The General Native American Discussion Thread

[ponderingturtle]

You mean from representatives who "sometimes" help them but "often" forgets them?

Yep just like every one else.

Skewing what I orginally meant. Typical.

Most Americans don't have direct representation. I've highlighted this several times. Several times you have neglected it.

Fixed it for you.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Yep just like every one else.

I'm sure if your representatives extorted half your funds “regularly” and did not help to get the necessary funding for infrastructural projects and maintenance, he wouldn’t be in office long. The same can’t be said for everyone else. And everyone else doesn’t have a special unique in between status that “semi-recognizes” them by the law. They are stuck in a twilight zone of being and not being. And there isn’t clear understanding of how they are best to be represented.

Fixed it for you.

You mean altered it towards your own conformational bias?

 

[Visual Purple]

I really am curious what you think representation would look like. If it were not going to be wildly disproportionate, Indian groups would get something like 1.5% of the representatives, or about six, and perhaps two senators. That's slightly more than symbolic, but isn't real power. Also, at the same time, members of the groups would presumably lose rights to vote in the states, which might have a significant effect in some states. (New Mexico?)

By the way, I'd be all for doing in the BIA and replacing it with---anything, basically. Its mismanagement of the trust funds was notorious, and nothing I've heard suggests more than moderate improvement. (Afraid I'm posting and running---I don't think I'll have a chance to look back in until tomorrow.)

 

[L.Y.S.]

I really am curious what you think representation would look like. If it were not going to be wildly disproportionate, Indian groups would get something like 1.5% of the representatives, or about six, and perhaps two senators. That's slightly more than symbolic, but isn't real power. Also, at the same time, members of the groups would presumably lose rights to vote in the states, which might have a significant effect in some states. (New Mexico?)

No, I wanted for there to be actual representation with in congress of Native American nations. And to consider them (as they already are considered) separate from state authority. Why would direct representation be slightly more than symbolic but not real power? Please explain this point and what do you suggest in its place?

By the way, I'd be all for doing in the BIA and replacing it with---anything, basically. Its mismanagement of the trust funds was notorious, and nothing I've heard suggests more than moderate improvement. (Afraid I'm posting and running---I don't think I'll have a chance to look back in until tomorrow.)

I've suggested perhaps the only known solution to me. Another solution I favor is dissolving the BIA and creating a new cabinet level office that reports directly to the president. However, I do not know if this would be a significant improvement over what the BIA has no, or whether that is enough alone without the addition of direct representation to improve the position of Native Americans. Again, what would you suggest in the place of direct representation?

 

[CORed]

Each nation would receive one senator.

You realize that this would give native Americans, who represent a tiny fraction of the population, a huge majority in the Senate? All I can say to this is, you've got to be *********** kidding.

And then each nation will be weighed by a population “grade” if they are grade “1” then they are below 10’000, grade “2” 10’000-100’000, grade “3” 100’000- 1’000’000, grade “4” 1’000’000 or above. Grade 1 nations are allocated 2 representatives automatically. Grade 2 nations would be allocated up 5 representatives. Grades 3 would be allocated up to 10, grade 4 up to 20. If several nations begin to exceed millions in population then they would follow a similar pattern to U.S. apportionment law to prevent “over representation” in congress. Currently there are only 1.6 million registered Native Americans, and there are very few that exceed the 100’000 persons status. As of now, this wouldn’t be much of an issue as of now.

The house of representatives is, by design, intended to be "one person, one vote". Again, this proposal would give a large majority in the House of Representatives to Native Americans.

Like previously said, if the vast majority begin to break into the hundreds and thousands or millions, then new apportionment laws are in order to prevent “over representation” in congress.

Your proposal already grants an absurd over-representation to Native Americans. If you think this proposal is in any way reasonable, you are either very bad at math, or delusional.

 

[L.Y.S.]

You realize that this would give native Americans, who represent a tiny fraction of the population, a huge majority in the Senate? All I can say to this is, you've got to be *********** kidding.

The house of representatives is, by design, intended to be "one person, one vote". Again, this proposal would give a large majority in the House of Representatives to Native Americans.

Your proposal already grants an absurd over-representation to Native Americans. If you think this proposal is in any way reasonable, you are either very bad at math, or delusional.

Got any better ideas? And for the record I am not asking for the representation of a race, I'm asking for the representation of nations. Many natives are willing to share representation with one another in federation based systems. It’s a matter of willingness on our part. Even if we allow only them to have 2 senators and 6 representatives, that is better than what they currently possess.

 

[CORed]

Got any better ideas? And for the record I am not asking for the representation of a race, I'm asking for the representation of nations. Many natives are willing to share representation with one another in federation based systems. It’s a matter of willingness on our part. Even if we allow only them to have 2 senators and 6 representatives, that is better than what they currently possess.

I think it would be next to impossible to come up with a worse idea, not excluding maintaining the status quo.

I could live with representation in the House of Representatives proportional to population, and in the Senate perhaps a little more than that. The Senate, by design, is not proportional to population, so possibly 3 or 4 seats would be reasonable.

However, this sort of change would require a constitutional amendment and I think the political reality is that such an amendment wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted.

 

[L.Y.S.]

However, this sort of change would require a constitutional amendment and I think the political reality is that such an amendment wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted.

I beg to differ and I know many people who do support this idea and want to put this dark chapter of American history in the past. It is all about reconciling with the past so that we as a nation can finally move forward. We have achieved in so many other areas. This is perhaps (with a few exclusions) the final chapter in human rights issues in America.

I'm personally just tired of Americans grilling other nations about all of their human rights atrocities, yet we rarely take the time to look at what is going on in our own backyard. The alternative to not actually fixing this issue is in my opinion much worse. Because it will cause many Americans to permanently look at our government with skepticism and cause us to lose faith in the reliability of justice in our republic.

By actually giving the indigenous the legal rights (that many broken treaties have guaranteed them) they deserve, we would show the world how progressive we truly are. We would be one of the most progressive nations one the issue. And when we speak about indigenous or minority issues globally we would actually be taken seriously for a change. It would shut up several radical fringe groups, and it would consolidate the unity of the American people.

Now are you saying to me, that the net benefit of having a more consolidated and united people with faith in our governmental institutions is not a good thing?

 

[Toontown]

And the pipe dream continues, like the march of the energizer bunny.

 

[L.Y.S.]

And the pipe dream continues, like the march of the energizer bunny.

Rhetoric and lack of contribution noted.

 

[WildCat]

I beg to differ and I know many people who do support this idea and want to put this dark chapter of American history in the past. It is all about reconciling with the past so that we as a nation can finally move forward. We have achieved in so many other areas. This is perhaps (with a few exclusions) the final chapter in human rights issues in America.

I'm personally just tired of Americans grilling other nations about all of their human rights atrocities, yet we rarely take the time to look at what is going on in our own backyard. The alternative to not actually fixing this issue is in my opinion much worse. Because it will cause many Americans to permanently look at our government with skepticism and cause us to lose faith in the reliability of justice in our republic.

By actually giving the indigenous the legal rights (that many broken treaties have guaranteed them) they deserve, we would show the world how progressive we truly are. We would be one of the most progressive nations one the issue. And when we speak about indigenous or minority issues globally we would actually be taken seriously for a change. It would shut up several radical fringe groups, and it would consolidate the unity of the American people.

Now are you saying to me, that the net benefit of having a more consolidated and united people with faith in our governmental institutions is not a good thing?

But Indians already can vote and run for office.

 

[L.Y.S.]

But Indians already can vote and run for office.

Great and I've acknowledged a number of times they have (some) political rights but lack (many) socio-economics one, and (some) polticial ones. They currently occupy a status under law (for the vast majority of the time) of semi-existing with in America but not fully existing with in America. There is little or no economic development on reservations and the little restitution many indigenous receive under law is if they completely leave their reservation and culture behind. Why is it such a travesty to ask for development to occur on reservation land instead of causing social pressure to force many of them to leave their reservations/nations (which are guaranteed and protected under law) behind? And furthermore, what is the issue of requesting increased representation of a semi-represented group under law (who happen to form seperate semi-autonomous nations under law)?

 

[WildCat]

Great and I've acknowledged a number of times they have (some) political rights but lack (many) socio-economics one, and (some) polticial ones. They currently occupy a status under law (for the vast majority of the time) of semi-existing with in America but not fully existing with in America. There is little or no economic development on reservations and the little restitution many indigenous receive under law is if they completely leave their reservation and culture behind. Why is it such a travesty to ask for development to occur on reservation land instead of causing social pressure to force many of them to leave their reservations/nations (which are guaranteed and protected under law) behind? And furthermore, what is the issue of requesting increased representation of a semi-represented group under law (who happen to form seperate semi-autonomous nations under law)?

What's preventing development on Indian land?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by WildCat
But Indians already can vote and run for office.

Great and I've acknowledged a number of times they have (some) political rights but lack (many) socio-economics one, and (some) polticial ones. They currently occupy a status under law (for the vast majority of the time) of semi-existing with in America but not fully existing with in America.

What rights are these? Be specific.

 

[Giz]

It is all about reconciling with the past so that we as a nation can finally move forward.

Why don't we just, y'know, move forward?

 

[theprestige]

Native Americans were given a pretty raw deal. Given the option of being made vassal states of an expansionistic, conquering power, they took it. And they've been vassal states to their detriment ever since.

Giving NAs the same representation in the American government that is enjoyed by actual American citizens is a non-starter, for what should be obvious reasons. L.Y.S.'s proposal is functionally equivalent to giving Canadians or Mexicans (or Palestinians) representation in Congress. They're not citizens, it's not their country, they're not entitled to that privilege. It is not the appropriate means of redress.

I agree with L.Y.S. that the current NA "twilight zone" status is untenable. One way or another, it should be ended. I see two ways of doing this:

One way is that, like Kosovo, the Palestinian Authority, and others, they forcefully press for full recognition as independent nation-states, with all the privileges that implies, free to make their own way in the world as best they can with the resources available to them and the international relations they are able to foster. That's the way it is for every other nation, why not the "first nations"?

The other way is to simply dissolve the separate "sovreign" enclaves, and become American citizens. Then they get the same privileges of representation as every other American citizen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Native Americans were given a pretty raw deal. Given the option of being made vassal states of an expansionistic, conquering power, they took it. And they've been vassal states to their detriment ever since.

Giving NAs the same representation in the American government that is enjoyed by actual American citizens is a non-starter, for what should be obvious reasons. L.Y.S.'s proposal is functionally equivalent to giving Canadians or Mexicans (or Palestinians) representation in Congress. They're not citizens, it's not their country, they're not entitled to that privilege. It is not the appropriate means of redress.

You do know that they are US citizens right? As for voting, well look at residents of Washington DC for people who can not vote. BUt I guess they are black so no one cares about them.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Why don't we just, y'know, move forward?

September 11th?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Native Americans were given a pretty raw deal. Given the option of being made vassal states of an expansionistic, conquering power, they took it. And they've been vassal states to their detriment ever since.

Giving NAs the same representation in the American government that is enjoyed by actual American citizens is a non-starter, for what should be obvious reasons. L.Y.S.'s proposal is functionally equivalent to giving Canadians or Mexicans (or Palestinians) representation in Congress. They're not citizens, it's not their country, they're not entitled to that privilege. It is not the appropriate means of redress.

I agree with L.Y.S. that the current NA "twilight zone" status is untenable. One way or another, it should be ended. I see two ways of doing this:

One way is that, like Kosovo, the Palestinian Authority, and others, they forcefully press for full recognition as independent nation-states, with all the privileges that implies, free to make their own way in the world as best they can with the resources available to them and the international relations they are able to foster. That's the way it is for every other nation, why not the "first nations"?

The other way is to simply dissolve the separate "sovreign" enclaves, and become American citizens. Then they get the same privileges of representation as every other American citizen.

I'm more for your first option and less for your second option. But that would be even more difficult to pass than the U.S. becoming a federation and simply housing nations within nations.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I actually agree with prestige, but how would it be argued in court that these nations "deserve" their own national status? I am almost certain that America would not allow little chunks of itself to break way so close to its territorial jurisdiction. And I'm not sure that many indigenous nations would actually want to break away from the only funds they are getting funneled. This is not a desirable situation for either party. I believe it more reasonable to house these nations within our own nation, with similar powers to that of autonomous regions, or states. I am not certain that it is practical to argue for their separation.