• 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

L.Y.S. said:
Hypocritical? It's a matter of U.S. law. The U.S. should've made different laws if it didn't want to have to deal with the issue.
Click to expand...
What US laws state that the Indian nations should have more independence and more subsidies?
 
Just wondering

Wow. Where to begin. So many facts, so little agreement. First of all, the native Americans rightly or wrongly were a conquered people. Rather than being fully assimilated or exterminated (not for want of trying), they were eventually given Sovereign Nation status and reservations. Until the recent casino boom, life on most reservations was no picnic. Things are improving for some tribes, not so much others. What to do about that seems to be the topic of this discussion. Not much constructive progress is being made, though.

The Constitution establishes who gets representation in Congress. So, unless it is amended, no Native American representation.

As to the purchasing of land by tribes, it is a very real concern for communities to have large amounts of real estate removed from the tax rolls. We have to pay for community services somehow, even tribal members make use of them when off the reservation.

As long as we are discussing sovereignty, here is a poser. What happens when some tribes become economic powerhouses due to the success of their casino industries, they then improve the lot of the people on their reservation, send the kids off to college, and then the kid wants to start a career and marry outside the tribe? How dilute does the bloodline have to become before the tribe loses sovereignty status? To preserve their sovereignty will the tribes have to pursue a policy of only tribal marriage and child-getting? Will there then be a number of Sovereign Nations within the United States of America that can legally discriminate based on their nation status or risk losing that status? How does one preserve a homogeneous people in the midst of a mixed society? Preserving the culture is all fine and dandy, but tribal status is not awarded based on culture, but on the number of tribal members. If I study the culture can I become a tribal member and share in the benefits? If a child is adopted, does the child receive tribal status?

I am just curious where all this economic success will lead in a couple of generations. All of the talk about status, representation, and sovereignty, doesn't take into account that for the first time in Native American history the tribes have discovered a resource that most States and the Feds have not taken away from them, the gaming industry. This is a lucrative industry. If their successes continue, how will they preserve their Sovereign Nation status as their younger generations move off reservation and become assimilated into society at large?

Just wondering.
 
Neally said:
What US laws state that the Indian nations should have more independence and more subsidies?
Click to expand...

The highlighted is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the constitution has recognized Native Americans as separate and therefore "not the same" as the general mass population. So, all the arguments thrown around by you and several other members about other ethnic groups not having this elevated status are irrelevant. U.S. law recognizes the indigenous as separate entities from the state and they occupy a unique legal status in America. As for the subsidies issue, here is what a "law" has to say about it.

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”,determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations;
Click to expand...

Congress has the right to grant whatever "subsidies" it wants to natives. Granting subsidies for infrastructure is a reasonable demand.
 
L.Y.S. said:
The highlighted is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the constitution has recognized Native Americans as separate and therefore "not the same" as the general mass population.
Click to expand...
You still don't have the slightest clue as to what those parts of the Constitution refer to. It doesn't mean that Indians have special rights, it means that some Indian tribes (certainly not all) had no US rights (as of 1789) because they're essentially foreigners beyond the jurisdiction of the US government. Indian tribes that are taxed count for representation purposes, and AFAIK this includes all tribes today. IOW, "Indians not taxed" is a class of people that simply doesn't exist any more.

There is certainly no means under the Constitution to give Indians their own Congressional delegation.
 
WildCat said:
You still don't have the slightest clue as to what those parts of the Constitution refer to. It doesn't mean that Indians have special rights, it means that some Indian tribes (certainly not all) had no US rights (as of 1789) because they're essentially foreigners beyond the jurisdiction of the US government. Indian tribes that are taxed count for representation purposes, and AFAIK this includes all tribes today. IOW, "Indians not taxed" is a class of people that simply doesn't exist any more.

There is certainly no means under the Constitution to give Indians their own Congressional delegation.
Click to expand...

I'll have to agree with Wildcat on this. I don't think there is anything in the law that promises a separate delegation for American Indians. For a practical standpoint, I don't know of any way to simply accomplish this. You have 565 federally recognized tribes. Do you give one delegate to each tribe or merge them based on populations. If you merge them based on populations you would have to deal with real political conflicts between tribes. For instance, the Pequot and Mohegans are traditional tribal enemies which holds to this day. Even though their reservations are less than 10 miles apart there is no cooperation between tribes. In Wisconsin, the Chippewa (Ojibwa or Anishinabe) are traditional enemies of the Souix and the Winnebago (Ho Chunk) are traditional enemies of others tribes in Wisconsin.

As far as congress is concerned, they all have voting right and have an equal ability to lobby Congress as any other US citizen. Some of the wealthier tribes with casinos maintain offices in DC and make significant campaign contributions. There are also groups like AIM and NCAI that advocate for American Indians.

I think there is a bigger problem with Americans in general not understanding the unique legal status of American Indians thinking any benefits they get are some kind of racial preference. Many Americans suffer from the delusion that many tribes just died out and you don't need to concern yourself. The Mohicans (Mohegans) are an excellent example of this largely because of James Fennimore Coopers book.
 
L.Y.S. said:
I'm guessing you have evidence for this claim. Otherwise you lack understanding of the special status of Native American reservations in America.
Click to expand...

No, I understand real estate law. They are free to purchase any piece of property they wish. If you have evidence that they can't, I'd like to see it.
 
L.Y.S. said:
The highlighted is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the constitution has recognized Native Americans as separate and therefore "not the same" as the general mass population. So, all the arguments thrown around by you and several other members about other ethnic groups not having this elevated status are irrelevant. U.S. law recognizes the indigenous as separate entities from the state and they occupy a unique legal status in America.
Click to expand...
Which says nothing about your claim. You made the claim that the law requires that tribes have more sovereignty and have more representation. Prove your claim.
 
Neally said:
Which says nothing about your claim. You made the claim that the law requires that tribes have more sovereignty and have more representation. Prove your claim.
Click to expand...

American Indians definitely have a significant claim to greater sovereignty.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; (from Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 3)
Click to expand...

Here the Constitution clearly sets up Indian Tribes as equivalent to Nations and member States.

Johnson v. McIntosh - 1824 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._M'Intosh) set the precedent that citizens could not acquire land from the tribes and confirming land cessions must be negotiated by the federal government.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831 - Established that tribal nations are "domestic dependent nations."

Worcester v. Georgia 1832 - Declared that tribes do not lose sovereignty when being subject to the control of the US and confirmed that state laws do not apply to American Indian Reservations.
 
seayakin said:
American Indians definitely have a significant claim to greater sovereignty.
Click to expand...
Follow the discussion. L.Y.S. claimed that the law requires that the tribes should have more sovereignty than they now currently possess. He also claims that they should have more representation than they currently have. Neither claim has been supported.
 
Neally said:
Follow the discussion. L.Y.S. claimed that the law requires that the tribes should have more sovereignty than they now currently possess. He also claims that they should have more representation than they currently have. Neither claim has been supported.
Click to expand...

I have been following this. I would consider these almost three separate issues for discussion.

  • Existing sovereignty status - There are conservatives who would completely abrogate this. James Sensenbrenner perennially introduced legislation to abrogate all treaties with American Indians. (I strongly oppose such measures.)
  • Expanding American Indian sovereignty (I would also increase their autonomy and remove any authority the states have over tribal lands. I can see ways where tribes could negotiate with states for sharing services in which case there would have to be some give and take. I'm not sure if I would change much with the authority of the Federal government.)
  • Providing specific representation for American Indians in Congress (See my previous post but I do not support this.)

There are of course many other issues faced by American Indians but questions of sovereignty and representation seem to be where this discussion is focused.
 
Neally said:
Follow the discussion. L.Y.S. claimed that the law requires that the tribes should have more sovereignty than they now currently possess. He also claims that they should have more representation than they currently have. Neither claim has been supported.
Click to expand...

Change the constitution if you don't like it. Good luck
 
Last edited:
seayakin said:
I have been following this. I would consider these almost three separate issues for discussion.

  • Existing sovereignty status - There are conservatives who would completely abrogate this. James Sensenbrenner perennially introduced legislation to abrogate all treaties with American Indians. (I strongly oppose such measures.)
  • Expanding American Indian sovereignty (I would also increase their autonomy and remove any authority the states have over tribal lands. I can see ways where tribes could negotiate with states for sharing services in which case there would have to be some give and take. I'm not sure if I would change much with the authority of the Federal government.)
  • Providing specific representation for American Indians in Congress (See my previous post but I do not support this.)

There are of course many other issues faced by American Indians but questions of sovereignty and representation seem to be where this discussion is focused.
Click to expand...
None of the above supports the claims that current law requires that the tribes should have more sovereignty than they now currently possess and that they should have more representation than they currently have

L.Y.S. said:
Change the constitution if you don't like it. Good luck
Click to expand...
Avoidance noted. Do cite where in the constitution it requires that the tribes should have more sovereignty than they now currently possess and that they should have more representation than they currently have.
 
Neally said:
None of the above supports the claims that current law requires that the tribes should have more sovereignty than they now currently possess and that they should have more representation than they currently have.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse my position with what LYS is arguing. To allow for an increase in tribal autonomy as I suggest, would require congress to act but it would not require a change in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
Avoidance noted. Do cite where in the constitution it requires that the tribes should have more sovereignty than they now currently possess and that they should have more representation than they currently have.
Click to expand...

Seayakin already handled the highlighted, you just keep asking for what is already there1. There is no legal precedence for representation as of yet. That is why I said they should have legal representation. Find the post where I say they "must" have legal representation. I'll be waiting...

seayakin said:
Don't confuse my position with what LYS is arguing. To allow for an increase in tribal autonomy as I suggest, would require congress to act but it would not require a change in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

We differ by one point. One wants to allow congressional representation, the other does not want this. This is the only difference in our stances. Please clarify if there are others?
 
Last edited:
L.Y.S. said:
We differ by one point. One wants to allow congressional representation, the other does not want this. This is the only difference in our stances. Please clarify if there are others?
Click to expand...

As far as the sovereignty issue is concerned, I think that is the only difference.
 
While we're on the topic of Native Americans, what is your impression of Sherman Alexie's book - The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian?

"part-time" is a reference to the main character going to school off-rez.

http://www.amazon.com/Absolutely-True-Diary-Part-Time-Indian/dp/0316013684

It won the National Book Award, and is my east-coast state's "book of the year" meaning wide reading and many, many discussions. I will mention that we have no indian reservations in our state, and IIRC, only the Lumbee tribe has a presence in one of our urban areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom