Talk:The Code of Indian Offenses

Background section is uncontextualized and racially demeaning
The Background section should be amended or removed to give a more complete picture of settler/native interactions especially over the first few centuries. Interaction between the two were not characterized entirely or even majorly by "assimilation, genocide, and forced removals", but a range of interactions and dynamics that saw natives in a superior position to settlers as often as not; It was hardly a cakewalk for migrants to the Americas no matter where that occurred, which is the impression this section gives.

It is also highly inappropriate and offensive to paint native peoples as helpless, childlike, without agency and unable to advocate/defend or entreat themselves vis-a-vis the settlers; this is the 'noble savage' trope in force, portraying natives as innocent, childlike and stupid, without any sophistication or ability, little more than part of the wildlife instead of fully human and on par with the settlers interms of human worthiness. Erasing the achievements and struggles of natives in this way is, as has been noted elsewhere, a deeply racist and colonial habit that has been a part of creating a narrative that excuses settlers and colonists from responsibility for their actions against native populations.

As this section is deeply flawed and frankly racist, prejudicial and dehumanizing, it should be amended or removed; It is not in keeping with the subject matter or with well-understood norms of depicting native peoples in an unprejudiced, non-racist manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.28.78 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Another problematic passage on First Amendment rights
The following statement is contradictory, is begging the question, incomplete, and is consequently nonsensical:

"Even under the act, however, tribes did not have the First Amendment rights for certain religious practices,[16] notably, the sacramental use of peyote. This was upheld in the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith which held that the First Amendment does not protect the sacramental ingestion of peyote in Native American religious ceremonies from criminal sanctions.[13]"

The second sentence plainly states that using peyote is not protected by the First Amendment, a doctrine subsequently upheld against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would have made it a First Amendment right, in 2 following landmark cases. Therefore "tribes did not have the First Amendment rights", because those right never existed in the first place, a legal framework that is universal to the practice of religions in the United States. What is missing is the fact that U.S. Code expressly permits the use of peyote and other practices by Native American tribes since 1965, when the issue first arose under the law. This permission was reaffirmed by Congress in 1996 and remains in force today; the fact is, since the 1950s there are essentially no restrictions of the practice of Native American religions not applied to every other religion at a federal level.

The overall impression this article gives is that it was written by a person or persons with a well blinkered outlook on the Code of Indian Offenses, the processes and motivations of the United States government and "Western" culture generally, a rudimentary and flawed understanding of U.S. laws and the status of Native Americans following 1924. This creates an impression that is factually and contextually inaccurate throughout, and lacks reason and credibility, especially when a cursory search brings up numerous reliable sources that do a far better job on these fronts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.28.78 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)