Indian reservations

[BaconAndEggs]

I have a few questions about Indian reservations and Native Americans. Why do they give Native Americans free bus tokens, scholarships, etc. etc. if they are descendants from the Indians of years and years ago? I guess my question is theses Native Americans living now did not feel the effect of what the white man did to them, so why do they get all the luxuries still? Native Americans have tribal courts and laws pertaining to their own land....so they can get tried in their own courts. Why is that? I heard of a young Native American getting a large sum of money, from some case just for being Native American. Another case is if you can claim your any oercentage of Native American the government will give you some kind of free healthcare...I heard a black girl (she claimed she had 1/16th Cherokee or Sioux) had a card that lets her go to the doctor for health services? Why all these perks for Native Americans? Why are the Native Americans still fighting for land from the governmnet when it was taken away many years ago from descendants that are already dead. I would think just let it die already? I know they suffered in past history, but I assume nobody born today felt the effect or lived through it.

[Schnitte]

My understanding is that it is not "the government" giving freebies to "Indians". Rather, the way it works is that the reservations have limited autonomy ("tribal sovereignty" is the keyword here). They're not full-fledged states, but they have authority to manage a range of own affairs autonomously, and they elect their own officials to run the business of the reservation.

The reservations also have their own sources of income which the reservation authorities can dispose of; and if some of them choose to spend that money on freebies of the sort you mention, well, then this is their business.

[LouisB]

If you think that our government provides "all the luxuries" to the residents of reservations, you obviously have never visited one. And if you think that "nobody born today" (speaking of native Americans) feels the effects of what our federal government did to the native Americans you are grossly mistaken and/or misinformed.

You might ask yourself why poverty/alcoholism/unemployment rates among reservation people are as high as they are.

[DrDeth]

You might ask yourself why poverty/alcoholism/unemployment rates among reservation people are as high as they are.


Well, if the natives are lucky enough to be part of a tribe that runs a successful casino, no one needs to work, so I guess the "unemployment rate" would be rather high.

[Keeve]

Native Americans living now did not feel the effect of what the white man did to them... You mean, beside the loss of a few million square miles of land?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Say that I injure you. A court finds that I owe you compensation. Nothing unusual there. Happens every day.

The Native Americans were injured by the U.S. Government. Treaties were broken, ignored, trampled on. Court cases ensued. The Native Americans had the legitimate claims because they were legally in the right virtually every single time. The government is now paying damages, determined through courts and legislation, for the injuries committed over hundreds of years.

This is different from black reparations because the government itself was signatory to the legal documents that it ignored.

Now go study some history.

[DrDeth]

You mean, beside the loss of a few million square miles of land?

The current living tribe members did not lose the land, their forefathers did. Hell, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, followed by the Nazi Arrow Cross party in Hungary stole all of my ancestors land. My ancestors no doubt stole it from someone else, who stole it from someone else, and so on back to the first H. Sapiens visitor to the land.... who perhaps took it from a Neanderthal.*

It's not like the boundaries of the various Native tribes in the USA weren't constantly in a state of flux and change due to war, rivalries and what-not. If the USA took land from the Mohawks who took that land from the
Algonquin, who displaced yet another tribe from that land- who gets the land back? The Clovis people? Whoops, no it looks like they displaced yet another prior people.

*Yes, I know some scientists consider the Neanderthal to be a H. Sapiens subspecies.

[Saintly Loser]

I know they suffered in past history, but I assume nobody born today felt the effect or lived through it.

I know I'm repeating something someone said above, but I spent some time (around six months) on the Pine Ridge reservation, in South Dakota (I was working for the Indian Health Service).

I assure you, the residents of Pine Ridge are still feeling the effects of history. And the phrase "all the luxuries" simply does not describe life in Pine Ridge.

[Keeve]

... the Austro-Hungarian Empire, followed by the Nazi Arrow Cross party in Hungary stole all of my ancestors land. My ancestors no doubt stole it from someone else, who stole it from someone else, and so on back to the first H. Sapiens visitor to the land.... who perhaps took it from a Neanderthal.*

It's not like the boundaries of the various Native tribes in the USA weren't constantly in a state of flux and change due to war, rivalries and what-not. If the USA took land from the Mohawks who took that land from the
Algonquin, who displaced yet another tribe from that land- who gets the land back? The Clovis people? Whoops, no it looks like they displaced yet another prior people...I agree that returning these lands would be very difficult. But I also think that it would also be the Right Thing To Do.

