one drop rule" which deals with the identification of Black people in the United States. According to that rule, only one African or African American ancestor is enough to qualify a person as Black. The rule originates from the beginning of the twentieth century, but this difference of treatment between African Americans and Native Americans dates back to slavery. If reducing the Indigenous demography was serving the project of land expropriation, increasing the slave demography was economically profitable. Both systems serve racists ideologies and the domination of the Caucasian population. Moreover, the use of blood quantum defends and celebrates the notion of race. It introduced a racial criterion in the process of tribal affiliation, which traditionally did not refer lineage to blood but to the investment of an individual in the community and its culture -inter-tribal and inter-racial adoptions were common for instance. Therefore, the logic of blood quantum arguably participates in both biological and cultural genocides, according to Lemkin's definition.

However, many controversies arise from the blood quantum issue. Because the recognition of tribal membership is based on tribal documents, and because the criteria for recognition of membership vary among Native American nations, the control over blood quantum laws can arguably play into Native Americans' favour. Nevertheless, this issue divides Native American communities and families themselves.

To consider settler colonial damages caused against Indigenous peoples as part of a logic of elimination is Wolfe's suggestion to end debates over terminologies and definitions concerning genocides. However, as long as the legislative recognition of the crime only considers physical destruction, debates can never be resolved: as seen in this first part, scholars of social sciences quarrel because of incongruous social and legal definitions. The question of the hegemony of physical genocide is problematic, as well as the lack of consideration for the continuity in time of settler colonialism in the legislation.

The importance of intention is however common to all definitions. Although some, as Sartre, claim that only the impacts are relevant, the law and scholars alike emphasise the necessity of proving intention to recognise a genocide. In 1974, the French anthropologist Pierre Clastres published an article about ethnocide. 111 In this essay, he opposes the common conception that ethnocentrism is the basis of ethnocide arguing that every civilisation is ethnocentric: he points out that nearly all Indigenous societies name themselves "Humans" or "People" -such as the Inuit people, or the Guaranis -and without fail designate other civilisations with pejorative names.

Therefore, he argues that if ethnocentrism was the foundation of ethnocide, then every civilisation would be ethnocidal. Yet, Clastres asserts that in the modern world, only the Western culture is. He claims that the reason why Indigenous cultures are not ethnocidal is because they do not have state structures, unlike Western civilisation. 112 According to him, the essence of states is to reduce alterity, and bring unity and homogeneity, hence it is fundamentally ethnocidal. Furthermore, he examines the Inca Empire, organised as a state. He states that it was also an ethnocidal civilisation, but only when facing resistance: when its authority was respected, the empire tolerated difference. Clastres notes that only the modern Western civilisation developed a boundless genocidal capacity.

According to him, it is the industrial and capitalist system that is to blame, in which the greed for land justifies any domination:

What differentiates the Western hemisphere is capitalism, as in the impossibility of staying below a frontier, as in the necessity to conquer […]. The industrial society is the greatest mechanism of production, and consequently the most terrifying mechanism of destruction. Races, societies, people ; land, nature, seas, forests, subsoils: everything is useful, everything must be used, everything must be productive, a productivity driven to its full capacity. 113 Clastres shows us yet again the connection between the conquest of land, domination, and destruction.

The importance of intentionality behind the crime of genocide, and Clastres' attention to state structures, emphasise the relevance of studying the policies that lead to the oppression of Indigenous peoples in order to evaluate their genocidal propensity. Intentionality is made salient by the institution of these policies, and in the case of systemic oppression against racial minorities, can reveal the perpetuation of colonial binary powers. Therefore, the second part of this thesis will examine the policies which controlled the Indian Boarding School system in the first half of the twentieth century in the light of the analyses of this first part.

The American Indian Boarding School (AIBS) system did not initiate the process of forced assimilation. The very first boarding school was opened in Cuba, in 1568, by Spanish missionaries. 1 Many more were established in the American colonies and in the United States in order to Christianise and civilise Native Americans, according to racist and evolutionist ideologies as explained in the introduction of this thesis. What is under study in this second part is the system of schools operated by the federal government of the United States and designed specifically for Native American children. This responsibility taken by the federal government is revealing and helpful to understand the dynamic of power maintained with Indigenous peoples in the first half of the twentieth-century.

The federal management of the AIBS started in 1879 -with the opening of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, Pennsylvania, under the direction of Captain Richard Henry Pratt -and ended in the 1980s. In the nineteenth century, Native Americans were considered as "wards" of the state, but from 1924 on, they became American citizens.2 Nonetheless, their education was still managed by the BIA, while the rest of the population's federal education was operated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In the first half of the twentieth-century, the IBS system was the target of much criticism, from Native American communities and federal official reports alike. Two periods of important reform marked its history, in a "pendulum movement," as phrased by Anne Garrait-Bourrier and Monique Venuat, due to their contradictory ideologies: the "Indian New Deal" from 1933 to the Second World War attempted to ease the process of forced assimilation of the initial system, notably by implementing new methods of instruction more respectful of Indigenous cultures and by stopping the forced removal of children from their families; after the Second World War, the "Termination" era returned to assimilationist policies in an effort to cease the specificities of status the Native American citizens had -such as the system of reservation -which were then considered as undue privileges preventing them from achieving real equality within American society.3

A-The Meriam Report and the Indian New Deal Era

In 1924 the institution was still run in the same way that it had been established forty-five years before. The details of the system as it was originally implemented have been the subject of many studies, therefore this thesis will only review some specific features from the first phase of the system, relevant to the question of a relentless colonial mindset and of a logic of elimination. [START_REF] Lawrence | Source: The Kansas Memory[END_REF] The first trait of the system still decried today as paramount in the oppression of Indigenous peoples was the forced removal of children. The institution was also attacked for its strict military discipline, for its exploitation of children labour through vocational and industrial training and for the dire health and welfare conditions. In 1928, the publication of The Problem of Indian Administration, better known as the Meriam Report, pointed out these issues and advocated drastic changes of the system. During the Great Depression, the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt led to the New Deal policies in the United States, mirrored in a decade of reforms in the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the federal management of Indigenous populations, and notably of the IBS system. Led by the new Commissioner of the BIA John Collier, these policies aimed at ending the forced character of previous assimilation, but not stopping the assimilation altogether.

A.1. Ideological Changes

Starting from 1891, the Commissioner of the BIA was authorised by Congress ratification to impose the enrolment of children, from the age of four, in boarding schools. [START_REF]National Archives at Denver[END_REF] States had started to make schooling compulsory for American children in the 1850s -from 1852 in Massachusetts first, to 1917 with Mississippi being the last state to pass a school compulsory law -but Native Americans were not then United States citizens. Parents who refused to send their offspring to school could face imprisonment: nineteen Hopi men were incarcerated in Alcatraz in 1895 for that reason. 6 Céline Planchou argues that the 1887 General Allotment Act indirectly served as a census of the Native American population, which facilitated the removal of children and permitted retaliation for resistance. 7 This forced removal of children is often used in reference to the fifth criterion of the U.N.'s definition of genocide as the most evident proof of genocidal practices concerning the IBS.8 Adams notes that the reluctance of Native Americans to comply with the program was interpreted as a proof of racial inferiority, of their inability to understand what was in their best interests. Therefore, even resistance was interpreted as attesting the necessity for this type of education by the dominant group.

Adams draws a list of the IBS' aims: firstly, to provide the rudiments of an academic education (the three 'Rs': reading, writing and arithmetic); secondly, to individualise Native American children; thirdly, to Christianise them; and finally, to train them for citizenship. 9 With the exception of the first point, these goals are at the core of the settler colonial enterprise, and correspond perfectly to Lemkin's definition of a cultural genocide, as developed in the first part of this thesis. Along with the 1887 General Allotment Act, the IBS was implemented to destroy the tribal structure, and replace it with the settlers' "national pattern," as phrased by Lemkin, which makes this system consistent with his definition of the second phase of genocidal processes. Tribal collective ownership of land was the main hindrance to settler colonial expansion. Individualisation was therefore the key to breaking tribalism.

The collective social structure of Native American tribalism stands against the ideology of meritocracy upon which the American nation is built. The latter is an ideology constituted of individualism and hard work, and materialised by wealth and property. Adams refers to William Torey Harris -an educator and philosopher who served as Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906 -who detailed this ideology at the Lake Mohonk Conference in 1883. 10 Harris described the American civilisation as being constituted of the doctrines of individualism, industry, private property and Christian values based on morality and the ideal of the nuclear family. He encouraged Native Americans to abandon the tribal collective structure and embrace the identification of an "independent citizen" that he deemed superior. In Indian Self-Rule, Kenneth R. Philp edited the interventions of a three-day conference held in Idaho in 1983 reviewing the federal Indian policies of the twentieth century and their impacts on Indigenous populations. Russel Jim (Yakima), a tribal leader from the Northwest, participated in the conference. During his intervention, he proved the discrepancy between the two ideologies continued in the late twentieth-century: "I would also like to refer to the issue of unemployment. Politicians, whether they are running for mayor or president of the United States, always stress the need for employment. This imposes a different value system upon a food-gathering people. The emphasis on getting a job and earning that almighty dollar contributes to greed. It is called the 'Great American Way '." 11 This antagonism contributed to the perception of Native Americans as being lazy and uncivilised. Therefore, to educate them towards hard work and self-sufficiency, the IBS dispensed vocational and industrial training in addition to basic instruction. As mentioned in the introduction, Adams asserts that this training in blacksmithing, shoemaking, or most of all farming, resulted in child exploitation as it often represented the school's main revenues. Moreover, he points out that only low-class professions could result from this education. This economic exploitation, and above all this social class prejudice, align the IBS in the economic logic of a colonial system as explained by Sartre. Notwithstanding, in her PhD thesis, in which she compares the Canadian and American IBS, Charlotte Leforestier reports that this vocational training was typical of the nineteenth century education provided to the lower social classes, because 90% of the population made a living from industrial low-skilled jobs. 12 She notes that a similar education was given to African Americans and immigrants, but she remarks that contrary to Native Americans, the results were largely positive for these two groups of population. Leforestier concludes from these observations that the difference in results can be explained by the forced character of the assimilation Native Americans received.

Moreover, the other two groups were not forced to be schooled in institutions like the IBS.

The structure of the boarding schools itself, with its military discipline and the estrangement from families, is discussed at length in all the studies available on the system. David Wallace Adams and Ward Churchill refer to Erving Goffman's definition of "total institutions" to criticise the IBS. 13 According to the sociologist, total institutions have four fundamental characteristics: first, "all aspects of life (eating, sleeping, playing, working, learning) are conducted in the same place and under the same single authority;" second, "each phase of a member's daily activity is carried out in the immediate company of a large batch of others, all of whom are treated alike and required to do the same thing together;" third, "all phases of the day are tightly scheduled […], the whole circle of activities being composed from above through a system of explicit, formal rules and a body of officials;" and finally, "the contents of the various enforced activities are brought together as parts of a single overall, rational plan purportedly designed to fulfil the official aims of the institution."

Goffman lists concentration camps, mental hospitals, army barracks, work camps and prisons as total institutions. According to Adams and Churchill, the IBS conforms to this definition. However, it seems paradoxical that an institution meant to instil individualism into its students relied so much actually a tool for colonialism, as its real goal was subjugation and control, in order to eliminate the resistance Native Americans opposed to settler colonialism. In Boarding School Blues, the editors highlight in the introduction that instruction had already been provided for several centuries in order to educate, Christianise and civilise Native Americans. Hence, the take over of education by the federal government and its institutionalisation into an oppressive system means the operation was indeed mainly about asserting power. 14 In the late 1920s, the third generation of students was leaving the IBS, and the institution's results could begin to be overviewed. Many students returned to live on reservations among their families, which was considered by the BIA as a failure regarding the goal of assimilation. Donald A.

Grinde, Jr. indicates that federal authorities blamed Native Americans' inadequacy to any form of civilised education, rather than questioning the system. 15 Adams and Leforestier note that former students, having lost touch with their culture, were unequipped for tribal life, but struggled as well to live among Whites where they had to face racism. The most striking sign of cultural loss was the imposition of Anglo-Saxon names and the loss of Native languages. It follows that former students were going through identity crises and found themselves in a state of "cultural in-betweenness."

Cultural in-betweenness is a concept which describes the situation of an individual who shares values with different cultures. Sociologist Robert E. Park writes that second generations of immigration are most likely to experience the phenomenon, and refers to them as "marginal [men]."

He describes the marginal man as someone who appeared [as] a new type of personality, namely, a cultural hybrid, a man living and sharing intimately in the cultural life and traditions of two distinct peoples; never quite willing to break, even if he were permitted to do so, with his past and his traditions, and not quite accepted, because of racial prejudice, in the new society in which he now sought to find a place. 16 He states that the two cultures of the individual are in conflict but argues that a positive aspect is to be found in this position that he deems superior, thanks to the outlook on society that belonging to two cultures provides. However, sociologist Everett V. Stonequist opposes that being at the margin of society is rather a hindrance to integration, and that the marginal man is likely to experience rejection from either or both cultures he connects with. 17

This state of in-betweenness was actually praised by many former students. Élise

Marienstras warns against a Manichaean vision of the institution, as she points out that many of the first generation students supported the assimilation system. [START_REF] Patty | giving the Red Power salute moments after being removed from Alcatraz Island[END_REF] Among them the student Ota Ktewhose name means 'Plenty Kill' -better known as Luther Standing Bear (Lakota) endeavoured to write his autobiography to advocate granting all Native Americans United States citizenshiphowever, the book was only published in 1928, four years after the act was passed. 19 He was one of the few Native Americans from the last generation who grew up in a traditional way and who was educated in boarding schools -he went to Carlisle, under Pratt's supervision. It follows that he became an advocate of cultural change from this position between both cultures. Ota Kte tells how he spent his adult life using his position as a "marginal man" to help his people navigate American culture. Marienstras highlights that although these former students upheld assimilation, they defended the need to find a way for their peoples to evolve in American society without losing touch with their own cultures.

The late 1920s were marked by a change in ideologies, from evolutionism to culturalism.

Culturalism developed in the 1930s in opposition to the determinism presupposed by evolutionism.

According to the culturalist theory, cultural habits of upbringing are the predominant influence on the personality of individuals. This theory refutes the idea of hierarchy between races and cultures.

The sociologist Frank W. Blackmar epitomises this shift. He published two articles about Native American assimilation: Indian Education in 1892, and Socialization of American Indians in 1929. 20 In the first article, Blackmar expresses the canonic opinion of the time from an evolutionist point of view, that is to say that Native Americans had no choice but to assimilate or disappear, to evolve from savagism to civilisation through education. He considers it to be the Anglo-Saxon race's duty to help them achieve this process:

The fundamental processes of education of any race may be carried on in one or more of the following three modes of development: 1. That of self-development and self-determination. 2. The process of imitation. 3. Compulsory activity.

[…] The Indian is not, then, in a condition at present for the self-determining principles to develop unaided by outside influences. In imitation he has not made rapid progress.

In the 1929 article, however, Blackmar relies on culture to explain the discrepancy in evolution towards civilisation and individualism between Native Americans and Whites. He does not consider Indigenous peoples to be inferior any longer. Blackmar regrets the situation of dependency on government assistance in which they are, which he blames on decades of strict and unjust policies preventing them from managing their own affairs. He advocates providing a similar education to Native Americans and to Whites, and ultimately joining them together in school, thus reaching the peak of socialisation.

The first of Blackmar's articles was published a year after enrolments in the IBS were made compulsory. His second article was issued a year after the publication of the famous Meriam

Report. It seems safe to say that Blackmar was reflecting the ideologies of his time.

In 1925, the Interior Secretary Hubert Work appointed the Institute for Government

Research to investigate Indian Affairs. A survey team of ten experts in various fields (legislation, economic, health, education, agriculture, etc.), led by Lewis Meriam, scrutinized the BIA and Native American reservations for three years. In 1928, the report was published under the title The Problem of Indian Administration, but is known as the Meriam Report. [START_REF]The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia[END_REF] The report concluded in identifying two main problems to current Indian Affairs: firstly that Native Americans were excluded from the management of their own affairs, and secondly the poor quality of services provided to them, especially concerning health and education. Although the survey team was not meant to particularly focus on the IBS, their observations on the system were alarming to the point that they made it the main issue presented by the report, and the most pressing subject among the reforms they recommended the government undertake.

The report notably targets the exploitation of children through vocational training: "The term 'child labor' is used advisedly. The labor of children as carried on in Indian boarding schools would, it is believed, constitute a violation of child labor laws in most states."22 Moreover, it condemns the enrolment of children at such a young age, who were therefore expected to attend industrial work even when they were physically not able to. Above all, disastrous health conditions -sanitary and nutritional -are denounced. Malnutrition is described as common to most schools, in spite of the common use of farming as vocational training. The mortality rate among students was also alarming, due to the spread of highly contagious diseases -such as measles, influenza, and especially tuberculosis, incurable at the time -but also due to mistreatment, which was not addressed in the report. 23 Furthermore, the quality of the instruction provided is criticised, mainly in regard to the low salary granted compared to the significant amount of work expected from IBS staff members, and a lack of training. Finally, methods are deemed retrograde and the military discipline condemned. The report played a decisive role in the institution's history, by actively introducing the culturalist theory in the system:

it is the task of education to help the Indian, not by assuming that he is fundamentally different, but that he is a human being very much like the rest of us, with a cultural background quite worth while for its own sake and as a basis for changes needed in adjusting to modern life. Moreover, it is essential for those in charge of education for the Indian to remember that the Indian's attitudes towards society have been determined largely by his experiences, and that these can, wherever necessary, be changed to desirable social attitudes by exposing him to a corresponding set of right experiences in the relationships of home, family, and community life.

A normal human attitude toward the Indian boy and girl in school and toward Indian parents as human beings not essentially different from the rest of us, is justified by the evidence and is indispensable for teachers and others who direct Indian education. 24 As this excerpt shows, a new respect for Native American cultures is contemplated, and the report suggests to base education on them. Nevertheless, assimilation is still presented as the ultimate goal:

the paternalistic vision of Native Americans-Whites relations persists in the alleged necessity to abandon the traditional tribal ways of life and to adopt the "right experiences" that constitute "modern life." It follows that the Meriam Report advocates reformation of the IBS, but not their closure. However, it calls for the enrolment of children in day schools rather than boarding schools whenever possible, especially for younger children. Moreover, it recommends involving Native Americans in the management of their own affairs -including the boarding schools.

As a result of the publication, reforms on the IBS started as early as 1928. In Education and the American Indian, Margaret Connell Szasz details the federal policies undertaken concerning the IBS system, starting from that year.25 She writes that between 1928 and 1933, twelve boarding schools were closed. Nonetheless, the institution recorded an increase in pupils during that period due to a demographic growth and to the Great Depression. The financial crisis brought the government to reduce the funds allowed to the system, which forced some facilities to close and to dispatch their students in others. It also postponed the construction of day schools on reservations as planned following the Meriam Report, due to lack of funding. Moreover, more families sent their offspring to join the system, hoping they would receive a better nutrition there than on reservation.

Szasz highlights the determining role the Great Depression played in the ideological changes of the 1930s and the 1940s. This period of financial collapse put the notion of superiority of the American society to shame. 26 She argues that the supremacy of the individualistic mindset gave way to the consideration of other political systems, such as communism and socialism, as well as more tolerance towards other cultures, such as Native Americans. This change was materialised by the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the enactment of the New Deal policies he led.

These measures found their counterpart in the federal management of Native American affairs:

Native American studies have called the period between 1933 and 1945 the "Indian New Deal." The most notable accomplishment of that period is the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 -which is the amended version of the Wheeler Howard Bill. The act was primarily designed to improve the economic conditions of Indigenous peoples. Its main objective was to rescind the General Allotment

Act by focusing on land: unoccupied territories were returned to Native tribes, and funds were allocated for further tribal purchases, which resulted in millions of acres being added to the reservations. Furthermore, the writing of constitutions and charters was encouraged by this law in order to restore to Native American nations the power to manage their internal affairs. Over 160 tribes adopted written constitutions under the act's provisions. This aspect of the act represents the first step toward the struggle for tribal sovereignty and the first counter power to the assimilationist policies of the nineteenth century. Education was only addressed in section eleven of the act with regard to its budget. More federal funds were granted to recruit the staff, and the employment of Native Americans within the institution itself was encouraged, such as in the position of superintendent of boarding schools -albeit not in high positions within the BIA. With regard to the reversal of the General Allotment Act, the blood quantum principle was made official through the Indian Reorganization Act, as was discussed in the first part of this thesis. However, the original intention was to protect tribal lands from being purchased by non-Native American individuals with the imperative to attest tribal affiliation.

Benjamin Reifield (Lakota Sioux) is a former congressman of South Dakota, who became Commissioner of the BIA under the Ford presidency in 1976. In Philp's edited book, he remembers how the 1934 act gave him hope:

I was impressed with the opportunities outlined in the Wheeler Howard bill. I thought, "We are going to stop the sale and the loss of our lands. We are going to get an educational program so kids can go on to colleges and universities and trade schools." The bill also provided an opportunity to get some money to buy land. There was a loan program to improve agricultural industries. All of this sounded extremely exciting to me. I went back to the reservation and started studying the bill. The superintendent was very supportive of my going around and explaining this bill in our own Lakota language. 27 Opening the era of the Indian New Deal, this law promised to have a concrete and significant in 1933. 28 He applied himself to transforming one of the most famous AIBS, which had built its reputation of success on its athletic programs, its strict military severity, and its very low rate of "relapses" -that is to say former students returning to the tribal ways -into a school which would train future Indigenous leaders. In the new curriculum, itself designed for the IBS by the BIA, Native American history, languages, and arts were introduced. Moreover, the ban on the practice of Native religions was lifted, and students were permitted to go home for religious ceremoniesprovided that they could afford it. In order to strengthen communities, the reforms also planned the construction of more day schools on reservations for younger children, saving the enrolment in boarding schools for the late primary level and secondary level pupils. Furthermore, the enrolment in IBS ceased to be compulsory. However, not all reservations were provided with day schools, or they did not always cover the secondary level. Therefore, the IBS often remained the only option for education of many families. Nevertheless, it increased again during wartime: many day schools were closed due to a cut in federal funds, and boarding schools became once again a choice for families that struggled to feed their children in times of scarcity. The clear preference shown by Native American families in the 1930s for day schools instead of the IBS can be interpreted as a rejection of the system generations of parents had known, when they were offered an alternative. 29 Szasz also observes a great increase in the enrolment in public schools from 1930 to 1970 at the expense of federal schools: she counts 39 percent of Native American children in federal schools in 1930 for 53 percent in public schools. She writes that by 1970 the public school enrolment had jumped to 65 percent as against 26 percent in federal schools. This phenomenon and the decrease in boarding school enrolment rates can be explained, according to the decade, by a rejection of the federal educational system from Indigenous people, and by urban exodus -there were no public schools on reservations. Moreover, Charlotte Leforestier writes that the reformists of the Indian New Deal helped facilitate the enrolment in public schools to favour the integration of pupils into American society as well as to limit the construction of new facilities while closing some IBS. [START_REF] Wolf | Principal Chief of the Kiowas[END_REF] It falls in line with the goal of the reforms and with financial reasons. According to Leforestier, attending public school was not easy: first of all, Native Americans living on reservations did not pay local taxes, thus they were often rejected from attending institutions that were funded by these taxes -the same reason was invoked in several states to prevent them from 29 Figures for the years 1929, 1938 and 1946 voting. Therefore, families had to cover the expenses themselves, or the BIA had to bid for an agreement with the schools. The federal funds that would be provided to help students enrol in public schools were funds that would have otherwise been granted to federal schools. It follows that IBS superintendents were likely to exert pressure to attract the enrolment of students in their facilities, and that mainly the richer families had the privilege of choosing where to send their children and to avoid the IBS. Moreover, Commissioner William A. Brophy, who succeeded Collier in 1945, counts in the 1946 annual report that more than 75 percent of the Native American children enrolled in public schools that year were racially recognised as "mixed-bloods," while 73 percent of those attending federal schools were classified as "full bloods." 31 Hypotheses can be put forward based on these economic and racial criteria concerning the representations of the two educations at the time. These statistics can be interpreted as a sign of success of the assimilationist policies before and during the Indian New Deal which encouraged Native Americans to integrate into mainstream American society. It can also be argued that integrated racism as well as class prejudices have played roles in the vision of an education among Whites in public schools as socially more prestigious than federal schools designed for Native Americans.

Notwithstanding the respectful intentions of cross-cultural education towards Indigenous cultures, the reality of the reformed IBS under the Indian New Deal did not live up to the expectations of the reformers or of the public. For example, although the enrolment of younger children in IBS was not forced any more, and even discouraged, Elliott Tallchief shares in the documentary film Unseen Tears that he started to attend the Thomas Indian School in 1945 at the age of five -a boarding school in the western state of New York which was first opened as a missionary school in 1855 and was closed in 1957. 32 Szasz points out three reasons behind the failure of the Indian New Deal's educational policies. 33 The main cause, she argues, comes from the IBS staff members -mainly the teachers. The reforms meant to drastically modify methods of education that had been the norm for sixty years in the system, and over a century in American society. Mentalities and habits were hard to change. The second reason, according to her, is that the program was too ahead of its time. Therefore the means to efficiently apply it were not ready: training in the new methods for professors were not sufficient, bilingual teachers were not yet 66 trained, and bilingual tools of education had yet to be created. These tools were not easily made for the use of classrooms: not all Native languages have an alphabet. Finally, the context of the Great Depression limited financial resources. Nevertheless, training for teachers was launched in the late 1930s, but all of the Indian New Deal efforts for reform were brutally stopped by the Second World War.

Moreover, Margaret Connell Szasz notes that progressive education was still based on the principle of individual learning and competition, ultimately leading to an individualisation of the student. Consequently, she explains, the method was criticised in the 1940s for interfering with the intentions of cross-cultural education, and as a threat to Native American moral values. In his writings, Dewey had defended progressive education by asserting that individualisation was the path to freedom, but this consideration is rooted in the 1920s Euro-American culture. 34 Nevertheless, she nuances her review on the results of the methods by stating that if cross-cultural education overall failed to achieve its goals as a curriculum, the increase of enrolments in day schools had similar effects to those intended since children were raised by their families within their communities while attending federal schools. Professor Floyd A. O'Neil, former director of the American West Center at the University of Utah, was born in 1927 on the Uintah-Ouray Indian Reservation, Utah. In Philp's edited book Indian Self-Rule, he remembers how the system was considered at the time: When I was a child growing up on an Indian reservation, the 1930s was considered, by comparison with earlier decades, a very good time to be in an Indian school. Beatings were less frequent, and children of tender years were not removed without their parents' consent to Indian schools at a far distance.

