Ep. 359 It’s Rooted in Our Past with Rebecca Nagle

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Stacks – Ep. 359 "It’s Rooted in Our Past with Rebecca Nagle"

Introduction In Episode 359 of The Stacks, host Traci Thomas engages in a profound conversation with Rebecca Nagle, a Cherokee writer and activist renowned for her incisive reporting on Native issues and advocacy for Indigenous rights. The episode delves deep into Rebecca’s latest work, By the Fire We Carry: The Generations' Long Fight for Justice on Native Land, exploring the historical and contemporary struggles of Native American tribes, particularly focusing on a landmark Supreme Court case that led to the largest restoration of tribal land in U.S. history.

Discussion on By the Fire We Carry Rebecca introduces her book, which chronicles the journey of a Supreme Court case originating from a small-town murder in 1999, culminating in a 2020 decision that reinstated significant tribal land rights in Oklahoma. She explains how the case initially appeared isolated but revealed broader implications for all five tribes in eastern Oklahoma—Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole—ultimately resulting in a historic land restoration of approximately 19 million acres.

Historical Context and Reservation Policies Rebecca provides an in-depth analysis of the historical policies that led to the erosion of tribal sovereignty in Oklahoma. She discusses the allotment policy of the late 1800s, where communal tribal lands were forcibly divided into individual parcels, undermining tribal ownership and governance. This policy affected all five tribes in eastern Oklahoma, diminishing their sovereignty and setting the stage for the legal battles that would unfold over the next century.

Legal Battles and Federal Indian Law The conversation transitions to the complexities of federal Indian law, highlighting how legal interpretations have oscillated between supporting and undermining tribal sovereignty. Rebecca explains the significance of the McGirt v. Oklahoma case, where the Supreme Court affirmed that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's reservation still existed, thereby recognizing the tribe's sovereignty over the land. She contrasts this with the Castro-Huerta case, where the Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma could prosecute non-Native individuals for crimes against Native people on reservation land, illustrating the ongoing "push and pull" in federal Indian law.

Notable Quotes:

• Rebecca Nagle on Federal Indian Law: “The Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has called federal Indian law schizophrenic. It’s like a constant battlefield of our wins, our losses, and the compromises that we've had to make.” ([33:08])
• Rebecca on Education and Erasure: “When we talk about the history of this country with a lens towards racial justice, Native people are left out. Even legal scholars pretend like it's not an important part of our Constitution.” ([42:01])

Impact of Historical Erasure on Contemporary Issues Rebecca emphasizes the pervasive erasure of Native American history and its ramifications on current societal and legal issues. She draws parallels between the treatment of Indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups, likening Native Americans to "legal canaries in the coal mine of our democracy." This metaphor underscores how the systemic injustices faced by Native communities reflect broader democratic flaws and inform the treatment of other vulnerable populations today.

Genocide and Language in Historical Narratives A critical segment of the discussion addresses the characterization of the Trail of Tears and other atrocities against Native Americans as genocide. Rebecca argues that the reluctance to use the term "genocide" is deliberate, as it invokes international laws and moral accountability that challenge the sanitized narratives often presented in mainstream discourse. She asserts, “Our country has committed genocide, but we've never taken account for it,” highlighting the importance of acknowledging and understanding these historical truths to address ongoing injustices.

Rebecca’s Writing Process and Audience Engagement Transitioning to her role as an author, Rebecca shares insights into her extensive research and writing process. She details her methodical approach to unearthing primary sources, including trial transcripts and historical documents, to provide a comprehensive and accessible narrative. Rebecca aims to bridge the gap between academic discourse and public understanding, making complex legal and historical issues relatable to a broader audience. She notes, “I try really hard for my writing to be accessible. I don't want it to just live in the space of academia.”

Recommendations and Literary Influences Rebecca recommends several books that complement her work, including Ties That Bind by Tiya Miles, I’ve Been Here All Along by Elena Roberts, and Still the Waters Run by Angie Debo. These titles offer additional perspectives on Native American history and legal struggles, enriching the reader’s understanding of the topics discussed in her book.

Personal Reflections and Achievements Towards the end of the episode, Rebecca reflects on her personal connection to the history she writes about, mentioning her ancestors' involvement in the Treaty of New Echota, which led to the Trail of Tears. She candidly shares her thoughts on her ancestors' decisions, acknowledging their flawed choices while recognizing their intentions to preserve their nation's survival. Additionally, Rebecca celebrates her recent accolades, including being a finalist for the Women’s Nonfiction Prize and featured in multiple prestigious literary lists.

Conclusion Traci Thomas concludes the episode by reiterating the significance of Rebecca Nagle’s contributions to understanding Native American history and legal challenges. She encourages listeners to engage with Rebecca’s work and stay informed about the ongoing struggles for Indigenous rights and sovereignty. The episode underscores the vital importance of preserving and acknowledging Native narratives to foster a more inclusive and just society.

Key Takeaways:

• By the Fire We Carry illuminates the intricate legal battles for tribal land rights in Oklahoma, highlighting the lasting impact of historical policies on contemporary Native sovereignty.
• Federal Indian law remains a contentious and evolving battlefield, with Supreme Court decisions like McGirt and Castro-Huerta showcasing the fluctuating support for tribal governance.
• The systemic erasure of Native American history in education and media perpetuates ignorance and impedes societal progress towards racial justice.
• Acknowledging terms like "genocide" in historical narratives is crucial for accountability and understanding the depth of injustices faced by Indigenous communities.
• Rebecca Nagle's writing bridges academic research and public discourse, making complex issues accessible and engaging for a wide audience.

Notable Quotes:

• “Why gather all of this information if not to make sense of it?” – Rebecca Nagle ([17:34])
• “Indigenous people are really the canary in the coal mine of our democracy.” – Rebecca Nagle ([35:57])
• “Our country has committed genocide, but we've never taken account for it.” – Rebecca Nagle ([46:10])

Final Remarks For those interested in exploring the rich and complex history of Native American tribes and their ongoing fight for justice, Rebecca Nagle’s By the Fire We Carry is an essential read. Join The Stacks community for more insightful discussions on books and the profound ways they shape our understanding of culture, race, and politics.

