The General Native American Discussion Thread

[BenBurch]

Oh, and my paternal grandmother was half Choctaw, so in theory I am arguing against a "benefit" I could claim.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Whatever harm was done to them long ago, and that harm was considerable, and it is the shame of our ancestors that it went down the way it did, was harm to people whose grandchildren have now passed into history. Whatever debt was still owed cannot now be repaid.

Wrong, we can do plenty, we don't want to. We can start by obeying the treaties we have with the Native Americans who are "STILL ALIVE" and allowing them more representation in congress.

Oh, and my paternal grandmother was half Choctaw, so in theory I am arguing against a "benefit" I could claim.

You are less than 25%. I do believe a 1/4 blood quantum is put on registration.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So basically you don't want to do anything about it. It's too much.

I can't answer this, since I don't know what it is I'm supposed to be doing anything about.

 

[Neally]

Excuse, we know better 500 years in the future. It's time to fix this and prevent this from ever happening in this nation again.

It's time for world peace too, but the fact is nations are at war today and will be tomorrow. You are demanding that human nature be fixed. The Indians massacred, enslaved, and took the land of their neighbor tribes. Cultures come and go. Get over it. Ether embrace your separtist life on a reservation or get the hell off it and honor your past in other ways.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

perhaps your government should have honoured your treaties.

From what I understand, the Indians sold us Manhatten and they didn't even own it!! Talk about honoring treaties!

 

[Checkmite]

Excuse, we know better 500 years in the future. It's time to fix this and prevent this from ever happening in this nation again.



So basically you don't want to do anything about it. It's too much.

Nobody is saying that the conditions in these places aren't appalling, or that the responsibility for things being that way historically doesn't lie largely with the US government.

But there are options available that don't involve being wholly subsidized or giving up one's culture. Part of the problem lies in governmental mismanagement, certainly. Another part of the problem lies in the perception that it's a betrayal of Native culture to work and go to school side-by-side with non-Natives.

If the dream is for money to be paid and companies to come in only to repave roads, build sewer lines and plumb houses...and then leave and never come back unless these things need service or repair, that just can't happen.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

France, Germany, and other nations didn't make treaties that they broke. In fact the British honored their treaties with the Natives. The Americans did not.

Germany never broke a treaty? Are you sure about that? Do we have any Russian members who may have an opinion?

 

[L.Y.S.]

From what I understand, the Indians sold us Manhatten and they didn't even own it!! Talk about honoring treaties!

we still violated our fair share of treaties

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wrong, we can do plenty, we don't want to. We can start by obeying the treaties we have with the Native Americans who are "STILL ALIVE" and allowing them more representation in congress.

Which treaty grants them the right to more representation than the rest of us?

 

[L.Y.S.]

It's time for world peace too, but the fact is nations are at war today and will be tomorrow. You are demanding that human nature be fixed. The Indians massacred, enslaved, and took the land of their neighbor tribes. Cultures come and go. Get over it. Ether embrace your separtist life on a reservation or get the hell off it and honor your past in other ways.

Justification, which will continue to support genocides. America can start leading the world again by obeying its own laws. If not, there is no reason for any nation to ever listen to America again.

 

[WildCat]

Wrong, we can do plenty, we don't want to. We can start by obeying the treaties we have with the Native Americans who are "STILL ALIVE" and allowing them more representation in congress.

No way, no how. We do not have set-asides for Congressional representation. It's the antithesis of what America is supposed to be about, where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. We can make laws to correct inequalities or compensating for past actions, or tribes could sue for compensation (a recourse many tribes have taken), but we certainly shouldn't be granting extra rights to any person or group. This isn't Lebanon or Iran.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Which treaty grants them the right to more representation than the rest of us?

The constitution distinguished native Americans seperately from other citizens . So there is already legal precident for this.

The United States Constitution specifically mentions the relationship between the United States federal government and Native American tribes three times:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... excluding Indians not taxed."[1]

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”,[2] determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations;[3] and

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 amends the apportionment of representatives in Article I, Section 2 above.[4]

These basic provisions have been changed and/or clarified by various federal laws over the history of the United States. Regulate, historically means facilitate. Therefore, the Congress of these United States was to be the facilitator of commerce between the states and the tribes.[5]

These Constitutional provisions, and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court (see below) are today often summarized in three principles of U.S. Indian law:[6][7][8]

Territorial Sovereignty. Tribal authority on Indian land is organic and is not granted by the states in which Indian lands are located.

Plenary Power Doctrine. Congress, and not the Executive Branch, has ultimate authority with regard to matters affecting the Indian tribes. Federal courts give greater deference to Congress on Indian matters than on other subjects.

Trust Relationship. The federal government has a "duty to protect" the tribes, implying (courts have found) the necessary legislative and executive authorities to effect that duty.

No way, no how. We do not have set-asides for Congressional representation. It's the antithesis of what America is supposed to be about, where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. We can make laws to correct inequalities or compensating for past actions, or tribes could sue for compensation (a recourse many tribes have taken), but we certainly shouldn't be granting extra rights to any person or group. This isn't Lebanon or Iran.

Yet they are not. America shouldn't have legally distinguished Native Americans from the rest of the people then ^^. Good luck undoing the work for your forefathers.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The constitution distinguished native Americans seperately from other citizens . So there is already legal precident for this.

Yet they are not. America shouldn't have legally distinguished Native Americans from the rest of the people then ^^. Good luck undoing the work for your forefathers.

So what you want is for Indians to be separate from the US and have increased representation in the US Congress?

 

[WildCat]

we still violated our fair share of treaties

And tribes can sue over such things, and many do.

 

[WildCat]

Yet they are not. America shouldn't have legally distinguished Native Americans from the rest of the people then ^^. Good luck undoing the work for your forefathers.

That part of the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[L.Y.S.]

So what you want is for Indians to be separate from the US and have increased representation in the US Congress?

Never said that, the constitution distinguishes them as nations

Congress also acts as the direct line of communication between the indigenous and America. Yet they have little direct representation in congress. I fail to see why they don't have delegates.

That part of the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it does.

That's how congress and the Supreme Court interpreted it. It's in the statement above.

And tribes can sue over such things, and many do.

Great I hope they sue for more recognition and representation in congress.

 

[WildCat]

That's how congress and the Supreme Court interpreted it. It's in the statement above.

Can you link to the Supreme Court decision ruling that Indian tribes are entitled to their own Congressional delegation?

Great I hope they sue for more recognition and representation in congress.

You cannot amend the US Constitution by lawsuit, and the makeup of the Congress is quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[varwoche]

Again, present your evidence. Do you think Indians live in teepees or wigwams and have no running water?

I don't know how representative the Quileute tribe is (located on the Olympic peninsula in WA state) but the living conditions on the reservation are shocking. And I've seen my fair share of third world poverty.

And here, dated May 2010:

Thousands of homes on the Navajo reservation will soon get running water for the first time .... Officials say it will also provide running water to another 12,000 people in the next 20 years.

 

[varwoche]

Tribes have gotten the royal shaft in WA state wrt fishing rights. Alas, the agreements didn't anticipate that fish populations would be decimated by (non tribal) commercial fishing.

 

[seayakin]

Don't get the latter half of this statement but what does this have to do with actually funding native nations to make sure they have clean water? Affirmative Action is severely different from building a sewage system. Native Americans aren't blacks, and they have been treated a thousand times worse than we ever have. Blacks are a bunch of whining race baggers with rights. The same can't be said about Natives.

It is the OP question "Why do we continue to abuse Native Americans.." The questions assumes we abuse them instead of making a statement such as "American Indians have 24.2% (2008) poverty rate (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.html) where the national average is 12.5% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104520.html). Why does this discrepancy exist?" and granted I'm not using the same year's statistics so it is not valid but it was the stats I quickly found and you get the idea. Present facts indicating a disparity of social conditions and provide evidence as to why this exists. Regarding the treatment of African American vs. American Indians, I read an interesting study about 20 years ago which surveyed race groups as defined by the census and found that American Indians felt African Americans had it worse and vice verse.

Ok, but most reservations report to their local states, not congress. Why do they not have representation in congress?

I have no idea what you mean by reporting. But land held in trust by federally recognized tribes is not legally within state land similar to military basis. By and large federally recognized tribes do not have to report anything to the state unless they make some kind of outside agreement and the is usually only done in instances where they might share certain governmental services or have negotiated a game compact.

I said "with the potential to support growing populations," not that populations were a prerequisite. There are many unincorporated areas of the United States with a fairly decent ability to support marginal population growth and maintain several hundred thousand residents. This is very true out east and in the south.

I don't understand your point here. Are you suggesting that we relocate some tribes to some underutilized piece of land? Ever hear of the Trail of Tears or Indian Removal Act?

I think when talking about improving the conditions of American Indians while also allowing them to maintain their culture and ethnic identity as well as self-determination. It is not a one size fits all model. Every tribe was treated much differently and there is no Treaty of Versailles that you can point to and say the US broke it.

For instance, as I stated previously many tribes in New England did not receive federal recognition until the late 70s or 80s and many tribes still seek this. (see http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States). In any case, some of the original colonies after the US federal government declared that it would negotiate with American Indian tribes as sovereigns engaged in negotiations with a number of New England tribes. A landmark case for the Pasamaquoddy led to this in 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Tribal_Council_of_the_Passamaquoddy_Tribe_v._Morton). The Menominee of Wisconsin also have had a unique situation. They were "Terminated" under US federal termination policy in 1954 and restored in 1973. Other tribes like the 5 civilized tribes in Oklahoma had the reservations parceled out to tribal members under the assumption that they had "assimilated" and need no further support.

I generally agree with your motive to help American Indians but the legal history of American Indians is extremely complex and I don't think many Americans have the foggiest idea what the issues are.