I am new to this site and do not know the prevailing philosophy of those responding. I wonder if my impression is accurate or if I am mistaken. It sounds to me that the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek is being blamed for the Choctaw being removed to Indian Territory in the West. Surely, people, you do not believe that our ancestors would have lived out their lives on their land, had the treaty not been signed. Let us pretend for a moment that our wise Chiefs would have mounted their horses and ridden away in indignation at the proposal for removal. No treaty. What would come next in this scenario? The government men would have returned to Washington and advised their President the land could not be purchased from the Indians and the Indians would have remained on their land, with their own Choctaw government, and their own way of life? Of course not. "Civilization" was coming. The US was spreading. A tribe of Indian people could not stop them, nor could have several tribes of Indian people stopped them. And what would have become of the Choctaw? In that day, they would have been extinguished by the white Army and their land would have still ended up in the hands of the government. And what about those Choctaw who would have survived? To remain in Mississippi they would have been forced to proclaim allegiance to the US and Mississippi and given up their Choctaw heritage. Would they have been able to adapt to the white man's laws, their way of life? It is my thinking that the Chiefs made a wise decision. They were able to negotiate for a few concessions. Let us not forget that through the negotiations those desiring to remain on their land, but give up their Choctaw allegiance were to be permitted to do so. Some choice! And, as history had proved, even in that day, the government could not be depended upon to live up to the stipulations put forth in the treaties. Why is it that today we criticize our Chiefs of yesteryear? It appears they did what they could for their people, considering that the government could scarcely be depended upon to do what they said. Life is ever-changing. We cannot stop that, just as we cannot stop our government from taking our homes today if they want them. Today, it is called eminent domain. Right or wrong, that is reality. You do really think that had Dancing Rabbit Creek Treaty not been signed life would have been better for our ancestors? Time marches on and civilization was marching on, whether we liked it or not. Had the treaty not been signed, the only thing that would be different today is there would be many less Choctaw than there are now, or perhaps we would just read in our history books about the tribe of Indians that were named Choctaw, but are no more because they stood tall against the government until the last one of them was killed as they attempted to prevent the government from taking their land? And how much would we know about that brave, but disillusioned, nation of people? "Civilization," my brothers and sisters, was on the move. Just as we in America now endeavor to "civilize" the primitive countries who today are looked upon somewhat as the Choctaws were in the years of our great ancestors. Indeeunme