The word assimilation was not an abstract, remote concept. Rather, it was an active philosophy, with tremendous power to break up families and even to take the lives of children. For the death rate of Indian children was much higher than that of the general population. Whether you read the records of the Indian school at Fort Lewis, Colorado or the Teller Institute at Grand Junction, Colorado or the Stewart Indian school at Carson City, Nevada or a great number of others, the sad stories of sending the children's bodies home are characteristics of the correspondence which have always left me depressed. 35 In spite of the attempts at positive change, this testimony shows that if mistreatment was reduced, it was still very common. The poor health conditions in the institutions were targeted by the reforms, but these were not sufficient to stop the alarming mortality rates. Adding to the context of Depression and of World War which stopped the Indian New Deal, Benjamin Reifield contemplates the reasons why the policies did not deliver the hopes he had: "As I look back over the fifty years, there is nothing in the Indian Reorganization Act that harms any Indian tribe or any Indian individual who has property. But, as John Collier said, 'Even the finest social piece of legislation can be made completely useless by bad administration. '" 36 The IBS reforms of the Indian New Deal stopped the forced removal of children. Therefore, according to the United Nations' definition of a genocide, the system was not operating genocidal practices any longer. 37 The attempt at a cross-cultural and bilingual education -however arguably poorly delivered -denotes the abandonment of cultural genocidal intentions as well. Moreover, the return of lands from the government to Native nations and the writing of their constitutions indicates a decline of the settler colonial mindset. Nevertheless, the reality in the IBS was hard to change, and did not always reflect the intentions of the policies. Therefore, the impacts of the system were still weighing heavily on the population. Furthermore, even if Native Americans had gained the opportunity to work as civil servants in the IBS as teachers or superintendents, higher positions in the BIA were strictly male and White.

A.3. White Saviours

In 1933, the newly elected President Roosevelt appointed a new Commissioner at the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to enact the policies of the Indian New Deal. John Collier (1884-1968) was a sociologist and writer. Before the First World War, he was a community worker at the social organisation the People's Institute, in the state of New York. There, he developed programs for immigrant neighbourhoods, in which pride in traditional cultures was emphasised. In 1920, he moved to New Mexico where he encountered the Taos Pueblo tribe of the Pueblo Nation. Collier studied the history and current life of the tribe, and came to the conclusion that assimilationist policies were destroying Indigenous cultures. In 1922, he became the research agent of the Indian Welfare Committee for the General Federation of Women's Clubs. He used this position to oppose forced assimilation as well as the continuous dispossession of lands under the policy of the 1887 General Allotment Act. Collier founded the American Indian Defence Association in 1923 to provide legal support to Native tribes, and served the organisation for a decade as an executive secretary. In spite of this political commitment against forced Americanisation, Collier was still proassimilation regarding Native Americans. He believed that a balance could be attained between assimilation and cultural preservation. In the editorial of an issue of the periodical Indians at Work, Collier wrote that "assimilation and preservation and intensification of heritage are not hostile choices, excluding one another, but are interdependent through and through." 38 In Education and the American Indian, Margaret Connell Szasz details the reforms enacted during the Indian New Deal as mainly emanating from these three civil servants, and emphasising their persona and determinations. She particularly highlights the dynamism and creativity of the duo composed by Collier and Beatty, portraying two visionary leaders, to the point of using a laudatory rhetoric. This can be witnessed for example in her description of Beatty: "As a Progressive educator, humanist, and dynamic leader, he remolded the Education Division as far as was humanly possible;" or of Collier's methods: "The success of the cross-cultural education program for Indian Service teachers, one of the most innovative ideas developed in the 1930s, was partially due to the addition of anthropologists to the Indian Bureau staff. John Collier's decision to employ anthropologists was revolutionary."39 Hiring anthropologists in the BIA was indeed an innovative move following decades of brutal forced assimilation, which needs to be added to Collier's credit.

Nonetheless, Szasz fails to point out that using this top-down approach even when trying to understand the public they were working for, rather than inviting the Native nations to partocipate in the decision making, denotes a persistence of the consideration of Indigenous peoples as the "Other," whose understanding requires mediation. That being said, the historian does acknowledge the ongoing paternalism of the BIA under Collier's supervision: "The fundamental problem with the Indian New Deal, like that of all earlier administrations, was that it maintained a paternalistic control over the lives of the Indian people." 40 Furthermore, she also addresses the lack of involvement offered to Indigenous tribes when comparing later policies with the Indian New Deal: "Within the Bureau school system, tribal leadership and control in the 1940s were almost nonexistent. Although Indian leaders were invited to participate in occasional policy discussions, they were seldom included in policy direction, which remained the prerogative of Bureau educators." 41 Nevertheless, Education and the American Indian substantially focuses on Collier and Beatty and regrettably only sparsely documents the reactions of Native Americans and the effects of the reforms on students. Yet, it remains to this day the main study which has been led with precision on the Indian New Deal policies regarding education.

As early as 1975, Wilcomb E. Washburn highlighted the discrepancy between Collier's intentions and reality. In The Indian in America, he remarks that Collier's ideas were rejected by a majority of Native Americans, even in the form of the Indian Reorganization Act with which he meant to partially restore tribal sovereignty. Washburn writes that the "rapidity with which cultural traditions change often surprises ideologues and idealists. John Collier discovered this when he attempted to persuade Indians to return their allotted lands to a communal land pool controlled by the tribe," pointing out the effects of previous assimilationist policies on people's lives and mindsets. 42 Marienstras notes that Collier's intentions with the Indian New Deal policies were to eventually cease governmental assistance and control over Native tribes altogether by leading Indigenous peoples towards self-sufficiency and self-determination. 43 Nevertheless, as Sartre and Fanon pointed out in The Wretched of the Earth, the movement of emancipation of a dominated group needs to come from within so that a process of rehumanisation can take place and fight the internalised racism. Marienstras quotes the political pamphlet written by Licala Iktomi (Lakota) -a possible pen name -to accuse the policies in 1937:

Washington freed America from Europe. Maybe the unprecedented president Rose-Belt will free Americans from Washington ? Maybe John Cod Liver is the Emancipator of the Indiansbut will either outwit Bloop, a cancerous growth and a strangling burden ? In the South the Negroes celebrate Christmas with firecrackers as the day that Lincoln freed them. You warred 40 Szasz, 38. 41 Szasz, 120. 42 Wilcomb E. Washburn, The Indian in America. (Harper & Row, 1975) Iktomi mocks President Roosevelt and Collier by giving them ironic nicknames. Be that as it may, he mainly targets the BIA -renamed "Bloop" -for exerting an oppressive guardianship that maintains Indigenous peoples in the state of wards. As early as 1937, this Native American voice denounces the hypocrisy of a nation glorifying its Independence history to the point that it fights colonialism elsewhere, while retaining parts of its population in such conditions. Moreover, the expression of such grievances in the form of a pamphlet indicates the attempt at raising awareness of this situation as well as motivating outrage and resistance.

The existence itself of the BIA, as a special department of the federal government to manage "Indian Affairs," but which does not include Native Americans in the decision making process of policies directly affecting all aspects of their lives, attests an ongoing binary power dynamic. It falls in line with Clastres' remark that it is the structural state power which leads to oppression, as developed in the first part of this thesis. As benevolent as they might be, if reformations are imposed, they remain paternalistic because they emanate from this structure and are therefore in opposition to the principle of self-determination. On that account, armed with their best intentions, reformers appear as "white saviours."

B-The Termination Era and The Kennedy Report

After the Second World War, the reservation system was attacked for leading to privileges regarding taxes or for keeping Indigenous peoples in poverty and federal guardianship, depending on the political stance of the critique. Efforts were made to cease federal support of Native Americans and complete assimilation into American society was rehabilitated as the ultimate goal of the BIA's policies. Therefore, the IBS system was reinforced and the Indian New Deal reforms were abandoned. Nevertheless, the new director of education, Hildegard Thompson, did not return to a system of boarding school identical to the one preceding the Indian New Deal since she followed the trend in education of the late 1950s which saw an increase in post-secondary education. Consequently, she expanded the academic training of the IBS, at the expense of vocational training. The Termination policies caused many divisions among both non-Native and Indigenous people, since they were regarded as either an opportunity for improving economic conditions of Indigenous communities, or as a return to oppressive policies of forced assimilation.

B.1. A Return to Forced Assimilation

As early as 1945, an article published in The Reader's Digest, the most widely read American periodical at the time, addressed the issue of the BIA's guardianship maintaining Native Americans in the status of wards. 45 The author of the article Orland 'O.K.' Armstrong -a Republican representative, and regular journalist of the magazine -actually condemns both the federal policies and tribalism for preventing self-determination, which in his view can only be found in individual and economic autonomy. The freedom praised in the article is an individualistic and capitalistic one, which reflects the editorial line of the journal and the hegemonic mindset of the country entering the Cold War. It follows that Armstrong praises the General Allotment Act:

Early reservations were concentration camps, where troops kept the inmates subdued. […] It became apparent that the reservation system was pauperizing these wards of the Government, so in 1887 an Allotment Act was passed, presenting individual Indians with tracts of land, usually 160 acres. […] The motive was good: to keep the Indian from being cheated out of his land by unscrupulous tribesmen or white men. This criticism of the reservations is representative of the general point of view on Native American affairs of the late 1940s. The article also tackles the issue of enfranchisement in the problem of selfdetermination. He lists the states of Idaho, New Mexico and Washington among those which prevent Native Americans from voting at the time on the account that reservations are exempted from state and local taxations.

This outlook characterises the post-war period of Native American history which came to be called the "Termination era." It corresponds to a period in the United States of attempts at getting rid of all references to hyphenated Americans, that is to say to erase cultural differences altogether, or reject those not fully Americanising. The goal of Termination was to completely cease any special treatments granted to Native Americans so that they fully assimilate and integrate into American society equally to any other citizen. It was materialised by policies aimed at the abrogation of federal responsibility for Indigenous peoples, the dislocation of reservations into the public domain, the relocation of Native Americans into urban areas, and the repudiation of tribal 45 O. K. Armstrong, "Set the American Indians Free!" The Reader 's Digest, No. 47 (August 1945), 47-52. nations.

The policies started to be enacted in 1953 with the passage of two acts: House Concurrent Resolution 108 (HCR-108) and Public Law 280, both usually referred to as Termination Acts. 46 HCR-108 terminated the tribes of the Flathead, Klamath, Menominee, Potawatomi, and Turtle Mountain Chippewa, as well as all the tribes in the states of California, Texas, Florida and New York. It means that any federal assistance, services, protection, and reservation status these tribes benefited from were ceased. Congress later studied the cases of many other tribes to terminate them as well. Public Law 280 transferred all powers to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservations from the federal government and tribal governments to state governments. It abrogated the legislative tribal sovereignty Native nations had partly recovered with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Finally, the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 was designed to urge Native Americans to leave reservations and move to cities in order to find more job opportunities. 47 It provisioned financial support for the relocation of families in which at least one member registered in adult vocational training provided by the BIA in urban areas. However, if one were to enrol in college, only the scholarship fees were covered by the program. The Indian Relocation Act has become the embodiment of the Termination policies, as the Indian Reorganization Act has for the Indian New Deal. 48 Ever since the Meriam Report in 1928, all accounts of life on reservations agreed on appalling conditions, reporting alarmingly high rates of unemployment, alcoholism, violence and mortality. For this reason, and because of the cost they represented for the federal government to manage -especially the schools -reservations were considered as the main cause of Native Americans' dependency upon federal assistance, and a priority to deal with.

In 1950, a new Commissioner was appointed to the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Dillon S. Myer was convinced that dismantling the reservations was a prerequisite for Indigenous peoples' equality with other American citizens. Philleo Nash, a non-Native American anthropologist who contributed to the book edited by Philp, The Indian Self-Rule, served as Commissioner of the BIA from 1961 to 1966. He shares his views on his predecessor:

It is customary for commissioners to refer to their predecessors as distinguished and capable individuals. So, I will not say anything about him that I did not say to him over the lunch table. I told Myer that he was an idiot and that he was going to get himself and the president of the United States into enormous difficulties. Before he became Indian commissioner, Myer had directed the relocation of Japanese-American citizens to concentration camps that were called "relocation centers." […] So Myer approached Indian affairs as though relocation centers and reservations were the same. He viewed Indians on reservations as temporary detainees. He sought to end this detention as quickly as possible. His policy was a form of expulsion. Myer did not understand the difference between the reservation system and his relocation centers.

[…] At one of our numerous lunches, he said, "I am going to do three things you are not going to like." I responded, "What are they?" He said, "relocation." I told him, "Do not bother with the other two." 49 The cultural preservation that reservations constituted for Native nations -regarding their relationship to the land and the tribal structure through collective ownership -was overlooked during the Termination era, as Myer's motivations show. On the contrary Nash, being an anthropologist, always kept this consideration in mind. Élise Marienstras points out that not all reservations were struggling, and that some, such as those of the Navajo nations, have managed over time to associate economic prosperity with tribalism. Therefore, she asserts that traditional tribal cultures are not anachronistic, but are well able to change and adapt. 50 This example alone proves that to close reservations on the account of their failure to lead Native Americans on the road towards self-determination was hypocritical, and was a way to avoid questioning the system of the BIA as well as addressing its responsibilities in the situation. Moreover, to relocate Native Americans to urban areas and to add the reservation territories to the public domain was a step back into a settler colonial strategy aimed at conquering the last Indigenous lands. Furthermore, it was in direct violation of the treaties and laws set in the nineteenth century on reservations. For the IBS system, the Termination era was marked by a full return to assimilationist ideologies. Margaret Connell Szasz dates the period from the end of the Second World War to the end of the 1960s with a peak during Eisenhower's presidency (1953-1961). She indicates that by the end of his career at the BIA in 1952, even Willard W. Beatty had abandoned the advocacy of cultural preservation and had embraced assimilationist ideas.51 However, when John Collier resigned from the position of Commissioner in 1945, he chose his successor, William A. Brophy, to halt the trend toward Termination, Szasz writes. She emphasises the role the Second World War played in the change of stance regarding education: because of the war efforts, federal funds were significantly cut in the early 1940s, which resulted in an increased reliance on parents' involvement in the running of schools. It also provoked the closure of many day schools and, as seen previously, an increase of enrolments in boarding schools which were more self-reliant due to student labour. 52 Their work also contributed to the war effort. The involvement of families continued after the war and vocational training was promoted for having helped the community during hard times. Veterans drew from their experiences and emphasised the need to master the English language and to strengthen efforts on education. Tribal councils started to encourage high school graduates to pursue higher education by setting aside tribal funds for scholarships. 53 In 1944, a report was issued by the House Select Committee to Investigate Indian Affairs and Conditions, a department of the BIA. It evaluated a high rate of former students staying or returning to live in reservations, where it recorded an ongoing very high unemployment rate. Therefore, the report concluded that crosscultural education was a failure. It encouraged the enrolment of more children in boarding schools, and advocated a return to forced assimilation, similar to that before the Indian New Deal.

During his three years of service, Myer restructured the BIA. The Education Division was renamed the Branch of Education, and the powers of its director were significantly diminished.

Although he was coming in line with the policies of assimilation, Beatty was strongly associated with the Indian New Deal and its ideologies. Szasz therefore interprets Myer's will to reduce the powers of the head of the Education Department as a manner to ease Beatty out. [START_REF] Garry | A Declaration of Indian Rights," 28 February 1954; cited in Rosier[END_REF] He resigned in 1952 and was succeeded by Hildegard Thompson who remained in her position until 1965, becoming the face of the educational Termination policies as Beatty was for the Indian New Deal's.

Thompson did not simply revoke cross-cultural education and return to former assimilationist ways. She put a great emphasis on vocational training, and developed summer school programs. They mainly aimed at improving students' academic level which was lower than the national average. The ultimate goal was to fight the high dropout rates, especially of children attending public schools. Szasz reports that in the 1950s and 1960s, Native American children started in average to fall behind their normal class levels from the third grade, and by the sixth grade were usually behind by two or more grades. 55 The damage this situation did to their ego, added to facing integrated and upfront racism are factors explaining the important dropout phenomenon. The first federal summer program was launched in 1960, and showed a quick success in its enrolment numbers. Two types of summer youth camps were established: vocational and recreational. The former pursued the professional training in addition to academic training, as commonly provided in the IBS during school years, and became work-camp sessions. The latter was more casual and primarily aimed at providing academic support. Tribal involvement was significant in the popularity of the programs, and was especially motivated by the prevention of juvenile delinquency during idle summer times, a phenomenon widely spread on reservations.

Beginning in the late 1950s, a general trend in the United States saw the increase of post-53 Szasz, 114. 54 Szasz, 121. 55 Szasz, 129. to be established by Native activists organisations, such as the National Indian Youth Council which launched in 1966 the Institute for American Indian Studies. 58 An article published in The New York Times in November 1966 exposes the IBS system to public opinion and condemns its assimilationist policies. [START_REF] Thom | Indian War 1963[END_REF] It was written by an unknown author following a two-day conference organised by the education committee of the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA) -the oldest organisation to protect Native American rights, founded in 1922 and still active in the twenty-first century. The article counts 81 running federal boarding schools in 1966 for 33,000 children and 159 day schools, but indicates that the majority of students were enrolled in the IBS. A comparison with the numbers of the year 1929, before the Indian New Deal era, and of the year 1941, before the Termination era, reveals the different periods' policies and achievements with clarity. The article relays the alarms expressed during the conference about mental health issues of Native American children resulting from the education provided in the institutions:

1929
The Rev. John F. Bryde, Jesuit superintendent of the Holy Rosary Indian Mission at Pine Ridge, S.D., said there had been a drastic rise in mental health problems among Indians in recent years. He spoke of the Indian's feeling of rejection and said of the Indian youth: "He is not effectively identified with his Indian heritage, nor can he identify with the hostile, white world facing him." [...] The situation, according to Mr. Byler, [the executive director of the association,] "is criminal." The Bureau of Indian Affairs, he said, had followed a policy of cutting back on day schools on and near reservations and of sending very young children great distances -as much as 600 miles -to consolidated boarding schools.

B.2. Responses to the Termination Policies

Responses to the Termination policies from Native American communities were divided.

However, it is difficult to evaluate them in a strictly dichotomous way with the positive reactions on the one hand and the negative on the other, firstly because opinions evolved from the beginning of the Termination era to its end: some who were favourable to the policies changed their minds when they came to be enacted; secondly because responses were ambivalent within communities and organisations themselves, as we will see with the NCAI.

Because they refused to suffer racial prejudice any longer, many Native Americans endorsed the Termination reforms that were presented as aiming at equality with other United States citizens.

Nonetheless, the renewal of attacks they constituted on tribal cultures and tribal landownership antagonised others. This period created and deepened strong divisions, and notably created a dichotomy between Native American urban communities and those holding on to the reservation system. In Termination Revisited, Kenneth R. Philp emphasises that, like any federal policy, Termination caused a multiplicity of reactions, and dismisses the stereotype that saw the Indian New Deal as a benevolent period and Termination as a villainous one in which a belligerent BIA attacked passive Native American victims. 61 He argues that on the one hand, the adherence to Termination on behalf of Native Americans was intertwined with a notion of self-determination in the sense that it would end federal control over many aspects of their lives. On the other hand, those who opposed it were also motivated by the idea of achieving self-determination, and saw the termination of reservation statuses and the return to forced assimilation in education as a threat to Indigenous identities. Their difference of position therefore resides in two different visions of self-determination, one based on the privatisation of Indigenous resources and the liquidation of the reservation system, the other based on the traditional tribal structure and the preservation of collective ownership. In other words, the former is a result of decades of acculturation -forced or voluntary -and the latter is instilled by cultural preservation.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest inter-tribal and national organisation still active in the twenty-first century. It was founded in 1944 by D'Arcy McNickle (Flathead), Archie Phinney (Nez Percé), and Charles Heacock (Lakota). During Termination, the association quickly gained national prominence in its dialogue with the federal government and its support for Indigenous rights, while offering to represent all Native American nations at once. In Indian Self-Rule, the activist leader Hank Adams (Assiniboine) resents the NCAI for its involvement in the Termination policies and disdainfully presents it as a continuum of the government: "In 1949, the Interior Department met with its created organ, the National Congress of American Indians, to ask it to take the lead in planning termination. The NCAI, at that time, did not object to this request. The lawyers for the NCAI helped write up some of the termination bills.

[…]

They did not object until later when there were slight modifications in that termination bill." 62 The organisation also supported Dillon S. Myer's candidacy at the head of the BIA in 1950. Philp writes that Louis Bruce Jr., a Mohawk member of the NCAI, was supportive of Commissioner Myer's policies because "he resented [the Indian New Deal's] romantic stereotyping of Indians" and "strongly disliked the paternalism associated with the Indian Reorganization Act." 63 Philp's comment on Bruce Jr. reveals how the Indian New Deal's failure to restore Native American agency in their own affairs paradoxically spurred their support for policies which renewed forced assimilation to the expense of cultural respect.

Because of its status of inter-tribal organisation at a national scale, the involvement of the NCAI gave legitimacy to the Termination policies and presented them as fulfilling Native Americans wishes. Such policies did indeed meet a part of the population's aim for a better situation at the time. Nevertheless, once they started to be implemented, the organisation eventually opted out. Helen Peterson (Oglagla Sioux) served as executive director of the NCAI from 1953 to 1959.

In 1983, she comments in retrospect:

I think the connotation of the word "relocation" almost precludes a sane consideration of that program. I have been known as someone who was very much opposed to relocation. That is not true, because we had much more important things to worry about at the NCAI. We never opposed the program. We felt it was necessary and a good program. What upset us was the priority that it had in its relationship to other programs. Our concern was that the government needed to spend more time developing the human and natural resources on reservations and put relocation in its proper place. We should not waste our time arguing about relocation when there are really many more important issues to examine.

[…]

The NCAI was in a tough spot. We were deeply committed to respecting the sovereignty of a tribe. Did the NCAI want to oppose termination even when the people involved wanted it? We never really came to a final answer on that question. 64 The relocation program launched by the 1956 IRA act eventually became symbolic of the period, especially in the minds of those who condemned it for its return to coercive assimilation. They saw it as a form of expulsion and land dispossession. What Peterson's testimony highlights is that Termination policies initially represented something entirely different for the Native Americans who supported them compared to how they were actually enacted. The measures aimed at closing reservations and relocating all their inhabitants, regardless of their position on the subject, rather than focusing on resolving the socio-economic issues -poverty, health, addictions and violences. It follows that although the NCAI contributed to the introduction of the policies, the organisation eventually disavowed them.

Hildegard Thompson's reforms to facilitate post-secondary education created divisions as well. They were condemned for aligning with the job market in the transition to a technological age the 1950s represented, rather than focus on the benefit of education for the sake of education only.

Another criticism argued that by reducing vocational training, Thompson's policy limited career choices and actually fuelled unemployment rates since in reality only industrial work was made available for Native Americans. 65 Adult training was also launched starting from 1955, to help those who had received little schooling to improve their English literacy and find jobs. This measure increased the criticism of the BIA, that it was turning into a job agency geared towards individual economic improvement only.

In 1969, the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare issued a report investigating the federal education provided to Native Americans. The report was entitled Indian Education: A National Tragedy -A National Challenge, but came to be known as the Kennedy Report -named after Senator Robert Kennedy who urged that this investigation be made and his brother Senator Edward Kennedy who completed the work after Robert Kennedy passed away. However, its original title sets the tone of a publication condemning the BIA's policies. The Kennedy Report refers to the Meriam Report of 1928: "The major findings of the Meriam Report were that (1)

Indians were excluded from management of their own affairs, and (2) Indians were receiving a poor quality of services (especially health and education) from public officials who were supposed to be serving their needs. These two findings remain just as valid today as they did more than 40 years ago."66 Like its predecessor, the Kennedy Report advocated that an education be more respectful of traditional tribal cultures for the sake of children's mental health. Abuses perpetrated in the IBS were finally addressed by this official document:

Parents are powerless to do anything about teachers that are incompetent, abuse their children, or denigrate their culture. Indian communities consider this to be the most critical aspect of their desired involvement in the schools.

[…] There is almost universal agreement that early separation of a child from his family is a destructive influence. The experience is even more traumatic when the child comes from a different culture and extended family background.

[…] At best these schools are totally unsatisfactory as a substitute for parents and family. At worst they are cruel and barbaric. One school has been reported where children are beaten, pervasive attacks are made against their cultural beliefs, and teachers advocate the free labor of Navajo girls in their homes, doing laundry, scrubbing floors, etc., to teach them the American way of housekeeping. [...]67

As in 1928, the conclusion of the Report recommended the inclusion of Native cultures, history and languages in the curriculum, the involvement of parents in the education of their children, and the encouragement of day school enrolments and the closure of IBS. The report also advocated the creation of a college of Indigenous culture, and recommended the foundation of a Senate Committee on Human Needs of the American Indian Affairs to ensure that no more abuses should be perpetrated. Moreover, it called for the establishment of a National Indian Board of Education to determine the policy of federally funded schools, "within the framework of the law," which would be able to "utilize the expertise of the U.S. Office of Education, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and other Federal agencies," and which should be "empowered to establish the mechanism for electing the Board." 68 The report planned that this administration should be seconded by local Indian boards of education for federal schools. This National Board, if managed by Native nations themselves, would present a solution to the BIA's paternalism decried since its creation by Indigenous peoples. However, the report is unclear on that point. Finally, it called for the federal government to no longer terminate any services to Native tribes without their consent.

Margaret Connell Szasz reports that Madison Coombs, a retired Bureau administrator who served in the Education Division, regretted the negativity of the Kennedy Report, arguing that it was exaggerating the situation and threatening the BIA's credibility. Szasz then points out that this credibility "had been questioned by the Indian people since the nation was formed." 69 The ongoing criticism towards the BIA, almost exactly repeated in two official reports drafted by experts forty years apart, attest to the failure of a structure initially imposed and denying self-determinism to the population it was supposed to serve, and therefore exerting a domination over it on behalf of the federal state. For Hank Adams, no matter what policy it adopts, the BIA is fundamentally a problem:

The central promises of the Indian Reorganization Act, as stated by John Collier in 1934, were complete economic independence and self-determination for Indian tribes. A half century later, Indian people remain far removed from either goal. One of the basic reasons is that we have never been talking about self-determination, but about self-administration. 70 As individuals, Indigenous people were given the possibility of assimilation and of enjoying the same status as United States citizens as any other, provided they renounced their Native American identity as members of a community -as stated previously, residing on reservation could deprive a citizen of his or her right to vote depending on the state. Termination policies attacked tribal identities, and failed to protect the civil rights of Native American citizens while allowing them to enjoy their cultural freedom. Élise Marienstras argues that these policies were all the more insidious in that they were disguised under a mask of universal liberalism. 71 This period of federal Indian policies can therefore be argued to have perpetuated a settler colonial logic of elimination, as defined by Patrick Wolfe.