Transcript

[Tracy Thomas]

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids spending. With real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Try Greenlight risk free [e-mail] wondery we.

[Rebecca Nagle]

Have this story as Americans that while we had some fundamental flaws, our country has gotten better. And we've been a country of progress. And we we started with this amazing idea of all men being created equal. And in each generation we've sort of perfected that idea more and more and more. Well, Native people don't fit into that story. Right? We don't fit into that story at all. Because where is our Supreme Court decision ending our legal subordination? Where's our constitutional amendment? You know?

Welcome to the Stats, a podcast about books and the people who read them. I'm your host, Tracy Thomas, and today I am joined by Rebecca Nagle. Rebecca is a Cherokee writer and an activist known for her insightful reporting on Native issues and advocacy for Indigenous rights. Her latest book, by the Fire We Carry the Generations Long Fight for Justice on Native Land, delves into the forced removal of Native Americans in the 1830s and the pivotal 2020 Supreme Court case that reaffirmed Native land rights in Oklahoma. Today, Rebecca and I talk about how she turned her podcast, this Land, into this very book. We talk about the history of erasure of Indigenous people in the United States, and we talk about what we can learn from this history in the face of this current critical moment. Don't forget our February book club pick is Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. Ira Madison III will be back on Wednesday, February 26th to discuss the book with me. Be sure to read along and tune in. Everything we talk about on each episode of the Stacks can be found in the link in the show Notes. And if you love this podcast and you want inside access to it, you can join the stacks pack by going to patreon.com the stacks and or you could subscribe to my newsletter unstacked@tracy thomas.substack.com by joining either or both of these communities, you help make it possible for me to make this podcast every single week. And I'm still getting through the list of folks who earn that shout out on the show. So huge. Thank you to the following People, Vanessa Armstrong, Tracy Lane, Meg Avery Ramsey, Ellie Kennard, Darcy, Bryce, C. A. Jones, Katie Hendon, Anna Ryan, Rebecca M. Drew Hack, Aubrey Abel, Carrie, Jill Johnson, Taylor, Max Elliott, Kai Bumpus, Vanessa Kramer, Sohan, and Lori Than all so much. And shout out to everyone who makes this show possible. All right, now it's time for my conversation with Rebecca Nagel. Okay, I am so excited. Today I'm joined by Rebecca Nagle. Her book, which came out towards the second half of last year, is called by the Fire. We Carry the Generations Long Fight for Justice on Native Land. The book is incredibly good. I am, I think, Rebecca's newest fan. I think a lot of you probably already know Rebecca because she's the host of the this Land podcast. But I'm new here, so, Rebecca, welcome to the stacks.

Thank you so much for having me.

This is. I mean, this book is so good. You reached out to me and you were like, I wrote this book. I think you and your audience might like it. And I was like, okay, cool. And then I just sort of, like, put it in my pile and I just picked it up and I was like, this book is so good. How did she know I was gonna love this book? So thank you for knowing my taste and also telling me that I needed to read your book. I'm so grateful because it's fantastic. And for people who don't know what the book is about in about 30 seconds or so. Can you sort of give us the groundwork here?

Yeah. So the book covers a Supreme Court case that resulted in the largest restoration of tribal land in US History. History. But that case started in a surprising place. It actually started as a small town murder in 1999. So the book sort of follows the case all the way from the original crime to the Supreme Court victory. And then interspersed, like every other chapter is actually the history of our tribes being removed from our homelands in the Southeast onto land onto treaty territories that then Oklahoma was created on top of. So, yeah, that's the book.

It's like so many different things. I want to talk a little bit about. About how you sort of weaved all these different things together. But what I want to start with is what first got you interested in this case, in this story. When did you come to this work?

Yeah, so I found out about this Supreme Court case, actually through a Muskogee legal scholar named Sarah Deer. So in the summer of 2017, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the appeals court that' just one step below the Supreme Court, ruled on the case, and she posted about it on Facebook. And at that point, I, like many people, hadn't actually heard of the case before. And then once I saw it was going to the supreme court and had this potential to not only uphold the Muskogee reservation, but that I saw that it, you know, whatever the courts decided would likely apply to my tribe, Cherokee Nation, too. And I just became obsessed.

So relatable. I. I imagine when you first started kind of getting into the case, did you all. You already knew that it was going to be connected? Like, you already kind of saw what the implications were? Or was there something that sort of triggered that bigger understanding for you?

Yeah, I think the general consensus and assumption going into it was that whatever the supreme court decided about the Muskogee reservation would probably apply to all five tribes in eastern Oklahoma. So just to back up a little bit, in the early 1900s, and, you know, 1907, the state of Oklahoma was created. And before Oklahoma was a state, all the land that is now Oklahoma was actually the treaty territory of dozens of tribes. And since Oklahoma became a state, it has acted as if the reservations within its boundaries no longer exist. And so by the time we get to 2020, which is when this case was decided by the supreme court, the Muskogee reservation had not been legally recognized by the state government for over a century. And that might sound like a reservation no longer exists, but legally, that's just not how it works. For a reservation to no longer exist, Congress has to get rid of it. And so the central question in this case, which actually started as a death penalty appeal, you know, a man on death row saying, hey, hold on, Oklahoma. You don't have jurisdiction. The central question was whether or not the Muskogee Reservation still existed. And what that boiled down to was, did Congress ever get rid of it? And those acts that Congress passed, While the allotment agreement with Muscogee nation was specific to the tribe, a lot of the laws that Congress passed to break up tribal land and to create the state of Oklahoma applied to all five tribes here in eastern Oklahoma, which is the Muscogee, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, and the Seminole. And so our reservations cover about half, you know, a little less than half of the land in Oklahoma. And because those laws are the same historically, the thinking was, well, whatever the supreme court interprets those laws to mean for the Muskogee reservation will probably apply to all of our tribes. And it eventually did. And so that's one of the reasons why the stakes were so high for both sides, you know, is because the amount of land that we're talking about, you know, half the land in Oklahoma, it's about 19 million acres. It's the size. It's larger than West Virginia and nine other US States. And, you know, like I said, it ended up resulting in the largest restoration of tribal land in U.S. history. So we've never had that kind of that level or that scale of restoration of land to tribes before in our country.

