Most property law students learn about Indian title by reading the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh4 as part of their introductory property law course. While it is a good thing that they learn about the topic, most of them learn the law incorrectly. This is not their fault; they learn a distorted picture of Indian title because many property law teachers also misunderstand the case. Teachers misunderstand the case partly because Chief Justice John Marshall uses archaic terminology and partly because most casebook authors do not provide the historical and legal context necessary to interpret the holding correctly. 5 It is important to understand what Indian title really is-not only to appreciate the historical genesis of American property rightsbut to ensure equal and adequate protection for the property rights of the hundreds of Indian nations that continue to own and govern their own property today. To understand what Johnson v. M'Intosh tells us about Indian title, we must read the opinion in two different ways. Critical analysis of a judicial opinion requires both a backward-looking and a forward-looking perspective. A backward-looking view treats the case as an historical artifact that we can distance ourselves from while a forward-looking view is cognizant of the fact that the case may have consequences for current and future lawsuits.

If we focus backwards, we are free to engage in fundamental critique. That may include denunciation, repudiation, and condemnation; when we engage in critical analysis of this sort, we work to uncover spoken (or unspoken) assumptions, false or pernicious beliefs, misleading assertions, and unjust or racist premises underlying the court's arguments. We find and point out contradictions in the reasoning and analysis and