B.3. The Negative Impact of the American Indian Boarding School System

Both the Meriam and the Kennedy Reports decry alarming unemployment, alcoholism and mortality rates among Indigenous populations. The accessible Annual Reports of Commissioners do as well. However, they either do not give numbers, or the data provided is insufficient to establish the evolution of these rates from 1924 to 1969. Nevertheless, the alarms were all voiced in accord by the different official sources. Today, Native American communities are still struggling with these issues. Numbers provided by the BIA based on the 2017 U.S. Census established an unemployment rate of 10.2% for American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN), high above the national average of 5.3%, and estimated that 25.4% of this group was living in poverty when the national average is 13.4%. 72 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) deliver numerous official statistics about the health of the American population each year. In 2017, the CDCP counted that alcohol-induced deaths of the AI/AN racial group amounted to 44.2 per 100,000 people, when the rate of the whole population was 11.0 per 100,000 that same year, making this group the most affected by this issue. 73 Finally, the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC), based on the CDCP's statistics, recorded a suicide rate of 22.1 per 100,000 in 2018 for the Indigenous population, above the overall U.S. rate of 14.2 per 100,000. It remarked a constant increase since 2019 and noted that the issue overwhelmingly affects the age groups of 15-24 and 25-34. 74 Élise Marienstras points out that not all reservations have been struggling, taking the example of the Navajos. Therefore, the overwhelming rates of socio-economic issues cannot solely be explained by the reservation system, as the Termination policies assessed. Many among scholars and members of the communities assert that these problems are direct consequences of settler colonialism and notably of the IBS system, as this sub-part will develop.

In her PhD thesis, Charlotte Leforestier is reluctant to use former IBS students' testimonies as primary sources. She warns against a possible distortion of reality by adults telling their childhood memories. 75 Moreover, these memories might be influenced by the overall negative vision Indigenous populations keep of the system. Be that as it may, adults can comprehend traumas with more accuracy than children, especially when it comes to evaluating the impact they have on their lives, which is precisely what this section proposes to study. Personal retrospective analyses enable to highlight power dynamics that children might not have identified at the time. Therefore, this thesis purposely uses testimonies of former students on their IBS experiences with the view that they provide invaluable insight on the reality of this institution.

The cross-cultural education attempted during the Indian New Deal put aside, the IBS was designed to eliminate tribal cultures. One of the most significant marks of cultural and identity loss expressed by the former students is the loss of Native languages. As seen previously with Elliott

Tallchief's childhood memories from Thomas Indian Institute in the late 1940s, although the 1890 ban on talking Native tongues in the IBS had been lifted during the Indian New Deal, the habit of abusing children for using them endured. Oren Lyons, an Onondaga of the Iroquois nation, artist and tribal council member, comments on the importance of language for cultural preservation in

Indian Self-Rule:

You perpetuate your culture, your way of life, by insisting that all of your people speak English and go to English schools. What about our language? It is the soul of the Iroquois nation. Without it, we do not have a nation, because there is knowledge in a language that does not translate into English. The English language is quite restrictive in its definitions. It is not a picture language. It is a technical language. 76 Language is crucial to a culture and to its transmission. It shapes one's vision of the world and one's identity. To forbid or prevent from learning one's language by imposing another conforms to Raphael Lemkin's definition of a cultural genocide. Andrew Windyboy (Chippewa Cree) attended two federal IBS from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, the Wahpeton Indian School, North Dakota, and the Flandreau Indian School, South Dakota. In the documentary film Our Spirits Don't Talk English, he delivers a vivid testimony which attests to how childhood mistreatment still affects people years later:

It was my first language, I didn't know any other language. Whenever I talk, it came out, Cree would come out, and whenever I talk I get hit... He starts crying... I got hit so much, I... I... I lost my tongue, I lost my native tongue... He cries some more... The only thing I remember was my Indian name, it is Senukehu, it means 'Old Man Eagle'. It is the only Cree I know. They beat me every day, they beat me. […] I hope somebody someday will hear me. I hope nobody has to go through this. We have to have our own language, because what we do when we talk to our spirits? They don't understand English. They look at you, you'll be talking in English... "What are you saying?" 77 In Kill the Indian, Save the Man, Ward Churchill points out that renaming children with anglicised names, and the perverted habit of implicating other children in the process, participated in the undermining of Native cultures -older students were sometimes in charge of naming the newcomers. He reports other examples of humiliation or physical mistreatment as common practices of the IBS: children who had wet their beds could face the punishment of having their faces rubbed with excrements or be severely beaten in public; runaway students when caught and brought back to school could receive electric shocks, even as late as in the 1960s. 78 Churchill highlights that early childhood traumas distort cognitive integration and often result in alterations of brain structure. Therefore, he argues that traumas can not only cause mental health damage, but general health damage. 79 Churchill deplores for instance the lack of studies to attest or deny the correlation between the IBS experience and high rates of alcoholism among Native communities.

He writes that suicides among students were not uncommon, and reports cases from 1894 to 1981 in the United States and Canada, and points out that many more were probably not recorded or were 76 Philp, Indian Self-Rule, 245. 77 Our Spirits Don't Speak English: Indian Boarding Schools, directed by Chip Richie and Dan Agent, Rich Heape Films (2008) disguised as natural deaths or accidents. In American Indian Children at School, Michael C.

Coleman questions the runaway students' intentions when escaping in the dead of winter in northern states, and argues that it amounted to "near or actual suicide" since many were found frozen. 80 In Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, Andrea Smith blames the United States for having ignored, for a long time, the accusations of sexual molestation against IBS staff members. 81 This situation only started to change in the 1980s: she reports several cases, notably the one of J.D. Todd who had taught for 21 years, beginning in 1966, at the Greasewood-Toyei boarding school on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona. He was indicted on 26 counts of sexual molestation by a federal grand jury, convicted for 13 of them in 1988 and sentenced to 99 years of imprisonment. Smith details that Terry Hester, also tried and convicted in the 1980s, had admitted on his job application that he had been previously arrested for child sexual abuse, but was still hired anyway to teach at the Kaibito Boarding School, Arizona. In Unseen Tears, Sally General who was schooled in an IBS from 4 to 13 years old, presumably from the late 1950s considering her age during the interview, remembers:

He said that we were really bad and that we were born out of the devil, and if we told anybody what he was doing, they wouldn't believe us anyway. And that's so true, because, when he did... I think he had penetrated me that time, I was bleeding, and I was sour. And when I told the nurse, she asked me what happened so I told her, and she gave me a strapping. A real good strapping. And she told me "Don't you ever speak about him like that again!" She said "he wouldn't ever do anything like that to you." So there I was again, getting another licking. And like now when I think about all the things that happened, you were damned if you did, damned if you didn't, no matter which way, you got a licking. It just wasn't... It wasn't right. 82 Churchill writes that in many cases, such as the one of Sally General, when accusations were voiced, victims were not believed or the alleged sexual predators were moved to other facilities, and sometimes even promoted. 83 Smith concurs with Churchill's opinion that these experiences are to blame for Native Americans' socio-economic and health issues. She writes that due to the close relation between body image and self-esteem, Indigenous people have learnt to internalise self-hatred in response to the oppressive use of their bodies and minds: "when the bodies of Indian people are designated as inherently sinful and dirty, it becomes a sin just to be Indian. Native peoples internalize the genocidal project through self-destruction." 84 80 Coleman, 164. 81 Smith, 38. 82 Unseen Tears, 00:11:42. 83 Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man, 63. 84 Smith, 12. The United States federal system of Indian Boarding Schools started in 1879 and ended in the late 1980s. It affected many generations of Indigenous peoples. However, not all Native Americans went through the system: as stated previously, federal and private day schools and state public schools overall enrolled the majority of children. Nevertheless, if they did not all experience it first hand, every Native American knows people who did, often in their own family. The mental and physical impact of the IBS on some of their students gave rise to trans-generational traumas.

In her PhD thesis, Charlotte Leforestier is reluctant to talk about the negative effects of the system. She argues that other studies focused on them to the point that they give a distorted image of the IBS, which she proposes to rebalance by focusing on positive aspects. 85 She also states that accurate overview of the abuses perpetrated in the schools is not possible due to the lack of primary sources.However, as seen previously, Andrea Smith provided specific content on sexual abuses in a book published in 2005, seven years before Leforestier's PhD thesis was completed. Nevertheless, Leforestier acknowledges that taking children away from their families for several continuous years prevented parents from playing their educative roles and resulted in adults who did not receive parental models. 86 Therefore, former students themselves did not always know how to manage parenthood. In the Canadian documentary film Stolen Children, two children of former students are interviewed: Mike Loft, 55 years old, whose father attended a residential school for 11 continuous years, and Lorena Fontaine, 38 years old, who only discovered shortly before the interview that her mother had gone through the system when she publicly shared her experience during a conference.

Mike Loft: He never knew when he was going to get hit in residential school, that's the thing. So he lived in fear of getting hit, you break a rule you get whacked, you know? […] There was that imported unpredictability that he brought home too, and the same thing with us, we didn't know what was gonna happen next. So scary.

Lorena Fontaine: It's being raised by parents who never had a childhood, and any parents as role models. So we were vulnerable children and a lot of us were abused ourselves as young children. I also realised at that point that one of the people who abused me and my family had been a residential school survivor, a family member. And I understand why now, why I was abused.

Mike Loft: There was a lot of fear, I think the fear that they put in him, the terror that they put in him, he managed to bring that with him, and it went into our family you know, and I learned terror and fear and all that as well as a child. I put fear in my sons too, that's all I knew, you know, when they were doing things that weren't right I put fear in them you know. 87 The transmission of fears and abuses in the community from the traumas resulting from the IBS experience has been attested in the twenty-first century by professional psychologists and 85 Leforestier, 294, 303. Most of the positive aspects Leforestier attributes to the IBS system concern the role it played in the emergence of a pan-Indian movement. This consideration will be developed in the third part of this thesis. Indigenous peoples which he designates as the "intergenerational accumulation of risk for poor mental health" that originates "from the depredations of past colonial subjugation, including ethnocidal policies and practices," for which he directly refers to the IBS. He accuses the system of being the main triggering factor of traumas and trans-generational traumas of Native Americans.

Gone also draws a parallel between the Shoah and the colonisation of North America as historical traumas.

In the introduction to the collective book Boarding School Blues, the editors highlight that going through the IBS, which they call "the monster," is an experience that deeply changed the students -who are called "survivors" by several authors cited in this thesis, such as Churchill, Smith, or the documentary film Unseen Tears. 94 Although the changes which actually occurred did not turn out to be the full Americanisation intended by the institution, Indigenous peoples and cultures were undeniably altered. As seen in the first part of this thesis, Daniel Feierstein explains that genocides are used as social modifiers in colonial enterprises. Seen in this light, the IBS system was a genocidal tool of colonial power dynamics well after the so-called colonial period of American history ended, since it aimed at changing "the identity of the survivors by modifying relationships within a given society" throughout all of its twentieth-century reforms.

Frantz Fanon highlights in The Wretched of the Earth that psychological disorders are not only commonly observed on colonised populations but even typical of the periods of colonisation when domination is not resisted. 95 Being a psychiatrist, the study of these disorders is actually the starting point of his writings on colonialism, and therefore played a significant role in the emergence of postcolonial studies. Walter L. Hixson points out that the health and socio-economic issues faced by Native Americans depicted in this sub-part are common to all the peoples who had to suffer settler colonialism -such as Aboriginal Australians. 96 Furthermore, Fanon points out that to fragment society into racially separated institutions, such as schools, is symptomatic of colonial situations. He adds that this division extends to culture:

Colonial domination, because it is total and tends to oversimplify, very soon manages to disrupt in spectacular fashion the cultural life of a conquered people. This cultural obliteration is made 94 Trafzer et al., 3. 95 Fanon, 241. 96 Hixson, 190. To possible by the negation of national reality, by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs to outlying districts by colonial society, by expropriation, and by the systematic enslaving of men and women. 97 In other words, Fanon writes that cultural genocides are inherent in colonialism. The IBS is a radical form to achieve that process and falls within colonial domination.

According to Ward Churchill, the after-effects of the IBS system are as destructive as a physical genocide in the long-term, especially considering suicide and alcoholism rates among the Indigenous population. He writes that policy makers should be held responsible for the consequences of their work, regardless of their original intentions, arguing that it has been the international legal principle since Nuremberg. 98 Only point (e) of the U.N. Convention's definition of a genocide, "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group," has been invoked to address the IBS system up until the Indian New Deal reforms. Nevertheless, if the definition were to consider genocides as possible lengthy processes, the impact of the institution on the health of Native American communities could be argued to correspond to the point (b) of the definition:

"Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group."

The Indian Boarding School system arouses controversies on its colonial and genocidal implications since the debate over the definition of genocide is still unsettled. If we consider Lemkin's original definition of a genocide as a lengthy two-phased process which does not necessarily intend to physically destroy the victims, the institution and its impacts on the Native American population was undeniably a genocidal device. However, the current legal recognition of genocides, based on the U.N. convention, does not encompass these prerequisites. Nonetheless, the legal and social definitions of genocide suggested by Daniel Feierstein identify the institution as guilty of perpetrating genocide. 99 Furthermore, the concept of "logic of elimination" developed by Patrick Wolfe also fully applies to the IBS system and reveals the persistence of a colonial dynamic of power between the federal government and the Native population. Finally, the intentions of destroying Indigenous cultures and of eliminating the hindrance Native Americans represented for the territorial conquest of settler colonial American society are salient, as late as the 1960s with the Termination policies. Therefore, the Indian Boarding School system can be considered as the proof of ongoing colonialism in the United States throughout the first half of the twentieth-century. Before/After photos such as these were taken in order to promote the civilising mission of the IBS system. De La Cruz appears well aware of a situation of colonialism faced by his fellow Indigenous peoples. However, this testimony came after two decades of proactive Native militancy fighting for tribal sovereignty and expressing their rejection of these conditions, which might have operated as an eye opener.

Source photos

In an article published in 2006 about Native activism during the Cold War, Paul C. Rosier emphasises the role of the international decolonisation context. 3 He states that it was decisive in raising awareness on the centrality of questions of race and racism in the United States, for all ethnic minorities. In his autobiography, the activist Dennis Banks (Ojibwa) remembers that his years in prison opened his eyes on the matter, and reflects on how he got imprisoned in the first place:

In 1966 I was indicted on burglary charges. [...] I had to provide for a family of ten including myself. I had a miserable, minimum-wage job that could not support us, so I stole to put food on our table. My partner in the escapade was a white man named Bill. We were arrested for stealing sixteen bags of groceries. He managed to get an attorney, while I had only a court-appointed public defender. When we were up for sentencing, it quickly became obvious that Bill was not going to be sentenced to the same time I was. I got five years, whereas he was sentenced to two years of probation and was released immediately. At first I thought this was because he had an attorney. It didn't occur to me that it was because I was an Indian who had been saddled with a white judge and a white arresting officer. [START_REF] Lawrence | Source: The Kansas Memory[END_REF] Today, Native Americans are still overrepresented in the state prisons and local jails of Minnesota, where Banks was sentenced. [START_REF]National Archives at Denver[END_REF] The author, historian and activist Vine Deloria Jr. published Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto in 1969. 6 This book highly influenced a generation of Native American activists. Standing Bear (Lakota) -brother of Luther Standing Bear, who was mentioned previously in this thesis. However the Society's interest was not in tribal sovereignty, since it rather defended a full assimilation to the Euro-American culture and the abolition of reservations for economic prosperity.

It focused on legislation, politics and education. Charlotte Leforestier notes that the Society fought for the involvement of Native Americans in the management of the educational system and for their access to higher education. 10 The next Native founded association was the Nation Council of American Indians, which was in operation from 1926 until 1938. Initiated by Zitkala Sa (Lakota)also known as Gertrude Simmon Bonnin, a former member of the Society of American Indiansthis organisation played a decisive role in the publication of the Meriam Report and focused its main efforts on the struggle for Indigenous civil rights enforcement. Finally, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), created in 1944, is the last inter-tribal national organisation founded before the NIYC.

Therefore, dating the origins of the RPM is a tricky question since it is set in a long history of activism in resistance to settler colonialism. Native activism adopted different forms and supported various ideologies over time, and it might be through that approach that the RPM can be more easily defined.

A-Emergence of a Radical Movement

The so-called period of assimilation in Native American history started in 1879 with the opening of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. From that time to the emergence of the RPM, generations went through a system of education designed for forced assimilation. They learnt the United States promoted values of democracy and liberalism, based on individualism. 9 Philp, Indian Self-Rule, 242. 10 Leforestier, 348.

95

Notwithstanding the short-lived efforts made during the Indian New Deal to balance curriculums in the IBS with Native American history, Indigenous knowledge was restricted to private spheres.

Indigenous cultures were significantly altered over time, and many Native Americans lost touch with them. Nevertheless, the RPM was initiated by a young generation and marked by its assertive views on tribal sovereignty and cultural revival in resistance against a return to assimilationist policies during the Termination era.

A.1. Raising Awareness: the Workshops on American Indian Affairs

The activist Lenada James (Shoshone-Bannock) participated in the Alcatraz occupation. In Indian Self-Rule, she describes the intentions behind that famous event of Native American In Red Power Rising, Bradley G. Shreve details the organisation and goals of the workshops.

He writes that their primary concern in the short term was to fight the high dropout rates of Native American students by providing an academic support in the summer break. But the true purpose of this program was aiming for long term effects in forming future Native leadership to oppose the Termination policies and assert a cultural revival of traditional tribalism. The instructors offered to study the political, legal and social relationship of Indigenous peoples with the United States nation.

They were convinced that Native Americans were facing a persistant colonial situation, and needed to fight for tribal sovereignty. Therefore, they were themselves in a position of activists. Shreve reports a statement by Rosalie Wax, who taught at the workshops, in which she acknowledges their bias: she says that the students "might justly have accused us of being unfair to the assimilationists." 13 Shreve cites Robert K. Thomas (Cherokee) as one of the most influential instructors who connected with students. His strong anti-assimilationist stance reflects the ideology of the program. Thomas enhanced traditional cultures in his lectures and opposed colonialism to a form of Native inter-tribal nationalism, raising controversies among students. Nonetheless, for Sol Tax, self-determination was paramount, and he addressed the students in 1957 asserting that it meant having the freedom to fully assimilate to the Euro-American culture if that was their wish. 14 The workshops attracted students of diverse backgrounds. However, Shreve notes a slight majority of women and of students coming from reservations or rural areas. Moreover, they were members of many different tribes, which contributed to the inter-tribal accent put on the program by the teachers. Shreve reports the students' profiles as identified in the 1960s by Rolland Wright, one of the instructors. He spotted three types of ideologies among the students when they began the sixweek program, which he named "the strivers, the traditionalists and generalized Indians." 15 According to him, the former were "mainstreamers," they distanced themselves from tribal cultures and identified as United States citizens first. The traditionalists on the contrary maintained a strong relation with Indigenous cultures, usually spoke their tribe's native language, and already adhered to 13 Shreve, 70. 14 Shreve, 72. 15 Shreve, 82.

97 most of the ideology of self-determination and tribalism promoted by the workshops. The "generalized Indians" were identified by Wright as favourable to cultural preservation like traditionalists, but had lost touch with their tribal culture. Shreve reports Wright's observation that by the end of the six weeks students usually had not changed their initial points of view, but these had become more structured and based on a better understanding of social theories, rather than purely emanating from emotional experience.

The workshops were based on an assigned curriculum. Classes in the mornings were followed by organised debates in the afternoons. In the evenings informal discussions were times for sharing about personal experiences and traditional tribal cultures. The first part of the program was dedicated to an introduction to social scientific theories and North American Indigenous New Guinea. She classifies their cultures according to similarities with others but with a cultural relativist approach. Rooted in the culturalist theory, she argues that cultural prejudices, which were common in 1920s society under the hegemonic scope of evolutionism, threaten to foster mental illnesses. She therefore advocates for more tolerance towards multiculturalism in education:

there can be no reasonable doubt that one of the most effective ways in which to deal with the staggering burden of psychopathic tragedies in America at the present time is by means of an educational program which fosters tolerance in society […].

In a society in which the will-to-power is most highly rewarded, those who fail may not be those who are differently constituted but simply those who are insufficiently endowed. The inferiority complex takes a great toll of suffering in our society. 16 Many among the students of the workshops were former pupils of the IBS institution. Reading about "inferiority complex" as a result of a lack of cultural tolerance most probably had personal resonances.

Felix S. Cohen is the second main author of the curriculum cited by Shreve. A lawyer from New York, who graduated in philosophy from Harvard and law from Columbia, he served from 1933 to 1947 in the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior and is considered as the main legal architect of the Indian New Deal's policies. He was assisted in his work by his wife Lucy Kramer Cohen who studied anthropology and worked for Franz Boas. 17 In Indian Self-Rule, she shares insight about her late husband's contribution to Native American history:

We had been married only about a year when Felix was asked by Nathan Margold and Harold Ickes, both of whom had been with the American Indian Defense Association, to work on the [Indian Reorganization Act], aimed largely at the ills that the Meriam Report had detailed, that would give Indians a New Deal. Felix's one year extended to twenty, and he died still working to right those wrongs. He appeared and testified against a termination bill just about a month before his death [in 1953]. [START_REF] Patty | giving the Red Power salute moments after being removed from Alcatraz Island[END_REF] Paul C. Rosier quotes a famous analogy Cohen drew between Native Americans and canaries when he strongly condemned the Termination policies in 1949: "the Indian plays much the same role in our American society that the Jews played in Germany. Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith." 19 Although he used to be involved with the department, Cohen compared the BIA to a "benevolent dictatorship." 20 In an article published in 1945, Cohen analyses how colonial power asserts its domination and is difficult to uproot, and he suggests the reader should consider the treatment of current U.S. domestic affairs in this light. [START_REF]The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia[END_REF] He explains that the American political system is a legacy of the British colonial empire. Through an expert administration, the elite ruled over a population considered as "backward people," due to a lack of education. This observation denounces a class discrimination -but according to the time, place and population in question, other prejudices could play a role in that expert domination, such as racial or cultural prejudices. He also exposes the hypocrisy of such a system of domination which uses any outcome of its own ruling -positive or negative -to justify its continuity: "If a native group subsists on a low standard of income, it is plain that administration by a civilized country is needed to raise the standard of living. Per contra, if a native group seeks to derive a large income from its control of peculiar resources or strategic areas, administration by a civilized country is justified to prevent extortion." 22 17 Franz Boas is considered as the father of American anthropology and to have introduced the ideology of cultural relativism in the United States. 18 Philp, Indian Self-Rule, 71. 19 Felix S. Cohen, "Indian Self-Government," 1949, in The Legal Conscience: Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen (ed. Lucy Kramer Cohen, New Haven, 1960), 313-314; cited in Rosier, "'They Are Ancestral Homelands' (…)," 1313. This analogy gives its title to the documentary film The Canary Effect mentioned previously. 20 Cobb, 16. 21 Felix S. Cohen, "Colonialism: A Realistic Approach," Ethics, Vol. 55, No. 3 (1945) 167-181. 22 Cohen, 172. This consideration of colonised people as unfit to manage their own affairs, and as unfit to raise their standard of living to the level of "civilized" people, draws a striking parallel with the condition of Native Americans in a context of Termination in which the BIA strengthened its guardianship on the account of the high unemployment and alcoholism rates in Indigenous communities, among other reasons.

Nevertheless, Cohen also nuances his essay by taking example on Liberia -a nation built in 1822 on the western African coast by former African American slaves. He argues that the exploitation of rubber workers would not be such a problem -as it was in 1945 -if Liberia's economy was still managed by the United States. From that observation, he concludes that colonialism may sometimes be the lesser of two evils, and that "political independence, then, is not an adequate answer to all colonial problems."23 Moreover, Felix S. Cohen presents a proposition for a people's charter in 32 points, according to which corruption of colonial power would be reduced, democracy maintained, and people's self-determination would prevail in a peaceful and sustainable way. Points 22 to 27 of Cohen's charter in particular could not have failed to retain the workshop students' attention since they mean to ensure political self-determination, and are strikingly not consistent with Native Americans' reality in the late 1950s.

In this essay, Cohen voices the importance of self determination -which he characterises as the "highest political good" -and deems that "no people is so deficient in human capacity as to be devoid of the means of self-government." Finally, in this article he reminds that power is addictive, to any form of governance, and that no corrupted or abusive government ever willingly abdicated in history. He adds that "all the foregoing considerations indicate that no nation can be an impartial judge of its own administration of colonial affairs. Objective judgment may possibly be secured from the natives concerned," which can be interpreted as a subtle call for resistance to abusive powers. 24 The workshops' curriculum was established by the instructors to help students develop an enlightened criticism of forced assimilation and an elaborated praise of self-determination.

Moreover, because of its academic form, and because of the focus on Indigenous cultures, the program can be regarded as a counter-power to the IBS system, to its cultural genocidal effect, and therefore to its role in the colonial dynamic of power between the federal government and Native Americans.

Shreve quotes a former workshop student, the activist Della Hopper Warrior (Otoe-Missouria), who reflects on the effects the program had on her awareness of her community's situation: "Finally I could start to understand why our people are the way they are -why we can't get jobs and why we have such poverty and drinking problems. … I just thought, well, there's something very wrong with this. This needs to change, and we can do this. I can do this." 25 The workshop had a decisive influence of empowerment as well as awareness of colonialism's effects on the participants.

The Regional Indian Youth Councils (RIYC) also played a tremendous role in the rise of Native American youth activism. These gatherings were launched in 1955 by the University of New Mexico's Indian student organisation named the Kiva Club and the New Mexico Association on Indian Affairs in Santa Fe. The goal was for students to meet once a year for a whole day and debate over current Native American affairs, in order to mobilise students on the issues faced by their communities. Originally, they were only designed for Indigenous students of New Mexico, but their success attracted hundreds of students from all over the Southwest as early as 1957. From that second edition, the location of the annual gathering changed states each time and the number of participants and of tribes represented increased. In 1960, 57 tribes were represented. 26 The RIYC helped students realise that the problems their tribes faced with the Termination policies or the unemployment rates were common to many others, and developed a sense of inter-tribality.

However, the councils did not aim at a united political stance, or even a defined ideological line, but rather to be an open platform for students to get involved in debates and to ultimately politicised.

A.2. The NIYC and Indians of All Tribes

Initiated by Sol Tax, the American Indian Chicago Conference (AICC) was sponsored by the NCAI in June 1961. It gathered 460 participants for a week, who represented 90 tribes from all over the country, to discuss the state of Native American affairs and their management by the federal government since the publication of the Meriam Report. 27 Bradley G. Shreve describes the conference as a "grand workshop where Indians learned about the BIA, federal policy, and the ideological vision of the conference's coordinators." 28 Tax and his staff at the University of Chicago worked for months in order to prepare the event. They sent words all over the United States to collect Native tribes' sentiments on what were the pressing issues the conference needed to cover. A steering committee was established which held regional and state meetings in preparation of the AICC. D'Arcy McNickle sat as chairman of the steering committee. According to Shreve, it was "the largest inter-tribal gathering recorded in modern times."29 After a week of lectures and discussions, the conference issued the Declaration of Indian Purpose, a report which states the need for ending the Termination policies and for implementing self-determination in order to improve Native tribes' conditions of life. Emanating from such a broad and unprecedented inter-tribal gathering, this document is a cornerstone in Native American activism and specifically in demands for tribal sovereignty. If needed be, it proves the ability of Indigenous peoples to reflect collectively on their conditions and management of their own affairs. Nevertheless, as a preface to the report, a "pledge" in four points assures the will of "the American Indians" to stand as "all other loyal citizens of [their] beloved country" for the benefit of American society in devotion for the President of the United States.