Can you explain to me, to us, how this relationship with reservations is different than what, like, I'm in California, I spent time in Colorado. I'm sort of familiar with, like, in Colorado, the Ute reservations. And how is it different? Like, how. How come these reservations in Oklahoma were never really recognized or treated as such for hundreds of years when I think folks who are in Western states are familiar with reservations as sort of being these, like, cordoned off areas?

Yeah, yeah. I mean, so we're definitely not the only reservations that went through this, but we went through a thing called allotment. So at the end of the 1800s, the US government and it's, you know, benevolent wisdoms always, you know, air quotes. The smartest geniuses decided that instead of using violence and war to force Native people onto shrinking reservations, it would assimilate Native people to white society by privatizing communally held lands. So, you know, prior to the 1900s, in the late 1800s, all the land that belonged to Muskogee Nation was owned communally by the tribe. So Muscogee citizen could have, like, a farm on that land or build a house. And like, they own the farm and they own the house, but the land was held communally by the tribe. And so what Congress really forced pretty violently on the tribes. You know, the tribes try to protest, they try to prevent it, but it did eventually happen was this policy where the government came in, they divided up all of the land, and they assigned individual parcels to each Muscogee citizen. And the same thing, you know, happened in all five tribes. And so now, instead of the land being owned by the tribe, the land was owned by the individual citizen. And in the lead up to that, because the tribal governments weren't cooperating, the federal government did a lot to diminish tribal sovereignty. So they did things like seize our. Take control of our schools, take control of our courts. They seized tribal properties and tribal buildings to basically bully the tribes into agreeing to allotment. And so it's this period where, you know, our sovereignty is. Is really diminished. But there's a difference between diminishing tribal sovereignty and Getting rid of it, if that makes sense. And so Oklahoma's argument in the case, since argument all along was like, okay, well, like, look at everything that Congress took away from the tribes during this time. Surely they didn't mean to leave a reservation. And what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled was like, well, you know, if Congress wants to get rid of a reservation, it needs to do what it does in any other area of the law, which is to put that in writing. You know, we can't, like, look into a crystal ball and think that, okay, well, this is what Congress meant to do. So. Yeah, so that's kind of the rundown of what happened here in eastern Oklahoma in the lead up to Oklahoma statehood that became the basis for this. This idea that there were no longer reservations.

Okay, thank you. So I want to go back to you a little bit. You get involved, you get interested in this case, you start going, doing rabbit holes. All of a sudden, you decide, I want to turn this into a podcast. And then you decide, I want to turn this podcast into a book. Can you talk about that? Because I feel like that's pretty rare that a podcast becomes a book in this sort of way.

Yeah, yeah. You know, I just wasn't done. But, no, I. You know, I think that the book. It's almost like the book covers, like, similar terrain but different ground, if that makes sense.

Okay, say more. Say more.

Yeah, I did a lot of original. I mean, I did a ton of original research for the book, just because, you know, there's a place in the book that you can go deep and you can go far and you. You can go wide that you just. You. You can't do for audio. Just sort of the way that people listen and the information that they can take in is just so different. And so, you know, for the court case, I went back to, like, the original transcripts from the 2000 trial and literally read every piece of paper that had been filed in, you know, two decades, which, if you can imagine, was a lot.

Yes.

And then for the historical research, I went through a bunch of primary sources and found some new stories that I felt were compelling. And so, yeah, I mean, I just. The depth and the breadth of the research and the stories that I was able to draw out of that research are. Are unique to the book. So, yeah, there was. I felt like there was still a lot I had to say at the end of the podcast, and also a lot as, like, a researcher and a reporter that I wanted to learn.

Yeah.

And so it was really exciting to have the space of a book to do that.

I love that. And. And when you were thinking about writing the book, were you thinking about audience in any particular way? Knowing that you did have this audience from the podcast, was that playing into your work?

Yeah, I mean, I was hoping that a lot of people who were fans of the podcast would follow it to the book. And, I mean, I don't know if there's like, any perfect way to measure that, but anecdotally, from, like, being on tour with the book and, like, meeting readers in person, it does seem like that's how a lot of people came to the book. And so that's exciting. You know, I'm really grateful for the people who've, like, stayed with my work and supported it all of these years. And, you know, in general, you know, I think a lot about writing for both tribal citizens here in Oklahoma. You know, there were a lot of questions people in my community had about the case while it was going on, and then particularly afterwards. And so I. And I also wanted, you know, this. This case is historic and is an important moment in history, and its whole history hadn't been really documented. You know, I think people kind of knew the last year or so that I was at the Supreme Court, but that's only sort of a piece of the whole story of this case. And I really wanted to document that story. And so for me, that's how the book is kind of in service to my native community. But then also, you know, I really write for non native people, too, and really want folks who are not Native to understand, you know, legally what a jurisdiction, what a reservation is, you know, how jurisdiction works on a reservations. What are these, like, big concepts in federal Indian law and where do they come from? And I think you're like, average reader isn't, like, gonna sit down and read, you know, like an anthology about federal Indian law, because, you know, like, unless you're in law school, who wants to read that?

Right?

And so it's. What I do with my writing is try to include that information, but through story and also through. I think what really comes through in the story is why these laws and why these issues matter in the first place.

Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, what grabbed me about this book is the way that you tell the story, right? It's like you really bring in these different pieces of history, both more recent, like the actual murder case from the 1990s all the way back to, you know, things that predate the Trail of Tears and really, like, weave it together. And one of the other pieces that you brought bring to the book that I want to ask you about is your own personal opinion. You weigh in on what you think or how you feel about certain things. Specifically, you have ancestors who were involved in signing a treaty that led to the Trail of Tears. And they are very polarizing. Some people really don't with them. And you sort of like, lay out their whole story and then you tell us what you think of them. And I was really taken by that moment in the book because I actually wasn't expecting it. I sort of was expecting you to be like. And that's what happened. And these are my family members in certain ways. And like, I'm not going to go there. So I'm wondering about how. How you approached if you were going to weigh in versus just reporting, if you were going to let us know what you thought or guide your reader in any way on some of the ethical questions. And there's other ones that come up about freedmen, the ancestors of freedmen who were enslaved, who are black people, who are enslaved by different tribal nations who then were trying to get their allotment or their piece of their allotment or what their inheritance of the land. And you weigh in on that as well. So I'm curious about bringing your opinion to the text.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that, you know, there can be this idea that can be prevalent, I think, among historians and also among journalists that are. Are our job or our task is just to relay the facts. And I question that because I'm sort of like, why gather all of this information if not to make sense of it?

