The New Trail of Tears presents itself as an exposé of the crisis in “Indian Country,” but what Naomi Schaefer Riley offers is a deeply flawed, assimilationist narrative that repeats the old colonial script rather than illuminating the structural realities Indigenous nations face. It’s clear that the book relies on selective history, decontextualized data, and a consistent pathologizing of Native communities. Riley routinely frames Indigenous peoples as either helpless victims or culturally deficient dependents which are tropes that have been used for centuries to justify dispossession and undermine tribal sovereignty.
Each chapter rests on simplistic binaries: Indians as economically backward, unmotivated, or fundamentally trapped by their own cultures. Instead of engaging with Indigenous scholarship, governance, or community voices, Riley elevates outside “experts” and free-market think tanks that have long promoted policies harmful to Indigenous sovereignty. Her proposed “solutions,” the privatizing land, dissolving trust protections, assimilating tribes into mainstream property regimes, echo the disastrous policies of allotment and termination, which devastated tribal nations in the past.
From a post-colonial and decolonial perspective, the book’s core failure is its erasure of the colonial structure itself. Riley treats poverty, underfunded services, and social trauma as cultural failings rather than the predictable consequences of dispossession, broken treaties, forced removals, ect. She ignores Indigenous resilience, resurgence, and political agency, offering instead a familiar narrative in which salvation comes from abandoning Indigenous land-holding traditions and embracing Western capitalist norms (as in market capitalism and privatization as universal solutions).
Rather than revealing a “new trail of tears,” Riley reproduces the logic of the original: dismiss Indigenous sovereignty, deny colonial responsibility, and prescribe assimilation as the path forward. Readers seeking a genuine understanding of indigenous realities would be far better served by indigenous authors and community-rooted scholarship. This book ultimately reinforces the very colonial assumptions it claims to critique.
Also I must come back to her comparison of the Seneca to Israel (p.62) . Showcasing modern Israel, a settler colonial project under the ideology of Zionism backed by imperial powers, as a success story in which the Seneca can aspire to is beyond understanding.