Present at the AICC were former students of the workshops on American Indian Affairs and other students who attended RIYC meetings. They were dissatisfied with the outcome of the conference, as they deemed the Declaration too meek. They formed a youth caucus and decided to meet again two months later. During a three day gathering in August 1961 in Gallup, New Mexico, they agreed that they wanted to be more assertive and efficient in the defence of Native American self-determination than their elders, and were ready to take action. This group of sixteen men and eight women, all in their early twenties, most of whom were coming from reservations, rural areas or small towns, decided to create the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC). Among the founding members were already those who would later illustrate themselves as charismatic leaders of the organisation: Shirley Hill Witt (Mohawk) and Joan Noble (Ute) who attended several RIYC committees, Clyde Warrior (Ponca), Karen Rickard (Tuscarora), Mel Thom (Walker River Paiute) and Herbert Blatchford (Navajo) who had partaken in both Tax's summer workshops and RIYC meetings. Their founding statement voices the goal of uniting to defend the rights of all Native tribes in the United States:

We, the younger generation, at this time in the history of the American Indian, find it expedient to band together on a national scale in meeting the challenges facing the Indian people. In such banding for mutual assistance, we recognize the future of the Indian people will ultimately rest in the hands of the younger people, and Indian youth need be concerned with the position of the American Indian. We further recognize the inherent strength of the American Indian heritage that will be enhanced by a National Indian Youth Council. We, the undersigned believing in a greater Indian America, in order to form a non-profit corporation for the purposes hereinafter enumerated, do hereby certify as follows... [START_REF] Wolf | Principal Chief of the Kiowas[END_REF] The notion of heritage played a paramount role in the ideology of the new organisation. Shaped by the workshops, the NIYC advocated a cultural revival as part of the defence of self-determination, in a period of Termination policies which strengthened acculturation. Given this context, some members viewed it as even more than pure resistance, for them it was a question of cultural survival.

Creating the NIYC was a novelty in Native American history as it is the first student pan-Indian organisation on a national scale. Shreve considers that it was also the most independent student organisation of its time since most others emerged from broader political parties, such as the Young People's Socialist League created by the Socialist Party, the Labor Youth League created by the Communist Party, the Student Peace Union by the Committee for Non-Violent Action, or even the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee which had close links with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference through Ella Baker's decisive influence.31 This tendency to shape youth wings to national organisations was not new, as it has been a strategy to enrol future faithful electorates as well as training future leaders for a long time. It is also in itself a recognition of the importance and monitoring power of young militancy. The fact that NIYC originates from a detachment from previous Native activism highlights its independence. This position of secession from previous postures is also symptomatic of the 1960s during which young people questioned and challenged the political, social and moral direction of the United States. That being said, the NIYC did not mean to oppose their predecessors, as they actually endorsed the NCAI's and the AICC's stand for treaty rights, self-determination and cultural preservation. The difference was marked in tone and practices. The heritage of previous organisations was recognised by the new one, but its independence was asserted. The NIYC system of membership reflects that position: full membership was reserved for Native American youth, regardless of tribal affiliations, while elders and non-Indigenous members could only hold associate membership. More importantly, this independence meant that NIYC broke free from white sponsorship that still pertained to the workshops, the RIYC and the AICC.

During its first few years of existence, the NIYC mostly developed its organisation.

Members lived in different areas of the United States, and Shreve precisely points out that if the organisation's strength became its pan-Indian concern on a national scale, it was also its weakness in terms of logistics. Therefore, the NIYC's beginnings were slow, to the chagrin of the members. 32 In regards to its structure, the NIYC copied the parliamentary process of the RIYC with its annual gatherings and local charters, and the supported ideology mostly relied on the workshops experience. The organisation developed a program of workshops of its own starting from 1966, which they called the Institute for American Indian Studies. They were similar to Tax's workshops with a stronger emphasis on Native American staff and the transmission of traditional cultures as a counter-power to the IBS system. This program was also a way to recruit more members. Moreover, the NIYC produced the Aborigine newsletter from 1962 and the monthly review Americans Before Columbus (commonly called ABC) from 1963 in order to spread its militant voice. The regular column "For a Greater Indian America" written by Mel Thom especially carried out the NIYC's ideology to the public eye. Shreve considers ABC to be the first Red Power publication. 33 The newly formed organisation attracted media attention quite early. The Hollywood star Marlon Brando started supporting it by attending the 1963 annual meeting with a filming crew. 34 As Shirley Hill Witt reports in private correspondence with Shreve, one of the main issue tackled during this meeting was the proposition to carry Native American grievances about violation of treaty rights by the United States at an international level, in order to warn foreign nations that this country was not trustworthy, and that if they had violated these treaties, "other international treaties cannot be qualified as worthy documents." 35 This international mindset is linked to the influence of international decolonisation struggles in the 1950s: the United States set itself up as judge of European colonial empires, while inequalities and mistreatment of ethnic minorities continued to be perpetrated on their territory, which did not escape the attention of minority activists, among whom Native American militants.

In 1963, Bruce Wilkie (Makah) and Hank Adams joined the NIYC. Their membership played a significant role in the history of the organisation. Both of them grew up on reservations in the state of Washington. They brought the conflict over Indigenous fishing rights that went on in their home state to the attention of the NIYC.

In the 1850s, a series of treaties were signed with the different Native tribes of the current Washington and Northern Oregon states to establish land takeovers and reservation boundaries.

These treaties also secured to Indigenous peoples the right to continue fishing on their accustomed 32 Shreve, 112 and 138. 33 Shreve, 114. 34 Footage of this meeting is unfortunately not on public display. 35 Witt to Shreve, e-mail correspondence, 30 January 2009; cited in Shreve, 113. places. Nevertheless, due to the General Allotment Act of 1887, reservations were drastically reduced over time. The Nisquallys' territory, which had been set on 4,700 acres by the 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek, had decreased to 835 acres by the mid-twentieth century, and the Puyallups' reservation went from 18,000 acres to 537 acres in the same amount of time. 36 Therefore, many traditional fishing posts visited by these tribes became off-reservation locations. Nonetheless, the state of Washington let Indigenous peoples continue to use them. However, because of increases in demography, pollution, massive fisheries and sportfishing, the amount of salmons and steelhead trouts significantly diminished starting as early as the 1870s, which led to limitations in fishing seasons enacted by the state of Washington. In the 1890s, these restrictions were extended to locations were Native peoples traditionally fished, regardless of the treaties assurances. However, Indigenous peoples usually continued their usual practices as guaranteed by the treaties, since it was the federal government which managed Native American jurisdiction. After the Second World War, the Washington State Sportsmen's Council, a political representative of recreational fishers, lobbied to see the restrictions fully applied to Indigenous peoples. Falling in line with the national mindset of the time regarding Native special statuses, the tolerance for Native fishers not to abide by the fishing-season limitations due to ancient legislation was seen as unfair privileges. Termination policies, with the 1953 Public Law 280, enabled the state of Washington to prosecute Native fishers, restraining Indigenous sovereignty and violating treaty rights. Moreover, fishing often represented the main livelihood of these communities. The primary reason invoked for the limitations was the conservation of fishing game, yet Shreve reports that according to the figures of the total catch between 1958 and 1967 provided by the Washington's Department of Fisheries, the part taken by Indigenous peoples amounts to 6.5%, the part of non-Native sportfishers adds up to 12.2%, and the one taken by non-Native fisheries rises to 81.3%. 37 Furthermore, most Northwestern tribes had themselves established rules to respect a sustainable and healthy salmon and trout population.

In February 1964, the leaders of the Nisqually, Puyallup and Muckleshoot tribes reached out for the help of the NIYC, to which they became acquainted through Hank Adams, to support their claim for treaty rights recognition. In just a few days, the NIYC planned protests that they announced in ABC. Bruce Wilkie, who sat at his tribal council, called all the Native tribes in the state of Washington to unite behind them. In March 1964, the "fish-in" campaign began. On 1 March, peaceful Native fishers were filmed by a crew secured by Marlon Brando while being arrested. Brando was arrested as well, which gave the event national media coverage the next day.

36 United States, Senate, "Treaty between the United States and the Nisquallis, Puyallup, and other Indians at Medicine Creek, Washington Territory," General Records of the United States Government, 1778-2006, Indian Treaties, 1789-1869. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12013261 Accessed 07 May 2020; Shreve, 122. 37 Shreve, 136. 105 However, he was released within the day by the county prosecutor John McCutcheon who did not want to make a martyr out of him. The activists did not stop there and held a protest at the Washington state capitol in Olympia on 3 March, where they performed traditional tribal dances.

Native American students from all over the United States responded to the call of the NIYC and joined the demonstration. Shreve describes this event as "the largest intertribal protest ever assembled." 38 In the 1963 December edition of ABC already, the "Washington State Shifts War Strategy" article had started the NIYC's support for Northwest Native fishing rights. Using a military rhetoric, it describes that the state's Game Department had "virtually declared war on Indian fisheries" using an "armed militia" of game wardens. The article opposes "the whiteman" to Native Americans and argues that, out of greed, "if any one group is to blame for depleting the salmon run it is the non-Indian." 39 The NIYC's actions were received by a violent racist backlash in media. Shirley Hill Witt remembers that following the protests in March, "newspapers and talk show hosts called the members of NIYC a variety of colourful names, among them was 'Red Turks', 'Red Muslims', and, picking up on the American ambiguity toward England's famous musical export, 'Red Beatles'. Also muttered, combining impacted racism, was 'Red Niggers'." 40 The media attention, however negative, was on them. The "fish-in" campaign made the NIYC the pan-Indian national organisation it aspired to be. It also launched the form of activism that typifies the Red Power Movement, that is to say a grass-root direct action based on civil disobedience and which relies on media coverage to exert pressure on the political scene. The NIYC's voice became much stronger thanks to this national exposure. During the War on Poverty launched by the Johnson administration in 1964, Clyde Warrior -who had been named president of the organisation -delivered a speech before the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, on 2 February 1967 in Memphis, Tennessee. 41 In this speech entitled "We Are Not Free," the conditions of life for Native Americans described by Warrior can be paralleled to those of subalterns in a situation of colonialism. A Marxist definition of subaltern people understands them as the lowest social class of a society. However, in the article "Can the Subaltern Speak?" which had a profound effect on postcolonial studies, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak 38 Shreve, 130. However, the numbers of protesters are not certain, as Shreve writes that they vary from 1,500 up to 5,000 according to sources. 39 "Washington State Shifts War Strategy," Americans Before Columbus, Vol. 1, No. 2 (December 1963) writes that it addresses the social class which is denied access to the cultural imperialism. 42 In his speech, Warrior speaks about the "local white elite" which partners with the federal administration to manage Indigenous affairs. He designates a ruling class. He describes Native Americans as subaltern people in American society with the use of the "Us-and-them" trope -which indicates the binary power relation between the colonists and the "Other" as theorized by Said -as in the sentence "They call us into meetings to tell us what is good for us." Warrior accuses the "local white elite" of wanting Indigenous peoples to stay "poor in spirit" in order to preserve their privileges. This phrasing emphasises the idea of a subaltern people that is being purposely kept away from the culture and position of dominant.

Furthermore, Warrior points out the infantilisation the dominant class wields against Native Americans, as when he talks about "the paternalistic control of federal administration." This attitude from the ruling class is symptomatic of a colonial trait participating in the dehumanisation of the subalterns. His focus on the alliance between the federal administration and white elites highlights that Native Americans, if not forbidden by any law, de facto never held high positions in hierarchy at the time, even for Indian Affairs. 43 Warrior exposes a system with very few possibilities of social mobility for subaltern people, and in truth without agency altogether when he says "We are not allowed to make those basic human choices and decisions about our personal life and about the destiny of our communities which is the mark of free mature people" and repeats further "We are not free. We do not make choices."

This speech is a call for self-determination for subalterns in a system similar to the one denounced by Sartre in the article "Le colonialisme est un système," in which an implacable domination condemns subalterns to poverty. Warrior draws a similar conclusion: "We are the 'poverty problem' [...] and our poverty of the spirit is not unconnected with our material poverty."

Moreover, he presents the dreadful social and health issues faced by Native Americans as consequences of the abuses they suffered as a community, and warns that without selfdetermination, without the opportunity to make their own mistakes and learn from them, future generations would face even worse problems. Although the words "colonialism" or "decolonisation" are not uttered by Warrior, the leader of the NIYC presents a situation that cannot be mistaken for anything else.

transportation to only one boat and it was decided that there would be no landing that day, but a simple tour of the island offshore for photographs. Oakes was dissatisfied by this turn of events and, tired of symbolic press messages only, he jumped in the sea when the boat neared the island, and swam through icy water and strong current upon Alcatraz, followed by a few others. The story went on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle the next day with an article quoting the Proclamation at length and calling the swimmers "braves." 47 With great irony, the Proclamation offers to buy the island "for twenty-four dollars in glass beads and red cloth, a precedent set by the white man's purchase of a similar island about 300 years ago," referring to Manhattan island. Adopting a reversal strategy, the text further points out the hypocrisy of the forced assimilationist policies that have been enforced by the federal government officially for the benefit of Native Americans, but in truth as part of the process of land dispossession: the Indians of All Tribes propose to set up a "bureau of Caucasian Affairs" to manage the land in the name of the (imaginary) primary inhabitants of the Alcatraz island and to "offer them our religion, our education, our life-ways, in order to help them achieve our level of civilization and thus raise them and all their white brothers up from their savage and unhappy state." Furthermore, in continuity with the ironic tone of the text, a list of criteria presents the Alcatraz Island as similar to reservations since it is a piece of land bereft of resources and means to ensure a prosperous and healthy life, which brings attention to the poor conditions faced on reservation. 48 On 20 November, Oakes was back on the island, along with 78 other Native Americans, and We reject either extermination of our cultures, which we refuse to have end up on museum walls for the pleasure of non-Indians. We reject the chronic and cyclical poverty of reservation and the relocation transfer of that poverty into Red Ghettoes in the cities. We reject these alternatives. This is why there's no more end of the trail of us. We're on a new trail. We're creating our own alternatives!49

Moreover, she announced a confederation of Native Americans was planned to be held on 23

December 1969 on the island, and invited all Native tribes to send representatives in order to start building a pan-Indian future. Keith's assertion of self-determination and of pan-Indian unity reveals the movement as one led for the empowerment of a whole population, in order to break free from the domination of another group, differentiated on the base of race and culture. It falls in line with the definition of a decolonisation struggle.

A.3. From Resistance to Activism

The difficulty to set dates for the origins of the RPM comes from the fact that it is set in a long history of Native resistance against settler colonialism, which adopted different forms over time. The past of political resistance, started in the early twentieth-century with the Society of American Indians, shows that the RPM is not to be mistaken with Native activism as a whole. Hank Adams talks about "Red Power" as a synonym for Native activism, of which the Red Power

Movement is only one episode. In Native Activism in Cold War America, Daniel M. Cobb differentiates two kinds of activism. 50 The first one is non-confrontational, mainly operated by tribal leaders, teachers or administrators, and concentrates on reforms at political, legislative and educational levels. The second form is more confrontational and emanates from grass-root militancy. It corresponds to the emerging activism of the 1960s, as seen through the observation of the NIYC and Indians of All Tribes. Because of this distinction between non-confrontational and confrontational militancy, the first form can be seen as resistance and the second as a more assertive and radical activism.

What can be even more significant to identify the RPM is a shift in ideology from previous organisations. Since the end of the Second World War, Native activism was led on a national scale in the United States by the NCAI. However, because of its initial involvement in the Termination policies, it was controversial among Native communities. Shirley Hill Witt of the NIYC condemned the National Congress and its links with the federal government:

We rejected much of the 'hang the fort' Indian leadership -the Uncle Tomahawks -which we saw as dedicated to appeasing the Washington bureaucracy, be it the new Kennedy administration or the Department of the Interior and its BIA entrenched minions. It was diplomatic to avoid direct confrontation with the NCAI and others -we kept reminding ourselves that honoring our elders was an important cross-cultural value among all the tribesstill it was time to break the 'youth does not speak' rule at this threshold in pan-Indian development, we were certain. 51 Similarly to Hank Adams who referred to the NCAI as the "created organ" of the Interior Department, this generation of radical activists resented compromises to the point that they viewed the more moderate approach of the NCAI as selling out to the government. Witt's pun "Uncle

Tomahawk" points out this grievance and creates the image of a new allegory working side by side with the one of the American federal government "Uncle Sam," at the expense of Native Americans. This image also denounces a problem in the persisting stereotype of Native Americans as passive bystanders, or in this case of accomplices, of the decried federal policies. Witt's generation rather called for setting an example of active Indigenous people who created their own path by embracing both tribal cultures and modernity. This assertion of cultural revival is one of its main points of division with the NCAI. Karen Rickard of the NIYC fully rejected the idea of assimilation, and advocated a complete return to tribalism. 52 Another important point of division between the NCAI and the RPM is that the NCAI was openly opposed to direct action and demonstrations. As stated in the introduction of this thesis, members of the NCAI hung a banner in 1967 reading "Indians Don't Demonstrate." As Élise Marienstras points out, the legislative activism carried out by that generation attracted little media coverage. 53 On the contrary, the RPM's methods were bold and energetic in relying on uncompromising civil disobedience. It provided wonderful fodder for the media machine, which the movement used to its advantage. These methods were adopted by the younger generation who urged for more concrete and quicker results than what the strategy of gradual reforms through legislative approach had procured so far. Therefore, they turned to public opinion to develop their own bottomup power dynamic.

Nonetheless, the NCAI was the most important inter-tribal organisation of the 1950s. It fought for tribal rights and against forced assimilation. Paul C. Rosier defends the organisation in reminding that although it got involved in the establishment of the Termination policies, which were strongly opposed by the RPM, the NCAI did not mean to work for the end of reservations, but for the possibility for those who wanted it to be helped relocate to urban areas. Rosier quotes the NCAI president Joseph Garry (Coeur d'Alene) who defended in 1954 the reservation system: "some of our fellow Americans think that our reservations are places of confinement. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Reservations do not imprison us. They are ancestral homelands, retained by us for our perpetual use and enjoyment. We feel we must assert our right to maintain ownership in our own way, and to terminate it only by our consent." [START_REF] Garry | A Declaration of Indian Rights," 28 February 1954; cited in Rosier[END_REF] Moreover, the NCAI was the only inter-tribal organisation working on a national scale in the 1950s, and was therefore the only one to be in a position to negotiate with the federal government. Nevertheless, the last point of division in ideology with the NCAI was that the RPM pushed further the cause of self-determination by promoting tribal sovereignty.

The importance of the NCAI can be traced down to the context of its foundation. The NCAI was created during the Second World War, on 17 November 1944. Hixson indicates that about 25,000 Native Americans fought in the conflict, and that thousands more participated in the war efforts in the United States. 55 The Navajo language famously played a decisive role in the coding of secret messages, that were never deciphered by the Axis forces. 56 This noteworthy enrolment had a significant impact on Native American-White relations, since both were united in the conflict against a common enemy. According to Rosier, a "hybrid American patriotism" developed among the generation of veterans. It made them imagine a nationalism through which both their Native and American identities could thrive. [START_REF] Paul | Serving Their Country: American Indian Politics and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century[END_REF] However, Hixson notes that the same phenomenon had been witnessed with the First World War, which led to the Citizenship Act, but for little actual change in Native American lives. The next generation did not share, and actually often rejected, the patriotism of their elders. The activist Dennis Banks (Ojibwa) shares in his autobiography that he developed a hatred for the American flag in the two IBS he attended: "Wahpeton was run like a military institution. On Memorial Day, for instance, we marched stiffly in our uniforms and caps with our wooden play guns over our shoulders, marching to the sound of the band. Always before us waved the Stars and Stripes, our conqueror's flag." 58 Nevertheless, Rosier writes that because they grew up during the Cold War and on the tales of bravery of their elders, the rhetoric adopted by this generation was military oriented and they were ready to wage a war of their own. In the NIYC newsletter Aborigine, Mel Thom wrote in 1963 that Native Americans were involved in "a different kind of war -a cold war, one might say. It's a struggle against destructive forces the Indian cannot sometimes even see, let alone understand." [START_REF] Thom | Indian War 1963[END_REF] This distance vis-à-vis patriotic sentiments was common among the 1960s American youth, at a time marked by the anti-Vietnam war protests and the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). The latter especially played a significant influence on the RPM.

The most evident influence is on the name adopted by the movement. Sins" on the other, and disrupted the parade by forcing their way into it. 60 The non-violent civil disobedient "fish-ins" launched by the NIYC also drew from the CRM, as their name mimics the "sit-ins" initiated on February 1960 at Greensboro, North Carolina, by four African American students. Moreover, the popularity of the word "pan-Indianism" among Native activists can be linked to the revival of "pan-Africanism" which accompanied the Black Power Movement (BPM).

The BPM set an example of direct action and civil disobedience for a radical activism, which grew from anger after the non-violent CRM did not fully achieve its goals in its fight against the United States racist social structure. Clyde Warrior expressed a similar anger to the journalist Stan Steiner in 1966 when he said that the "only way you change that structure is to smash it," and that he was ready for an armed revolution if needed be. He warned that "violence will come about,

[…] and as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better."61 Dennis Banks remembers how the anti-Vietnam war protests and the BPM directly influenced his militant path:

I was stuck at Stillwater, the Minnesota state prison, from early 1966 to May of 1968. Inside the pen, I began to read about Indian history and became politicized in the process. I would read the papers and see that demonstrations about civil rights and the Vietnam war were going on all over the country. I realized that I desperately wanted to be part of a movement for Indian people, but we had no organization to address social reform, human rights, or treaty rights. We had nineteen Indian organizations for social welfare and gathering clothes. These were needed, but there was no movement specifically addressing the police brutality that was an everyday fact for Indian people or the discrimination in housing and employment in Minneapolis. Nor were there ever Indians speaking at those big rallies 1 saw on TV about the war in Vietnam or minority issues. Helpless in my prison cell, I felt that the chances for creating an effective Indian rights organization were passing us by. that the consideration of their legal and social contexts differed significantly. Due to the "legal legacy of America's colonial past," the issue for Native Americans was not to obtain civil rights but the recognition of existent treaties and tribal sovereignty. 68 The Fort Laramie treaty which was invoked for the Alcatraz occupation did not extend to other tribes than the Sioux nations.

Nevertheless, the Indians of All Tribes used it to remind the American public that they were independent Nations before the United States unilaterally decided otherwise. The Oglagla, a tribe member of the Sioux nations, later wielded the Fort Laramie treaty during the Wounded Knee occupation in 1973 to declare its independence:

LET IT BE KNOWN, MARCH 11,1973, THAT THE OGLALA PEOPLE WILL REVIVE THE TREATY OF 1868, AND THAT IT WILL BE THE BASIS FOR ALL NEGOTIATIONS.

Let the declaration be made that we are a sovereign nation by the Treaty of 1868. We intend to send a delegation to the United Nations.

We want to abolish the Tribal Government under the Indian Reorganization Act. Wounded Knee will be a corporate state under the Independent Oglala Nation.

In proclaiming the Independent Oglala Nation, the first nation to be called for support is the Six Nation Confederacy (The Iroquois League). We request that the Confederacy send emissaries to this newly proclaimed nation. 69 This assertion of independence marks the fundamental difference Nadège Roques notes between the two causes of ethnic activism: African Americans fought for equality, to be fully part of American society, whereas Native Americans fought in the RPM for the recognition of tribal sovereignty, that is to say for the revival of their autonomy. 70 Reflecting on their chances of success, Banks retrospectively considers the issues raised by the recognition of tribal sovereignty:

Official acknowledgment of the Treaty of 1868 would mean not only that our Sacred Black Hills, but all of the Dakotas, much of Montana, Wyoming, and Minnesota with all their natural treasures-coal, oil, uranium, gold, and silver-would revert to us. White America would never give that up. It would fight for the land tooth and nail. The odds against us were astronomical. I had no illusions. Still I would fight for Indian sovereignty no matter the cost, if only to establish the principle for future generations. 71 The AIM leader realises that the real enemy they had to oppose in their struggle was not so much racism -although it played a significant role in the matter -but the everlasting issue of land ownership. The struggle for treaty rights, self-determination and tribal sovereignty engaged by the RPM activists was a fight against endless settler colonialism.

B-The Reality of Pan-Indianism

RPM activism can be differentiated from other episodes of Native American militancy by its focus on pan-Indianism. In the first note of Red Power Rising, Bradley G. Shreve explains that controversies are raging upon the uses and differences between the terms "inter-tribal" and "pan-Indian." According to him, the same arguments are presented to support opposite ideas on what these words refer to. Hence, he concludes on using them as synonyms. 72 However, as attested by Shirley Keith's contribution to the press conference in San Francisco in December 1969, "pan-Indianism" was claimed by the RPM activists themselves. This term can therefore be seen as yet another tool of differentiation between previous forms of inter-tribal resistance and the more assertive pan-Indian activism initiated in the 1960s. Moreover, for the activists of this generation, the term came to encompass much more than the unity of Native nations. As an umbrella term for the struggle they led for tribal sovereignty, "pan-Indiansm" became part of their identity in a movement of cultural revival and Indigenous nationalism.

Nevertheless, one can question the practicability of fighting in the name of nearly 800,000 people from hundreds of various tribes with their distinctive cultures and languages, as the term implies -the Greek prefix pan meaning "all". 73 After a century of forced assimilation to a culture promoting individualism, the relevance of a unity based on race and cultures relying on tribalism can be questioned.

B.1. United by the American Indian Boarding School Experience

In Education and the American Indian, Margaret Connell Szasz notes that the massive Native American enrolment during the Second World War contributed to the creation of a pan- Indian leadership. 74 Indigenous peoples found themselves fighting together and were all identified as Native American soldiers in the army, rather than by their tribal affiliations. This participation in the victory of the United States and the heroic narratives that resulted from the conflict helped fight self-deprecation complexes that spread among Native American communities, notably as a result of the IBS abuses. In the documentary film Unseen Tears, Lori Quigley -a Doctor in Philosophy who served as Associate Dean at the Buffalo State College, New York, from 2000 to 2010 -argues that Native Americans were praised for being good soldiers and enrolled massively even in peace times because they were already trained for military life through the IBS:

One of the superintendents during the time that my mother was there actually came from correctional services and [...] that's exactly how he decided that Thomas Indian School would be operated. Children marched from here to there, just everything, you know, had its place. I talked to some of the men who went there, the majority of them went into the military. Military life was easy for them, they knew how to do all the marching, they knew how to line up, they knew how to dress with their uniforms, everything would be the exact... making the bed in a military style, they knew to do all that before being in the military. 75 In his autobiography, the founder and leader of AIM Dennis Banks explains that for many, the army was an easy escape from reservations with the promise of "three meals and a warm place to sleep."76 Even him, who stated hating the American flag and the military discipline of the IBS, enrolled in the Air Force in 1954 at seventeen years old. He concurs with Lori Quigley, writing "I found it easy to adjust to military life. I guess my years at boarding schools prepared me for another round of obedience and discipline." Ultimately, his feelings towards the flag changed and he reports having become "so patriotic, it was ridiculous," until later disappointments in the army reversed this sentiment.

Banks elaborates on his experiences and views on the IBS system in his autobiography. 77 He confides having been forcibly estranged from his family by a BIA agent along with his brother and sister, and other children from the reservation. They were sent to the Pipestone Indian School, Minnesota, about two hundred fifty miles away. It was in 1942, he was five years old. 78 In 1948, because he had tried to run away several times to escape the beatings he suffered there, he was transferred to the Wahpeton Indian School, North Dakota, a facility run with a stricter military discipline. Banks tells how the IBS system instilled racism and self-hatred in him:

Their efforts to acculturate us extended even as far as our history books, which depicted Native people as murderous, mindless savages. In one of these books was a picture of a grinning Indian scalping a little blond white girl, one of those cute Shirley Temple types. I began to hate myself for being Indian, and made myself believe that I was really a white boy. My white teachers and their books taught me to despise my own people. White history became my history because there was no other. When they took us once a week to the movies -the twelve-cent matinee -I cheered for Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, and General Custer. I sided with the cavalry cutting down Indians. In my fantasies I was John Wayne rescuing the settlers from "red fiends." I dreamed of being a cowboy. My teachers had done a great job of brainwashing me. They had made me into an "apple" -red outside but white inside. 79 He reports that during the continuous eleven years he spent in these schools, he never had a chance to come back visit at home, and was only once visited by his grand-parents. When he was released from the institution at sixteen years old, he looked for his mother who had moved and remarried. He addresses the feelings of abandonment and resentment he felt for many years waiting for her to come get him back:

I needed to talk with my mother. I had felt so rejected by her. I thought that by sending me away to boarding school, my mother had tried to get rid of me. I felt betrayed in those early years. I did not know then that it was government policy that forced Indian kids away from their families. It had never been explained to me, so I thought my mother was somehow to blame for the years I was forced to live away from home.

When I came back nine years later, I never asked her why she didn't come and get me. She did ask me if I had received the many letters she had sent, and of course I had. But I never asked the question, "Why didn't you come for me?" I should have. I know now that I judged her too harshly. She was a victim of the system. Her life consisted of unending hard work and my father wasn't there to help her. 80 The federal IBS system was launched in 1879, but the generation of RPM activists suffered it as well as their elders. This institution broke families apart, and affected all Native Americans, either directly or through relatives. Charlotte Leforestier writes that traumas resulting from oppression have an effect of uniting a people. She compares this phenomenon with the one existing in Jewish communities in memory of the Shoah, within the African diaspora population regarding slavery, or among African Americans in memory of segregation. In an article published in 2001 in which she reviews studies on the IBS system, Julie L. Davies observes that the institution became a part of North American Indigenous history and cultures, a factor of unity between the many tribes, and consequently a component of Indigenous identities. 81 In the boarding schools, children of many different tribes came to meet and bond. They were all treated -or mistreated -alike, on the consideration that they were Native Americans first, primary to Chippewa, Shoshone or Cheyenne. publicised, originates from the IBS experience. Therefore, the RPM should not be perceived as the sole expression of pan-Indianism, which pre-existed the movement, but of one pan-Indian movement.

Nevertheless, it is not only through the pain endured during and after the IBS that these experiences created a bond across tribal lines. Adams details in the third part of his study the resistance opposed by the parents and by children within the schools, and fights the image of passive victims to help restore agency to Native Americans in their history.82 Some students kept observing tribal religious rites in secrecy, a few cases of arson were reported, and there were many runaways, who often teamed in their escapes. Pan-Indianism also developed out of the system's initiative itself: Leforestier writes that inter-tribal leagues were encouraged within the IBS -such as the Indian Brotherhood Association in the Pierre Indian School, South Dakota, that she studied more closely. 83 These clubs were meant to imitate the traditional American student fraternities and sororities. She argues that although the IBS's goal was to "homogenise" Native American population with other Americans, it unintentionally contributed to the homogenisation of Native tribes with each other into pan-Indianism.

Moreover, the study of the IBS system's traumatic after-effects and their resistance should not obliterate the fact that not all Native Americans resented going through the system, nor only lived negative experiences there. Because this system came to be so deeply set in Native American history, some parents wanted their children to follow the path they had taken. Therefore, it is not uncommon that several generations of a family attended the same institution. Adams notes that some parents, among which Luther Standing Bear's father, would send their children in order to have them later come home more educated on the hegemonic culture and help serve as mediator between their community and American society. The Alcatraz occupier Lenada James studied law in Washington D.C. in the 1960s. In Philp's Indian Self-Rule, she confides that after she lost her scholarship, she went back to her home reservation to work for the enforcement of tribal legislation, and served on her tribal council.84 However, completely positive accounts of former students' experiences are rare. This absence does not mean that they are inexistent, and it rather might demonstrate the focus of Native American studies literature on the negative effects of the system. Romeo, who struggles with a drug addiction. However, along the novel his story is gradually revealed and it turns out that the IBS experience was blissful for him. 86 An orphan found wandering at five years old, Romeo was thought to be mentally handicapped, until he was sent to a boarding school where the strict structure, the company of other children, and the attention of a dedicated teacher he sought to impress, spurred him to study and reveal himself a very smart boy.

Nevertheless, Romeo followed his best friend Landreaux, one of the protagonists, in his escape from the school, during which an accident crushed his arm and leg, left him with unending sequelae and drove him to narcotics. He spends the rest of his life wondering what he could have been if he had stayed at the boarding school and finished his successful scholarship. This character offers a nuanced vision on the institution, to recall that some children lived positive experiences there.

Adams and Davies argue that although the goal of the IBS was to crush Indianness -that is to say Native American cultural and social identities -it unintentionally resulted in the preservation of Indigenous cultures. The interaction with other tribal cultures and their differences enhanced one's own sense of tribal affiliation, Davies claims. 87 Donald A. Grinde, Jr., notes that this effect on Indianness had been foreshadowed by Capt. Pratt, the architect of the IBS system, who advocated only a short scholarship in the institution and to keep the enrolment of pupils in public schools among non-Native children as an ultimate goal to avoid precisely that phenomenon. 88 Nonetheless, arguments stating that the IBS system resulted in some positive effects as in "Other" opposed to the Eurocentric norm "Us," and exposed its artificiality.

In his definition of a genocide, Raphael Lemkin writes that "Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group." 92 The United Nation's definition as well frames that the targeted people of this crime is "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" 93 In an article published in 2008, the historian Benjamin Madley argues that to determine if Native Americans have been the victims of a genocide, each tribe's history should be studied separately, as he did in the article about the Yuki tribe from current California. 94 He writes that the history of Native American-White relation is too long, that it has been managed by too many federal administrations and resisted by hundreds of tribes in too many strategies to make generalisations relevant. However, Madley's point of view overlooks the fact that these hundreds of tribes were targeted by these different federal administrations as one single group, and therefore suffered the same oppression. In the colonial periphery, each and every Native tribe has been perceived by the oppressors as belonging to the same "Other" group, regardless of their language, culture and traditions, in a phenomenon of essentialisation, or more precisely, because it has been based on genetics, of racialisation. In the conclusion of La Paix Blanche, Robert Jaulin points out that Western civilisation itself is a social construct, which endeavours to homogenise distinctive European societies, and only exists in opposition to the "Other." 95 The opposition between these two groups, and domination of one over the other, is mirrored in the terminology used to address them. Native Americans are only "Natives" in contrast to those who originate from elsewhere, or whose ancestors came on the American shores, and imposed a name on them. Élise Marienstras points out that no words existed before "Indians" to name all of the inhabitants of North America at once. 96 Therefore, any common name given to individuals of Native tribe descents other than their tribe affiliation is in itself essentialist. However, Marienstras adds that it is not possible any more to differentiate the "cultural areas" composed by the different Native nations as they existed when Europeans started invading the continent. Although she doesn't use the term "settler colonial", she writes that this invading presence and time altered traditional tribal cultures. Nevertheless, these cultures retain legacies of their former selves, "increased with a 123 sediment which, while transforming the original material, preserved its ancient distinctiveness." 97 Over time, essentialist terminologies such as "Native American" or "Indian American" became partly true, since tribal cultures evolved with their environment, which became the United States.

Nonetheless, as Marienstras reminds, colonisation did not affect all tribes in the same way since its beginning. Tribes from the East Coast, from the Great Plains and Lakes, or from the West coast, did not face the same encounter, conflicts, and subjugation processes. For the Indigenous peoples of the East Coast, these processes occurred on a much longer period of time than their Western counterparts, during which some peaceful mutual cultural borrowings deeply transformed traditional tribal cultures. On the contrary, the cultures of the Great Plains and Lakes tribes were more preserved, perhaps due to a shorter and more violent period of conflict in the settler colonial expansionist project. Nevertheless, all North American Indigenous peoples ultimately faced the same treatment of being robbed of most, if not all, of their land, parked in reservations, and forced to assimilate through the IBS system. Erich W. Steinman argues that over time, the phenomenon of racialisation was solidified by scholars whose analyses of Indigenous militancy as emanating from one homogeneous group participate in silencing specific forms of tribal activism. He reminds that many different aspects of settler colonialism can be fought separately by distinctive forms of decolonisation struggle, according to a Native nation's specific needs. 98 In Steinman's views, settler colonialism attacks Indigenous ways at so many levels that any form of resistance is to be considered "as decolonizing in nature." 99 Moreover, according to Steinman, the process of racialisation of Native Americans was strengthened by their access to United States citizenship. 100 From distinctive nations, they became a socially constructed minority group within a single sovereign nation. He adds that this unilateral decision to extend the citizenship in 1924 to all tribal members on the United States' territory overnight was the ultimate denial of tribal sovereignty and assertion of colonial power. However, Walter L. Hixson highlights that Native nations had lost their sovereignty before the Citizenship Act. 101 Native Americans were considered as "wards" of the guardianship of the United States since developed in the twentieth-century, and particularly into a radical form in the 1960s and 1970s with the RPM. However, in an article studying the AIM leadership published in 1977, Rachel Bonney argues that pan-Indianism is an utopia since no organisation could ever pretend to talk in the name of all Indigenous peoples. 105 Vine Deloria Jr, in the influential book Custer Died for Your Sins, similarly claims that pan-Indianism and Indianness are not real, and have "been defined by whites for many years. Always they have been outside observers looking into Indian society from a selfmade pedestal of preconceived ideas coupled with an innate superior attitude toward those different from themselves. […] "Indianness" never existed except in the mind of the beholder." 106 The ninth chapter of the book, "The Problem of Indian Leadership" details why the concept of an efficient tribal unity at national level is inconsistent with tribal cultures, which are structured around the figure of the tribal leader, or War Chief. Nevertheless, Deloria advocates taking example on other cultures -such as "white culture (if there is one)" -to work on the problem of leadership and calls for tribal unity to resist Termination policies.

Marienstras attests that, following the Indian Relocation Act which urged Native Americans to move to urban areas, the Indigenous urban population massively increased in the 1960s. She notes that a phenomenon of acculturation was observed among Indigenous urban youth, with notably a loss of Native languages. However, she argues that acculturation does not mean assimilation, and that a young urban militant generation, as exemplified by AIM members, only adopted Western language elements to better communicate with the Western world. The phenomenon described by Marienstras is consistent with the concept of "strategic essentialism" coined by Spivak in "Can the Subaltern Speak?" She defines strategic essentialism as a temporary stereotyped representation of the different identities composing a subaltern group in order to be heard by the dominant one. Therefore, this strategy momentarily embraces the racialisation forced by the colonists in order to fight collectively, and adopts the voice and knowledge imposed with epistemic violence. In Warrior's speech "We Are Not Free," the NIYC's leader adopts a similar strategy as theorised by Spivak. When he recalls a common past of freedom and good life for all Native Americans, he invokes a virtual common culture and "Indian standards." Spivak writes that strategic essentialism also has the effect of creating solidarity among subalterns, and a collective identity throughout social action.

B.3. A Romanticised Unity

Strategic essentialism as proposed and theorised by Spivak is originally artificial, based on a romanticised unity. According to Charlotte Leforestier, the word "pan-Indianism" was coined in 1960 by the anthropologist and archaeologist James H. Howard, who defined it as a process through which tribes lose their specific features to replace them with a non-tribal general Native American culture. 107 The question of pan-Indianism is inseparable from the one of identity, or Indianness, firstly because some, such as Spivak, consider them as inter-dependent, and secondly because others, such as Vine Deloria Jr., see them as synonyms. Rachel Bonney notes in 1977 that Indianness "is a situational identity that may supercede tribal identities on certain occasions, but that tribal identity is merely dormant, never totally lost." 108 Leforestier writes that she started studying this question with the assumption that Native Americans experienced their sense of identity as three concentric circles, together forming Indianness: the first inner circle being the tribal affiliation, the second middle circle being the one labelled "Native American," that is to say the pan-Indian connection, and the third external circle being the connection with non-Native Americans through the United States nationality. However, she corrects her primary beliefs by noting that if the inner circle is indeed almost invariably the tribal membership, and the second circle is often the pan-Indian affiliation, the third circle is not a given. Moreover, she enhances that it is an individual evaluation, which can vary from a person to the other depending on geographical, tribal or cultural factors, as well as within a family. 109 Furthermore, she writes that when tribal and pan-Indian affiliations are expressed by a person, the latter tends to be a political assertion which supplements the former, or sometimes takes its place as first inner circle, but does not erase it, contrary to what Howard stated. 110 Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind, as Paul C. Rosier points out, that some post-WW2 activists defended the cohabitation of both American and Indigenous identities, in a process of willing acculturation and in respect for self-determination, especially veterans for whom patriotism was often salient, but not to the detriment of their Native American identity. Rosier addresses the phenomenon with the term "hybrid patriotism." 111 However, in order to fight essentialism, all writings on Indigenous cultures enhance they are multiple and that Native nations were independent from each other. Not all nations used to get along and yet some still do not. Therefore, pan-Indianism had to be constructed in spite of divisions.

127

Hixson points out that some inter-tribal alliances have been forged between tribes to oppose others, and that wars were common. He argues that, due to the Eurocentric perception of Native Americans as one group, these conflicts were used to legitimise the vision of Indigenous peoples as "savages" at the early stages of colonisation. 112 In the twentieth-century, each piece of legislation geared towards managing Native American affairs was received by divided opinions amongst Indigenous communities: for instance, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was opposed by some Native Americans who had assimilated and adopted individual land ownership, and was acclaimed by some who wanted to secure tribal ownership.

One of the most highlighted divisions by many scholars, notably Paul Chaat Smith and Allen Warrior in their monograph on the RPM, is the one between reservation communities and urbanised Indigenous people. Although the phenomenon began in the early twentieth-century, it was deepened by the 1956 Indian Relocation Act which significantly increased Native urban population. Rosier details that between 1945 and 1960, over 30,000 Indigenous people moved to cities, which represents about 10% of reservations' population. 113 The sociologist Joan Nagel indicates that 27.9% of the Native American total population lived in urban areas in 1960 and that this number rose to 44.5% in 1970. 114 Bonney comments on the development of Indigenous nationalism in the 1960s with a focus on that division. She argues that nationalism is not a concept that comes naturally to Indigenous cultures, with the exception of the Creek and Iroquois nations which have been structured in political confederations. Nevertheless, she notes the emergence of that concept in two different ways in the 1960s. The first form this concept adopted can be understood as intertribalism, or as Bonney writes as a "brotherhood of tribes," such as supported by the NCAI. The second form she observes is a broader one which could be identified as pan-Indianism since she writes that it "subordinates tribal identities," and was typified by AIM. 115 In her opinion, the NIYC supported the first vision of Native nationalism, but this point of view is not corroborated by Bradley G. Shreve, who studied the organisation more closely, since he does not dwell on this differentiation as Bonney does. According to her, the Indianness and nationalism of Native Americans from reservations was based on tribalism, whereas urbanised Indigenous people's sense of ethnic identity was influenced by their condition of Native Americans in a White America, which made them more inclined to adopt the second form of Native nationalism. Her views are shared by Smith & Warrior, notably when they write about the Alcatraz occupiers:

Richard Oakes and some of the other leaders who would emerge during the occupation had spent time immersed in the daily life of tribal communities and could speak quite eloquently about horrid boarding school experiences or the crimes of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But most of the island's population were college students who were the second-generation product of relocation and urbanization and simply didn't have an experiential base about those things. That they came across as politically and culturally inexperienced to [NIYC members] Adams, Pipestem, and other veterans of Indian affairs comes as no surprise. 116 This excerpt, one of many in which the authors highlight the differences between urban and reservation communities, also shows divisions amongst activists, mainly based on cultural relations to tribalism. Bonney stresses, as many who studied the RPM, that the radical movement was born in urban areas. She explains that Native Americans in cities were more exposed to racism on an everyday basis than in reservations, through employment discrimination, as well as in housing, welfare services or ordinary life. Shreve recounts an anecdote lived by Shirley Hill Witt and Karen Rickard of the NIYC which helps take notice of the depth of racism in the 1960s towards Native Americans. The two activists were in a car accident in August 1962, when a pick-up truck collided with the side of Witt's car on a road in Michigan. When they regained consciousness, they were asked if they were Indigenous. After a bleeding Rickard had answered affirmatively and asked for help, she heard one man say "Don't do nothing, They're Indians. They'll go away." Later, someone else stopped and called for an ambulance, which drove them all the way to Wisconsin since hospitals in Michigan would not care to treat Native Americans. 117 For Bonney, pan-Indianism therefore emerged within Native urban communities as a way to cope as well as oppose racism and oppression on ordinary daily life through brotherhood and shared values.

However, in an article she wrote about the Native American ethnic renewal observed from the 1960s to the 1990s, the sociologist Joan Nagel shows that it is not possible to strictly classify urbanised Indigenous people and reservation population on the account that most Native Americans lived in both areas for significant periods of their lives. 118 That was especially the case from the late 1950s to the 1980s, during which many relocations took place, primarily spurred by the Relocation programs of the Termination era. According to Smith and Warrior, Richard Oakes was a strategic choice to make for spokesman and leader of the Indians of All Tribes, because he embodied the unity promoted by pan-Indianism to go beyond the urban-reservation division. Oakes was raised on a reservation but lived half of his life in cities. He was a Mohawk from the East Coast who moved to the West Coast and led a rebellion there in the name of all Native Americans. Oakes was a skilled blue-collar worker who became a student at 27 years old. Therefore, all Native Americans could find a reason to identify to him. Nonetheless, Nagel corroborates the idea that Relocation ignited a strong pan-Indian activism in urban areas where a more educated population, fluent in English and acculturated, was armed adequately for militancy in communication with the hegemonic culture.

However, Shreve argues that this consideration is overlooking facts, since he points out most founding members of the NIYC came from reservations and rural areas. 119 Élise Marienstras reminds that notwithstanding the differences between urban and reservation communities, and between tribes, all Native Americans experienced fundamental incompatibility between their cultures based on collectivity and the Euro-American culture with its capitalist values based on competition. That is the reason why in the 1960s, pan-Indianism was built on cultural bonds across tribal lines in a broad movement towards cultural revival.

Andrea Smith explains the artificiality of pan-Indianism is partly due to self-hatred, which tends to set Native communities against each other, as a result of an internalised of racism and from the socio-economic problems largely faced by Indigenous peoples. 120 According to her, this lack of self-pride is a side-effect of persistent colonialism. She builds up her argument from Frantz Fanon who writes that "In the colonial context, as we have already pointed out, the natives fight among themselves. They tend to use each other as a screen, and each hides from his neighbour the national enemy." 121 Fanon adds that this internalisation of inferiority by the colonised is inter-dependent with the domination of the colonist's values, and creates a dichotomous vision of the world. He argues that decolonisation movements necessarily unite since they attack that dichotomy. According to Fanon, decolonisation implies the abandonment of the Western world's individualism to return to collectivity. In this light, because pan-Indian activism is the unification of Native American communities to fight the oppressions faced by their cultures, it can be argued that this form of activism is intrinsically a decolonisation struggle.

The romanticisation of pan-Indian unity can be exemplified by Banks' vision of Native American history. In his autobiography, he writes that "There is one dark day in the lives of all Indian children: the day when they are forcibly taken away from those who love and care for them, from those who speak their language. They are dragged, some screaming and weeping, others in silent terror, to a boarding school where they are to be remade into white kids." 122 However, if the after-effects of the system affect all Indigenous communities in North America, not all Native 119 Shreve, 6. 120 Smith, 13. 121 Fanon, 307 in Farrington's translation. 122 Banks, 24. Americans went into an IBS. As a pan-Indian activist, he fights a system of domination and shows its tangible impacts by linking Native American history with his personal experiences: I realized that I had been living in a state of self-delusion. Air Force life had made me mentally lazy. As a GI, I was doing mostly nothing just taking a vacation from thinking. But it was the hour of awakening. I had been guarding the ramparts of the American Empire, but now I felt like those Crow and Arikara Indians who, after scouting for Custer and fighting on behalf of the whites, were pitted against their own brothers, the Cheyenne and Lakota. My Japanese family members were called "gooks," "slopes," and "slant-eyes" by whites, and those who suffered from these names were people just like me. Was I not a "slant-eye," as all American Indians are? The American Air Force, which I had thought of as a friend, turned out to be an enemy. 123 Bonney and Marienstras stress that AIM's activism was not only political but also cultural and even spiritual. The pan-Indianism advanced by this organisation was based on a strong cultural revival as counter-power to the IBS effects by instilling ethnic pride and the renascence of religious practices.

It follows that for AIM members, Bonney argues, pan-Indian activism became part of their identity. 124 In Fanon's view, a decolonisation struggle is the expression of a people's national culture, since colonisation meant to obliterate it. The fight itself becomes part of that culture and ultimately transforms it:

We believe that the conscious and organized undertaking by a colonized people to re-establish the sovereignty of that nation constitutes the most complete and obvious cultural manifestation that exists. It is not alone the success of the struggle which afterward gives validity and vigor to culture; culture is not put into cold storage during the conflict. The struggle itself in its development and in its internal progression sends culture along different paths and traces out entirely new ones for it. 125 The Native nationalism defended in the fight for tribal sovereignty was a political and a cultural struggle, since tribalism was repressed both in the obliteration of its independence and through a cultural genocide. The cultural revival promoted by pan-Indian organisations -AIM in lead but also Indians of All Tribes and NIYC -meant a return to the sacred link tying Native American cultures to the land. Paul C. Rosier reports the words of Marie Potts (Maidu), a great-grandmother and former student of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School who dedicated her retirement years to journalism for NCAI publications. In May 1961, she wrote in an NCAI Bulletin:

To the Indian his reservation is his home; it is his heritage; it is all he has. He feels a part of the land and the people who form the communities on the reservation whereas he sometimes feels unwanted in towns and cities away from the reservation. The Indian's view of the land is different from that of the non-Indian. Indians feel a social relationship to the land while the non-Indian regards the land in commercial terms. 126 The reservation, Potts concluded, "is the base of their existence, of tribal organizations and Indian Bearing in mind the persistent socio-economic after-effects which still overwhelmingly affect Indigenous populations, the argumentation in favour of considering the IBS as a genocidal instrument rather than an ethnocidal one is persuasive. The purpose of this institution having been the domination of a culture over another, the link between genocide and colonialism is salient. Therefore, this system can be regarded alone as evidence of a persistent colonial dynamic of power for most of the twentieth-century between the federal government and Native American communities. The recognition of ethnocide and genocide thus implies a recognition of colonialism, which is the first step of a process of decolonisation.

The 1975 Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the 1978 Tribally Controlled Community College Assistant Act, permitted the devolution of education management to federally recognised tribes. 1 In 1973, about 60,000 children still attended boarding schools, a majority of them in private church-run facilities which were not concerned by the acts passed in beating, poisoning, hanging, starvation, strangulation, and medical experimentation. It also reveals that some children were forcibly sterilised. The publication spurred thousands of complaints for abuse: 16,000 were recorded that year. Smith reports that in the United States, there were several noticed cases of expunged records which made investigations impossible: she cites the example of the journalist Tim Giago (Oglala Lakota) -whose Oglala name, Nanwica Kciji, means "Stands Up For Them." Giago wrote a book of poetry in 1977 addressing the ten years he spent in the Red Cloud Indian School, South Dakota, a Jesuit-run IBS founded in 1888 and still in activity in 2020. 7 He denounces in his poems sexual abuses he suffered from a teacher there. However, no records of his scholarship have been found at the school, and the officials of the institution claim he only attended the school for six months. 8 In Canada, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement In the United States, the first American official to acknowledge the responsibility of the BIA over the lingering consequences of traumas was the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Gover in a speech he gave in September 2000:

This agency forbade the speaking of Indian languages, prohibited the conduct of traditional religious activities, outlawed traditional government, and made Indian people ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the Bureau of Indian Affairs committed these acts against the children entrusted to its boarding schools, brutalizing them emotionally, psychologically, physically, and spiritually. […] The trauma of shame, fear and anger has passed from one generation to the next, and manifests itself in the rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence that plague Indian country. […] So many of the maladies suffered today in Indian country result from the failures of this agency. Poverty, ignorance, and disease have been the product of this agency's work. […] These wrongs must be acknowledged if the healing is to begin. […] We cannot yet ask your forgiveness, not while the burdens of this agency's history weigh so heavily on tribal communities. What we do ask is that, together, we allow the healing to begin10 However capital this speech is, the crime of ethnocide carried out by the institution is not recognised -not to mention a genocide.

The problem of legal recognition of cultural genocides prevents Native Americans from filing to get the IBS system charged as criminal. The 1948 United Nations convention defining genocide for international law, which was only ratified by the United States on 25 November 1988, does not recognise the lingering psychological and health effects as evidence of genocide. The Rome Statutes signed by the U.N. in 1998 might recognise the IBS system as guilty of crimes against humanity, as demonstrated by Daniel Feierstein. 11 However, the statutes can only prosecute alleged crimes committed on or after the date it came into force, that is to say on 1 July 2002.

Moreover, the United States has not ratified the treaty yet as for May 2020. However, Smith stresses that if the after-effects of an event are proved to continue in the present, the U.N. treaties allow to be seized retrospectively in order to press charges against the event. Different international organisations fighting for human rights are helping getting the abuses perpetrated in the schools recognized by filing lawsuits against the perpetrators, in default of the institution itself.

