Echo-Hawk presents a very interesting legal argument contending that American Indians are not conquered peoples, but that the legal precedents that establish federal Indian law are based on the notion that they are.

We want to make sure that we understand exactly what Echo-Hawk is saying. In this reflection, paraphrase one of the arguments or statements in which Echo-Hawk describes why he doesn't believe American Indian tribes/people can be treated as conquered peoples and/or why he thinks that even if they were, it's not the basis for laying a legal foundation of how they should be treated. (300 wor)