Marry Out, Stay Out!

[fuelair]

Good for them seeking to preserve their genetic and cultural heritage.

I am gonna take a flyer that your reason for this is that if they can use law this way then you should be able to for your preferred group and I betcha I know which one that is!!! Old money holding white folk who remember Dixie with fondness and deep reverence!!!



Note: I am old and white and financially ok with a paid off nice house - yet, when I see pictures of a good ol' fashion lynching it makes me want to pull out a sniper rifle and an Uzi and put holes through some nice occupied kluxer robes.

 

[theprestige]

I get that, but are there any privileges or subsidies that their residents enjoy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

An Indian reservation is a legal designation for an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than the governments of the US states in which they are physically located.

[...]

The name "reservation" comes from the conception of the Indian tribes as independent sovereigns at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thus, the early peace treaties (often signed under duress) in which Indian tribes surrendered large portions of land to the U.S. also designated parcels which the tribes, as sovereigns, "reserved" to themselves, and those parcels came to be called "reservations."

[...]

Tribal tenure identifies jurisdiction over land use planning and zoning, negotiating (with the close participation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) leases for timber harvesting and mining.[15]

Tribes generally have authority over other forms of economic development such as ranching, agriculture, tourism, and casinos. Tribes hire both members, other Indians and non-Indians in varying capacities; they may run tribal stores, gas stations, and develop museums (e.g., there is a gas station and general store at Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho, and a museum at Foxwoods, on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Connecticut).

Tribal members may utilize a number of resources held in tribal tenure such as grazing range and some cultivable lands. They may also construct homes on tribally held lands. As such, members are tenants-in-common, which may be likened to communal tenure, but keep in mind, even if some of this pattern emanates from pre-reservation tribal custom, generally the tribe has the authority to modify tenant in-common practices.​

Residents have some rights and privileges deriving from the practicalities of administering reservations under the authority of the US government. However, I think the American reservation concept is distinct from the Indian concept of reserving certain privileges in law to specific groups.

 

[ponderingturtle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

An Indian reservation is a legal designation for an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than the governments of the US states in which they are physically located.

[...]

The name "reservation" comes from the conception of the Indian tribes as independent sovereigns at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thus, the early peace treaties (often signed under duress) in which Indian tribes surrendered large portions of land to the U.S. also designated parcels which the tribes, as sovereigns, "reserved" to themselves, and those parcels came to be called "reservations."

[...]

Tribal tenure identifies jurisdiction over land use planning and zoning, negotiating (with the close participation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) leases for timber harvesting and mining.[15]

Tribes generally have authority over other forms of economic development such as ranching, agriculture, tourism, and casinos. Tribes hire both members, other Indians and non-Indians in varying capacities; they may run tribal stores, gas stations, and develop museums (e.g., there is a gas station and general store at Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho, and a museum at Foxwoods, on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Connecticut).

Tribal members may utilize a number of resources held in tribal tenure such as grazing range and some cultivable lands. They may also construct homes on tribally held lands. As such, members are tenants-in-common, which may be likened to communal tenure, but keep in mind, even if some of this pattern emanates from pre-reservation tribal custom, generally the tribe has the authority to modify tenant in-common practices.​

Residents have some rights and privileges deriving from the practicalities of administering reservations under the authority of the US government. However, I think the American reservation concept is distinct from the Indian concept of reserving certain privileges in law to specific groups.

Also not relevant to this case in the OP as it was in Canada, so American legalities would not apply.

 

[Susheel]

Thanks theprestige. I did mention that my process of linking was circuitous.
I just wondered if tbe harrassments were motivated by a fear of "outsiders" encroaching on priveleges/entitlements.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks theprestige. I did mention that my process of linking was circuitous.
I just wondered if tbe harrassments were motivated by a fear of "outsiders" encroaching on priveleges/entitlements.

Some tribes have certain tribal owned businesses that every member of the tribe is entitled to a percentage of the profits from, casinos being the big example. But that would be the only situation I know of that would be as you describe.

 

[Susheel]

Ok...thanks. So the motivation here seems to be out and out racism...not that the inclusuion of the other gives it any more validity.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

From the link in the OP:

[One protester] says she is worried about losing native land, language and culture.

 

[Susheel]

Ummm...how would that happen?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ummm...how would that happen?

As the children would have multiple cultures and languages to learn they might not learn it in the depth they would otherwise, and as such would be less likely to pass it to their children. Of course excluding them from the community would make that a surety.

 

[theprestige]

Ok...thanks. So the motivation here seems to be out and out racism...not that the inclusuion of the other gives it any more validity.

I don't think racism is the right word to use here. Maybe it's different in India, but in the US it has a lot of negative connotations. This suggests that one should be circumspect in applying it to others.

Native American culture and ethnic identity have been under relentless attack by Europeans for centuries. This takes the form of assimilation by European cultures, of government policy, and even sometimes of open warfare.