Smith argues that the impacts of the IBS need to be recognised as human rights violations so that the shame of addressing them might be lifted, in order to begin healing:

The issue of boarding school abuses forces us to see the connections between state violence and interpersonal violence. Violence in our communities was introduced through boarding schools. We continue to perpetuate that violence through violence against women, child abuse, and homophobia. […] No amount or type of reparations will "decolonize" us if we do not address oppressive behaviors that we have internalized. […] If boarding school policies and the impact of these policies were recognized as human rights violations, some of the shame attached to talking about these issues would be removed, and communities could begin to heal. We are already seeing the results of such work in Canada, but Native peoples in the U.S. have yet to benefit from this movement. 12 Her views are shared by many who study the impacts of the system on Native communities, such as Joseph P. Gone and the psychiatrist Dr. Brasfield. The latter denounces that in the meantime, programs geared to helping Indigenous peoples deal with the consequences of the IBS on their health -such as the dramatically high rates of alcoholism -without acknowledging the source of these health issues, are based on the racist assumption that this population is intrinsically subject to these problems.

In December 2009, President Barack Obama signed a joint resolution issued by the Senate whose full title is "To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States." 13 Nevertheless, the text does not mention any specific piece of legislation enacted by the American federal government, let alone their lingering effects. Moreover, the signature of the document was made without public ceremony or announcement.

However, Erich W. Steinman argues that a militancy pursuing state recognition and reparations -as initiated by the Red Power Movement and which continues in the twenty-first century -allows the continuation of a colonial domination over material and judicial Indigenous affairs because it confirms the sovereignty of the American government in its power to provide or refuse recognition and reparation. 14 In that light, Indigenous rights should not depend on the consent of settler colonial administration if self-determination is to be achieved. He adds that any kind of sovereignty is a Eurocentric notion, because based on domination.

Élise Marienstras analyses that Native Americans pose moral and institutional problems to the United States' national structure, because the notion of tribal sovereignty challenges that of state sovereignty by calling for the existence of nations within a nation. 15 A full assimilation would mean the loss of Indianness, and the recognition of tribal sovereignty means redefining the American nation from a "Nation of citizens" to a "Nation of nations," Marienstras writes. 16 In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon writes about decolonisation of colonial systems. Although settler colonialism is based on the same principles of domination, the implementation of a national narrative for settlers alters their social bond with the land, the nation, and the Indigenous people. The practicability of decolonisation in the context of a settler colony old of several centuries needs to be evaluated: a full decolonisation is hardly possible, therefore the colonial domination must be addressed and deconstructed in various fields, such as in education, culture, politics, legislation, as Steinman's table of anti-colonial actions lists. That is the reason why Walter L. Hixson describes the struggle led by the RPM as an ambivalent "third space."17 He argues that the movement refused both the assimilation goal of civil rights movements and the nationalist separation of Third World decolonisations, but rather "put forward an anti-colonial agenda emphasizing self-determination."

Hixson also states that, if anything, the RPM drew "unparalleled national attention to the North American indigenous past but also to the demands of the present." This new public exposure had a profound effect on Indianness and self-pride. The RPM's goal of self-determination, tribal sovereignty and cultural revival aimed at empowering Indigenous peoples, helping them recover their agency on the social, political and media scenes by setting examples of efficient activism on a national scale. In her article about Native American ethnic renewal, the sociologist Joan Nagel notes that the U.S. censuses indicate a consequential increase of people identifying as Native American from the mid-twentieth century. The censuses stipulate the numbers of 523,591 Native American people in 1960; 792,730 people in 1970; and 1,364,033 in 1980. 18 Sociologists applied the usual criteria of research to understand the impressive increase of 72% from 1970 to 1980. Since it was not due to an increase in birthrates, a decrease in mortality rates, immigration or changes in census procedures, they came to the conclusion that a change in self-identification had occurred in the two decades. It seems safe to assume that the RPM played a significant role in developing a new ethnic pride. However, many resent the RPM for having been mostly about publicising rather than achievements. Vine Deloria Jr., who played a decisive role in inspiring leaders of the movement, deplored in 1993 its lack of efficiency: "This era will probably always be dominated by the images and slogans of the AIM people. The real accomplishments in land restoration, however, were made by quiet determined tribal leaders."19 Lenada James, who was a student in 1969 and participated in the Alcatraz occupation, remembers: "The protest movement at Alcatraz had positive results. Many individuals were not ashamed to be Indian any more. People who had relocated to the cities were reidentifying themselves as Indians." 20 The feeling of empowerment of Indigenous peoples spread through the RPM is consistent with the notion of rehumanisation through decolonisation as advanced by Frantz Fanon. Native American cultures were strengthened by the two decades of activism pointing at cultural revival, the 1960s and 1970s. Oren Lyons testifies in 1983 about the adaptation of the Iroquois nation to modernism on its own terms:

We will determine what our culture is. It has been pointed out that culture constantly changes. It is not the same today as it was a hundred years ago. We are still a vital, active Indian society. We are not going to be put in a museum or accept your interpretations of our culture.

[…] When people refer to traditionalist Indians all of a sudden everybody says: "Oh, well, there must be some teepees around here. Let's look for the people that have got all the blankets on." That is not a proper way to view traditionalism. Traditionalism is the representation and continuum of a culture that has been here from time immemorial and that demands respect. If you think you can talk us out of existence, you cannot.

[…] It is a fact that a small group of people in the northeast have survived an onslaught for some 490 years. They continue their original manner of government. They also drive cars, have televisions, and ride on planes. We make the bridges that you cross over and build the buildings that you live in.

So, what are we? Are we traditionalists or are we assimilated? If you can get away from your categories and definitions, you will perceive us as a living and continuing society. We believe that the wampum and the ceremonial masks should be at home. We will continue our ceremonies. We have the right to exist and that right does not come from you or your government. [START_REF]The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia[END_REF] Lyons describes the possibility for Native Americans to thrive in American society as they see fit in adequacy with their traditional cultures, insofar as they are respected by other Americans. However, this conception of a multicultural nation, Hixson warns, can perpetuate the historical denial of settler colonialist societies by redeeming them in casting a light of tolerance. 22 Therefore, for any actual form of decolonisation to take place in a settler colony, historiography has to go through a process of revision. In the article "Theorizing Settler Colonialism: Alternative Indigenous International recognition of tribal sovereignty started its slow ascension that year with the first conference of international treaties and culminated with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted on 13 September 2007. The General Assembly of the U.N. voted in favour of the UNDRIP by a majority of 144 states, 11 abstentions, and only 4 votes against: Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. However, the four settler colonial countries have reversed their position since then. The declaration establishes universal standards of living in dignity and legal safeguards for the fundamental rights, freedom and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples' specific situation within non-Native societies. 21 Philp, Indian Self-Rule, 244-245. 22 Hixson, 189. 23 Jennifer McLerran, "Theorizing Settler Colonialism: Alternative Indigenous Methodologies," Feminist Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2-3, Indigenous Feminisms in Settler Contexts (2019), 455-466.

The work of scholars as Smith, Gone and the psychiatrist Brasfield who argue in favour of political recognition of settler colonialism and its after-effects on Indigenous peoples, as well as the work of scholars as J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Joanne Barker and the writer Leanne Betasamosake Simspon who develop new methodologies to promote Indigenous knowledge as an anti-colonial move, are testimonies of the RPM's legacy on Native American studies and activism. The RPM initiated a combined militancy of political assertion and cultural revival which spurred the strengthening of tribal sovereignty and the expansion of the causes fought to protect Indigenous Most members of the National Indian Youth Council can remember when we were children and spent many hours at the feet of our grandfathers listening to stories of the time when Indians were a great people, when we were free, when we were rich, when we lived the good life. At the same time we heard stories of droughts, famines, and pestilence. It was only recently that we realized that there was surely great material deprivation in those days, but that our old people felt rich because they were free. They were rich in things of the spirit, but if there is one thing that characterizes Indian life today it is poverty of the spirit. We still have human passions and depth of feeling (which may be something rare in these days), but we are poor in spirit because we are not free-free in the most basic sense of the word. We are not allowed to make those basic human choices and decisions about our personal life and about the destiny of our communities which is the mark of free mature people. We sit on our front porches or in our yards, and the world and our lives in it pass us by without our desires or aspirations having any effect.

We are not free. We do not make choices. Our choices are made for us; we are the poor. For those of us who live on reservations these choices and decisions are made by federal administrators, bureaucrats, and their "yes men," euphemistically called tribal governments. Those of us who live in nonreservation areas have our lives controlled by local white power elites. We have many rulers. They are called social workers, "cops," school teachers, churches, etc., and now OEO employees. They call us into meetings to tell us what is good for us and how they've programmed us, or they come into our homes to instruct us and their manners are not always what one would call polite by Indian standards or perhaps by any standards. We are rarely accorded respect as fellow human beings. Our children come home from school to us with shame in their hearts and a sneer on their lips for their home and parents. We are the "poverty problem" and that is true; and perhaps it is also true that our lack of reasonable choices, our lack of freedoms, and our poverty of the spirit is not unconnected with our material poverty.

The National Indian Youth Council realizes there is a great struggle going on in America between those who want more "local" control of programs and those who would keep the power and the purse strings in the hands of the federal government. We are unconcerned with that struggle because we know that no one is arguing that the dispossessed, the poor, be given any control over their own destiny. The local white power elites who protest the loudest against federal control are the very ones who would keep us poor in spirit and worldly goods in order to enhance their own personal and economic station in the world.

Nor have those of us on reservations fared any better under the paternalistic control of federal administrations. In fact, we shudder at the specter of what seems to be the forming alliances in Indian areas between federal administrations and local elites. Some of us fear this is the shape of things to come in the War on Poverty effort. Certainly, it is in those areas where such an alliance is taking place that the poverty program seems to be "working well." That is to say, it is in those areas of the country where the federal government is getting the least "static" and where federal money is being used to bolster the local power structure and local institutions. By "everybody being satisfied," I mean the people who count and the Indian or poor does not count. […] Fifty years ago the federal government came into our communities and by force carried most of our children away to distant boarding schools. My father and many of my generation lived their childhoods in an almost prison-like atmosphere. Many returned unable even to speak their own language. Some returned to become drunks. Most of them had become white haters or that most pathetic of all modern Indians-Indian haters. Very few ever became more than very confused, ambivalent and immobilized individuals-never able to reconcile the tensions and contradictions built inside themselves by outside institutions. As you can imagine, we have little faith in such kinds of federal programs devised for our betterment nor do we see education as a panacea for all ills. In recent days, however, some of us have been thinking that perhaps the damage done to our communities by forced assimilation and directed acculturative programs was minor compared to the situation in which our children now find themselves. There is a whole generation of Indian children who are growing up in the American school system. They still look to their relatives, my generation, and my father's to see if they are worthy people. But their judgement and definition of what is worthy is now the judgement most Americans make. They judge worthiness as competence and competence as worthiness. And I am afraid me and my fathers do not fare well in the light of this situation and that they individually are not worthy. Even if by some stroke of good fortune prosperity was handed to us "on a platter&30148; that still would not soften the negative judgement our youngsters have of their people and themselves. As you know, people who feel themselves to be unworthy and feel they cannot escape this unworthiness turn to drink and crime and self-destructive acts. Unless there is some way that we as Indian individuals and communities can prove ourselves competent and worthy in the eyes of our youngsters there will be a generation of Indians grow to adulthood whose reaction to their situation will make previous social ills seem like a Sunday School picnic.

For the sake of our children, for the sake of the spiritual and material well-being of our total community we must be able to demonstrate competence to ourselves. For the sake of our psychic stability as well as our physical well-being we must be free men and exercise free choices. We must make decisions about our own destinies. We must be able to learn and profit from our own mistakes. Only then can we become competent and prosperous communities. We must be free in the most literal sense of the word-not sold or coerced into accepting programs for our own good, not of our own making or choice. Too much of what passes for "grassroots democracy" on the American scene is really a slick job of salesmanship. It is not hard for sophisticated administrators to sell tinsel and glitter programs to simple people-programs which are not theirs, which they do not understand and which cannot but ultimately fail and contribute to already strong feelings of inadequacy. Community development must be just what the word implies, Community Development. It cannot be packaged programs wheeled into Indian communities by outsiders which Indians can "buy" or once again brand themselves as unprogressive if they do not "cooperate." Even the best of outside programs suffer from one very large defect-if the program falters helpful outsiders too often step in to smooth over the rough spots. At that point any program ceases to belong to the people involved and ceases to be a learning experience for them. Programs must be Indian experiences because only then will Indians understand why a program failed and not blame themselves for some personal inadequacy. A better program built upon the failure of an old program is the path of progress. But to achieve this experience, competence, worthiness, sense of achievement and the resultant material prosperity Indians must have the responsibility in the ultimate sense of the word. Indians must be free in the sense that other more prosperous Americans are free. Freedom and prosperity are different sides of the same coin and there can be no freedom without complete responsibility. And I do not mean the fictional responsibility and democracy of passive consumers of programs; programs which emanate from and whose responsibility for success rests in the hands of outsiders-be they federal administrators or local white elitist groups.

[…]

America cannot afford to have whole areas and communities of people in such dire social and economic circumstances. Not only for her economic well-being but for her moral well-being as well. America has given a great social and moral message to the world and demonstrated (perhaps not forcefully enough) that freedom and responsibility as an ethic is inseparable from and, in fact, the "cause" of the fabulous American standard of living. America has not however been diligent enough in promulgating this philosophy within her own borders. American Indians need to be given this freedom and responsibility which most Americans assume as their birth right. Only then will poverty and powerlessness cease to hang like the sword of Damocles over our heads stifling us. Only then can we enjoy the fruits of the American system and become participating citizens-Indian Americans rather than American Indians.

Perhaps, the National Indian Youth Council's real criticism is against a structure created by bureaucratic administrators who are caught in this American myth that all people assimilate into American society, that economics dictates assimilation and integration. From the experience of the National Indian Youth Council, and in reality, we cannot emphasize and recommend strongly enough the fact that no one integrates and disappears into American society. What ethnic groups do is not integrate into American society and economy individually, but enter into the mainstream of American society as a people, and in particular as communities of people. The solution to Indian poverty is not "government programs" but in the competence of the person and his people. The real solution to poverty is encouraging the competence of the community as a whole.

[The] National Indian Youth Council recommends for "openers" that to really give these people "the poor, the dispossessed, the Indians," complete freedom and responsibility is to let it become a reality not a muchheard-about dream and let the poor decide for once, what is best for themselves.

Indians of All Tribes, "

The Alcatraz Proclamation to the Great White Father and his People."

Delivered by Richard Oakes before the GSA West Coast Regional administrator Tom Hannon, 9

November 1969 in San Francisco, California.

Proclamation to the Great White Father and All His People

We, the native Americans, re-claim the land known as Alcatraz Island in the name of all American Indians by right of discovery.

We wish to be faire and honorable in our dealings with the Caucasian inhabitants of this land, and hereby offer the following treaty:

We will purchase said Alcatraz Island for twenty-four dollars ($24) in glass beads and red cloth, a precedent set by the white man's purchase of a similar island about 300 years ago. We know that $24 in trade goods for these 16 acres is more than was paid when Manhattan Island was sold, but we know that land values have risen over the years. Our offer of $1.24 per acre is greater than the 47¢ per acre that the white men are now paying the California Indians for their land. We will give to the inhabitants of this island a portion of that land for their own, to be held in trust by the American Indian Affairs [sic] and by the bureau of Caucasian Affairs to hold in perpetuity-for as long as the sun shall rise and the rivers go down to the sea. We will further guide the inhabitants in the proper way of living. We will offer them our religion, our education, our life-ways, in order to help them achieve our level of civilization and thus raise them and all their white brothers up from their savage and unhappy state. We offer this treaty in good faith and wish to be fair and honorable in our dealings with all white men.

We feel that this so-called Alcatraz Island is more than suitable for an Indian Reservation, as determined by the white man's own standards. By this we mean that this place resembles most Indian reservations in that:

1. It is isolated from modern facilities, and without adequate means of transportation.

2. It has no fresh running water.

3. It has inadequate sanitation facilities.

4. There are no oil or mineral rights.

5. There is no industry and so unemployment is very great.

6. There are no health care facilities.

7. The soil is rocky and non-productive; and the land does not support game.

8. There are no educational facilities. 9. The population has always exceeded the land base.

10. The population has always been held as prisoners and kept dependent upon others.

Further, it would be fitting and symbolic that ships from all over the world, entering the Golden Gate would first see Indian land, and thus be reminded of the true history of this nation. This tiny island would be a symbol of the great lands once ruled by free and noble Indians.

Kevin Gover, Speech at the Ceremony Acknowledging the 175th Anniversary of the

Establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. September 8, 2000.

In March of 1824, President James Monroe established the Office of Indian Affairs in the Department of War. Its mission was to conduct the nation's business with regard to Indian affairs. We have come together today to mark the first 175 years of the institution now known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

It is appropriate that we do so in the first year of a new century and a new millennium, a time when our leaders are reflecting on what lies ahead and preparing for those challenges. Before looking ahead, though, this institution must first look back and reflect on what it has wrought and, by doing so, come to know that this is no occasion for celebration; rather it is time for reflection and contemplation, a time for sorrowful truths to be spoken, a time for contrition.

We must first reconcile ourselves to the fact that the works of this agency have at various times profoundly harmed the communities it was meant to serve. From the very beginning, the Office of Indian Affairs was an instrument by which the United States enforced its ambition against the Indian nations and Indian people who stood in its path. And so, the first mission of this institution was to execute the removal of the southeastern tribal nations. By threat, deceit, and force, these great tribal nations were made to march 1,000 miles to the west, leaving thousands of their old, their young and their infirm in hasty graves along the Trail of Tears.

As the nation looked to the West for more land, this agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes. War necessarily begets tragedy; the war for the West was no exception. Yet in these more enlightened times, it must be acknowledged that the deliberate spread of disease, the decimation of the mighty bison herds, the use of the poison alcohol to destroy mind and body, and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life. This agency and the good people in it failed in the mission to prevent the devastation. And so great nations of patriot warriors fell. We will never push aside the memory of unnecessary and violent death at places such as Sand Creek, the banks of the Washita River, and Wounded Knee.

Nor did the consequences of war have to include the futile and destructive efforts to annihilate Indian cultures. After the devastation of tribal economies and the deliberate creation of tribal dependence on the services provided by this agency, this agency set out to destroy all things Indian.

This agency forbade the speaking of Indian languages, prohibited the conduct of traditional religious activities, outlawed traditional government, and made Indian people ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the Bureau of Indian Affairs committed these acts against the children entrusted to its boarding schools, brutalizing them emotionally, psychologically, physically, and spiritually. Even in this era of self -determination, when the Bureau of Indian Affairs is at long last serving as an advocate for Indian people in an atmosphere of mutual respect, the legacy of these misdeeds haunts us. The trauma of shame, fear and anger has passed from one generation to the next, and manifests itself in the rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence that plague Indian country .Many of our people live lives of unrelenting tragedy as Indian families suffer the ruin of lives by alcoholism, suicides made of shame and despair, and violent death at the hands of one another. So many of the maladies suffered today in Indian country result from the failures of this agency. Poverty, ignorance, and disease have been the product of this agency's work.

And so today I stand before you as the leader of an institution that in the past has committed acts so terrible that they infect, diminish, and destroy the lives of Indian people decades later, generations later. These things occurred despite the efforts of many good people with good hearts who sought to prevent them. These wrongs must be acknowledged if the healing is to begin.

I do not speak today for the United States. That is the province of the nation's elected leaders, and I would not presume to speak on their behalf. I am empowered, however, to speak on behalf of this agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I am quite certain that the words that follow reflect the hearts of its 10,000 employees.

Let us begin by expressing our profound sorrow for what this agency has done in the past. Just like you, when we think of these misdeeds and their tragic consequences, our hearts break and our grief is as pure and complete as yours. We desperately wish that we could change this history, but of course we cannot. On behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I extend this formal apology to Indian people for the historical conduct of this agency.

And while the BIA employees of today did not commit these wrongs, we acknowledge that the institution we serve did. We accept this inheritance, this legacy of racism and inhumanity. And by accepting this legacy, we accept also the moral responsibility of putting things right.

We therefore begin this important work anew, and make a new commitment to the people and communities that we serve, a commitment born of the dedication we share with you to the cause of renewed hope and prosperity for Indian country. Never again will this agency stand silent when hate and violence are committed against Indians. Never again will we allow policy to proceed from the assumption that Indians possess less human genius than the other races. Never again will we be complicit in the theft of Indian property. Never again will we appoint false leaders who serve purposes other than those of the tribes. Never again will we allow unflattering and stereotypical images of Indian people to deface the halls of government or lead the American people to shallow and ignorant beliefs about Indians. Never again will we attack your religions, your languages, your rituals, or any of your tribal ways. Never again will we seize your children, nor teach them to be ashamed of who they are. Never again.

We cannot yet ask your forgiveness, not while the burdens of this agency's history weigh so heavily on tribal communities. What we do ask is that, together, we allow the healing to begin: As you return to your homes, and as you talk with your people, please tell them that time of dying is at its end. Tell your children that the time of shame and fear is over. Tell your young men and women to replace their anger with hope and love for their people. Together, we must wipe the tears of seven generations. Together, we must allow our broken hearts to mend. Together, we will face a challenging world with confidence and trust. Together, let us resolve that when our future leaders gather to discuss the history of this institution, it will be time to celebrate the rebirth of joy, freedom, and progress for the Indian Nations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was born in 1824 in a time of war on Indian people. May it live in the year 2000 and beyond as an instrument of their prosperity.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary -Indian Affairs Department of the Interior

Red

  Power Movement owes its name to the Native American writer Vine Deloria Jr. (Standing Rock Sioux) and demonstrates the direct link which has been made with the Black Power Movementthe social movement led by African Americans which grew out of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s in the United States. It highlights that the RPM took after the Black Power Movement's achievements and legacy. The Black Power Movement along with the Anti-Vietnam war protests, both supported by a massive student mobilisation, created an opportune national context for the arising of the RPM. Nonetheless, in 1967 the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) -one of the most important inter-tribal organisations in the United States at the time -hung a banner reading "Indians Don't Demonstrate." As Paul Chaat Smith and Robert Allen Warrior point out, the

  (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

62

  David Stannard, "Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship," Is The Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, Alan S. Rosenbaum ed. 3 rd ed. (Westwiew Press, 2009), 295-340. 63 Guenter Lewy, "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?" History News Network. (Columbian College of Arts & Sciences. Sept. 2004); Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America (University of Oklahoma Press, 2014). 64 Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies (Yale University Press, 1990), 23. 65 Steven T. Katz, The Holocaust in Historical Context: The Holocaust and Mass Death Before the Modern Age (Oxford University Press, 1994), 20. 66 William D. Rubinstein, Genocide: A History (Pearson Education Limited, 2004), 53-54.

  1983, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations mandated the member of the U.K. Sub-Commission on Human Rights Benjamin Whitaker to write a study on the way genocide cases were managed by the U.N. The Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, also called 'The Whitaker Report', was issued in 1985. It called for the creation of an international criminal court and recommended several alterations to the U.N. definition of genocide: notably to include political, economic, social and sexual groups to the list of possible victims; and 79 Evans, 141. 80 Although quoted in Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, Dirk A. Moses ed., this definition was originally published in Raymond Evans and Bill Thorpe, "Indigenocide and the Massacre of Aboriginal History," Overland 163 (2001), 21-40. to exclude the defence of "obeying superior orders." Moreover, the report gave account of members of the Sub-Commission who advocated adding ecocide and ethnocide -in the sense of a synonym for cultural genocide -to the U.N. definition of genocide. 81 This suggestion was rejected. The term indigenocide, coined by Evans and Thorpe in 2001, would provide a solution to the absence regretted by many scholars and activists in the U.N. definition.

  Furthermore, regardless of the reforms, vocational and industrial training remained central in the curriculum. In a context of Depression and later of World War, it often resulted in the persistence of hard and alienating work for children. The new programs meant adjusting the training to fit the jobs offered on the different reservations, in order to facilitate the employment of future graduate students. Although it had the benefit of preparing students for economic self-sufficiency, this strategy still restricted them to rural or mechanical low-skilled and low-class jobs. Moreover, the gender separation of labour remained with girls being only taught domestic skills as vocational training.

  During his first year of service in the BIA, he orchestrated the writing and oversaw the passing of the Indian Reorganization Act to try and reverse the effects of the General Allotment Act in the future. When Collier took charge of the Commissioner position of the BIA, W. Carson Ryan Jr. was in charge of the Direction of Education, a position he occupied starting from 1930 under the supervision of Commissioner Charles J. Rhoads (1929-1933). Ryan was a professor and took care of the educational survey for the Meriam Report. He was the first to apply the progressive education method to the curriculum of the IBS. In 1935, he was succeeded by Willard Walcott Beatty who remained Director of Education after the Indian New Deal era, until 1952. Beatty was the director of the San Francisco State Normal School in the 1920s, under the presidency of Dr. Frederick Burk who led experiments there on the progressive education method.

  […] He favors turning control of schools over to the various Indian tribes as long as they meet state and Federal educational requirements. This call for self-determination in education by the executive director of the AAIA is in line with the late 1960s wake up calls for tribal sovereignty. The article ends on a promising note as it relates the arrival of a new head of the Branch of Education at the BIA, Dr. Carl L. Marburger who succeeded to Hildegard Thompson in 1966. Marburger intended to return to policies encouraging the enrolment of children in day schools and the closure of the IBS. Nevertheless, he was not planning the invoked handover of power over education to Native tribes.

97

  Photo 1. Luther Standing Bear with Cornet, c. 1883.

  Its publication coincided with the occupation of Alcatraz island and helped bring attention to Native rights struggles. The author denounces and challenges the stereotypes on Indigenous peoples and their place in American history. He condemns strongly the Termination policies, which he describes as a "new weapon on the ancient battle for Indian land." 7 Deloria predicts and calls for a movement led by the Native American youth in the years to come, and describes the National Indian Youth Council organisation as "the SNCC of Indian Affairs." 8 In 1969, the author could feel a process was in motion, but he did not acknowledge the existence of a movement just yet. The intention behind the Alcatraz occupation started in November 1969 was to fight for tribal sovereignty on behalf of all Native tribes, which was a new step in Native activism. That is the reason why, beginning in the late 1970s with the birth of Native American studies, historians such as Troy R. Johnson started to date the Red Power Movement from this event. Nonetheless, Bradley G. Shreve's thesis in Red Power Rising is to refute this premise and to advance that it was the foundation of the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC), a pan-Indian student organisation, that marked the birth of the RPM in 1961, due to its new energy and use of direct action and civil disobedience. That being said, the decisive role the 1961 American Indian Chicago Conference (AICC) played in the creation of the NIYC, and the focus on self-determination in the Declaration of Indian Purpose published as an outcome of the AICC, could also be argued to have initiated the RPM as it was the first inter-tribal gathering meant to shape Native American political future on a national scale. Others, like the activist Hank Adams, who was a member of the NIYC and active beyond the organisation as well, argue that pan-Indian activism has existed since the beginning of European colonisation: "The discussion of Red Power surfaced in the 1930s when John Collier used it to subjugate Indian people. Red Power as a form of activism, was not something that the National Indian Youth Council originated in the 1960s. Every generation of Indian people has fought valiantly against what has been happening to them." 9After the end of armed conflicts in the late nineteenth century, Native resistance became political through organisations founded to defend Native rights. The first one created and run by Indigenous peoples was the short-lived Society of American Indians. From 1911 to 1923, it was operated with a national orientation by former boarding school students such as Carlos Montezuma (Yavapai Apache) -the first Native American to graduate from medical school -and Henry

  activism: "We wanted to show what the federal government was doing to destroy our people.Throughout the United States, Indian men were being sent to prison, people on reservations were starving, and Indian family units were being destroyed. I call this systematic annihilation." 11 However, this awareness of a binary political dynamic, typical of a colonial context, was not a given. The activist Ramona Bennett (Puyallup) went through a process of deconstruction: "The federal government had planned the alienation of Indian land. For over ninety years it had been responsible for preventing Indian fishermen from supporting their families with dignity. Because of my increased awareness of social injustice, I attended a National Indian Youth Workshop that was being held in Washington D.C." 12 Jean-Paul Sartre reminds in the article "Le colonialisme est un système" that colonialism is taught. Like any other socially constructed phenomenon, its deconstruction can therefore be taught as well. To deconstruct a social conception means to learn how to identify it even though it has been integrated to the point that its existence is no longer recognised, because it has become a norm. This identification is a necessary step of a process that one has to engage in order to ultimately oppose the phenomenon.It is with this motivation that in 1956 the non-Indigenous anthropologist Sol Tax launched summer workshops for Native American college students from all over the United States. A professor at the University of Chicago, Tax developed the doctrine of "action anthropology": he believed that when necessary for the improvement of the conditions of the people under study, an anthropologist should put aside his position of observer and become an agent of change. The goal of this principle is to help the people help themselves. Tax implemented the format and operated the workshops with other professors from the anthropology department of the University of Chicagosome of whom were Native Americans -until 1960. That year, the American Indian Development organisation took over the management of the workshops until 1970, under the leadership of D'Arcy McNickle (Flathead), who pursued the program with the same organisation and the same instructors.

  history. The second part focused on current Native American affairs. The curriculum relied on writings by John Collier, D'Arcy McNickle who co-founded the NCAI in 1944, Felix S. Cohen who worked for the BIA during the Indian New Deal, linguists such as Edward Sapir, and anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict. The topics notably tackled colonialism, racism, nationalism, and cultural relativism. Shreve indicates that Patterns of Culture, written in 1934 by Benedict, was one of the cornerstones of the curriculum. In this anthropological classic, Benedict studies three Indigenous tribes: two North American -the Zuni from current Northern New Mexico and the Kwakiutl from current British Columbia -and one Melanesian -the Dobu from Dobu island in the current Papua

  initiated the famous occupation that lasted 19 months. Several hundreds of Indigenous people, from diverse backgrounds, came to join them over the months. The press coverage of the occupation was massive and well maintained by the protesters themselves, Oakes in lead. The objectives of occupiers was to advance the issues of treaty rights, of self-determination and tribal sovereignty, and of cultural preservation on the national political scene and to raise public awareness about these matters. On 18 December 1969, benefit concerts were performed at Stanford University for the occupation, preceded by a press conference. During the conference, the activist Shirley Keith (Winnebago) described the Indians of All Tribes as the "first political pan-Indian movement in [the United States]." She elaborated their message:

  The novelist Louise Erdrich (Ojibwa) has set all of her novels in Native American communities, since her first book Love Medicine was published in 1984. The Pulitzer-awarded writer is one of the most famous authors of the so-called "Native American Renaissance" in American literature which started in the 1980s. Her stories often incorporate Ojibwa myths and legends, and contribute to the cultural preservation as well as the visibility of her tribe. Her 2016 critically acclaimed novel LaRose is set in an Ojibwa reservation in North Dakota, in the early 2000s.85 It focuses on two families connected by a tragic hunting accident. Different time periods are blurred together with flashback chapters focusing on each of the five precedent LaRose in the Iron family, some of whom attended boarding schools. The blurriness of the structure invites the reader to let go of the rigidity of logics and chronology so as to grasp legacies of Ojibwa cultural heritage as they resonate in the lives of the contemporary characters. This strategy addresses the notion of trans-generational trauma. Many of the adults portrayed in the book fight their own problems resulting from their IBS experiences. The most affected is the secondary character

  Photo 12. Fourth of July 1966. Clyde Warrior and Mel Thom hang banners reading "Red Power" and "Custer Died for Your Sins" on their car and intruded the parade. Source: Shreve, 4.

  Agreement was passed in 2006 in which Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Franck Iacobucci, representing the Canadian government, officially recognised the damage inflicted by the residential school system on all former students. 9 The Agreement established financial compensations and a framework for healing supported by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Then, on 11 June 2008, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered official apologies in the name of the Canadian nation to former residential school students in the House of Commons.

  Methodologies," Jennifer McLerran reviews academic works of the late 2010s studying the question of decolonisation of settler colonial societies.23 She reports the work of three Indigenous women -the Hawaiian scholar J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, the Nishnaabeg writer Leanne Betasamosake Simspon and the Lenape scholar Joanne Barker -who all advocate a return to Indigenous epistemologies in order to overcome settler colonialism. The three authors argue that it would contribute to reconceptualise sex, gender, and relationships to land in resistance to heteropatriarchy and capitalism. It follows that their work does not seek a recognition of settler colonialism by the sovereign state, as commented and criticised by Steinman, but endeavour to change the dynamic of power by reasserting Indigenous knowledge.These views on Indigenous knowledge beyond the United States frontiers are symptomatic of the turn towards pan-Indigenouism -the unity of all Indigenous peoples -that the pan-Indianist ideology which marked the RPM quickly experienced. In 1974, the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) was created in Standing Rock, South Dakota, to promote Indigenous rights for peoples from North, Central, and South America, as well as the Caribbean and the Pacific.

  rights and cultures. It also gave Native activism an unprecedented media coverage on a national and an international scale which paved the way for the following forms of Native militancy in the following decades. In the early twenty-first century, Native activism continued to focus on land and culture. The environmentalist crisis witnessed internationally has led public opinion to question the capitalistic relation to land maintained by the Euro-American culture -and more globally by the Western culture -and to reassess positively the animist relation to Earth present in nearly all North American Indigenous cultures. Nonetheless, this return to grace of traditional cultures is not free from a stereotypical vision of Native Americans as being fundamentally benevolent environmentalists.24 Therefore, the protests staged by Native communities in the United States for land protection received international media coverage. In 2004, the Save the Peaks Coalition opposed the clearcutting of approximately 30,000 trees in the San Francisco Peaks for the development of an artificial Snow Bowl ski resort in an area which has spiritual and cultural significance to thirteen local tribes. In 2011, the Keystone XL Pipeline protests were launched in a massive campaign to press President Obama on rejecting the building project of a pipeline through and near tribal lands. If the project was delayed by the Obama administration, President Donald Trump approved it on 24 January 2017. In 2016, another pipeline project was opposed by the Standing Rock Sioux community in North and South Dakotas. Similarly to the other campaigns for land protection, the Standing Rock Sioux protesters displayed a peaceful form of militancy that focuses on the close link between their traditional cultures and the land: they assembled to pray and plant trees. 25 This new form of Native activism draws from the RPM's legacy in the sense that traditional cultures are central to political actions. Nevertheless, a distance is created with the 1960s and 1970s movement by the assertion of a peaceful militancy, when the 1973 armed occupation of Wounded Knee remains one of the most VI -Speeches Clyde Warrior, "We Are Not Free." Delivered before the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, 2 February 1967 in Memphis, Tennessee.

  11 United States, Congress, Dawes Severalty Act or General Allotment Act of 1887, Pub. L. 49-105, U.S. Statutes at Large 24: 119, February 8, 1887. 12 United States, Congress, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, U.S. Statutes at Large 78: 241, July 2, 1964;

United States, Congress, The Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-284, U.S. Statutes at Large 82: 73, April 11, 1968. 13 United States, Congress, The Voting Rights Act, Pub. L. 89-110, U. S. Statutes at Large 79: 437, August 6, 1964. 14 Nadège Roques, Comparaison entre le mouvement pour les droits civiques des Noirs américains et le mouvement des Amérindiens (Université Toulouse -Le Mirail, Master's thesis, 2011) 82.

  30 Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944). 31 Argumentations over this debate will be developed further on in the study. 32 Roques, 32. 33 United Stated, Congress, Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, Pub. L. 68-175, U.S. Statutes at Large 43: 253, June 2, 1924.

  Colonialism and Neocolonialism (Routledge, 2001); Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can the Sulbatern Speak?" in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg eds.

	(Macmillan, 1988), 271-313; Patrick Wolfe, "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native," Journal of
	Genocide Research, Vol. 8, No. 4 (2006), 387-409; Erich W. Steinman, "Decolonization Not Inclusion: Indigenous
	Resistance to American Settler Colonialism," Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2016), 219-236.
	40 Robert Jaulin, La Paix Blanche: Introduction à l'Ethnocide (Éditions du Seuil, 1970); Daniel Feierstein, "Defining

Hixson, American Settler Colonialism: A History (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). 38 Hixson, 2. 39 Jean-Paul Sartre, "Le colonialisme est un système," Les Temps Modernes, No. 123 (mars 1956), republished in Situations V. Colonialisme et néo-colonialisme (Gallimard, 1964). Translated by Azzedine Hadour, Steve Brewer and Terry McWilliams. the Concept of Genocide," Genocide as Social Practice: Reorganizing Society under the Nazis and Argentina's Military Juntas (Rutgers University Press, 2014), 9-38; Katherin Elinghaus, "Biological Absorption and Genocide: A comparison of Indigenous Assimilation Policies in the United States and Australia," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, (2009), 59-79.

Debate Over the Terms « Genocide » and « Cultural Genocide »

	century, there is an absence of such narratives concerning settler colonial decolonisation. He regrets
	that this void makes anti-settler colonial struggles invisible, and calls for the acknowledgement of
	settler colonialism in mainstream history as a first step towards recognition of Indigenous
	resistance.
	B-As early as 1970, Robert Jaulin denounces denials of ethnocides in La Paix Blanche. He
	deplores that only mass killings of Indigenous peoples are taken into account by history textbooks
	Hixson concludes his monograph by stating that if narratives of decolonisation and self-
	determination in the framework of 'classical' colonial studies have been developed in the twentieth
	37 Hixson, 11-12.
	38 Hixson, 13.
	39 Nayar, 94.
	40 Kerwin Lee Klein, Frontiers of Historical Imagination: Narrating the European Conquest of Native America, 1890-
	1990 (University of California Press, 1997), 211; cited in Hixson, 16.

  67 David B. MacDonald, "First Nations, Residential Schools, and the Americanization of the Holocaust," Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec. 2007), 995-1015. 68 David B. MacDonald Graham Hudson, "The Genocide Question and Indian Residential Schools in Canada,"

Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 45, No. 2 (June 2012), 427-449. 69 Irving Louis Horowitz, Genocide: State Power and Mass Murder

  88 Docker, 84. 89 Sartre, translated by Hadour, Brewer and McWilliams, 35-36. See the extended quotation previously, part I.A.1, p. 20. Emphasis mine. 90 Jürgen Zimmerer, "The Birth of Ostland out of the Spirit of Colonialism: a Postcolonial Perspective on the Nazi

Policy of Conquest and Extermination," Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2005)

, 197-219; Caroll P. Kakel, III, The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective,

(Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)

. 91

Hixson, 19. 92 Kakel, 4.

  Combined with the nineteenth century form of education through repetition, this discipline prevented any possibility of autonomous development. It indicates that the IBS was

11 Philp, Indian Self-Rule, 180. 12 Charlotte Leforestier, L'assimilation des indiens d'Amérique du Nord par l'éducation: une étude comparative (Université Michel de Montaigne -Bordeaux III, PhD dissertation, 2012), 106-110. 13 Erving Goffman, "The Characteristics of Total Institutions," Complex Organisations: A Sociological Reader, Amitai Etzioni ed. (Aldine, 1961), 313-314; cited in Adams, 357-358. 57 on military discipline.

  My People the Sioux(Houghton Mifflin Company, 1928). 20 Franck W. Blackmar, "Indian Education," The Annals of American Academy ofPolitical and Social Sciences, Vol. 2

	17 Everett V. Stonequist, "The Problem of the Marginal Man," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jul.,
	1935) 1-12.
	18 Marienstras, 174.
	19 Luther Standing Bear,

(1892)

, 81-105; "The Socialization of American Indians." The American Journal of

Sociology, Vol. 34, No. 4, (1929), 653-669.

  Szasz notes that by 1941, records show that there were more enrolments in day schools than in IBS. As a matter of fact, numbers provided by the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs (ARCIA) attest that the attendance in day schools -either federal, private or public -represented 59 percent of the enrolment of Native American children in 1929, and rose to 78 percent in 1938. In this interval, the enrolment in IBS dropped to half.

Table 1 . Table of enrolment of Native American children in schools. Comparison between federal, private and public schools for the years 1929, 1938, 1941 and 1946.

 1

	28 Szasz, 64.
	64

  are based on the Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (ARCIA); figures for the year 1941 are based onSzasz, 61. 30 Leforestier, 278.

31

  Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the year 1946 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), 360. (ARCIA). 32 Elliott Tallchief in Unseen Tears: the Native American residential boarding school experience in Western New York., directed by Ron Douglas (Native American Community Services of Erie and Niagara Counties, 2009), 00:04:30. 33 Szasz, 88.

  , 273. 43 Marienstras, 177. on Spain to liberate Cuba. You liberate the Filipinos. What day can Indians celebrate? Charity goes abroad -injury remains at home. AMERICA forgets that while it celebrates independence, IT STILL HOLDS US INDIANS PRISONERS IN OUR HOMELAND ! 44

Table 2 . Table of comparison of federal boarding schools and day schools numbers of facilities and enrolment for the years 1929, 1941 and 1966. 60

 2

  73 Kenneth D.Kochanek et al., "Deaths: Final Data for 2017," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 68, No. 9 (June 2019), 47. See table in appendices, p. 174. 74 "American Indian and Alaska Native Populations," Suicide Prevention Resource Center, www.sprc.org/americanindian-alaska-native-populations Accessed 20 April 2020. See charts in the appendices, p. 175. 75 Leforestier, 383.

  Kill the Indian, Save the Man, 57. 79 Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man, 74.

. Extract available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDshQTBh5d4. Accessed 20 November 2019. 78 Churchill,

  86 Leforestier, 301. 87 Stolen Children: Residential School survivors speak out, edited by Liz Rosch, Produced by Donata Chruscicki, Agnes Williams, a former student of the Thomas Indian School herself and clinical advisor of the Native American Community Services of Erie and Niagara Counties, in the state of New York, asserts that when "a child is constantly defending themselves from the rest of the world, they cannot grow emotionally."88 In 2001, the psychiatrist Dr. Charles R. Brasfield coined the Residential School Syndrome (RSS) to address the specific form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder he observed in cases of former Canadian residential school students.89 The Canadian system was modelled on the American IBS system, and comparative studies -such as Churchill's and Leforestier's -show that their practices remained similar throughout the reforms. Thus, Brasfield's study can apply to American cases. He defines the RSS as a form of PTSD, which therefore shares many symptoms with this disorder: intrusive memories as flashbacks or nightmares, avoidance of anything susceptible to bring reminiscences, low self-esteem, relationship difficulties, suicidal thoughts. He adds that the RSS has the specificity of having a cultural impact, that is to say a deficiency in knowledge and skills of Gone published an article in which he analyses possible psychological healing methods for Native American historical trauma.92 He argues that the current methods available pertain to European or Euro-American mindsets and are "frequently alienating, assimilative, or otherwise harmful for the 'culturally different'."93 Gone mentions Brasfield's diagnosis of the RSS, but considers the larger frame of historical trauma for all North American

	88 Unseen Tears, 00:20:00.
	89 Brasfield, "Residential School Syndrome."
	90 See the table of criteria made by Brasfield in the appendices, p. 176. Emphasis mine.

CBC News Canada (2008)

, at 00:32:49; "Residential school" is the common name given to Indian Boarding Schools in Canada.

psychiatrists. In Unseen Tears, traditional culture. Moreover, he notes that this syndrome often leads to a tendency for addictions to alcohol or other drugs, for violence and anger issues and for a deficiency in parenting skills. The first criterion suggested by Brasfield to help diagnose RSS is that the patient "has attended an Indian residential school or is closely related to or involved with a person who has attended such a school." 90 Therefore, he defines the syndrome as a possible form of trans-generational trauma. Ward Churchill compares the RSS to the Concentration Camp Syndrome (CCS) and argues that their symptomatology is nearly identical. The CCS was established to diagnose the specific forms of PTSD observed on survivors of Nazi and Soviet Union concentration camps. Churchill argues that if the RSS and CCS share very common features, their causes should be recognised as sharing the same genocidal nature. 91 In 2009, Joseph P. 91 Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man, 70. 92 Gone, "A Community-Based Treatment for Native American Historical Trauma : Prospects for Evidence-Based Practice." 93 Gone, 752.

  delve into the striking parallels of settler colonialism suffered by Native Americans and Australian Aborigines, notably concerning forced assimilation, see Margaret D. Jacobs, White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous Children in the AmericanWest and Australia, 1880-1940

(University of Nebraska Press, 2009)

; and chapter 11 "'The aborigines... were never annihilated, and still they are becoming extinct': Settler Imperialism and Genocide in Nineteenth-century American and Australia" by Norbert Finzsch in Empire,

Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, Dirk A. Moses ed. (Berghan Books, 2008), 253-270.

  According to Raymond F. Betts, the first utterance of the word "decolonisation" probably dates back from 1932, in an article by Joseph Brown Moritz entitled "Imperialism," published in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. However, the word did not become usual until the late 1960s due to an international context of decolonisation struggles leading to the end of the European colonial empires all over the world. Betts refers to the French historian Robert Delavignette who defines decolonisation in 1977 as the "rejection of the civilization of the white man." 1 Although the word might not have been commonly used in the 1950s and 1960s by the Native American activists of the time, the process it frames was already in motion.In 1983, the president of the National Congress of American Indians Joe De La Cruz (Quinault) shared his views on American colonialism: I have been involved in resisting or fighting some form of termination all my life. Ever since the European people arrived on this continent, we have been in the process of termination. But you do not learn much about it in books that people read. I often ask people, how did Public Law 280 come about in 1953? Only one person has given a response that I feel very comfortable with. After the Second World War, the United Nations was established, and it emphasized the need to decolonize people. The United States was one of the key sponsors of the United Nations. Someone in the United States government realized that people victimized by colonialism lived in their own country. From 1947 until the early 1950s, there was a drive to terminate the colonial rule of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2

Luther Standing Bear, photos 2. and 3.: The Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center, http://carlisleindian.dickinson.edu/ Accessed on 24 April 2020.

  , 5; cited in Shreve, 116. 40 Witt to Shreve, e-mail correspondence, 6 February 2009; cited in Shreve, 129. 41 Clyde Warrior, "We Are Not Free," delivered before the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, 2 February 1967 in Memphis, Tennessee. See in the appendices, pp. 181-183.

  On 16 June 1966, Stokely Carmichael shouted out "Black Power!" at a rally in Greenwood, Mississippi. It inspired Clyde Warrior and Mel Thom of the NIYC. During the Fourth of July parade the next month, in Oklahoma City, they hung a banner "Red Power!" on one side of a car and "Custer Died for Your

  62 When he was released in May 1968, Banks contacted George Mitchell (Ojibwa) whom he knew from the IBS. They organised a meeting on 28 July 1968, inviting all of the Native American community in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Animated by the energetic and passionate participation of core of ethnic minorities' activism. It brought closer together the Indigenous and African American causes. For that reason, several Native activists partook in demonstrations for the CRM, such as Mel Thom, Hank Adams and Clyde Warrior who joined the Poor People's March in 1968 alongside Ralph Abernathy. 67 Nonetheless, as the public comments of NIYC members attest, Rosier highlights

  72Shreve, 211. 73 The 1970 census counts 792,730 Native Americans in the United States; cited in Joane Nagel, "American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Politics and the Resurgence of Identity,"American Sociological review,Vol. 60, No. 6 (Dec. 1995) 951.

  97 Marienstras, 36. My translation. "Mais le caractère particulier de ces cultures subsiste, et la mémoire collective des Kiowas, des Navajos ou des Shawnees conserve les traces des anciennes cultures augmentées d'un sédiment qui, tout en transformant le fonds premier, en a préservé l'ancienne originalité." 98 See the different aspects of settler colonialism attacked and the various forms of decolonisation actions in Steinman's detailed table in the appendices, pp. 177-178.

	99 Steinman, 225.
	100 Steinman, 219.
	101 Hixson, 186.

United States, Congress, Indian Appropriation Act of 1871, U.S. Statutes at Large 16: 120, March 3, 1871.

Smith & Warrior, 37.

Bradley G. Shreve, Red Power Rising: the National Indian Youth Council and the Origins of Native Activism, (University of Oklahoma Press, 2011) 92.

Shreve,

92-93. 9 Daniel M. Cobb, Native Activism in Cold War America: The Struggle for Sovereignty (University Press of Kansas, 2008) 81. 10 Troy R. Johnson, Red Power: The Native American Civil Rights Movement (Infobase Publishing, 2007).

Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology (The Chicago university Press, 1921) 733-784; Milton M. Gordon, "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality," Daedalus, Vol. 90, No. 2, Ethnic Groups in American Life (1961) 263-285.

Raymond H.C. Teske Jr. and Bardin H. Nelson, "Acculturation and Assimilation: a Clarification," American Ethnotlogist, Vol 1,No. 2 (1974) 351-367.

United States, Congress, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. 93-638, U.S. Statutes at Large 88: 2203, January 4, 1975.

United States, Congress, Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Pub. L. 73-383, U.S. Statutes at Large 48: 984, June 18, 1934.

Smith, 12.

Lorenzo Veracini, Israel and Settler Colonialism (Pluto Press, 2006); Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event(Cassell, 1999).

Sartre, "Preface," The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon, 1961. Translated by Constance Farrington (Grove Press, 1963), 10-11.

Hixson, 1.

Pramod K.Nayar, The Postcolonial Studies Dictionary (Wiley Blackwell, 2015), 31.

Sartre, "Le colonialisme est un système."

Sartre, translated by Hadour, Brewer and McWilliams, 44.

Sartre, translated by Hadour, Brewer and McWilliams,[35][36]

Sartre, "Le colonialisme est un système," 27. Emphasis in the original. My translation. "Car il n'est pas vrai qu'il y ait de bons colons et d'autres qui soient méchants : il y a les colons c'est tout."

Adams, 52.

Smith, 26

Sartre, translated by Hadour, Brewer and McWilliams,[43][44]

Fanon,[START_REF] Patty | giving the Red Power salute moments after being removed from Alcatraz Island[END_REF]

Fanon, 295; Smith, 13.

Fanon, 82. My translation. "Pour le colonisé, cette violence représente la praxis absolue."

Sartre in Fanon, 8 in Farrington's translation.

Raymond F. Betts, "Decolonization, A Brief History of the Word," Beyond Empire and Nation, The Decolonization ofAfrican and Asian societies, 1930s-1970s, Els Bogaerts and Remco Raben eds (KITLV Press, 2012), 23-37.

Walter Rodney, How Europe underdeveloped Africa (University Press,1974); cited inBetts, 28.

Thiong'o wa Ngũgĩ, Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African literature(Currey,1986); cited inBetts, 29.

Paul S. Boyer et al., The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People, 6 th ed.(Wadsworth, 2010), 132

Boyer et al., 191 and 194.

Élise, Marienstras, La résistance indienne aux États-Unis. Du XVIème au XXIème siècle(1980( . Gallimard, 2014)), 10. My translation. "Que dire aussi de la datation chétienne pour des peuples dont le temps se découpe suivant les générations, les phases de la lune ou les saisons? Et du découpage adopté par l'historiographie américaine qui divise l'histoire du continent en une période coloniale et une période nationale, sans tenir compte de la présence plurimillénaire des nations indiennes? »

Marienstras, 264. My translation. "Après un déclin considérable, dû tant aux massacres qu'aux épidémies et aux conditions de vie inhumaines provoquées par la colonisation et la spoliation, après de longues périodes de démoralisation et de déculturation provoquées par l'archarnement contre leurs traditions, il s'est produit une sorte de retournement du destin des Amérindiens qui fait que l'expression "Vanishing Indian," qui servait au XIXème siècle de devise nostalgique au mythe romantique américain et de fatum justificateur pour les effets de la conquête, a perdu tout son sens."

Wolfe, "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native," 390-391.

Hixson refers to Homi Bhaba, The Location of Culture (Routledge, 1994).

Hixson, 3.

Hixson,[START_REF] Lawrence | Source: The Kansas Memory[END_REF]

Raphael Lemkin, "Genocide as a Crime under International Law," American Journal of InternationalLaw, Vol. 41, No. 1 (1947), 145.

Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, 79.

Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, 79.

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 are a series of peace conferences which issued international treaties and declarations regulating international law.

Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, 94.

United Nations General Assembly, Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, U.N. GAOR Res. 260A (III), (1948), 1.

UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010),(July 17, 1998), 99.

Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, 79.

Nayar, 70.

Jaulin, La Paix Blanche.

Robert Jaulin, "Ethnocide, Tiers Monde, et Ethno développement," Tiers-Monde, tome 25, n°100, Le développement en question(1984), 914-915.

George E.Tinker, Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide (Augsburg Fortress, Publishers, 1993).

Tinker,[START_REF]National Archives at Denver[END_REF]

Hixson,[START_REF]The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia[END_REF]

Raymond Evans, "'Crime Without a Name' Colonialism and the Case for 'Indigenocide'," Empire,Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, Dirk A. Moses ed. (Berghan Books, 2008), 133-147.

United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6 -2 July 1985, paragraph 33, page 17.

Wolfe wrote his article in 2006. Kakel published her comparative work about American and Nazi expansionisms in 2011.

Wolfe, 402.

Wolfe, 402.

Steinman, 221.

Sartre, On Genocide, 14.

Hixson, 10.

Steinman, 221.

Elinghaus, 60.

Smith, 12.

Elinghaus, 62.

Pierre Clastres, "De L'Ethnocide," L'Homme, Revue Française d'Anthropologie, Vol 14, No 3-4 (1974), 101-110.

Clastres, 105.