I realize that the above opinion brings this thread into GD territory, but isn't that what this thread is about? The OP asked what losses the current Native Americans are suffering, and I suggest that it is the loss of their rightful inheritance.

[Duckster]

The "history" doesn't go back that far, but it's expensive if you ignore it:

On December 21, 2010, The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary approval to the Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Settlement. On December 8, 2010, President Obama had signed legislation approving the Settlement and authorizing $3.4 billion in funds. Notice of the Settlement must be given to Class Members in accordance with the Court's order. http://www.cobellsettlement.com/
In United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation) (1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians#cite_note-SC1980-0) the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that: 1) The enactment by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress) of a law allowing the Sioux Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux_Nation) to pursue a claim against the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers, and 2) the taking of property that was set aside for the use of the tribe required just compensation, including interest.

-- snip --

The Sioux have declined to accept the money (http://bellevuecollege.edu/diversitycaucus/aiff/cbe.htm), because acceptance would legally terminate Sioux demands for return of the Black Hills. The money remains in a Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs) account accruing compound interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest) and as of 2010 the amount is reported to exceed $570 million (http://bellevuecollege.edu/diversitycaucus/aiff/cbe.htm). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians

[DrDeth]

I agree that returning these lands would be very difficult. But I also think that it would also be the Right Thing To Do.

I realize that the above opinion brings this thread into GD territory, but isn't that what this thread is about? The OP asked what losses the current Native Americans are suffering, and I suggest that it is the loss of their rightful inheritance.

Sure, so who do we give the lands to? The Mohawks? The Algonquin? The Clovis people?

And of course you know that means that 99% of all current residents will lose their homes, farms or businesses- homes that may have been in their families for 10 generations. This will mean that 100% of the land in America will now belong to less than 1% of it's population. I will lose my home, you will lose your home, in fact every poster here will lose their home- unless they a member of a native tribe AND currently living on lands that their tribe occupied in oh, let's say 1492. Which means something less than 10000th of 1%. Everyone else loses their land and home. :dubious:

So, let us say we have a hypothetical founding pilgrim family (the Smiths), who has been living on the same land for nearly 400 years. They settled on land siezed from a tribe which is now extinct (We'll call this hypothetical extinct tribe the "Heckowi"), who siezed the land from another tribe 100 years before that ("Fukowi"- who still have a reservation about 200 miles away with a thriving Casino on it)), who took the land from another tribe 500 years before that ("Whokowi"), and so forth. Thus we have the Smith Family has owned and lived on that land for 400 years. The Heckowi (now extinct) owned it for 100 years, the Fukowi for 500 years and the Whokowis origins are lost in the mists of time- and so are the tribes members (no one claims to be a Whokowi). Who has the moral ownership of that land?

How about if the Smiths claim they bought the land?

[Dr. Drake]

That's a slippery slope in both directions. If I take your land by force today, can I keep it? (No.) If my umpteen-times-great-grandfather took the land from yours in 1633, can I keep it? (Yes.) So it's finding that middle ground, so to speak.

It's also worth pointing out that enforced cultural change is really traumatic. Immigrants go through it too, but usually voluntarily, and with the knowledge that their native culture still exists somewhere, even if life there sucks. Native Americans know that whatever culture they have, that's it, and it's really hard to maintain a healthy minority culture when there's such a power imbalance between your group and the mainstream. Economic and social opportunities are really limited unless you assimilate: at best, being bicultural, and at worst, losing your minority identity altogether. Not a problem unique to Native Americans, but certainly relevant.

[Procrustus]

Much of what the Indians "get" is simply a small part of what was negotiated in the treaties that ended the Indian Wars. Our government promised things to the tribes in these treaties, like the right to continue self government (limited) and therefore have their own court systems. The right to fish and hunt in their traditional areas. The right to education and health care. Nothing wrong with the government providing "benefits" if they promised to do so. The "large" sums of money some tribal members get are usually simply the royalities from mineral, gas or timber sales (i.e., income from their lands--just like lots of other folks get). As stated by others, some tribes have casinos that generate income. Nothing wrong with that. Much of that revenue goes to health care or scholarships.

[silenus]

The problem as I see it isn't that we conquered and took their land. It's that we signed treaties. If we'd just taken everything and said "Tough noogies" this whole matter would have been over hundreds of years ago. But because we signed (and reneged on) treaties we have reservations, lawsuits, reparations and the whole magilla.