I think the desire to preserve the remnants of that culture and ethnic identity, and even of the associated "racial" characteristics and lineage, is understandable and valid. Calling it racism implies that it is a petty, mean-spirited, and pointless prejudice against other races. I think that such a view does not fully acknowledge the the validity of the concern, and doesn't do justice to those who act on that concern.

 

[Susheel]

I think the desire to preserve the remnants of that culture and ethnic identity, and even of the associated "racial" characteristics and lineage, is understandable and valid. Calling it racism implies that it is a petty, mean-spirited, and pointless prejudice against other races. I think that such a view does not fully acknowledge the the validity of the concern, and doesn't do justice to those who act on that concern.

I will concede that. In India it is casteism. How about race prejudice?

However, do you think what you mentioned is the case here?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't think racism is the right word to use here. Maybe it's different in India, but in the US it has a lot of negative connotations. This suggests that one should be circumspect in applying it to others.

Native American culture and ethnic identity have been under relentless attack by Europeans for centuries. This takes the form of assimilation by European cultures, of government policy, and even sometimes of open warfare.

I think the desire to preserve the remnants of that culture and ethnic identity, and even of the associated "racial" characteristics and lineage, is understandable and valid. Calling it racism implies that it is a petty, mean-spirited, and pointless prejudice against other races. I think that such a view does not fully acknowledge the the validity of the concern, and doesn't do justice to those who act on that concern.

Yes, the issue is very nuanced (qv) and it is difficult to resolve in a way that satisfies all interests and parties.

Wiki at Canadian_Aboriginal_law^WP is much too brief to do it justice.

If you want to get lots of background try Googling what I did: https://www.google.ca/search?num=50...msedr...0...1c.1.64.serp..0.4.454.ji3bUKgvs2o

This, alone, gets "About 666,000 results".

 

[fuelair]

I don't think racism is the right word to use here. Maybe it's different in India, but in the US it has a lot of negative connotations. This suggests that one should be circumspect in applying it to others.

Native American culture and ethnic identity have been under relentless attack by Europeans for centuries. This takes the form of assimilation by European cultures, of government policy, and even sometimes of open warfare.

I think the desire to preserve the remnants of that culture and ethnic identity, and even of the associated "racial" characteristics and lineage, is understandable and valid. Calling it racism implies that it is a petty, mean-spirited, and pointless prejudice against other races. I think that such a view does not fully acknowledge the the validity of the concern, and doesn't do justice to those who act on that concern.

My problem with that is that in a land where all people are supposed to be equal and laws are supposed to apply equally to all citizens that any groups that wishes not to operate under those laws - i.e. wants to drive out people who are not-them should not be able to do so under force of law. Heavy force of law if necessary. OR every group who feels that way should be able to do so. But must be located in a safe place for them far from any services provided to regular citizens and with no ability to travel from their little villages/lands. I much tend to the first option. For the children. ((note I would like an addition to the law that would require that within reasonable walking distance from each there should be an armed facility to take in those who decide to leave and enforce their decision on anyone coming after them.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Duplicate post. My bad.

 

[Ranb]

Is it really? They see themselves as a distinct people. You marry and reproduce outside your own... It's only a matter of time before your distinct people do not exist.

If you preserve your culture and traditions then your people go on. Preserving a "pure blood" is not required.

I don't think it's nuts at all, but completely natural. That's not saying anything to whether it is right o wrong.

It is nuts.

Ranb

 

[Stacko]

And it has gotten stranger.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...n-from-kahnawake-home-by-protesters-1.3077894

A couple and a 12-year-old boy were driven out of their home on a Quebec reserve by people protesting the presence of the woman's non-native boyfriend.

...

"Two people in the pro-eviction [group] and they were trying to break my front door down. They started handling the handle, banging on the door, banging on the porch, Deer said.

"People were on the side of my porch in the back where the pool is. I had the back door gate locked by the pool, they're trying to kick it in. 'Get the f--k out of here, get the hell out of here. We want him out!' And the police are standing there doing nothing."

...

Protesters also told CBC News and Radio-Canada reporters to leave Kahnawake on Sunday.

...

But Deer's neighbour, Michael Jacobs, said the protesters' actions were because the boyfriend has spent time behind bars and was released back into the community on Friday.

"The guy's a violent felon and we took it very seriously," Jacobs said. "I haven't slept for four days."

Grand Chief Mike Delisle said he doesn't believe the protesters were targeting Deer because of her blended family, but rather because of her boyfriend's reputation and because a court ordered the boyfriend to remain in Kahnawake as a condition of his release from jail.

 

[Beerina]

Everything's gone to crap since the Angles mingled with the Saxons!

Ya well the Angs never had their own land.

 

[BenBurch]

Honestly I think we are about 100 years past the time to have reservations AT ALL. Just give everybody a lump sum reparations payment and give them title to the land as a beneficial corporation, and then be done with it. (And I would not claim my share; that side of my family hasn't lived on a reservation since the 1800s.)

 

[Ranb]

How about giving them the land that was stolen?

Ranb

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Everything's gone to crap since the Angles mingled with the Saxons!

Bloody Saxons, send 'em back to Saxony I say!