Clastres, 108. My translation. "Ce qui différencie l'Occident, c'est le capitalisme en tant qu'impossibilité de demeurer dans l'en deçà d'une frontière, en tant que passage au-delà de toute frontière [...] La société industrielle, la plus formidable machine à produire, est pour cela même la plus effrayante machine à détruire. Races, sociétés, individus; espace, nature, mers, forêts, sous-sol: tout est utile, tout doit être utilisé, tout doit être productif, d'une productivité poussée à son régime maximal d'intensité."

Trafzer et al.,[START_REF] Lawrence | Source: The Kansas Memory[END_REF]

Justice Marshall described Native nations' relation to the United States as "ward to its guardian" during the verdict of The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia case, decided on 5 March 1831 (30 U.S. 1).

 72.

See the canonical work of David Wallace Adams, and more recently of Michael C. Coleman and Clifford E. Trafzer et al.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the year 1891 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1891) 17. (ARCIA)

Smith, 36.

Planchou, 65.

See for instance the documentary film The Canary Effect: "Kill the Indian, Save the man," directed by Robin Davey and Yellow Thunder Woman(Bastard Fairy Films, 2006), at 00:20:01.

Adams,[START_REF]The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia[END_REF][22][23][24]

Adams, 15.

Trafzer et al.,[START_REF]National Archives at Denver[END_REF][6]

Donald A. Grinde, Jr., "Taking the Indian out of the Indian: U.S. Policies of Ethnocide Through Education," Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, Colonization/Decolonization I (2004) 29.

Robert E. Park, "Human Migration and the Marginal Man," American Journal of SociologyVol. 33, No. 6 (May 1928), 892.

Lewis Meriam, The Problem of Indian Administration,(The Lord Baltimore Press, 1928).

Meriam, 376.

Trafzer et al., 20.

Meriam, 354. Emphasis in the original.

Margaret Connell Szasz, Education and the American Indian: The Road toSelf-Determination Since 1928 (University of New Mexico Press, 1999).

Szasz, 44.

Philp,[76][77]

Szasz, 53.

Philp, 32.

Philp, 78.

For this reason, the documentary film The Canary Effect, mentioned in a previous note, stops the description of the IBS system at the 1930s, similarly to many studies led on the subject -such as Adams'.

John Collier, "Editorial," Indians at Work, Special Children's Issue,(Feb. 1936), 5; cited in Szasz, 44.

Szasz, 49 & 55.

Licala Iktomi, America Needs Indians! (Bradford-Robinson, 1937), 30; cited in Marienstras, 179. Emphases in the original.

United States, Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 108, U.S. Statutes at Large 67: 590, August 1, 1953; United States, Congress, Public Law 280, Pub. L. 83-280, U.S. Statutes at Large 67: 280, August 15, 1953.

United States, Congress, Indian Relocation Act, Pub. L. 84-959, U.S. Statutes at Large 70: 986, August 3, 1956.

Both of them are commonly abbreviated IRA(IRA of 1934 and IRA of 1956). It seems that the name of the 1956 act itself was meant to erase the previous one.

Philp, 164.

Marienstras, 50.

Szasz, 119.

See Table 1, on page 65 and in the appendices, p. 173.

The initiatives of Native American activist organisations in the 1960s regarding education will be developed in the third part of the thesis.

"Education of Indian Children by U.S. Assailed at Parley Here," The New York Times(Nov. 21, 1966), 38. See in the appendices, p. 180.

Figures for the year 1929 are based on the Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (ARCIA); figures for the year 1941 are based on Szasz,

61; figures for the year 1966 are based on The New York Time.

Kenneth R. Philp, Termination Revisited: American Indians on the Trail ofSelf-Determination, 1933-1953 (University of Nebraska Press, 1999).

Philp, 240.

Philp, Termination Revisited, 95.

Philp,[169][170]

Szasz, 136.

Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Indian Education: A National Tragedy -A National Challenge. 1969 Report of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), 13.

Kennedy Report, 103.

Kennedy Report,[118][119]

Figures provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. www.bia.gov/as-ia/ieed/division-economic-development Accessed 20 April 2020.

Robert Delavignette, Robert Delavignette on the French colonial empire; Selected writings (William B. Cohen ed., translated by Camille Garnier, University of Chicago Press, 1977) 131; cited in Betts,

2 Philp, Indian Self-Rule, 181. 3 Paul C. Rosier, "'They Are Ancestral Homelands': Race, Place, and Politics in Cold War Native America, 1945-1961," The Journal of American History (March 2006), 1300-1326.

Banks, 60.

There were 2,646 per 100,000 people from the American Indian/Alaska Native group in Minnesota's prisons and jails in 2010 according to the Prison Policy Initiative, making it the most represented racial group. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/MN.html Accessed 16 May 2020.

Vine Deloria Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto (1969. University Oklahoma Press, 1988).

Deloria, 55.

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was one of the most active organisations of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements. It was created in April 1960, organised and led by African American students.

Philp, 230.

Philp, 236.

Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (Mentor Book, 1934), 236.

Cohen, 179.

Cohen, 172.

Shreve, 85.

Shreve, 49.

American Indian Chicago Conference, Declaration of Indian Purpose (University ofChicago, 13-20 June, 1961), 3.

Shreve, 61.

Shreve, 89.

Shreve, 107.

Shreve, 67.

Spivak, "Can the Sulbatern Speak?"

This is arguable since Robert Lafollette Bennett (Oneida) was appointed Commissioner of the BIA in 1966, a few months only before Warrior wrote this speech. However, he was the first Native American to hold that position since 1871.

Smith and Warrior, 16.

See for example Photo 14, p. 137, which shows the housing conditions that still prevailed in 1970 on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation. In 2008, housing conditions on the nearby Pine Ridge Reservation were still precarious with an unemployment rate of 80%. Homelessness was then evaluated at 30% and overcrowded or substandard housing was common. See Photo 15, p. 137. ht tps://nativeamericanrights.wordpress.com/pine-ridge/ Accessed on 15 June 2020.

Smith and Warrior,[26][27]

Cobb,[156][157]

Witt to Shreve, e-mail correspondence, 4 December 2008; cited in Shreve, 90.

Shreve, 111.

Marienstras, 192.

It is this anecdote which inspired Vine Deloria Jr. the title for his canonical book in 1969. See Photo 12, p. 136 which shows the event.

Stan Steiner, The New Indians (Harper & Row, 1968), 4 and 68; cited in Shreve, 160.

Banks, 60.

Szasz, 107.

Unseen Tears, 00:40:05.

Banks,[42][43]

Banks,[24][25][26][27][28][29][START_REF] Wolf | Principal Chief of the Kiowas[END_REF][31]

See Photo 6, p. 133.

Adams,

Leforestier, 328.

Philp, 230.

Rachel A. Bonney, "The Role of AIM Leaders in Indian Nationalism," American Indian Quaterly,Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn 1977), 209.

Deloria, Jr., 265.

Hixson, 20.

Rosier, "'They Are Ancestral Homelands' (…)," 1319.

Nagel, 952.

Bonney, 210.

Smith and Warrior, 61.

Witt to Shreve, e-mail correspondence, 19 January 2009; cited in Shreve, 112.

Nagel, 957.

Banks,[START_REF] Garry | A Declaration of Indian Rights," 28 February 1954; cited in Rosier[END_REF][55]

Bonney,[212][213] Marienstras, 200.

Fanon, 245 in Farrington's translation.

Marie Potts, "AICC Steering Committee Meets in Chicago," NCAI Bulletin (May 1961), April 26-30; cited in Rosier, "'They Are Ancestral Homelands' (…)," 1324.

United States, Congress, Tribally Controlled Community College Assistant Act, Pub. L. 95-471, U.S. Statutes at Large 92: 1325, 1978.

Tim Giago, The Aboriginal Sin: Reflections on the Holy Rosary Indian Mission School (Red Cloud Indian School),(Indian Historian Press, 1977).

Smith, 40.

Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, 8 May 2006. http://www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca/IRS %20Settlement%20Agreement-%20ENGLISH.pdf Accessed on 17 May 2020.

Kevin Gover, Speech at the Ceremony Acknowledging the 175th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, September 8, 2000. See the full speech in the appendices, pp. 184-185.

Feierstein, 23. See in part I.B.1,

Smith,[51][52]

United States, Senate, To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States, S.J.Res.14, 30 April 2009.

Steinman, 222.

Marienstras, 13.

Marienstras,[192][193]

Hixson,

Nagel, 951. See Nagel's table of censuses in the appendices, p. 179.

Nagel, 958.

Philp, 230.

[178][179][180][181]

Nanette Bradley Deetz, "Peaceful Prayer at Dakota Access Pipeline Disrupted by Police," Native News Online (29 Sept 2016). https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/native-american-activism-1960s-to-present/. Accessed on 28 June 2020.

Secondary Sources

Books Cobb, Daniel M. Native Activism in Cold War America: The Struggle for Sovereignty. University Press of Kansas, 2008. Cobb, Daniel M. and Loretta Fowler ed. Beyond Red Power: American Indian Politics and Activism since 1900. School for Advanced Research Press, 2007. Johnson, Troy R. Red Power: The Native American Civil Rights Movement. Infobase Publishing, 2007. Marienstras, Élise. La résistance indienne aux États-Unis. Du XVIème au XXIème siècle. 1980. Gallimard, 2014. Rosier, Paul C. Serving Their Country: American Indian Politics and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Harvard University Press, 2009. Shreve, Bradley G. Red Power Rising: the National Indian Youth Council and the Origins of Native Activism. University of Oklahoma Press, 2011. Smith, Paul Chaat and Robert Allen Warrior. Like a Hurricane: the Indian Movement, from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. The New Press, 1996. Washburn, Wilcomb E. The Indian in America. Harper & Row, 1975. Articles Bonney, Rachel A. "The Role of AIM Leaders in Indian Nationalism." American Indian Quaterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, Autumn 1977, 209-224. Bradley Deetz, Nanette. "Peaceful Prayer at Dakota Access Pipeline Disrupted by Police." Native News Online, 29 Sept 2016. https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/native-americanactivism-1960s-to-present/. Accessed on 28 June 2020. Coulthard, Glen. "Place Against Empire: Understanding Indigenous Anti-Colonialism." Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action, Vol. 4, No. 2, Fall 2010, 79-83. Erdrich, Louise, interview with Julien Bisson. "Nous devons nous battre pour notre mémoire." America, No. 9, Spring 2019, 140-146. Iverson, Peter. "Building toward Self-Determination: Plains and Southwestern Indians in the 1940s

Part II

Evolution of the American Indian

Boarding Schools, 1924-1969 impact on Indigenous peoples' lives.

A.2. Attempts at a respectful education

The Indian New Deal marked a period of drastic reforms in an attempt to transform the IBS system into a more respectful institution towards its public. New methods were introduced, based on John Dewey's philosophical and psychological theories on education, namely the concepts of progressive and cross-cultural educations.

Progressive education is a movement in educational theories influenced by Locke and Rousseau that was popularised in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century by Dewey and Frederick L. Burk. This method relies on empirical learning, a curriculum focused on thematic units, a strong emphasis on problem solving, and development of critical thinking and social skills through group work. It was developed in opposition to the traditional Euro-American education of the nineteenth century which was based on the classical preparation for higher education and was strongly differentiated by social classes.

Cross-cultural education arises from progressive education. It relies on cultural relativism, a postulate in the culturalist theory, according to which an individual's values, habits and beliefs are to be appreciated based on that person's culture, rather than by the criteria of another culture. It follows that cross-cultural education relies on a curriculum in which the respect of the children's traditional culture cohabits with the dominant one they evolve in. Children are taught through the medium of their own cultural values while also becoming aware of the second culture's values. This method benefits the students in the way that it enables them to interact and live in either one or even both of these cultures.

As this thesis has already exposed, one of the most rigid dichotomies between Native American and Euro-American cultures lies in the notion of communitarianism versus individualism.

Therefore, whatever the intentions of the cross-cultural method were, it is difficult to imagine how both cultures could be equally taught in classrooms led by an institution operated by the government of a nation in which one dominates the other.

Margaret Connell Szasz details how the method was implemented in four chapters of her book. First of all, the position of superintendent of the boarding schools became accessible to Native Americans, and the military discipline was largely alleviated. She cites the example of Henry Roe Cloud, a member of the Winnebago tribe, who became superintendent of the Haskell Institute secondary education, with an emphasis on technical professions. With a view to assimilation, Thompson reformed the vocational programs, notably by having them start only in high school so that academic instruction would be strengthened in primary and secondary levels -which also participated in increasing the academic level of pupils. Furthermore, these programs became optional in the early 1960s, so that students who wanted to apply for scholarship funds to go to college could focus on academics.

Nevertheless, the return to an assimilationist mindset resulted in a persistence or a renewal of oppressive behaviour towards students who tried to carry on tribal traditions. For instance, even though no ban on talking Native languages was re-issued after the Indian New Deal abrogated the one of 1890, it was often severely repressed. In Unseen Tears, Elliot Tallchief remembers this mistreatment:

When we used our language... At a young age, we were just learning [English] so... They used to wash our mouth with soap. They would take the whole bunch of us and march us to the showers, cold showers. They would throw us in there, and beat us along the way. That was a routine thing... I guess, I don't know... They taught us, you know. 56 Mistreatment and abuse -physical, mental and sexual -are part of nearly all the testimonies reported by former students, from the beginning of the institution to its end, no matter what the policies of the BIA were. [START_REF] Paul | Serving Their Country: American Indian Politics and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century[END_REF] In 1961, Philleo Nash was nominated Commissioner of the BIA by President Kennedy. As seen previously, Nash was not supportive of the relocation programs. His nomination marked the decline of Termination. However, Thompson remained head of the Branch of Education for the following four years. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Robert L. Bennett, from the Oneida nation, as Commissioner of the department. Bennett had graduated from Haskell Institute in 1932, one of the most renown IBS. It made him an actor of mediation between the BIA's legacy and Native American communities. Since then, the position of head of the BIA has always been occupied by a Native American. This symbolic change followed the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discriminations based on race, religion, sex or national origins. The Civil Rights Movements turned the public eye on minorities, which gradually restrained the assimilationist policies. Nevertheless, the changes that started to be made in the late 1960s were initiated by Native American organisations rather than by the Bureau. Private tribal schools started 56 Unseen Tears, 00:07:14. 57 Smith and Churchill account for sexual abuses perpetrated in the IBS in the 1970s and the 1980s. See Smith, 38-40, and Churchill in Kill the Indian, Save the Man, 60-63. The subject of abuses in the IBS will be developed further in the thesis.

Part III

The Rise of Pan-Indian Activism Native American activists clearly drew inspiration from their African American counterparts.

Nevertheless, they identified differences in their struggles. At the launch of the "fish-in" campaign, associations were made in the press between the two minorities. Members of the NIYC declared oppositions to that notion, as one of them confided to a journalist: "The Negroes don't have the law on their side yet and they have a lot of popular prejudice against them, while the Indians' problem is the Federal bureaucracy; we almost have the law on our side in the form of treaties, and all we ask the white man to do is to live up to those treaties." 64 Mel Thom, who was president of the organisation at the time, commented on the involvement of the NAACP attorney Jack Tanner in the fishing rights struggle in Washington: "This is Indian business, […] and he should not bring his group into it. This is an Indian treaty, not a civil right issue." 65 During the 1963 annual meeting of the NIYC, the possibility of an association with CRM student organisations was discussed. One member opposed the proposition, arguing that "Indians want to retain what they have and the Negro wants something the whites have." 66 Rosier points out that the international decolonisation struggle context put racial issues at the contributing to pan-Indianism, and further pan-Indian activism, must be nuanced. The editors of Boarding School Blues write in its introduction about the Native American phrase "turning the power," which means sending negative power back to its source for a positive outcome. 89 It is precisely appropriate to address the phenomenon of emergence of pan-Indian resistance. It is paramount, when talking about the IBS effects on pan-Indianism, to highlight that Indigenous peoples demonstrated resilience and insight in using the knowledge learnt from the IBS experience, as well as fuelling the anger coming from traumas into militancy, and ultimately turn them into tools of reparation. Failing to do so is to take the risk of silencing the agency of a population and to flirt with neo-colonial rhetoric by saying that colonisation brought civilisation along with the tools to emancipate, when it actually imposed oppression to begin with. Julia L. Davies concludes her article writing that the IBS system is complex to analyse, because paradoxical. It aimed at cultural annihilation but resulted in a phenomenon of cultural persistence, due to the determination of Indigenous peoples. The forced assimilation designed by federal policies spurred reactions of resistance, and their revival under Termination ignited the RPM radical activism. It follows that the editors of Boarding School Blues describe the IBS institution as a "successful failure" in the sense that it did provide an education that proved useful, and failed to fully destroy Native American cultures.

Notwithstanding this consideration of a successful education, Banks' testimony of the one he received is more negative. What he calls "brainwashing" is consistent with what Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak names "epistemic violence" in the article "Can the Subaltern Speak?", which participated in the attempt at cultural genocide. First advanced by the French philosopher Michel Foucault, the concept of epistemic violence for Spivak designates the marginalisation of subaltern voices and knowledge, replaced by a Western discourse. The most salient expression of that violence is the imposition of the English language, and obliteration of hundreds of Indigenous languages. A paragon of epistemic violence, English is spoken all over the globe due to the British colonial past and modern Western imperialism. Nevertheless, it also highly contributed to modern pan-Indianism as a tool for unity.

In his speech "We Are Not Free," Clyde Warrior expresses an integrated Western ideology, with a capitalist vision of happiness in his consideration that "Freedom and prosperity are different sides of the same coin," and that "America has given a great social and moral message to the world and demonstrated (perhaps not forcefully enough) that freedom and responsibility as an ethic is 89 Trafzer, et al., 1. inseparable from and, in fact, the "cause" of the fabulous American standard of living." This integration of the colonist's ideology -here of the American exceptionalism doctrine -is a perfect example of an epistemic violence perpetrated over several generations. Warrior even advocates giving Native Americans self-determination so that they can contribute better to the whole American society by becoming "participating citizens."

In "Decolonization Not Inclusion: Indigenous Resistance to American Settler Colonialism," Erich W. Steinman establishes that the United States is a settler colonial country. He writes a table in which he lists the different actions of resistance that can and have been upheld by Indigenous peoples, and the expressions of domination they oppose. 90 Among them, he notes several forms of opposition to epistemic violence, such as the "Critiques of Western epistemology, methodology, and scholarly construction of Indian savagery," "Articulation of Native science and indigenous knowledge," "Challenges to Eurocentric settler education and creation of Indian-supportive learning contexts," "Decolonizing consciousness," or "Native language retention and revival." The Institute for American Studies set up by the NIYC on the example of Sol Tax's workshops, and the Survival Schools established by AIM were precisely crafted as counter-powers to the epistemic violence and cultural genocide sustained through the IBS. By opposing forced assimilation in this way, they asserted self-determination in the education of Native youth, and therefore fought colonial practices.

B.2. Racialisation by the Colonists

The acme of epistemic violence in colonial societies is that Western knowledge becomes the norm to the extent that its socially constructed vision of the "Other" is ultimately adopted by those described as such. Banks' memories of his childhood, his desire to be a White cowboy, and how his self-esteem was affected by Western values, are epitomised by the image of the "'apple' -red outside but white inside," which reflects the image he held of himself. The Euro-American settler colonists imposed their view of the world as the canonical vision at the imperial centre, casting Indigenous peoples at the colonial periphery.

Fanon opens

The Wretched of the Earth by stating that "The settler and the native are old acquaintances. In fact, the settler is right when he speaks of knowing "them" well. For it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and who perpetuates his existence." 91 Justice Marshall stated so during the verdict of the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, but Hixson dates the official loss of political independence of Indigenous tribes in 1903, when the High Court ruled that Congress henceforth had complete authority over Native American affairs in the verdict of the Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock case. 102 Perhaps that is the reason why, as Hixson writes, the Citizenship Act was met with little resistance from Native Americans, in addition to the fact that many, such as Luther Standing Bear, saw this new status as promising in terms of selfdetermination. However, this citizenship was accompanied with double standards: in many states, as stated previously in this thesis, Native Americans were deprived of their voting rights, but they nevertheless were submitted to war enlistments and federal laws such as those constraining them to attend the IBS.

From the late 1940s, the return to invasive management of Indigenous lands through the Termination policies reanimated feelings -if ever lost -of foreign invasion and colonisation.

Ramona Bennett (Puyallup) is a former tribal council member of her tribe and a fishing rights advocate. She participated in the "fish-in" campaign in the 1960s to defend her tribe's ancestral traditions and treaty rights threatened by Termination policies. In Indian Self-Rule, she shares her feelings emanating from that period:

Hopefully, the well-established and secure reservation Indians will never know what it felt like to be a Puyallup. We looked death in the eye and were threatened with termination. I feel that as long as there is one acre, one fish, or one Indian child remaining in our care, we are always going to be under attack. If we ever forget this, white people will have us for breakfast. They are out to get us. I do not think that is paranoia. To me, that is a conditioned reflex. 103 The ongoing racism towards Native Americans creates wary reactions from the oppressed population. Moreover, as Bennett's testimony evokes, termination of federally recognised tribes was endeavoured during the Termination era as an ultimate step towards the process of homogenisation of Native Americans into one single minority group of the United States by obliterating tribal affiliations.

Native tribes were targeted as one homogeneous group by settler colonialism and cultural genocide. Accordingly, a united resistance emerged. As Hank Adams stated, "every generation of Indian people has fought valiantly against what has been happening to them," 104 and inter-tribal alliances occurred as early as the beginning of the American colonisation. Pan-Indian activism Source: Banks, 89. 1975 and1978. 2 Therefore, federal facilities started to close but the IBS institution did not end in the 1980s, and some schools are still in operation today, with little transparency: Charlotte Leforestier reports the case of Chamberlain, a primary and secondary level school, in South Dakota, run by a Catholic church since 1927. She visited the little museum set on site which was the only part open to the public. There, the history of the Lakota tribes -who are the most present in that part of the state -is told to visitors, but there is no acknowledgement of the IBS history which took place in that very school and elsewhere. 3 The BIA did not address what Andrea Smith describes as "the epidemic of sexual abuse in boarding schools" until the late 1980s. [START_REF] Lawrence | Source: The Kansas Memory[END_REF] She reports the words of an anonymous former BIA school administrator in Arizona who said in 1994 that "Child molestation at BIA schools is a dirty little secret and has been for years. I can't speak for other reservations, but I have talked to a lot of other BIA administrators who make the same kind of charges." Notwithstanding its knowledge of the problem, the BIA only issued a policy to encourage reporting sexual abuse in 1987, and another to thoroughly check the backgrounds of teacher applications in 1989, in reaction to the increase of cases filed in the 1980s. In 1990, the Indian Child Protection Act was passed, which provides a registry for sexual offenders, mandates a reporting system and grants funds to the BIA and the Indian Health Service to organise educational programs raising awareness on sexual and violence abuses. [START_REF]National Archives at Denver[END_REF] However, Smith deplores that not enough resources were ever provided to implement this law properly. According to her, child abuse rates have dramatically increased since the 1990s whereas they have remained stable for the general American population. That being said, it is hard to assess if the cases of abuse have indeed really increased, or if the voices of victims have been more listened to. Smith deplores the lack of documentation from the American church-run IBS, and points out the lack of enough details in the documentation of federal facilities to investigate on the abuses claimed by former students. She compares the situation with Canada, where the last federally-run IBS closed in the late 1990s, and where a report issued in 2001 by the Truth Commission on Genocide in Canada attested the murder of over 50,000 Indigenous children in churches and federal IBS since their implementation in the 1880s. 6 The report lists deaths by 2 Numbers provided by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) 2013 Legal Review; cited in Mary Annete Pember, "When Will U.S. Apologize for Boarding School Genocide?" Indian Country Today (20 June 2015). https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/when-will-u-s-apologize-for-boarding-school-genocide-Xs4lcrge5Eypq8mBz1HZBQ Accessed on 17 May 2020. 3 Leforestier, 316. 4 Smith, 38. 5 remembered actions of the RPM.

The evolution of historiography regarding the RPM -as for other ethnic minority rights struggles -can be explained by the tendency since the mid-1980s in social movement history to use sources directly issued by activists, as well as to the growth of militant historians -such as Ward

Churchill and Troy R. Johnson. The present thesis was written with the goal to abide by the French academic tradition, which is attached to the principle of scientific objectivity. However, as Hixson pointed out, to revise Native American history is an action of decolonisation. Therefore, any study which challenges settler colonial views on Native American history is in itself militant.

Native American History & General History

II -List of Native American Activist Organisations

(founded in the first half of the twentieth-century and up to the 1970s)

• AAIA -The Association on American Indian Affairs, 1922-.

Founded by non-Native Americans. The AAIA was originally named the Eastern Association on Indian Affairs, from 1922 to 1946. It fights for the preservation of Native American cultures and lands. John Collier and Felix Cohen used to be members.

• AIM -the American Indian Movement, 1968-.

Founded on 28 July 1968 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by Dennis Bank (Ojibwa) and Clyde

Bellecourt (Ojibwa). The organisation initially aimed at fighting police racist brutality in Minneapolis, but quickly extended its agenda to the defence of Native American rights on a national scale.

• • Indian Rights Association, 1882-1994.

Founded by non-Native Americans to protect Native American rights while promoting assimilation and access to citizenship.

• NARF -the Native American Rights Fund, 1971-.

This organisation ensures laws and treaties regarding Native American rights are enforced and provides legal representation and technical assistance to Indigenous peoples and organisations in the United States. Native Americans still in operation in the twenty-first century in the United States.

• NCAI -The National Council of American Indians, 1926-1938. Founded by Zitkala Sa (Lakota) and centred on her leadership -also known as Gertrude Simmon

Bonnin, she was a founding member of the Society of American Indians as well in 1911, the first organisation run by and for Native Americans. The National Council of American Indians played a decisive role in the existence of the Meriam Report. Zitkala Sa's death caused the organisation to end.

• NIEA -The National Indian Education Association, 1969-.

Founded by Native educators to ensure that Native students receive an equitable and quality education, managed by Native Americans.

• NIYC -The National Indian Youth Council, 1961-.

It is the second oldest Native American organisation in the United States, after the NCAI. Created in Gallup, New Mexico, on 13 August 1961 by students, among which Clyde Warrior (Ponca), Mel Thom (Walker River Paiute) and Shirley Hill Witt (Mohawk).

• SAIA -The Survival of American Indian Society, 1964-1974. This organisation emanated from the "fish-in" campaign and pursued to protect the fishing rights of North-Eastern Native American fishers, and to publicize their refusal to culturally assimilate to the broader American Society. It was led by Hank Adams from 1968 to 1972. 1938, 1941 and 1946. Sources: ARCIA of 1929, 1938 and 1946: Szasz, 61. 1929 1941 1966 Federal , Vol. 2, No. 2, 2016, 223-224.

IV -Charts