Yeah.

And I think that whenever we collect information and we transmit it, you know, we are making a million choices. That is. Is putting meaning onto the information that we were conveying. I don't think there's an objective way to do journalism. I think people who argue about objectivity are just like, defaulting to like, a pretty, like, white version, like a white worldview without wanting to admit it. And so the way I approach it is because I do think about the ethics of my perspective and where I come from and how I see things and how that informs how I write. And for me, the way to do that ethically is just transparency. And it's just to be really clear and really honest about who I am and where I come from and how I see things and how that informs how I write. But yeah, I mean, even just, you know, the example of telling the story of my ancestors, you know, who signed the treaty of New Echota, which was Cherokee Nation's removal treaty, which signed away our homelands for lands west of the Mississippi and ultimately resulted in the Trail of Tears, where an estimated quarter of the population died. And, you know, my ancestors signed that document. And so I think that there's a lot to actually learn from their story beyond this question of, like, did they make the right decision or did they make the wrong decision? You know, I ultimately kind of land that I think that they made the wrong decision, but for the right reasons. I think they were trying their best to ensure the survival of Cherokee Nation at a time that. That felt really perilous. And I think that that desperation really tells a version of American history that we don't often hear. And I think that perspective of indigenous leaders very worried that their nation would no longer exist and making compromises that are unthinkable, I think is an important. An important perspective for people to learn about.

And I think what's really interesting and what is so, you know, I guess, obvious when we talk about history is, like, it does repeat itself, but in the book, we meet the leader of the Muskogee Nation, you know, as this is going through the Supreme Court, and he's sort of dealing with these same questions of, like, do we. Do we bring an amicus brief along with this case? Because if we do and we lose, what happens to us? You know? And so he's sort of also grappling with these similar questions of, like, how can we continue to exist in. In the face of the US Government and all of the up that they are constantly trying to do to our people? And I found that kind of parallel to be really interesting and something that maybe I would have missed had you not included the history of. Of John and Major Ridge. Speaking of all of these pieces, sort of reporting, being historian, being a memoirist or opinion writer, if you will, which of these pieces was easiest for you and which of this stuff was harder for you? Where did you struggle? Where did you find it to kind of be smooth?

Oh, I mean, I think the hardest thing was the combination, you know?

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, I think the hardest thing, you know, I. I get obsessive when it comes to research, and I'm kind of like a completist. So I, like, if I'm researching a topic, I want to know, like, everything that's ever been written about it, and probably, like, too much, but I'm just like, oh. Oh, cool. I'm like, you know, when I find, like, a. A, you know, a. A box of, like, thousands of Papers. I'm like, yay, look at all these records.

Yay.

So, yeah, I mean, but. And I think then the. The very, very, very difficult task is because just writing a summary of all of that research would be easy, right? Like, it. It would just be a summary. But I think the harder thing to write is the story and the meaning through those things and using that research towards that end and really, like, synthesizing it into something that makes a lot of sense. And so I try really hard for my writing to be accessible. And that's a value that's really important to me. I don't want it to just live in the space of academia. And so it's really important for me that people who are not trying to read a history book or not trying to read a law book can pick this book up, up and read it and get it, but also, like, learn all of this stuff. Right? And so that, to me, is the hardest. Was the hardest part of writing it. And it just took a lot of iterations. So usually the first draft was like, way too much information. Like, way, way, way too much information. And then, you know, in stages, you would cut it down and cut it back and cut it down.

And how did you know if it was accessible, like, with you? I feel like sometimes when I have, like, a lot of information that I know a lot about and I can get really in the weeds. So when you're relaying the information to us in that editing process, are you relying on outside people who are reading it to give you feedback, or is it something that you can sort of self edit on your own and know, like, this is too far?

Yeah, I mean, I. I do a lot of self editing. And then I did have. I did have folks. Folks, obviously I had, like, my editor, but then I had folks along the process reading it and giving feedback, you know, and trying to get, like, fresh eyes on it and stuff. One thing I do too is I try to take a break. So I'll sort of walk away from a writing project.

Okay.

And put it down for like a week or two and then come back to it. And I also would. I wrote the book and then edited it in the. These big chunks. So I try to. I try to come at editing from a lot of different angles and like, almost. I mean, it sounds kind of gimmicky, but, like, change my perspective as I'm editing it by, like, pacing the edits in different ways and editing for different things at different stages to try and, you know, put myself in that place of the reader. Because you're right, it is really hard when you're, you're in it to like see the forest for the trees.

Sometimes when you take your break before, you know, you go back to edit or like when you kind of give yourself that break, do you, what do you go to? Do you work on other projects? Do you go on vacation? Are you just like watching reality TV and taking a break? Like, what does that break actually look like for you?

Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, you know, one of the like vacation time off. Yeah, like time for my brain to just, just zone out. So, you know, at one point I had like a two week vacation planned. And then at one point I was like, I actually didn't know I was gonna hit the deadline for turning in like the full first rough draft of the book. And I was like a little bit behind. So I couldn't like, I couldn't like plan a trip somewhere. Like that wasn't gonna happen.

Right.

And so I just did like a staycation. And in the town where I live, there's a river that's like really fun to like float and you know, cook out on and stuff. And so I just took a week off and like, like, you know, one day went to a gravel bar with a friend and then another day went on a, went on a float trip by myself. Went on a float trip with another friend. Went on a float trip with another friend.

So much floating.

I just, yeah, I like, I can be a little bit of a river rat in the summer. So I just sort of like hung out on the river for a week, did like hikes, was just like out in nature and that really helped clear my head.

I love that. Okay, we're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back. When I first started using Shopify, I didn't know how much of a difference it would make. Setting up a store felt like a very daunting task. And figuring out how to design it and manage payments and track inventory and all of that felt so overwhelming. But Shopify made it simple. With Shopify, everything you need is in one place. Designing your shop is easy, even if you don't have any tech skills. You can customize it to match your brand, connect it to social media, and start selling to customers wherever they are. And the best part, Shopify handles all the complicated stuff, stuff like payments, shipping and taxes. So you can focus on what you love, building your business and connecting with your customers. It really is a game changer. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout we use with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com the stacks all lowercase go to shopify.com the stacks to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com the stacks stacks if you like what you're hearing this week on the Stacks, I encourage you to check out the Stacks Pack on Patreon and my newsletter Unstacked over on Substack. Both of these places offer monthly bonus content including bonus episodes and are a great way to support the work of this black woman run independent podcast. Quite frankly, I could not make the show without you. For those wondering, the Stacks Pack on Patreon is focused on a literary community. We have a discord. We do monthly book club meetups and we host a year long reading challenge called the Mega Challenge. If you're looking to meet and mingle with other book lovers, patreon.com the Stacks is the place for you over on Unstacked. I'm sharing my hot takes and bad attitude twice a week with posts and many podcasts about pop culture, book news, and I'm giving you insights into my reading life with many reviews, rankings and the books I'm looking forward to reading. This is a place for folks who just want more bookish content. And what's great about Substack is there are books, both free and paid options. Go to Tracy thomas.substack.com to subscribe, head to Patreon Substack or both and show this podcast some love. For just $5 a month you get a bunch of bookish extras and you get to know you're helping to make the Stacks possible. Okay, we're back. I have some legal questions for you and I want to start with can you explain to folks, folks, just so we know that in McGirt the land was restored, but then a few years later, Oklahoma brings a case. Castro Huerta and can you explain a little bit to folks what that was and what happened in that case?

Yeah, so basically, you know, the tribes won. The supreme court ruled in McGirt that Muskogee Nation still had a reservation, and then subsequently lower courts in Oklahoma upheld the reservations of all five tribes like I talked about earlier, and then actually a few other ones in northeastern Oklahoma. And in response to all of that, the state, led by our Governor Kevin Stitt, threw a temper tantrum and decided that they really, really, really, really don't want reservations in Oklahoma. And so they actually went back to the Supreme Court and said, Supreme Court, could you please reverse this decision that you just made and they asked the Supreme Court to do that over 50 times, which is pretty extreme. The supreme court didn't overturn McGur and didn't actually, like, agree to hear that question. But in Oklahoma's petitions to the court, they also asked the court to hear this more narrow question of how jurisdiction works on reservations. And so states don't have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native people on reservations, but they also don't have jurisdiction for crimes committed against native people. So if a native person is the victim of, like, a murder or an assault or a kidnapping, the state doesn't have jurisdiction. And Oklahoma wanted that back. So basically, they're looking at the. The pie of things that they lost from McGur, and they wanted a slice of that back. And what they did when they went to the Supreme Court to make the case that the court should do that, this is. They made up a bunch of scary facts and statistics about, you know, criminals walking free and cases going unprosecuted, and these, like, tens of thousands of past convictions were getting overturned. And there was this huge, you know, all these cases were just criminals were just not being prosecuted at all, and all these cases were slipping through the tracks. And I, you know, spent a lot of time tracking down those numbers and trying to verify the public claims that the state was making to the Supreme Court, and they were not truthful. And so that was a big part of the reporting. And I get into that in the book. But then, sadly, the Supreme Court still sided with Oklahoma, I think, in an example of how effective disinformation can be. And also sort of the slippery slope that we're at with the highest court about where it gets its facts and its information can.

Okay, I was a little bit confused, and I think maybe it's intentionally confusing. But how can both cases be true? Like, how can it work that both things exist at the same time?

Yeah, well, I mean, it's. I actually think it's, like, pretty emblematic of federal Indian law. It's this, like, constant, like, push, pull, win, loss, like, and it's, you know, it's full of contradiction. You know, supreme. The current Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, has called. It. Has called federal Indian law schizophrenic. You know, putting the, like, ableist metaphor aside, I think a good way to understand it, which is something I actually got from speaking with a legal scholar named Maggie Blackhawk, is that it's, you know, the totality of our history. And so you have these legal victories from tribes, but then you also have these losses. And so you Know, it's not. Not craziness, but it is sort of like this battlefield of our wins, our losses, and the compromises that we've had to make. And so I think this is a great example. And so the way that these two contradictory cases work together is that the central question in McGirt was, does Muskogee Nation still have a reservation? And the answer to that question is yes. The central question in Castro Huerta was, can the state of Oklahoma prosecute crimes committed by non Native people against Native people on a reservation? And I'll say that again slowly, in case you're like, what the. So the question is, can states prosecute crimes committed on tribal land if the perpetrator is non Native and the victim is Native? And the Supreme Court said yes to that, too.

But they cannot prosecute. The state cannot prosecute crimes on tribal land if the perpetrator is Native, regardless of the identity of the victim.

Yes.

Got it. That's such.

Yeah.

I mean, it's crazy. I mean.

And actually, it goes back to the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court in the late 70s, in a case where actually, like, a drunk guy on a reservation, a drunk white guy, got in a fight and assaulted a tribal police officer when he was being arrested, took his case all the way to the Supreme Court to say, hey, the tribe shouldn't be able to prosecute me. And the Supreme Court was like, you know what? You're right. And so tribes don't have jurisdiction over non natives who commit crimes on our land, except for some small exceptions carved out by the Violence Against Women Act. But basically, the federal government has been screwing with how crimes get prosecuted on tribal land since the 1800s. And it's a big old mess, and it leads to a lot of violent crime. You know, it makes Native people significantly less safe.

How is the case from the 1970s different than Castro Huerta?

The question. So that case is called Oliphant. And that case, the question was because, you know, okay, so Castro Huerta is like, can states prosecute? Da, da, da, da. This question was about. Wasn't about state jurisdiction. It was about tribal jurisdiction. So it was, what authority do tribal courts have. Have over people who aren't Native? And the Supreme Court said, none.

Got it.

