• 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

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.
So what's Canada's excuse?
In Canada, as in many countries, being Aboriginal often means being poor, or even very poor. In 2005, 3.8% of the country’s population identified as Aboriginal, either as North American Indians (or First Nations peoples; 60% of the total), Métis (33%) or Inuit (4%).1 Of these, 21.7% had incomes below Statistics Canada’s low income cut-off after tax, compared to 11.1% for the non-Aboriginal identity population (Statistics Canada, 2006a).

Unemployment explained in part this discrepancy, the employment rate of Aboriginal peoples being almost ten percentage points below that of the non-Aboriginal population (53.7% compared to 62.7% in 2005). But a host of factors also combined to make Aboriginal persons more vulnerable to poverty. Basic education, for instance, was not as likely to be achieved, 43.7% of Aboriginal Canadians having less than a secondary education, compared to 23.1% for the non-Aboriginal population. Living and health conditions also remained well below those of the majority. If one defines a dwelling where there is more than one person per room as crowded, for example, 11.4% of Aboriginal identity persons lived in such housing conditions in 2005, compared to 2.9% for the non-Aboriginal population (Statistics Canada, 2006a). Aboriginal identity persons also had significantly shorter life expectancy, and they faced higher risks of suffering from obesity, from chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure or heart problems, or from infectious diseases like tuberculosis and chlamydia (Canadian Population Health Initiative, 2004: 80-84).
I can't believe calling them "First Nations" and other lip service hasn't actually made their lives better! But at least white guys like you can feel good about yourselves, because you're politically correct. And that's what it's all about, making white guys feel better without having to sacrifice anything.
 
Last edited:
Again, Indians get the same deal everyone else has. Not happy with the pols? Join the club.

You've explained that numerous times already. You seem to have infinite patience, but your words seem to be falling into some kind of well of silence, like silent raindrops.
 
I was wondering how you envision the apportionment of representation. I'm assuming you are advocating for American Indians having voting representatives.

Each nation would receive one senator. 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.

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.
 
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.
To the extent that people are demanding less federal meddling into state matters and at the same time wanting more federal benefits, they are hypocritical. Welcome to the group of hypocrites.
 
To the extent that people are demanding less federal meddling into state matters and at the same time wanting more federal benefits, they are hypocritical. Welcome to the group of hypocrites.

So basically you have nothing other than rhetoric? Duly noted ;)
 
That's your best attempt at hand waving away your hypocrisy? Lame.

My hypocrisy? There is no hypocrisy, the law establishes N.A.'s as separate legal entities already. However, they lack "true" representation "on" their reservations as of now. They have a unique legal status which "sorta kinda" represents them. They are partially represented by state authorities, but since they are on a reservation that is considered "separate" from the state they often get "little" representation. When they request for more representation from current officials, they receive little or no response.

I am requesting that "nations" (not a race of people) have more representation in congress, similar to that of a federation. There is nothing making this "illegal" or hypocritical. Ironically Russia has done more to grant nations their own say in federal matters than America. They have federal entities deemed "Republics" in Russia. They report directly to their national assembly. It is sad that this is at least partially happening in Russia but not in America. We badger them about human rights, and I’m sure they have their fair share of failures, but in terms of Russia, this is a fairly progressive move. In fact, the organization of the Russia is fairly progressive. As Russia is a union of nations, not one single state entity. The concept for America is very similar; however, Native Americans are denied the basic right of representing their own “national” self-interests in congress.

I fail to see why they shouldn’t have representation, other than illogical fear.
 
Last edited:
I'm not thrilled with my representation either, it doesn't mean I have no representation.

Trust me when I say your representation leap frogs ahead of what any native has. Since most of them occupy a very unique legal status in the country and are often only partially or underrepresented by current law. Albany park is 1'000 times better than most Native Reservations I can guarantee you that. Your representative makes sure you have electricity, water, housing, and tries to keep jobs in the area "if possible". And they "only" take enough money to feed their pockets somewhat, unlike the heavy embezzling that occurs with BIA agents. So you really can't compare your representation to any Native Americans.

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. ;)

Awesome, but there isn't any one to directly represent their needs since they are in a unique legal status.


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

Awesome, but they can complain to a representative not an executive agency. Natives can't do the same, or often do complain to a representative who does nothing for them. It is rare that a congressmen will stick their neck out to do anything for natives. Therefore, it is within the self-interest of natives to have direct representation in congress.

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

You've been down playing the issue this entire thread to deliberately discourage discussion. There are several reservations at third world levels. Your only responses “leave". Not a very good response at that. They do not get the "same" deal as everyone else on the reservation because they occupy a unique legal status. You still haven't provided much of a reason for them not to have direct representation.
 
My hypocrisy? There is no hypocrisy, the law establishes N.A.'s as separate legal entities already. However, they lack "true" representation "on" their reservations as of now. They have a unique legal status which "sorta kinda" represents them. They are partially represented by state authorities, but since they are on a reservation that is considered "separate" from the state they often get "little" representation. When they request for more representation from current officials, they receive little or no response.

I am requesting that "nations" (not a race of people) have more representation in congress, similar to that of a federation. There is nothing making this "illegal" or hypocritical. Ironically Russia has done more to grant nations their own say in federal matters than America. They have federal entities deemed "Republics" in Russia. They report directly to their national assembly. It is sad that this is at least partially happening in Russia but not in America. We badger them about human rights, and I’m sure they have their fair share of failures, but in terms of Russia, this is a fairly progressive move. In fact, the organization of the Russia is fairly progressive. As Russia is a union of nations, not one single state entity. The concept for America is very similar; however, Native Americans are denied the basic right of representing their own “national” self-interests in congress.

I fail to see why they shouldn’t have representation, other than illogical fear.

:hb:
 
I am requesting that "nations" (not a race of people) have more representation in congress, similar to that of a federation. There is nothing making this "illegal" or hypocritical.
No one said anything about "illegal". You want both more sovereignty and more representation and benefits, ergo hypocrisy.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
hb.gif
+1
 
No one said anything about "illegal". You want both more sovereignty and more representation and benefits, ergo hypocrisy.

I fail to see how it is "hypocritical", but please continue to feel how you feel on the subject. This will not change my position. I am firmly planted where I stand. You've provided no reason other than "anecdote" as to why this should not happen. You have not provided "legal" reason (which is what is being argued) for why they should not have representation.
 
Last edited:
Nor have you provided one for why they should. Saying "because we're special" isn't going to cut it in a court of law.

I have provided plenty of legitimate reasons, including the failure of the BIA and the current government system to represent Native Americans. They have sketchy representation "at best". And already occupy a unique legal status in the United States. I'm still waiting for legal reasons why "we should not do this". So far I've heard "hypocrisy" and that clearly isn't a legal reason.
 
Last edited:
I fail to see how it is "hypocritical"
Let me break it down for you. "Sovereignty" relates to being independent. Receiving support for infrastructure or anything else is being dependent.

Dependent and independent are opposites. Wanting more independence and more dependence are contradictory. Advocating for both is hypocritical.
 
Let me break it down for you. "Sovereignty" relates to being independent. Receiving support for infrastructure or anything else is being dependent.

Dependent and independent are opposites. Wanting more independence and more dependence are contradictory. Advocating for both is hypocritical.

As I have pointed out, there are several nations that have semi-autonomous structures that go directly to the national assemblies or parliaments of the countries in question. Clearly Native Americans operate in a unique status of being "in between" the laws. For example, a Native American nation cannot decide it wants to "ally" itself with a nation who is "against" America. It would clearly be against our local national interest. However, they have the "authority" to allocate money or make "local" governmental decisions, similar to that of a "state" authority.

Native nations should have the “same power as states”: the right to decide language and education policy; the right to determine financial policy; the right to determine a jurisdictional policy of its own; immigration policy; energy policy; population policy; and most importantly the right to direct representation in congress and directly represent their “national” interest in the halls of congress. There are several other "rights" they should have; however, these are the ones that come to mind as of now.

There will never be "full" autonomy from the United States for as long as it stands. However, what is being argued is that Native Nations should be treated more like "states" and less like "federal dependencies". They have almost "no voice", and unilaterally those who decide to stay on the reservation "lack" "pure representation" of their interest. They are often “semi-accounted” for in our current political system. I have already proven the current system to be "corrupt and inefficient". And I have also proven that native nations are both "separate but "apart"" of the United States.

Therefore, the only logical and "legal" thing to do is to allow Native Americans to directly "represent" themselves in congress and "temporarily" allocate funds over a "long span" of time to upstart improvement projects and financial building (to ween them off the state). This is not "outside" the power of congress, since congress has the right to "determine" financial matters of reservations. It would "simply" take the "will power" to actually do this.

It is clear that Native Nations will never be able to "build their own militaries", "establish their own monetary systems", or "express international interest on key issues like "defense" differently from "America". Since it is "logical" to conclude that we will "share" a number of institutions, it must also be logical for us to "share" congress with these nations.
 
Last edited:
It is clear that Native Nations will never be able to "build their own militaries", "establish their own monetary systems", or "express international interest on key issues like "defense" differently from "America". Since it is "logical" to conclude that we will "share" a number of institutions, it must also be logical for us to "share" congress with these nations.

And you seem to forget that congress doesn't set aside seats to people based on ethnicity.
 
And you seem to forget that congress doesn't set aside seats to people based on ethnicity.

Great we are in agreement since the argument was towards "special nations" and not towards "ethnicity".

L.Y.S. said:
Native nations should have the “same power as states”.... including direct representation...

And since "Registered" Native Americans happen to "occupy" a special legal status that was already "clarified" earlier in the thread. They just "happen" to be "nations" and "ethnic" groups, which doesn't exclude their "nations" from the right of direct legal representation.
 
And since "Registered" Native Americans happen to "occupy" a special legal status that was already "clarified" earlier in the thread.
You have yet to explain what relevance that "special legal status" has to the subject of Congressional representation.
 
You have yet to explain what relevance that "special legal status" has to the subject of Congressional representation.

No, I've explained fairly well a few post back. Maybe you should go read the post.
 
No, I've explained fairly well a few post back. Maybe you should go read the post.

You haven't explained anything well. You've said that the Indians should get allocated seats in congress in addition to political autonomy and get more subsidies and benefits while at the same time getting more independence. And you seem to think this is all bound up in some law that you can't name.

None of that makes the slightest bit of sense.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom