• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The General Native American Discussion Thread

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

So all the Africans that became independent in 20th century fit into this where?

The Central Scrutinizer said:
I've yet to hear of someone like LYS offering to give their land back to the Indians. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

This is an assumption. I would be more than willing to give up my land so that Natives can enjoy a better existence.
 
It is also not so much a question of giving up land. This implies a binary choice that we have to give it all back or nothing. Most tribes want self-determination and buy back some land that was lost. The Lakota don't want to necessarily retake all of the Dakotas.
 
L.Y.S. said:
This contradicts all the progress we've made in the late 20th and early 21st century.
Click to expand...
Problem is you're using examples from the 15th-19th centuries.

Has the US seized any Indian land in the "late 20th and early 21st century"?
 
seayakin said:
It is also not so much a question of giving up land. This implies a binary choice that we have to give it all back or nothing. Most tribes want self-determination and buy back some land that was lost. The Lakota don't want to necessarily retake all of the Dakotas.
Click to expand...

This^^, and yet when I propose this they go to the extreme. All or nothing, shows how scared they are of reason. This and greater representation in congress seems fairly reasonable.
 
Last edited:
seayakin said:
It is also not so much a question of giving up land. This implies a binary choice that we have to give it all back or nothing. Most tribes want self-determination and buy back some land that was lost. The Lakota don't want to necessarily retake all of the Dakotas.
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason why they would not be allowed to buy any parcel of land if they want to buy it and the owners want to sell it. What is the obstacle?
 
Checkmite said:
I don't see any reason why they would not be allowed to buy any parcel of land if they want to buy it and the owners want to sell it. What is the obstacle?
Click to expand...

I've seen instances with the Oneida, Narragansett, and Pequot where locals refused to sell land to the tribes for fear of them putting it into trust. Their concerns are generally related to converting the land to trust status so that local and state laws do not apply. This means the land is not taxable by anyone other than the tribe and the federal government and it provides opportunities to expand tribal businesses (usually casino operations). It should also be noted that just because a tribe buys land it does not automatically go into trust. There is a process with the BIA whereby this can happen (or congress can make it happen through legislation).
 
WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

But they are white and so they don't matter.
 
seayakin said:
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.
Click to expand...

At least the Cherokee finally got rid of the descendants of their slaves being considered natives.
 
seayakin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Actually, I was trying to make sense of LYS's posts. He wants to Indians to have their own countries, and yet have more representation in the US Congress, and get money from the Feds, so they can build sewers and water lines, which they don't have now, except for that they do.

Or something. :boggled:
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Can they not buy it back for some reason? As far as I know, all Americans are free to buy land.
Click to expand...

Yes but they have problems removing it from the legal status of the states. See they want to be able to ignore state laws. What is the point in owning land if you have to obey the law on it?
 
seayakin said:
I've seen instances with the Oneida, Narragansett, and Pequot where locals refused to sell land to the tribes for fear of them putting it into trust.
Click to expand...

If I were a landowner I honestly couldn't care less who pays what taxes on it where after I've sold it to them. It's not my problem after that.

People are weird anymore.
 
L.Y.S. said:
Straw man and irrelevant to the thread. If you feel the need to start a white people rights thread I'd be more than happy to contribute.
Click to expand...

So why not start a thread about getting these services into Appalachia and jobs in their communities?
 
ponderingturtle said:
At least the Cherokee finally got rid of the descendants of their slaves being considered natives.
Click to expand...

Europeans and Euro-Americans certainly don't have a monopoly on racism and bigotry.

Yes but they have problems removing it from the legal status of the states. See they want to be able to ignore state laws. What is the point in owning land if you have to obey the law on it?
Click to expand...

Its more than about avoiding laws. Its about self determination and complete control. I think those American Indians who want complete and total sovereignty with no federal involvement would also have to be prepared to be cut off from all federal support save what was specifically negotiated by treaty. Which means no free health services on the reservation and no revolving loan funds and other sources from the federal government. However, I have only seen the more extreme groups of American Indians advocate this kind of position.
 
seayakin said:
Europeans and Euro-Americans certainly don't have a monopoly on racism and bigotry.



Its more than about avoiding laws. Its about self determination and complete control. I think those American Indians who want complete and total sovereignty with no federal involvement would also have to be prepared to be cut off from all federal support save what was specifically negotiated by treaty. Which means no free health services on the reservation and no revolving loan funds and other sources from the federal government. However, I have only seen the more extreme groups of American Indians advocate this kind of position.
Click to expand...

And why do only they deserve these rights?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So why not start a thread about getting these services into Appalachia and jobs in their communities?
Click to expand...

It wasn't my idea if you feel passionately about it then you start a thread. This is what I feel very passionate about. For me, this is a purpose in life. I want to see that Native Americans receive justice and have a greater voice in America. I will never back down from this position.

"In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same." - Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

I live in die by the above quote. Everyone deserves justice, even the Appalachians, but that isn't what this thread is about. It's about Native Americans. So if we could remain on topic, I'd appreciate it.

ponderingturtle said:
And why do only they deserve these rights?
Click to expand...

No one but you is making this argument.
 
seayakin said:
Its more than about avoiding laws. Its about self determination and complete control. I think those American Indians who want complete and total sovereignty with no federal involvement would also have to be prepared to be cut off from all federal support save what was specifically negotiated by treaty. Which means no free health services on the reservation and no revolving loan funds and other sources from the federal government. However, I have only seen the more extreme groups of American Indians advocate this kind of position.
Click to expand...

Most Native Americans don't want to leave America. Most want to have a greater say and a greater amount of autonomy.

A reasonable demand in my opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom