‘Occupancy’ and ‘Settlement’: Anishinaabemowin and the Interpretation of Michigan Indian Treaty Language
Matthew L. M. Fletcher
Michigan State University College of Law
February 23, 2010
MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-04
The 2007 Consent Decree in United States v. Michigan, a major victory for the tribal interests, recognized that the lands in ownership by the state, federal, and tribal governments – vast swaths of Michigan – would stand in for the lands not yet “required for settlement.” The Michigan Indians’ “privilege” to continued “occupancy” acquired legal determinacy. This short essay examines how Michigan Indian treaty negotiators would have understood the meaning of the words “settlement” and “occupancy,” and how that understanding strongly influenced the land base in which Michigan Indians can continue to exercise their inland treaty rights in accordance with the 1836 Treaty.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 13
Keywords: Anishinaabemowin, American Indian treaty rights, 1836 Treaty of Washington, Michigan Indian, Grand Traverse Band, Little Traverse Bay Bands, Odawaworking papers series
Date posted: February 25, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.454 seconds