​
The Dawes Act of 1887
(also known as the General Allotment Act or the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887),
Authorized the President of the United States to survey American Indian tribal land and divide it into allotments for individual Indians.
Those who accepted allotments and lived separately from the tribe would be granted United States citizenship.
The Dawes Act was amended in 1891, in 1898 by the Curtis Act, and again in 1906 by the Burke Act.
The Act was named for its creator, Senator Henry Laurens Dawes of Massachusetts.
The objectives of the Dawes Act were to abolish tribal and communal land ownership of the tribes into individual land ownership rights in order to transfer lands under Indian control to white settlers and stimulate assimilation of them into mainstream American society, and thereby lift individual Native Americans out of poverty.
Individual household ownership of land and subsistence farming on the European-American model was seen as an essential step.
The act provided that the government would classify as "excess" those Indian reservation lands remaining after allotments, and sell those lands on the open market, allowing purchase and settlement by non-Native Americans.
The Dawes Commission, set up under an Indian Office appropriation bill in 1893, was created to try to persuade the Five Civilized Tribes to agree to allotment plans.
(They had been excluded from the Dawes Act by their treaties.)
This commission registered the members of the Five Civilized Tribes on what became known as the Dawes Rolls.
The Curtis Act of 1898 amended the Dawes Act to extend its provisions to the Five Civilized Tribes; it required abolition of their governments, allotment of communal lands to people registered as tribal members, and sale of lands declared surplus, as well as dissolving tribal courts.
This completed the extinguishment of tribal land titles in Indian Territory, preparing it to be admitted to the Union as the state of Oklahoma.
During the ensuing decades, the Five Civilized Tribes sold off 90 million acres of former communal lands to non-Natives.
In addition, many individuals, unfamiliar with land ownership, became the target of speculators and criminals, were stuck with allotments that were too small for profitable farming, and lost their household lands.
Tribe members also suffered from the breakdown of the social structure of the tribes.
During the Great Depression, the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration supported passage on June 18, 1934 of the US Indian Reorganization Act
(also known as the Wheeler-Howard Law).
It ended land allotment and created a "New Deal" for Indians, renewing their rights to reorganize and form their self-governments.
The new policy intended to concentrate Native Americans in areas away from encroaching settlers, but it caused considerable suffering and many deaths. During the nineteenth century, Native American tribes resisted the imposition of the reservation system and engaged with the United States Army in what were called the Indian Wars in the West for decades. Finally defeated by the US military force and continuing waves of encroaching settlers, the tribes negotiated agreements to resettle on reservations.[6] Native Americans ended up with a total of over 155 million acres (630,000 km2) of land, ranging from arid deserts to prime agricultural land.[7]
​
The Reservation system, though forced upon Native Americans, was a system that allotted each tribe a claim to their new lands, protection over their territories, and the right to govern themselves. With the Senate supposedly being able to intervene only through the negotiation of treaties, they adjusted their ways of life and tried to continue their traditions.[8] The traditional tribal organization, a defining characteristic of Native Americans as a social unit, became apparent to the non-native communities of the United States and created a mixed stir of emotions. The tribe was viewed as a highly cohesive group, led by a hereditary, chosen chief, who exercised power and influence among the members of the tribe by aging traditions.[9] The tribes were seen as strong, tight-knit societies led by powerful men who were opposed to any change that weakened their positions. Many white Americans feared them and sought reformation. The Indians' failure to adopt the "Euroamerican" lifestyle, which was the social norm in the United States at the time, was seen as both unacceptable and uncivilized.
​
By the end of the 1880s, a general consensus seem to have been reached among many US stakeholders that the assimilation of Native Americans into American culture was top priority; it was the time for them to leave behind their tribal landholding, reservations, traditions and ultimately their Indian identities.[10]
​
On February 8, 1887, the Dawes Allotment Act was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland.
​
Responsible for enacting the division of the tribal reservations into plots of land for individual households, the Dawes Act was created by reformers to achieve six goals:
​
breaking up of tribes as a social unit,
encouraging individual initiatives,
furthering the progress of native farmers,
reducing the cost of native administration,
securing parts of the reservations as Indian land, and
opening the remainder of the land to white settlers for profit.[11]
The Act facilitated assimilation; they would become more "Euro-Americanized" as the government allotted the reservations. Native Americans held specific ideologies pertaining to tribal land, to them the land and earth were things to be valued and cared for, it represented things that produced and sustained life, it embodied their existence and identity, and created an environment of belonging.[12] In opposition to their white counterparts, they did not see it from an economic standpoint.
