Only vaguely related, but I've heard it explained that the term "reservation" derives from the idea that it's land that the Indians "reserved" for themselves, rather than ceding in treaties.
Now, that's of course a distortion of the forces at work that caused the so-called reservation of lands to be necessary, but there's also some contemporary value to Indian leaders in restoring that sense of meaning to the word today.
Well, I can tell you that the land picked for reservations was not picked by the tribes. Mostly it is not the best or nicest. Some tribes got lucky because of what was discovered later. I would need a source cited who thinks this interpretation of the word would be good for a tribal leader.
The source cited is me. I think it would have value as a method of strengthening a sense of autonomy.
There's a lot of difference in the idea of land someone else reserved for you vs land you reserved for yourself.
The place where the land is will not be changing, but it's possible to change the perception of what that land represents, and thus the benefits of that land in a political sense.
That is not part of the history, nor is does it jive with some of the ongoing land claim. Changing wording and trying to convince people that something that didn't happen did does nothing except base your leadership and cause in a lie. Changing perception is only a good thing when it brings you closer to the truth of a situation, not clouds future decisions in more fog.
No, the interpretation of the word reservation was not the historical meaning. Changing words to mean more pleasing things is still not telling the truth.
This is tangent to my arguments against using the new term "differently enabled" as opposed to "disabled". "Disabled" indicates that there is a problem that society needs to spend some resources on to correct and fix. "Differently enabled" is some politically correct term that seems to mask a problem and make people feel ok when they shouldn't.
While the initial idea of the word "reservation" may be true, usually the US government reneged on their promises and continued to move the Indians around to smaller and less desirable lands, while still maintaining the name "reservation". Also the idea of signing a contract, with the only alternative being annihilation doesn't really bode well for the idea that the Indians had a whole lot of choice in the matter.
Now, that's of course a distortion of the forces at work that caused the so-called reservation of lands to be necessary, but there's also some contemporary value to Indian leaders in restoring that sense of meaning to the word today.