Yeah. So that means, like, you can go to a reservation and you can, like, steal a pack of gum, break the speed limit, murder somebody, steal their horse, and the tribe can't prosecute you. And there have been some exceptions to this created through the Violence Against Women Act. So for certain crimes centered around Domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault. Tribes can prosecute non native people, but they have to jump through these hoops and like, basically get approved by the federal government to be able to exercise that special jurisdiction.

Hearing you talk about how it's sort of like the history of the relationship between Native Americans and the US Government and like that back and forth, push and pull, it sounds familiar, I think, to anyone listening who's from any marginalized group as well. Like, I mean, I'm black. Like, it's just sounds like civil rights, right? Like it's like Plessy versus Ferguson or what? You know, every. Everything back and forth, back and forth. And I think in the book, someone refers to Native Americans as legal canaries in the coal mine. Can you kind of explain that to the listeners? Because I found that to be super fascinating.

Yeah, yeah. That's a quote from Felix Cohen, who's like an early scholar of federal Indian law, and he talks about how indigenous people are really the canary in the coal mine of our democracy. And, you know, I think it really relates to our present moment.

Yes.

So if you think about, you know, the idea that the United States would colonize Greenland or the fact that we are shipping undocumented immigrants to Guantanamo Bay, all of these things, you know, that we can't get gun control because militias and the right to bear arms is, you know, in our founding documents. All of these things go back to how our democracy since its inception, has treated indigenous peoples, you know, and so often, you know, the history of what happened to Native Americans and the legal terrain that that history created is sort of treated like this siloed backwater of American law. But actually it's foundational. And how the US has treated indigenous people still governs how we treat people who are living at the margins of our empire, whether it's migrants detained at the border, you know, the victims of US War, the residents of Puerto Rico. And so I think that there are some, you know, if you want to call them, fundamental flaws or problems with our democracy, that because we've never really looked at this part of US Law, we. We don't even think about it. We pretend like it's not even there. Even legal scholars do this. Legal scholars pretend like it's. It's not an important part of our Constitution. I think that there are those fundamental flaws in our democracy are still with us and still haunt us.

Has your thinking around this, either of these cases or this history or anything changed since you've started covering it or I guess and slash or in the most recent weeks of. Of the newest Trump administration. Like, has any of that. Has any of this sort of changed how you think about the book and the work that you've done?

Yeah, I think the deeper you get into something, you kind of realize. You realize the extent of things and how far it goes. You know, I think in researching the book, you know, like, I knew. I. I knew that the Trail of Tears was a tragedy. I knew that it was extremely violent. You know, I. I have known that my whole life. And then reading the primary sources and, like, the firsthand accounts of it, you're like, oh, I had no idea it was this bad. And so I felt like in researching the book, I hit that moment of, like, oh, I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was this bad pretty often. And I think. I think that's a good way to summarize how I felt about the history and how I feel about the present moment. And I think also the potential for what the future might hold is. I think I. And for me, it's so. It's so rooted in our past. You know, people constantly want to compare Trump to, you know, foreign authoritarian leaders, whether it's Hitler or Putin. But. But we. We only have to look at ourselves. You know, we should be comparing Trump to Andrew Jackson. We should. We should be looking at our own. Our own democracy and the times that it has acted in an authoritarian way towards different groups of people, and think about what. What limits weren't in place to prevent those atrocities from happening and. And how that's playing out in the present moment.

I think this is such a good point, Rebecca, because part of the reason we compare Trump or any American president to outside bad guys or whatever instead of our own bad guys is because we don't know American history. We're not taught any of this stuff. Like, I'm 38 years old, and for the most part, I've learned almost, like, more than half of the information in your book felt new to me. And I love history, and I read history books, right? Like, it's not Like, I'm not a person who reads and is curious about these things, so people who really are aren't. It's like, all we know is Hitler. You know, it's like, the only bad guy we've ever heard of, even though there's a myriad of other bad guys in other countries as well that people don't know anything about. I think part of the reason that the analogies are just so, like, flat and the same for every. Everything bad that ever happens is because nobody's teaching nobody. I mean, not, not. This is not a knock on teachers, but the curriculum is not required for people to learn this information. And yeah, I think that's like a huge problem. And I think of course by design, right. Like, like we, you, they can't be our heroes. And also you learn the truth about, you know, Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson, you know, like, and I feel like Andrew Jackson is probably the president who is agreed upon to be the most villainous one.

Yeah. You know, speaking of things not being in the curriculum, you know, one of the ways that anti Indigenous racism functions is through erasure. And so if you just look at like K through 12 education, there's very little in there about Native Americans. There's very little in there about Native Americans. After 1900s, it's like we stop existing. Only four states, the last time I checked, were teaching the history of boarding schools, which is when a third of all native kids were sent to government or church run schools and separated from their families where they experience widespread abuse. And only four states teach that. And so I think that there's this way that that is particular, that is particular to indigenous peoples.

Yes.

Where when we talk about the history of this country, even when we talk about the history of this country with a lens towards racial justice, Native people are left out. And the best we get sort of like a passing mention which isn't helpful in terms of people actually understanding, you know, not only what happened to us, but how that influences where our country is at now. And so, yeah, I mean I think that the, the prevailing attitude in the US is just profound ignorance. And I think that we have a lot, we have a, we have a lot to make up for. But. And it's not just education, it's the news, it's media, it's pop culture, sort of wherever you look book, there's very few examples of authentic native stories being told to a non native audience.

