The General Native American Discussion Thread

[seayakin]

My opinion is that the reservation system damages the people who are in it pretty seriously, and that there is no reason to maintain a system of apartheid for the neolithic tribes we defeated to form the present USA.

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.

End the recognition of any form of Native American sovereignty. If we want to do something to help them along after this, grant all living on reservations now a lifetime $10,000 annual tax credit.

American Indians vehemently disagree with this. They want more sovereignty and greater control of their land as well as some tribes that have had financial success the ability to expand their reservations as needed. However, comparing reservations to a third world country is accurate. Most do not have much to build a viable economy or industry and many who leave the "res" to get an education or other skills do not return so you also have a brain drain that occurs.

 

[WildCat]

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.

I've seen similar in non-Indian areas.

And here, dated May 2010:

"Federal, state, and Navajo dollars funded the nearly $30,000,000 project"

How does this support the claim that federal dollars don't fund water projects in Indian reservations? And do you think Indians typically don't have running water?

 

[varwoche]

"Federal, state, and Navajo dollars funded the nearly $30,000,000 project"

How does this support the claim that federal dollars don't fund water projects in Indian reservations? And do you think Indians typically don't have running water?

You asked a naive question and I answered it. And despite those federal dollars, there's a lot of people who won't have running water for another 20 years.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You asked a naive question and I answered it. And despite those federal dollars, there's a lot of people who won't have running water for another 20 years.

I wonder if Chief Running Water has running water?

 

[NoahFence]

Shouldn't we all?

"We all" didn't get our land stolen from us.

 

[seayakin]

I'm not sure if in my previous posts I was blathering too much and not making complete sense. First, when looking at the conditions on reservations we should consider what members of federally recognized tribes are entitled to:

• Annuities - These are dependent on a negotiated treaty for the sale of land and not every tribe may get an annuity if they sold no land. Annuities have been managed by the Federal government on behalf of the United states.
• Indian Health Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Health_Service)
• Other federal grants and monies available for federally recognized tribes as wards of the state (see Indian Reorganization Act)

BIA FAQ

Each tribe has differing assets and income streams dependent a lot on their history and relationship with the US government.

1781-1871 - US treated American Indian tribes as sovereign nation. Within the period of 1781 to about 1800, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut had negotiated separate land sessions from tribes within their boundaries essentially engaging in illegal negotiations. These tribes had state reservations and were not federally recognized until after 1975 when the Pasamaquoddy won the landmark case enabling the tribes to challenge the validity of previous treaties.
1872 - Congress decided it had plenary power over American Indians based on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3) of the Constitution essentially abrogated the federal government need to negotiate land cessions with tribes as sovereign powers.
1887 - Dawes Allotment Act - This was connected with the idea that some tribes had achieved a certain level of "civilization" that they no longer needed the "civilizing" influence of the United States Government.
1934 - Indian Reorganiztion Act - This was part of Roosevelt's New Deal and sought to restore some level of tribal sovereignty and redress previous wrongs committed by the US.
1945-1965 Termination Policy - This was a policy of the federal government that sought to remove tribes from federal obligation based on the idea that they had achieved a level of economic self sufficiency to sustain themselves. This was most prominently applied to the Menominee of Wisconsin who were terminated in 1954 and restored in 1973.

 

[WildCat]

You asked a naive question and I answered it. And despite those federal dollars, there's a lot of people who won't have running water for another 20 years.

You do realize this began with LYS claiming no federal dollars went to Indian reservations for water?

There's people in Appalachia who don't have running water either, it certainly doesn't mean that is typical.

 

[WildCat]

"We all" didn't get our land stolen from us.

Speak for yourself. My great-grandparents had their property taken from them by France because they were ethnic Germans, that's when they immigrated to the US.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"We all" didn't get our land stolen from us.

Just because the Indians were on the land, doesn't mean it belonged to them. They had no laws regarding private property (at least as far as real estate goes). So that which doesn't belong to you, can't be taken from you.

 

[Neally]

"We all" didn't get our land stolen from us.

What about the land that some tribes took from other tribes?