​
But, many natives began to believe they had to adapt to the majority culture in order to survive. They would have to embrace these beliefs and surrender to the forces of progress. They were to adopt the values of the dominant society and see land as real estate to be bought and developed; they learned how to use their land effectively in order to become prosperous farmers.[13] As they were inducted as citizens of the country, they would shed their uncivilized discourses and ideologies, and exchange them for ones that allowed them to become industrious self-supporting citizens, and finally rid themselves of their "need" for government supervision.[14]
​
The important provisions of the Dawes Act[2] were:
​
A head of family would receive a grant of 160 acres (65 ha), a single person or orphan over 18 years of age would receive a grant of 80 acres (32 ha), and persons under the age of 18 would receive 40 acres (16 ha) each;
the allotments would be held in trust by the U.S. Government for 25 years;
Eligible Indians had four years to select their land; afterward the selection would be made for them by the Secretary of the Interior.[15]
Every member of the bands or tribes receiving a land allotment is subject to laws of the state or territory in which they reside. Every Indian who receives a land allotment "and has adopted the habits of civilized life" (lived separate and apart from the tribe) is bestowed with United States citizenship "without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting the right of any such Indian to tribal or other property".[16]
​
The Secretary of Interior could issue rules to assure equal distribution of water for irrigation among the tribes, and provided that "no other appropriation or grant of water by any riparian proprietor shall be authorized or permitted to the damage of any other riparian proprietor."[17]
​
The Dawes Act did not apply to the territory of the:[18]
​
Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Miami, and Peoria in Indian Territory
Osage, Sac, and Fox, in the Oklahoma Territory
any of the reservations of the Seneca Nation of New York, or
a strip of territory in the State of Nebraska adjoining the Sioux Nation
Provisions were later extended to the Wea, Peoria, Kaskaskia, Piankeshaw, and Western Miami tribes by act of 1889.[19] Allotment of the lands of these tribes was mandated by the Act of 1891, which amplified the provisions of the Dawes Act.[20]
​
Dawes Act 1891 Amendments
In 1891 the Dawes Act was amended:[21]
​
Allowed for pro-rata distribution when the reservation did not have enough land for each individual to receive allotments in original quantities, and provided that when land is only suitable for grazing purposes, such land be allotted in double quantities[22]
Established criteria for inheritance[23]
Does not apply to Cherokee Outlet[24]
Provisions of the Curtis Act
The Curtis Act of 1898 extended the provisions of the Dawes Act to the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory. It did away with their self-government, including tribal courts. In addition to providing for allotment of lands to tribal members, it authorized the Dawes Commission to make determination of members when registering tribal members.
​
Provisions of the Burke Act
The Burke Act of 1906[25] amended the sections of the Dawes Act dealing with US Citizenship (Section 6) and the mechanism for issuing allotments. The Secretary of Interior could force the Indian Allottee to accept title for land. US Citizenship was granted unconditionally upon receipt of land allotment (the individual did not need to move off the reservation to receive citizenship). Land allotted to Indians was taken out of Trust and subject to taxation. The Burke Act did not apply to any Indians in Indian Territory.
​
In 1922, the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted an audit of 12 reservations to determine the severity of fractionation on those reservations. The GAO found that on the 12 reservations for which it compiled data, there were approximately 80,000 discrete owners but, because of fractionation, there were over a million ownership records associated with those owners. The GAO also found that if the land were physically divided by the fractional interests, many of these interests would represent less than one square foot of ground. In early 2002, the Department of the Interior attempted to replicate the audit methodology used by the GAO and to update the GAO report data to assess the continued growth of fractionation; it found that it increased by more than 40% between 1992 and 2002.
​
As an example of continuing fractionation, consider a real tract identified in 1987 in Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987):
​
Tract 1305 is 40 acres (160,000 m2) and produces $1,080 in income annually. It is valued at $8,000. It has 439 owners, one-third of whom receive less than $.05 in annual rent and two-thirds of whom receive less than $1. The largest interest holder receives $82.85 annually. The common denominator used to compute fractional interests in the property is 3,394,923,840,000. The smallest heir receives $.01 every 177 years. If the tract were sold (assuming the 439 owners could agree) for its estimated $8,000 value, he would be entitled to $.000418. The administrative costs of handling this tract are estimated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at $17,560 annually.
​
Today, this tract produces $2,000 in income annually and is valued at $22,000. It now has 505 owners but the common denominator used to compute fractional interests has grown to 220,670,049,600,000. If the tract were sold (assuming the 505 owners could agree) for its estimated $22,000 value, the smallest heir would now be entitled to $.00001824. The administrative costs of handling this tract in 2003 are estimated by the BIA at $42,800.
​
Fractionation has become significantly worse. As noted above, in some cases the land is so highly fractionated that it can never be made productive. With such small ownership interests, it is nearly impossible to obtain the level of consent necessary to lease the land. In addition, to manage highly fractionated parcels of land, the government spends more money probating estates, maintaining title records, leasing the land, and attempting to manage and distribute tiny amounts of income to individual owners than is received in income from the land. In many cases, the costs associated with managing these lands can be significantly more than the value of the underlying asset.

Visiting a restaurant in my city i notice something in our society, something that everyone have in their cultures. Whenever we heard the word “etiquette” we relate it with rules that we have to follow depending on the place we are staying on, so with that in mind we are not being rude with anyone or bothering the people. Therefore we will be talking about a couple of rules that the people have to follow in a restaurant in order to not be rude. This investigation was realized in the city of Loja and even though this rules are not written, is very well know by the people as if it was natural for them. 1. Be polite whenever it comes to ask for service: when we try to ask for our food we can’t just yell out loud for it, we have to wait for our turn and figure out if the people are not too busy. 2. In some places the tip is a sign of respect: in the USA is common to leave a tip for the restaurant as a sign of respect, and some places in other countries also have this type of culture. 3. Don’t eat with the mouth open: The visual of the mouth with the food eaten is pretty disgusting and some people dislike the sound of it, try to avoid it in order to not bother anyone. 4. Respect for every one of the attenders: there is too many people who thinks that the attenders are his slaves because they are the client, but not in every case the customer is right, don’t forget to be polite with everyone to avoid a spit in your soup. 5. Wait your turn and don’t bother other customers: not everyone want to have a long conversation, some people are only there because they don’t have too much time so try to be quick in your orders and respect the line.

Audiobook support and waterproof!