[Chefguy]

People like the OP assume that this all took place 300 years ago. It continues to the present with cases like Celilo Falls on the Columbia River. The government decided it wanted to put a dam there, and proceeded to flood fishing grounds that were not only used in antiquity, but right up to the point where the area flooded in about 1959. If you wish to see another instance of present day fuckovers, look up information on the Native American trust, which appears to have been systematically robbed by the government.

When the government shunted the Indian onto worthless, unproductive lands back in the day, it condemned those tribes to a life of squalor for them and not much better for their descendants. Over generations, many become institutionalized in the worst sense of the word. A visit to most reservations is a fairly grim experience.

[Duckster]

Sure, so who do we give the lands to? The Mohawks? The Algonquin? The Clovis people?

And of course you know that means that 99% of all current residents will lose their homes, farms or businesses- homes that may have been in their families for 10 generations. This will mean that 100% of the land in America will now belong to less than 1% of it's population. I will lose my home, you will lose your home, in fact every poster here will lose their home- unless they a member of a native tribe AND currently living on lands that their tribe occupied in oh, let's say 1492. Which means something less than 10000th of 1%. Everyone else loses their land and home.

Spend some time reading up on the Mabo decision in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_%28No_2%29). Putting aside your Chicken Little hype, some Australians did lose their land.

[DrDeth]

Spend some time reading up on the Mabo decision in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_%28No_2%29). Putting aside your Chicken Little hype, some Australians did lose their land.


Note that Mabo always claimed he owned that land, and lived there, and the land wasn't owned privately but by the governemtn of Queensland. It appears to my non-legal mind that according to your cite that if the Crown had granted the land to other private individuals the Native title would be extinguished. "Repudiation of absolute beneficial title of all lands: The majority in Mabo also rejected the proposition that immediately upon the acquisition of sovereignty, absolute beneficial ownership of all the lands of the Colony vested in the Crown. The majority rejected the traditional feudal development of the doctrine of tenure as inappropriate for Australia, and rather saw that upon acquisition of sovereignty the Crown acquired not an absolute but a radical title, and that title would be subject to native title rights where those rights had not been validly extinguished. Thus the court accepted that a modified doctrine of tenure operated in Australia, and that the law of tenure (as a product of the common law) could co-exist with the law of native title (as a product of customary laws and traditions), though where there had been a valid grant of fee simple by the Crown the latter title would be extinguished. "
In other words, all that would mean is that if we have Amerinds currenly living on government lands, and lands that were never aquired by treaty, that according to Mabo the resident natives might have a claim on those government lands.

However, that is a special case, and outside the OP, being Australia and nothing to do with reservations or treaties.

What others in this thread are suggesting is that all lands in the USA- no matter how title was aquired or how many hands title passed through or how long the title has been in non-nativeshands; that the ownership be "given back" to the "natives", even if those natives took that land from other tribes.

Again, the question is- if I have owned the land for a generation, and my father aquired the title legally, but his father aquired the title from someone who occupied the land by force- who of course also took the land some someone else by force, and so forth- who is the moral owner?

Taking my hypothetical founding pilgrim family (the Smiths), who has been living on the same land for nearly 400 years. They settled on land siezed from a tribe which is now extinct (We'll call this hypothetical extinct tribe the "Heckowi"), who siezed the land from another tribe 100 years before that ("Fukowi"- who still have a reservation about 200 miles away with a thriving Casino on it)), who took the land from another tribe 500 years before that ("Whokowi"), and so forth. Thus we have the Smith Family has owned and lived on that land for 400 years. The Heckowi (now extinct) owned it for 100 years, the Fukowi for 500 years and the Whokowis origins are lost in the mists of time- and so are the tribes members (no one claims to be a Whokowi). Who has the moral ownership of that land?

[Lemur866]

The problem as I see it isn't that we conquered and took their land. It's that we signed treaties. If we'd just taken everything and said "Tough noogies" this whole matter would have been over hundreds of years ago. But because we signed (and reneged on) treaties we have reservations, lawsuits, reparations and the whole magilla.

Hundreds of years ago? When do you think all this happened? You know those cowboy and indian movies, when do you think they are set?

The reservation system wasn't thought up as a way to give out freebies to Indians. Rather, Indians were herded onto the reservations, and in return for not being massacred, agreed to not bother white people anymore. And that meant they had limited self government, because otherwise white people would have had to govern them.

[Colibri]

I think this is better suited for GD than GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[kushiel]

It's hard to quantify which people benefit from treaties. We know the people who got free health care or housing or scholarships because they have a greater ability to communicate - I mean, remote reserves in northern Saskatchewan aren't exactly packed with people on the internet or with cell service.

I too know people that have gotten benefits from being able to prove they are an incredibly small percentage Aboriginal. It seems to be half 'I give up, I'm going to perpetuate the cycle of drugs and abuse I grew up in' and half not knowing these services are out there for those on reserves.

I lean more towards DrDeth's opinions, but I don't feel comfortable voicing them. In Canada, there's a double-standard going on. Each Indian band wants to choose when they get to govern themselves and when the Canadian government governs them based on what they get for it. Financial compensation from the federal government for the residential school scandal? Definitely want. Government wants each Chief to disclose their salary and expenses? Definitely do not want.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that your success on reserve is tied to how close you are to the Chief. But because of the power each reserve has, we never really know.

[DrDeth]

I lean more towards DrDeth's opinions, but I don't feel comfortable voicing them.

Don't get me wrong. Many of the Amerind tribes were given a raw deal in the past, and as Duckster has shown, a good number still have less than idealic lives. OTOH, some of the tribes with casinos send out a sizable check to each family each month, enough so they can live a very nice life in comfort.


So, I am against handing back land that has been in others hands for generations, land that was always in flux as to actual "ownership". I am against "handouts" just because a person has Amerind blood. However, many of the programs we have do not seem to be doing enough for the real needy. Since there is no doubt we gave some indians a raw deal, and the Government is still holding a great deal of land, etc, I see no reason not to give something back.

But handing the whole counrty back to 1% of the population just because their great-great 10 times removed grandparents got a raw deal is just crazy. I don't expect The Ukraine to be handing me back our ancestral lands either- since we likely stole them from someone else at the point of a sword anyway, and it was at least 60 years and three generations ago.

[Algher]

You can read up on what the US provides to the recognized tribes here:

http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm

As for how bad it is on some reservations - the Native Americans are often their own worse enemy. Tribal politics, games with land use rights, and a general welfare dependency model that has developed over time do not help. I have Navajo and Oneida friends and they LEFT the reservation thanks to parenting that encouraged them to get out, get educated, and get a job. They still go back to visit family, but they will not stay for long.

[Rachellelogram]

Thinking that Native Americans born after their land was stolen are not still horribly disadvantaged is a commonly-uttered privileged fallacy. It goes hand-in-hand with the idea that privilege-blind white Americans do not acknowledge that their own accident of birth is largely responsible for their success or lack thereof in life. There are no bootstraps.

I have in my pocket here a really potent comic which sums up this entire sort of racist argument: http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3749/racerelations.jpg

Basically, white people would not be as well-off as they are right now if they hadn't taken horrible advantage of black slavery and Native Americans in the past. Refusing to help the groups we've systematically traumatized up to our level of socioeconomic success is out of the question. Reparations are currently and will continue to be absolutely necessary until equality is reached.

[Martini Enfield]

Hundreds of years ago? When do you think all this happened? You know those cowboy and indian movies, when do you think they are set?

In the mid-late 19th Century, generally. If you consult a calendar you'll notice we're now in the 21st Century. Those Cowboy & Indian movies are set quite some time ago, especially by modern standards and when you consider that for a lot of people, WWII is either "Ancient History" or the semi-legendary setting for a large number of computer games.

[Argent Towers]

Thinking that Native Americans born after their land was stolen are not still horribly disadvantaged is a commonly-uttered privileged fallacy. It goes hand-in-hand with the idea that privilege-blind white Americans do not acknowledge that their own accident of birth is largely responsible for their success or lack thereof in life. There are no bootstraps.

I have in my pocket here a really potent comic which sums up this entire sort of racist argument: http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3749/racerelations.jpg

Do you believe that everyone born with white skin is "privileged"? Do you believe that being born with white skin is the only way to be "privileged"?

Also, could you explain exactly what it means to be "privilege-blind"?

So many people throw this word around...usually white college students who listen to Rage Against the Machine and Immortal Technique and fancy themselves heroic fighters for the world's oppressed people (as long as they are not white.) I want to know what you believe it to mean.

[Polycarp]

The methodology used in New York State may be of interest. Essentially, the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784) set terms between the Iroquois Confederacy and the U.S.A., which included opening some land for settlement while guaranteeing Iroquois access to other land. Encroachments on the latter reducing the Iroquois (as a nation) to a small number of reservations led to the land claims of the 1970s. The Six Nations accepted a financial settlement in lieu of restoral of lands, which they agreed would be disruptive, but with the proviso that they could purchase back land on the open market that would then resume being "Indian tgerritory" -- subject to tribal law, not state regulation, but with a few interesting twists -- they continued to owe property taxes on the repurchased lands to the municipalities of which they had formerly been a part, and Indian-nation-owned enterprises on leased land would collect sales tax like any other business.

The Oneida Nation bought land and built Turning Stone Casino, and has invested the profits from this in other land. There is an Indain-owned marina on Oneida Lake in the town of Verona, just south of Sylvan Beach, NY -- I was personally involved in a project to build a new marina within Sylvan Beach as part of HUD's Erie Canal Initiative for economic development in the Rust Belt to profitably take up the boating public's demand for marina space formerly filled by the now-Indian-owned marina.

While I understand Dr Deth's point, I would suggest to him that what is being discussed is not the somewhat metaphysical question of who 'really' has the right to land that has changed hands through war and invasion dozens of times, but what treaty obligations are outstanding with regard to it now. The U.S. does not have a treaty with the Algonquins about land the Iroquois conquere3d from them decades before white settlement, any more than they do with the Philistines regarding their claim to Gath, or with the Byzantine Empire regarding its claim to Trabzon. The Norman Conquest, our own Revolutionary War, etc., do establish a legal right of conquest -- if you as a nation take land by force of arms and hold it against all comers, you perfect a title of sorts to it. The U.S. does have treaties with the Sioux, the Iroquois, the Blackfeet, the Navajos, etc. Article VI of the Constitution demands those treaties be honored, even if it disturbs the laws and regulations of later-formed subordinate jurisdictions.

And one casino, however profitable it may be, is not going to sustain a national economy, not even Monaco's. Many reservations suffer from enormous lack of amenities or a functional economy -- Pine Ridge being an obvious worst-case example. The idea is to use that as a start for building up a tribal-owned business suite that will provide employment for tribe members, plus sponsoring tribe members through college in exchange for their services for a fixed number of years thereafter, e.g., as a doctor or teacher.

[Rachellelogram]

Do you believe that everyone born with white skin is "privileged"? Do you believe that being born with white skin is the only way to be "privileged"?

Also, could you explain exactly what it means to be "privilege-blind"?

So many people throw this word around...usually white college students who listen to Rage Against the Machine and Immortal Technique and fancy themselves heroic fighters for the world's oppressed people (as long as they are not white.) I want to know what you believe it to mean.
I am talking about white Americans who do not acknowledge or understand that being born white in America confers many privileges, most of which are implicit and easy to overlook given a lack of critical thought. This was stated in reference to the original poster who is almost certainly white (and therefore in involuntary possession of racial privilege in the United States), and who has, with their simplistic analysis of the relationship between whites and Native Americans, demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of said privilege.

Not every white person is privilege-blind (as I and many other white people acknowledge the existence of and our own possession of racial privilege). But yes, every white American possesses certain privileged traits whether they want to or not, and all of us have benefited from them. My opinion here has nothing to do with whites or nonwhites who do not live in the United States; therefore assuming I am championing the rights of non-whites around the world is specious at best, and a distraction at worst.

Frankly I'm not sure why you're attacking me, except as a red herring to distract from the issue that's actually being debated. You would certainly succeed if I chose to take the bait, but let's keep further discussion outside of this thread. You're free to create another thread to discuss this issue, or send me a PM to discuss my views on the matter.

If you do choose to create a new thread discussing the existence and definition of white privilege, I would be more than happy to participate. Alert me if you do via PM.

[fumster]

The problem as I see it isn't that we conquered and took their land. It's that we signed treaties. If we'd just taken everything and said "Tough noogies" this whole matter would have been over hundreds of years ago. But because we signed (and reneged on) treaties we have reservations, lawsuits, reparations and the whole magilla.That's exactly my view. The reason we should uphold our treaty obligations is not out of "niceness" to Native Americans, it's to show that as Americans we respect our system of law. If the govt can renege on Indian treaties, then what prevents it from fucking me over?

