The General Native American Discussion Thread

[Neally]

Seayakin already handled the highlighted, you just keep asking for what is already there¹.

No! The cite is NOT for more sovereignty than they currently have by law. The cite is for the fact that they have more sovereignty than other groups within the US.

Again you said, "Most want to have a greater say and a greater amount of autonomy. " I said that was hypocritical. You said, "It's a matter of U.S. law. " I'm asking what US law grants them more sovereignty and more representation than they currently now use.

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...

You claimed that by law their representation should be more than they now enjoy. Prove it by citing the law.

 

[seayakin]

Out of curiousity do Aboriginals (or Amerindians or whatever they prefer to be called) have a national council like the Native tribes of Canada have?

(ETA: sorry it's proper name is the Assembly of First Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations_government_(Canada)#Tribal_council)

There is the National Congress of the American Indians (NCAI) which is more akin to the NAACP and American Indian Movement (AIM) which takes a more radical stance.

My experience is more natives use American Indian than Native American and none use Amerind.

 

[lopeyschools]

There is the National Congress of the American Indians (NCAI) which is more akin to the NAACP and American Indian Movement (AIM) which takes a more radical stance.

My experience is more natives use American Indian than Native American and none use Amerind.

Ah, ok.

I asked mainly because in Canada the group efforts of the Assembly have yieled much better results from the government then individual tribe efforts.

 

[L.Y.S.]

As far as the sovereignty issue is concerned, I think that is the only difference.

I can understand your position. It would be easier to grant more sovereignty than it would be to grant representation. However, it would be easier to protect and establish certain freedoms if there was some form of representation rather than none.

Out of curiousity do Aboriginals (or Amerindians or whatever they prefer to be called) have a national council like the Native tribes of Canada have?

(ETA: sorry it's proper name is the Assembly of First Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations_government_(Canada)#Tribal_council)

There is the National Congress of the American Indians (NCAI) which is more akin to the NAACP and American Indian Movement (AIM) which takes a more radical stance.

My experience is more natives use American Indian than Native American and none use Amerind.

There are "some" in the United States, but not many. Most of what Seayakin was talking about is true. There aren't that many Tribal Councils in America unfortunately. There should definately be more. I think the ones in America operate differently. The ones in the states more of represent local interests. However, there are "some" inter-tribal councils. Again, there should definately be more of these inter-tribal councils.

Ah, ok.

I asked mainly because in Canada the group efforts of the Assembly have yieled much better results from the government then individual tribe efforts.

Unfortunately in America Native interest are regulated more by the corrupt and inept Bureau of Indian Affairs which reports to the Department of "Interior". The function of the agency was to manage federal land in trust; we've all seen how that has turned out...

This is sort of why I've been advocating for direct representation in congress instead of representation through ill equipped and underfunded agencies. It is clear that representation would be better in the hands of the Natives rather than in the hands of the BIA.

 

[L.Y.S.]

No! The cite is NOT for more sovereignty than they currently have by law. The cite is for the fact that they have more sovereignty than other groups within the US.

Again you said, "Most want to have a greater say and a greater amount of autonomy. " I said that was hypocritical. You said, "It's a matter of U.S. law. " I'm asking what US law grants them more sovereignty and more representation than they currently now use.

You claimed that by law their representation should be more than they now enjoy. Prove it by citing the law.

Never claimed the highlighted, you made it up. I said they should have increased representation. You've misstated my position. Go back and find where I said representation was "claimed" by law. And as for the greater amount of autonomy that was granted under U.S. federal law. Seayakin has posted several things on this and I have as well. You choose to ignore it, so you will stay in the dark on this issue. Keep your ignorance if you want.

 

[seayakin]

I can understand your position. It would be easier to grant more sovereignty than it would be to grant representation. However, it would be easier to protect and establish certain freedoms if there was some form of representation rather than none.

I was wondering how you envision the apportionment of representation. I'm assuming you are advocating for American Indians having voting representatives.

 

[seayakin]

There are "some" in the United States, but not many. Most of what Seayakin was talking about is true. There aren't that many Tribal Councils in America unfortunately. There should definately be more. I think the ones in America operate differently. The ones in the states more of represent local interests. However, there are "some" inter-tribal councils. Again, there should definately be more of these inter-tribal councils.

My understanding is that Canada has governing councils that have representations from a variety of First Nations which has some governmental administrative authority (and correct me if I'm wrong because my understanding of Canadian policy is limited) where as there is no equivalent in the US. As L.Y.S. points out, the BIA (affectionately know as "Boss Indians Around") is a more authoritarian structures and reports to the executive branch and not necessarily its constituents. Most tribal councils are the representative structure for an American Indian tribe and not pan-Indian. Any pan-Indian groups are generally advocacy groups and have no governing authority in the US.

 

[WildCat]

I can understand your position. It would be easier to grant more sovereignty than it would be to grant representation. However, it would be easier to protect and establish certain freedoms if there was some form of representation rather than none.

Good thing that every single Indian reservation has Congressional representation then, eh?

This is sort of why I've been advocating for direct representation in congress instead of representation through ill equipped and underfunded agencies. It is clear that representation would be better in the hands of the Natives rather than in the hands of the BIA.

Which Indian reservation has no representation in Congress?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Good thing that every single Indian reservation has Congressional representation then, eh?

What? Under the government that failed them and the BIA?

Some representation they have there.

Which Indian reservation has no representation in Congress?

They have "representatives" that go to congress and get little done. Yes, yes, we are again referring to the failed inefficient government that doesn't fulfill their needs.

As previously mentioned most of the concerns are handled by the executive branch, with the legislative branch having the final decision making authority on the matter. Most of the time congress does nothing other than acting as judge (or from time to time enact laws on Indian legality), since the constitution and the courts delegated this power to congress. The executive agency that handles this is with the BIA, which is horribly corrupt and inefficient as previously mentioned. The BIA is a failed agency at best.

 

[mortimer]

What? Under the government that failed them and the BIA?

Some representation they have there.

Which government do you recommend they gain representation in, if the government in which they currently have representation is failing them?

They have "representatives" that go to congress and get little done. Yes, yes, we are again referring to the failed inefficient government that doesn't fulfill their needs.

So which government should they get representation in?

As previously mentioned most of the concerns are handled by the executive branch, with the legislative branch having the final decision making authority on the matter. Most of the time congress does nothing other than acting as judge (or from time to time enact laws on Indian legality), since the constitution and the courts delegated this power to congress. The executive agency that handles this is with the BIA, which is horribly corrupt and inefficient as previously mentioned. The BIA is a failed agency at best.

Please provide supporting evidence of your claim that the BIA is horribly corrupt, inefficient, and a failed agency.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry the founding fathers gave natives this position, not us. The constitution clearly distinguishes Native Americans. And our numerous treaties recognize them as nations. Maybe we shouldn't have recognized their sovereign status in the first place?

Highlighted is completely wrong and false. I haven't made that argument once.

Here is the thing, I never gave up my membership in the nations of my ancestors, so why shouldn't I get those rights?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Irrelevant and bogus argument, blacks weren't recognized as sovereign nations by treaties, Native Americans were. Stay on topic and stop lying.

Equality is just so damn unfair.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yet congress has no power in Mexico, France, or Canada. It does have power over Native American nations and it can create laws for them. It can not create laws for other nations.

So we cut them out of the US, revoke their citizenship and stop all federal programs for them. Treat them like real sovereign nations. Then they will need a visa to enter the US.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Here is the thing, I never gave up my membership in the nations of my ancestors, so why shouldn't I get those rights?

All irrelevant to the current conversation.

Equality is just so damn unfair.

Rhetoric from a lack of study

So we cut them out of the US, revoke their citizenship and stop all federal programs for them. Treat them like real sovereign nations. Then they will need a visa to enter the US.

You lack understanding of the law. Maybe you should go study it instead of using rhetoric. That is what is currently being done in this conversation.

 

[Neally]

Never claimed the highlighted, you made it up. I said they should have increased representation. You've misstated my position. Go back and find where I said representation was "claimed" by law.

Let back up then. Wanting more representation and support and at the same time want more sovereignty are contradictory, hypocritical goals. Pick one you don't get both.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Which government do you recommend they gain representation in, if the government in which they currently have representation is failing them?

So which government should they get representation in?

Dissolve the BIA and give each nation direct representation in congress. Nations can agree to share representation based on cultural and historical likeness if that is what is "desired".

Please provide supporting evidence of your claim that the BIA is horribly corrupt, inefficient, and a failed agency.

Gladly

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/21/cbsnews_investigates/main1739020.shtml

http://nativetimes.com/news/crime/5651-bia-officer-convicted-in-corruption-trial

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_ab7b7853-60de-555b-ac87-e821997713d7.html

 

[bikerdruid]

i guess it should come as no surprise that the u.s. should be backwards in it's attitudes towards aboriginals.
a nation that will allow people to die due to lack of medical insurance, that denies rights to women and queers, is truly a backwards nation.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Let back up then. Wanting more representation and support and at the same time want more sovereignty are contradictory, hypocritical goals. Pick one you don't get both.

Not really, it's the same principal behind states. States get direct representation for their local populations. There isn't someone from a district in "New York" representing the interest of district in "California". Each state has direct control over its representation and has the "right" to request projects and or funding "as needed". It is clear that the current method is not working.

If wanting more support and representation are contradictory efforts than we must conclude that states are contradictory also. Since the principal idea behind a state is that each state represents itself as a "nation" in congress.

 

[Toontown]

Who didn't know the true purpose of this thread?

A fake discussion about Native Americans is being used as a Trojan horse for Amerika-bashing.

An increasingly common tactic among the bashers.

 

[WildCat]

What? Under the government that failed them and the BIA?

Some representation they have there.

I'm not thrilled with my representation either, it doesn't mean I have no representation.

They have "representatives" that go to congress and get little done. Yes, yes, we are again referring to the failed inefficient government that doesn't fulfill their needs.

That's why we have elections, so we can kick out the pols who don't look out for our needs and elect pols who promise to look out for our needs... and then break those promises.

Welcome to modern democracy, the worst political system in the world. Except for all the others...

As previously mentioned most of the concerns are handled by the executive branch, with the legislative branch having the final decision making authority on the matter. Most of the time congress does nothing other than acting as judge (or from time to time enact laws on Indian legality), since the constitution and the courts delegated this power to congress. The executive agency that handles this is with the BIA, which is horribly corrupt and inefficient as previously mentioned. The BIA is a failed agency at best.

Any citizen of the USA could complain about the same thing, substitute any federal agency you desire in place of the BIA.

Again, Indians get the same deal everyone else has. Not happy with the pols? Join the club.