Yeah, I think people who are listening to this episode who are listeners of the show will be. Their brains will be really moving right now because last week's episode of the show was with Eve Ewing who is writes about education in America. And her latest book, Original Sins is about the miseducation of black and indigenous children in the United States. And she talks a ton about these residential schools. She talks about the erasure of Native Americans by design as fundamental to the ability of the United States as a country to thrive. That it's imperative that not only are Native American people removed and killed, but also that we believe that they do not exist. And she talks even about how in so many of the books, Native Americans are only referred to in the past tense, as if they don't exist in the present. So all of these things that you're saying. I know. I actually read your book immediately after Eve, so. So both of these ideas were just like both of your work were in my brain kind of mixing and mingling as you were saying the same things or similar things in different ways about different time periods or different people. But all of it is, like, so connected. So if you're listening at home and you're like, wait a second. Yes, yes, yes, yes. It's all connected. It's all connected. Like, the magic should be happening for people who are listening. And. And I think. I think, think. You know, to be quite honest, I had never really connected those dots myself. Like, I had never thought about how I was taught again from California that there weren't. There was no such thing as Native American people anymore. Right. Like, that's what we were taught is like, there was no such thing as a quote, unquote, full blood Native American person. And, like, that's a crazy thing to be taught as a child and to believe that a whole group of people just doesn't exist and to never really have that questioned in your education for your whole life. Like, yeah, that's a real flaw. I mean, I think, to me, but I think some people would argue it's a win depending on whose side you're out on, but a flaw of the education system that, like, we're not. And like you said, other sources of information, whether it's media or pop culture, that, like, that's not even something that was really pushed back against. And it's, you know, extremely fucked up. And I mean, kind of on this line, one of the things you talk about in the book is like, how the Trail of Tears and what happened to Native American people was a genocide, but we don't use that language to describe it because it's a little anachronistic because that word didn't exist at the time. But I'm curious if you also think that too is by design that we don't use that word for other reasons.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, if we. When you use the word genocide, this whole system of, like, under international law of what we're supposed to do with genocide snaps into place. Place. And so there's a reason that that word is avoided. And, you know, there's, you know, there's a big academic debate of like, is it genocide? Is it ethnic cleansing? Is it elimination? Right. And I think, you know, I think the word genocide is the word that normal people associate with the kind of the scale and the systemic nature of the loss of life that we're talking about.

Right.

We have this story as Americans that while we had some fundamental flaws, our country has gotten better. And we've been a country of progress. And we started with this amazing idea of all men being created equal in each generation. We've sort of perfected that idea more and more and more. Well, Native people don't fit into that story. Right. We don't fit into that story at all. Because where is our Supreme Court decision ending our legal subordination? Where's our constitutional amendment? You know, the US government today holds over 500 indigenous nations in legal subordination. You know, our resources are exploited. You know, our self governance is limited, our treaties are violated. You know, our lands are exploited. And that's still going on. You know, and so I, I think that that's where that piece comes in. Because, you know, our country has committed genocide, but we've never taken account for it.

Yes.

And instead, going back to that erasure, instead of taking account for these atrocities, what we have done as a society is pretend like indigenous people no longer, longer exist. Because if the victims of these atrocities aren't around, then we can pretend like nothing is owed for that injustice.

Yeah. I mean, I think you even mention in the book about the diseases that were, you know, brought to native communities by the white settlers. And you talk about how. Even the way it's talked about is like, oh, this happened like this thing like sort of happened like people just like sort of smallpox appeared. And it's like even the things that the settlers did that were, you know, you, you can understand how this thing could happen. You could understand how people bringing in their diseases could spread in another community is talked about in a way that it's like, oh, oops, like, how did this happen? And I think that also goes along with that.

Those things are like it. You always take the violence out from it. Cause like, so in. In our communities in the southeast east, a really big way that disease was spread was through the indigenous slave trade, which people don't even know happened. But, you know, in the early 1700s, a third of the enslaved population in South Carolina was indigenous. And so indigenous. There were raids of indigenous villages to enslaved people there in the South. But then a lot of people were also shipped to like, Caribbean islands. And that was a huge source of the spread of diseases like smallpox, then you have. I mean, because we actually had. As Cherokees, we had quarantine protocols. And so, like, if a village was having a smallpox outbreak, like, you know, it would kind of go in quarantine and lockdown, and people would even be quarantined, like, outside of their communities. But then what happened over and over again in these same periods where there are these bad outbreaks of disease is that the colonial militias would have these methods of total war where they would just burn everything to the ground. And you can't practice quarantine when your. Your communities are being burned to the ground, like. And so there's this way that the violence and the destabilization that colonialism creates is, like. Is such an important part of the story of why these illnesses spread the way that they did. Because even with smallpox, it's like. Like there was a bad smallpox in Boston that killed a lot of people, because smallpox is like chickenpox. You're not born immune to smallpox.

Right.

You become immune to smallpox by getting it. And so when it would hap. When, you know, there had been 20 or 30 years where there wasn't a smallpox outbreak and then there was one, a lot of young people would die. And then what you see in indigenous communities is that the same thing happens because we've already had a smallpox outbreak outbreak. It's like less people die and it's younger people after some of those initial outbreaks. And. And the same thing is happening in white communities in, you know, colonial America at the same time. And so the difference is in why so much of. Why it had such a profound impact on our communities is because it was partnered with extreme violence.

Yeah. Can I ask you. I think maybe a stupid question that's going to feel elementary to you, but I've always had this question, and I feel like you're here, and I could do it. When someone is a member of a tribal nation or citizen of a tribal nation, they are also a US Citizen.

Is that true? Yeah.

How does that work for an individual?

Yeah, well, it's funny because it's actually coming up right now, and the whole birthright citizenship thing.

Yeah.

So we are not part of the 14th Amendment. Native Americans were left out, and we did not become U.S. citizens until 1924. And so the Trump administration is actually using that argument to say, like, hey, like, look, there are these people who are born in the U. You know, within the boundaries of the US who weren't US citizens after the 14th amendment to try to challenge the constitutional Right to birthright citizenship. So anyways, backing up. Yeah, I mean, so I am. I think the easiest analogy is that, like, I am a citizen of the United States and so certain laws apply to me. I'm also a resident of Oklahoma, and so certain laws apply to me because I live in Oklahoma. And then I'm a citizen of Cherokee Nation. And so certain laws. Laws apply to me because I'm a citizen of Cherokee Nation. And so for me, it's just another level of government in my life. I mean, what that looks like on a very practical level, you know, like, my car tag is through my tribe. I get my health care through my tribe. You know, if I committed a crime on my reservation, my tribe would be the government that prosecutes me. I can call, call my tribe if I need to call the police or, you know, if I have, you know, a problem with my house or something like that. But, you know, the utility company is like the public utility company in the town where I live. You know, I still pay taxes, you know, all of those things. And so, I mean, I think it's just. And I think that tribes are a layer of government for everyone. You know, like, everyone who lives gives within my tribe's reservation benefits from the roads that my tribes pays, the money that it gives to public schools, like all of the public infrastructure. You know, the, the police and the fire services and the ambulances, like, they, they help non native citizens too, you know. Yeah, but. Yeah, so. But for a period of time. So we're. We just celebrated a hundred years of the Citizenship act and Native people being. Being U.S. citizens. And prior to that we weren't because we were citizens of our indigenous nations.

Okay, thank you for that. I just have a few more questions for you. One is, we talked about your breaks that you take, but how do you like to write? How many hours a day? How often do you listen to music? Are you in your home? Are there snacks and beverages, Rituals? Tell us about it.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's pretty. Like people are going to think I'm like a serial killer when I describe this, but I'm like, pretty hardcore. So I write in the morning. It's like the best time. And I generally would write from like nine to three or like eight to three.

Okay.

When I'm like drafting, I like try to write like a thousand words a day. Okay. And then when I'm editing, I. I have like, like, especially when I was like, up against the deadline with the book, I would have like, pretty specific, like week, like what I was trying to get done each week, if not what I was trying to get done each day. And so I would kind of like, write out, like, you know, whatever edit I was doing. I would like, write out what needed to be done with each chapter and then, like, break it up. So if I was like, line editing or if I was doing structural edits. And I would also say that my writing looks a lot more like editing than writing. Like, the amount of time that I spend writing on the blank page page is maybe like 10% of the amount of time I spend writing because I just try to get it down and then I edit and edit and edit and edit and edit and edit.

Okay.

Yeah.

What about snacks and beverages?

Lots of snacks. Water. No music. In my house, in my office. I do best when it's quiet sometimes. Sometimes music, but usually it's like a song on repeat.

I don't want to be too weird, but I actually need to know what snacks specifically. Oh, we're a very snack forward podcast here. And when someone says lots of snacks, my whole heart leaps out of my chest because some people are weird and like, I don't eat anything, so.

Oh, my God.

Yeah, I got a snacker. I need to know.

I mean, it depends. I'm like a real, like, protein snack girl. So like yogurt nuts, like, I have these, like, little chicken sausages and chicken nuggets that I can heat up in the air fryer. Oh, cheese crackers. Yeah. But I generally, like, have breakfast and then like a morning snack and then lunch and then an afternoon snack or afternoon snacks.

Okay.

And then dinner.

Now you're talking.

Before I go to bed. So I eat all day.

We love a snack. We love a snack. You are officially in at the snacks community.

I was when I was at McDowell, which was one of the writing residencies I gotta do. I would, like, come for breakfast and there would be like, you could, like, order on the sheet. You could, like, put. It was like kind of this grid and you could write down, like, how many pieces of bacon you would want. And I would put like eight and then just like, leave with my plate of bacon.

I love that. What's a word you can never spell correctly on the first try?

Oh, crap. You know, this is really embarrassing. But a word. Word that I. I can spell it correctly, but I have to, like, think about it. So it's two words that are really embarrassing. One is indigenous. I always am like, where's the E? Where's the E? I always want to put the E where the I goes. Not the first eye, but the second eye. I want it to be an E. And then if I. I flip that. And then sovereignty. I'm like that. Sovereign. Like, how.

That's a hard one. They're actually both really hard. So I. I respect this. Yeah.

But it's. It's, like, for the work that you do, it's sort of like what I do that I. I struggle to spell those words.

This is a very. I'm. I'm a very bad speller. So this is a very pro. Bad spelling podcast. Like, anytime someone comes on and they're like, I won the spelling bee in third grade. I'm like, you know what? We're not going to air this episode. Like, I don't like this person. They're my enemy. I just have, I guess, two more questions for you. One is that for people who love by the Fire We Carry, what are some other books you might recommend to them that are in conversation with your work?

Ooh, that's a good question. Yeah. Some of the books that, like. I really leaned on a lot in writing. My book Ties that Bind by Tiya Miles, I've Been Here all the While by Elena Roberts, and Still the Waters Run by Angie Debo. So those are all, like, history books, but they informed my writing and my book a lot.

I just want to quickly say, for people who read and loved Killers of the Flower Moon, you should read this book and recommend it instead. I just want to casually just throw that out there. If you could have one person, dead or alive, read by the Fire We Carry, who would you want it to be?

This is your last one, man. Oh, that's really hard. I mean, I guess my ancestors. I would like to hear what they thought. Think. Yeah. John A Major Rich.

Yeah. Okay, well, everybody by the Fire We Carry is out in the world. You can get it now. I. I sort of buried the lead on this, but congratulations on the women's nonfiction prize. I saw that you made that long list, which is awesome. You met. You've been on a bunch of lists. You've been like, a favorite book from 2024 from a bunch of publications. The National Book Critics Circle list, too, right? Did I make.

Yeah, the finalist for that.

Finalist for that. Yeah. So, you know, Rebecca's out here doing great things, and we should all be reading this book. And you can get it wherever you get it. And she reads the audiobook, which I listened to, but the physical book has pictures and maps, so you might have to get both. I don't know. Sorry. Tough for you. But Rebecca, thank you so much for being here.

Yeah, thank you so much for having.

Me and everyone else. We will see you in the Stacks. All right, y'all, that does it for us today. Thank you so much for listening and thank you again to Rebecca Nagel for joining the show. Don't forget the Stacks Book Club pick for February is Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. Ira Madison III will be back to discuss the book with us on Wednesday, February 26th. If you love the show and you want inside access to it, head to patreon.com the stacks to join the Stacks Pack and subscribe to my newsletter [e-mail] make sure you're subscribed to the Stacks wherever you listen to your podcasts, and if you're listening through Apple Podcasts or Spotify, please leave us a rating and a review. For more from the Stacks, follow us on social media at the Stacks Pod, on Instagram threads and TikTok, and you can check out our [e-mail] this episode of the Stacks was edited by Christian Duenas with production assistance from Megan Caballero. Our graphic designer is Robin McRite, and our theme music is from Tagirijis. The Stax is created and produced by me, Tracy Thomas.