[DrDeth]

While I understand Dr Deth's point, I would suggest to him that what is being discussed is not the somewhat metaphysical question of who 'really' has the right to land that has changed hands through war and invasion dozens of times, but what treaty obligations are outstanding with regard to it now. The U.S. does not have a treaty with the Algonquins about land the Iroquois conquere3d from them decades before white settlement, any more than they do with the Philistines regarding their claim to Gath, or with the Byzantine Empire regarding its claim to Trabzon. The Norman Conquest, our own Revolutionary War, etc., do establish a legal right of conquest -- if you as a nation take land by force of arms and hold it against all comers, you perfect a title of sorts to it. The U.S. does have treaties with the Sioux, the Iroquois, the Blackfeet, the Navajos, etc. Article VI of the Constitution demands those treaties be honored, even if it disturbs the laws and regulations of later-formed subordinate jurisdictions.

And one casino, however profitable it may be, is not going to sustain a national economy, not even Monaco's. Many reservations suffer from enormous lack of amenities or a functional economy -- Pine Ridge being an obvious worst-case example. The idea is to use that as a start for building up a tribal-owned business suite that will provide employment for tribe members, plus sponsoring tribe members through college in exchange for their services for a fixed number of years thereafter, e.g., as a doctor or teacher.

Well, if the nation is small enough- the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation do very very well indeed. Of course it only has less than 400 members, but I think each household gets a monthly stipend larger than most peoples monthly paycheck.

And certainly, each Tribe has a right to what is guaranteed them in treaties and later decisions and dealings. A treaty can be amended. Nor are all Indian Treaties actually "Treaties' under the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

And- any Treaty made after 1871 isn't really a Treaty, since by then the various Tribes weren't fully soverigen.
"Treaty-making between various Native American governments and the United States officially concluded on March 3, 1871 with the passing of the United States Code Title 25, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, Section 71 (25 U.S.C. § 71). "

Certainly, however, any agreement that the USA made is legal unless superceded, and of course various Tribes have indeed made suit against the USA for violation of said agreements as Duckster's cite shows.

[Nava]

People like the OP assume that this all took place 300 years ago. It continues to the present with cases like Celilo Falls on the Columbia River. The government decided it wanted to put a dam there, and proceeded to flood fishing grounds that were not only used in antiquity, but right up to the point where the area flooded in about 1959. If you wish to see another instance of present day fuckovers, look up information on the Native American trust, which appears to have been systematically robbed by the government.

When the government shunted the Indian onto worthless, unproductive lands back in the day, it condemned those tribes to a life of squalor for them and not much better for their descendants. Over generations, many become institutionalized in the worst sense of the word. A visit to most reservations is a fairly grim experience.

I don't have a cite, but when I was living in Miami, c. 1996, one of my coworkers was a Seminole, I met through him several members of the tribal council. One of them told me about the US Government wanting to move them from their current stretch of swamp during the 1980s and that they credit Spain's help for getting out of that mess (the help was on the lines of "a reminder of the possibility of an international incident, due to that move being in non-compliance of the treaty by which the US acquired Florida"). Admittedly, for some people anything which took part last year is ancient history, much more so something which happened last century...

[LouisB]

Well, if the natives are lucky enough to be part of a tribe that runs a successful casino, no one needs to work, so I guess the "unemployment rate" would be rather high.And if they are not that lucky, the unemployment rate remains high.

[LouisB]

I know I'm repeating something someone said above, but I spent some time (around six months) on the Pine Ridge reservation, in South Dakota (I was working for the Indian Health Service).

I assure you, the residents of Pine Ridge are still feeling the effects of history. And the phrase "all the luxuries" simply does not describe life in Pine Ridge.It was the Pine Ridge reservation I really had in mind when I posted. I lived in South Dakota and was lucky enough to be on a semi-friendly basis with a few Sioux tribesmen. The people on that reservation are living proof of the axiom "out of sight, out of mind."

People in the South are often excoriated, right here on these boards, about "our" treatment of Blacks. I suggest those people doing the excoriating would benefit by first hand observation of "our" treatment of many of our Native Americans. Treatment that continues even as we speak.

[sqweels]

Although I don't lose sleep over the kind of things the OP complains about, I do think that there needs to be a "statute of limitations" on claims of "I would have inherited more if history had been different, therefore I'm owed".

It's simply not practical for inheritance to be an absolute principle in a modern, diverse society with limited resurces.

...the reservations have limited autonomy ("tribal sovereignty" is the keyword here). They're not full-fledged states, but they have authority to manage a range of own affairs autonomously, and they elect their own officials to run the business of the reservation.
To quibble a bit, there's "limited autonomy", but doesn't "sovereignty" imply an absolute degree of independence from other nations? With their own currency, military, foreign policy, border controls and so on?

[Really Not All That Bright]

No. US states are sovereign. Sovereignty is not an absolute concept.

[Le Jacquelope]

Why are the Native Americans still fighting for land from the governmnet when it was taken away many years ago from descendants that are already dead. I would think just let it die already? I know they suffered in past history, but I assume nobody born today felt the effect or lived through it.
How about the fact that if white settlers hadn't come here at all, these people wouldn't have been dislocated or so drastically reduced in population to begin with?

To say "get over it" is by far the biggest statement in irresponsibility one could possibly make.

[Schnitte]

To quibble a bit, there's "limited autonomy", but doesn't "sovereignty" imply an absolute degree of independence from other nations? With their own currency, military, foreign policy, border controls and so on?

Reminds me of an international law professor at university who would regularly tell us to avoid "the S word". Sovereignty is a word that causes more confusion than clarity in legal discussions, because people think it implies absolute independence of the sort you describe, which it doesn't. In international law, the word is avoided nowadays (and replaced by more sober terms like "statehood"') because there is no question that states (in the international law, not the U.S. constitutional law, sense - in that sense, the U.S. is a "state", i.e. an independent country, but the U.S. states are not) can give up some, or most, of these rights without losing the quality of being states. This is what the EU is all about, and still the EU is not a state, whereas its component entities are; and even more, each time a state concludes a treaty, which creates obligations on it, that treaty limits the freedom of action of the state under international law and thus the state's s "sovereignty". In political science, writers still sometimes say that states "give up their sovereignty", but as said, this term really causes confusion and doesn't have a clear-cut meaning.

[DrDeth]

I suggest those people doing the excoriating would benefit by first hand observation of "our" treatment of many of our Native Americans. Treatment that continues even as we speak.

How do "we" treat them? They live on their own land, with limited sovereignty, run by a tribal council. More or less, what occurs there is the responsibility of the tribal council or the individual. Mind you, I agree that in some areas, the sitrep isn't very good.


Each tribe member may enter the USA and work or live anywhere they choose. It has been quite a while since we discriminated against "the redskins".

[LouisB]

How do "we" treat them? They live on their own land, with limited sovereignty, run by a tribal council. More or less, what occurs there is the responsibility of the tribal council or the individual. Mind you, I agree that in some areas, the sitrep isn't very good.


Each tribe member may enter the USA and work or live anywhere they choose. It has been quite a while since we discriminated against "the redskins".

My personal observation as a resident of both South Dakota and Oregon is that "we" do, in fact, discriminate daily against Native Americans. "They" are denigrated, looked down upon, refused employment (except for the most menial jobs), and are treated with open scorn. This being especially true of South Dakota, where numbers of "us" openly state that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." While this was also true where I lived in Oregon, Oregon had not at that time felt the large influx of immigrants from California; most of Oregon still had a rather "small town" attitude and I can assure you that day to day discrimination against Native Americans was common place. YMMV but I saw that discrimination on a daily basis and I know what I saw. I haven't lived in SD in many years and it's longer yet that I lived in Oregon; change may occurred and I hope it has. But I doubt it.

[DrDeth]

My personal observation as a resident of both South Dakota and Oregon is that "we" do, in fact, discriminate daily against Native Americans. "They" are denigrated, looked down upon, refused employment (except for the most menial jobs), and are treated with open scorn. This being especially true of South Dakota, where numbers of "us" openly state that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." While this was also true where I lived in Oregon, Oregon had not at that time felt the large influx of immigrants from California; most of Oregon still had a rather "small town" attitude and I can assure you that day to day discrimination against Native Americans was common place. YMMV but I saw that discrimination on a daily basis and I know what I saw. I haven't lived in SD in many years and it's longer yet that I lived in Oregon; change may occurred and I hope it has. But I doubt it.

Hell, Oregon sez the same about Californians. They slash tires, write "Californians go home" and so forth.


Here in CA I have not seen any of what you're talking about.

[LouisB]

Hell, Oregon sez the same about Californians. They slash tires, write "Californians go home" and so forth.


Here in CA I have not seen any of what you're talking about.

You should get out and about more. Visit the Pine Ridge reservation; you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

[DrDeth]

You should get out and about more. Visit the Pine Ridge reservation; you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Like I said- it's their land, run by their tribe. Now sure, 5-10 generations ago, they got a raw deal.

But for the last few generations, they can't blame us anymore.

There are all-white localities in the Ozarks, or in Arkansas, etc which are dead poor, too.

[BrainGlutton]

You might ask yourself why poverty/alcoholism/unemployment rates among reservation people are as high as they are.

Because that's just how they lived before Columbus except they didn't even get to be drunk then? ;)

[LouisB]

Because that's just how they lived before Columbus except they didn't even get to be drunk then? ;)But they didn't know they were living in poverty; in fact the poor deluded natives thought they had it pretty good way back then. They moved about freely and were never unemployed as each person contributed what they could and used what they needed. Alcohol merely numbed their senses and helped to make them unaware of the predations of the newcomers in their midst.

I'm now officially bored with this thread.

[Merneith]

I know they suffered in past history, but I assume nobody born today felt the effect or lived through it.

Another aspect which hasn't been touched upon yet is the issue of forced adoptions of Native American children. Forced adoptions took place in various ways and at various times but the idea was to take the children out of their cultural setting and place them with white families. Sometimes this was done for religious purposes. Sometimes as punishment for recalcitrant tribes. Sometimes it was done hoping that the children would go back and encourage their tribes to modernize themselves. But the effect - planned or otherwise - was to weaken Native cultural ties and knowledge.


Here's an article from 2009, in the Denver Post. It discusses an experiment in forced adoptions which took place from 1958-1957.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/frontpage/ci_13887007

In this incident, 395 children were taken from their families and adopted, ostensibly to help save them from poverty. The article also talks with others who were forcibly adopted in differing circumstances.

This isn't a question of ancient history. These acts were done in our own life times and the people to whom they were done are very much still suffering.

I'm not convinced that perpetuating the reservation system is a good long term solution for the Native American tribes. But I honestly can't blame the Native Americans for not trusting the rest of us to find a solution for them.

[DrDeth]

They moved about freely and were never unemployed as each person contributed what they could and used what they needed. .

Moved about freely? Unless they trespassed upon another tribes land, in which case they might be tortured to death. Or unless they were a slve. Or a woman.

Do you have any cites that most Amerinds were communistic? Now sure, in many tribes, they will help each other out to a degree, but hardly to "each person contributed what they could and used what they needed'. In fact the evidence of Buffalo jumps and Potlachs shows that the native American could be wasteful at times.

Amerinds were human, just like you and I. They were greedy and generous, lazy and hardworking, cruel and merciful, and so forth.

In fact before Columbus, many natives were organized into fairly large "empires" with a centralized government, agriculture, slavery, organized religion, taxes and all that stuff.

About the only difference is that they didn't have much metal working, not much in the way of domesticated draft animals, and didn't use the wheel.

[Procrustus]

Another aspect which hasn't been touched upon yet is the issue of forced adoptions of Native American children. Forced adoptions took place in various ways and at various times but the idea was to take the children out of their cultural setting and place them with white families. Sometimes this was done for religious purposes. Sometimes as punishment for recalcitrant tribes. Sometimes it was done hoping that the children would go back and encourage their tribes to modernize themselves. But the effect - planned or otherwise - was to weaken Native cultural ties and knowledge.

.

Not just that. My former mother in law was sent to an Indian Boarding School to learn the "white ways." This was in the 1950s. They made her cut off her braids too.... That kind of thing, on a large scale, also plays havoc with strong families, cultural ties, etc.

[ecco477]

Why do they give Native Americans free bus tokens, scholarships, etc. etc. if they are descendants from the Indians of years and years ago? Native Americans living now did not feel the effect of what the white man did to them, so why do they get all the luxuries still?

Unfortunately, Natives are still to this day suffering many injustices. Land Disputes are common, negotiations with these tribes have fallen flat in court, and countries are still violating sacred land.

In the early 90's, there was A WAR at Oka, sacred land that the Canadian government wanted to use for a Golf Course. The US government was involved. There was bloodshed.

Luckily, when the "officials" stated that natives shot first, a matriarch explained...."we did not shoot at them, they shot at us, the trees don't lie." The gunfire from the Canadian/US officers all ricocheted off the base of the trees directly behind where the natives were hiding; whereas native shots hit the peaks of the trees. We were shooting to defend, Government was shooting to KILL!

Believe me....injustice against Native(Indians are the people with the dots) is still alive and well. As is prejudice.