 

[seayakin]

Even issues like access to water is complicated. For instance, it is a significant problem in reservations like Pine Ridge but groups like the Mohawk, Mashantucket Pequots, Oneida, Mdwanketon Souix have significant income streams from casinos and do not need outside support for basic infrastructure. Its more complicated because you have groups such as the Narragansett's in Rhode Island who have tried to build businesses or negotiate gaming compacts but are blocked by the states. I mention the Narragansetts in particular because the state has demonstrated repeatedly that it has no desire assist the Narragansetts in any way. They refuse to negotiate a gaming compact with the Narragansetts under the statement that they do not wish to expand gaming in the state but then expand the two state run facilities. They have fought the tribe on expanding its holdiings that include elderly housing solely because it takes the land out of state control and of the tax rolls. In 1996, John Chafee introduced a rider to and Ominubus Appropriation Act which funded emergency hurricane relief. The rider amended the federal recognition for the Narragansett requiring the tribe to negotiate with the state for all gaming activitis which is contrary to the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and sets the legal status of the Narragansett's completely distinct from every other tribe in regards to the act.

 

[seayakin]

Just because the Indians were on the land, doesn't mean it belonged to them. They had no laws regarding private property (at least as far as real estate goes). So that which doesn't belong to you, can't be taken from you.

The problem with that is its a blanket generalization and not really accurate. Many tribes did recognize land ownership but just not in the strongly legal and defined terms of Europeans. Also, American Indians tribal cultures are vary widely. I had a professor once who told me that the language of the Iroquois is as different from the Navajo as English is to Chinese.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The problem with that is its a blanket generalization and not really accurate. Many tribes did recognize land ownership but just not in the strongly legal and defined terms of Europeans. Also, American Indians tribal cultures are vary widely. I had a professor once who told me that the language of the Iroquois is as different from the Navajo as English is to Chinese.

The point being, that people have been taking land from other people since the beginning of time. At some point you*** have to get over it.

***Not you personally, but the generic "you".

 

[L.Y.S.]

The point being, that people have been taking land from other people since the beginning of time. At some point you*** have to get over it.

***Not you personally, but the generic "you".

This contradicts all the progress we've made in the late 20th and early 21st century. See to it that you catch up. So far this excuse has been the only one I've heard as to why Native Americans shouldn't be granted greater legal and land rights. Not sounding like much of a case to me. Fortunately for us, "Get over it" isn't legal precedent in U.S. law.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This contradicts all the progress we've made in the late 20th and early 21st century. See to it that you catch up.

Really? How much land have we given back to the Indians? Can you point to some examples of tribes which gave land back to another tribe that they took 500 years ago? What about the Mississippians? Will the city of Cahokia IL be turned over to them any time soon? In fact, game 1 of the World Series will be played on their land tonight. Should they be reimbursed?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Really? How much land have we given back to the Indians? Can you point to some examples of tribes which gave land back to another tribe that they took 500 years ago? What about the Mississippians? Will the city of Cahokia IL be turned over to them any time soon? In fact, game 1 of the World Series will be played on their land tonight. Should they be reimbursed?

I've updated this statement. I suggest you requote and address the newer statement.

 

[seayakin]

The point being, that people have been taking land from other people since the beginning of time. At some point you*** have to get over it.

***Not you personally, but the generic "you".

The problem with this is that it implies that nations do not have to honor treaties past a certain age and that ultimately right of conquest is a legitimate means of gaining control.

By similar viewpoint:

-Tibet shouldn't complain
-Lithuania, Latvia and others should have just accepted Russian control

And it can't be an issue of size. The Navajo Reservation encompasses more than 27,000 square miles. Holland is much smaller at 7,488 miles. If you want to go by population, the Cherokee Nation has more than one million registered members and Iceland only has 318,000.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I've updated this statement. I suggest you requote and address the newer statement.

No.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The problem with this is that it implies that nations do not have to honor treaties past a certain age and that ultimately right of conquest is a legitimate means of gaining control.

May not be legitimate, but it's the way the world has worked since the beginning of time.

By similar viewpoint:

-Tibet shouldn't complain
-Lithuania, Latvia and others should have just accepted Russian control

They can complain all they want.

It's strange. I've yet to hear of someone like LYS offering to give their land back to the Indians. I wonder why?

 

[seayakin]

May not be legitimate, but it's the way the world has worked since the beginning of time.

They can complain all they want.

It's strange. I've yet to hear of someone like LYS offering to give their land back to the Indians. I wonder why?

Then I'm confused. Are you saying American Indians should shut up because people have been stealing land from other people since the beginning of time? Or are you saying they should complain all they want but we should never do anything and tell them they should become like every other American?