I’ve hear (don’t remember where) that natives in American is the only ethnic group that doesn’t see upon them selves as American, and that they do not participate in the American society
are these assumptions correct?
I’ve been to a number of American Indian events and in Milwaukee we even have a weekend long festival called Indian Summer. They fly the American Flag and give tribute to their veterans at pow-wows and other events, I don’t know that this represents Native Americans as a whole (because they are not a homogeneous group but a diverse group of clans and nations) but it is my anecdotal experience.
As a member of the Fallon Pauite tribe I can honestly say that nobody in my family thinks this way. My grandparents, who still live on the reservation, are very political and that’s aside from tribal politics.
We bank, shop and dress just like the rest of the white-eye.
(I’m actually part white-eye but I still know what I’m talking about) 
I think I heard it on one of the news channels (CNN or Al-Jazera). It was a discussion about ethnic groups in America and this person said something like that the black population decided to try to be a part of the American society and work for civil right while the natives choose not to participate and rather form their own society
Again my experience is anecdotal, but I think it depends. In Wisconsin we have very organized tribes that, in some cases, have their own schools, police and land. If that means they don’t participate in “society” I guess that’s correct. I think the reality is that the reservations are in practice more like towns that happen to be inhabited mostly by American Indians. My experience is that the reservation is very active in its surrounding community and you often see US flags next to reservation flags (I spend a couple weeks a year fishing and doing outdoor stuff on the Lac Du Flambeau reservation every year). Most of all they are American Citizens and can vote in elections.
I’ve never seen any sign of this. Those Native American communities I’m familiar with have if anything seemed more “patriotic” than most towns; I vividly remember a powwow I attended shortly after the first Gulf War where returning veterans were honored. I’ve never seen any other community honor its veterans with such seriousness.
I get those two mixed up all the time.
That’s quite wrong, and frankly ridiculous. There was a great deal of activism by American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, just as there was by blacks. Some of the activists were separatists (as were some of the blacks), but most were working for civil rights and/or social justice within US society.
Well, I think you (or they) are mixing up two things. The following explanation is hugely oversimplified.
Because Native Americans were here before any white settlers arrived, their right to their lands is generally understood to pre-date any white American right to lands. Leaving aside the whole complicated and shameful way the Native Americans were essentially herded onto reservations, they live on those reservations as quasi-sovereign nations that generally are not subject to the laws of the states in which the reservation is situated. They are, however, subject to many (although by no means all) federal laws, and much of the land held in trust for the Native Americans is administered by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (the BIA).
The Native Americans hold their reservation and trust ands because they’ve always held those lands – they were here first. And they largely do not answer to the states for how those lands (the reservations and trust lands) are run. Native Americans are entitled to full rights as citizens but so long as they are on their Tribe’s reservation (assuming the Tribe has one, or more) they are subject to Tribal law. They are not independent from the U.S., but they are indepdent from the states. They “chose” to be quasi-sovereign because it became clear through white American settlement and conquest that they would not be allowed to be truly sovereign, but most Tribes did choose to retain what rights they were allowed to. Black Americans were never in the same position; they weren’t here before white Americans and never held any land that they could fight to retain.
This is an extremely over-simplified explanation of Native Americans political status, at least on the reservations. Socially, IME Native Americans certainly do consider themselves American. They consider themselves ultra-American – the true Americans, the ones who were here first. IME Native Americans are as patriotic if not more so than white Americans. In particular, regardless of how Native Americans might feel about a particular conflict, many come from historically warrior cultures that value bravery and revere their elders, and they will frequently do more to honor and celebrate veterans of military service than white Americans do.
I’ve never been to a pow-wow that didn’t prominently feature the American flag and only a couple that didn’t make a point to honor veterans. They’re a lot like rodeos in that respect, actually.
Married into an Indian family, and all I can say is that a disproportionate number of Indians serve in the U.S. military, for what it’s worth.
Perhaps you are thinking of the historical fact that before 1924, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations or in the wilderness were not legally citizens of the United States (while those Native Americans who lived among the general population were).
I’ve seen shirts worn by many ethnicities with the caption “The first minute men.”, under a picture of Native American warriors. The quick answer to your question (edited for content, as it’s posted in GQ) is:
Yes, of course, why would you think otherwise?
Not to hijack or anything, but I count 9 grammar or puncuation errors in the OP. I usually don’t notice that sort of thing, and I’m sure there are at least half as many in my post (that’s twice as long). But, seriously, give me a break.
Pygmy Rugger, I don’t believe English is the OP’s native language. Cut him a break, all right?
They probably think of themselves as Americans, but as members of their tribes first.
When I went to New Mexico in December I saw a lot of shirts for sale with pictures of folks like Geronimo, Qwannah Parker, or an assortment of Indians on horseback with the words “The Original Homeland Security” written somewhere. God help me but I thought to myself, “I hope our Homeland Security is more effective”. I got a sick sense of humor.
Because many of them live in quasi-sovereign territories? It seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
Marc
Are non-Native Americans allowed to live on reservations? I’ve always wondered about this.
Generally yes, but it’s a complicated question. Reservation lands are generally “owned” in one of four ways:
-
In fee simple, meaning out-and-out ownership, by an individual or private corporation.
-
In individual allotments, held in trust for individual Native Americans or Native American families (usually administered by the BIA).
-
In trust for the Tribe, again usually administered by the BIA in concert with the Tribe.
-
By the state or federal government (which is mostly the same as “in fee simple,” except that concept doesn’t apply to government entities).
Many individual Native Americans were alloted their own parcels under the Dawes Act. Many sold or were forced to sell those parcels thereafter. Land sold in fee simple is owned by the buyer in fee simple, and the buyer may well be white. Some reservations are now a patch-work of privately-owned land and Tribal lands due to various allotments being voluntarily or involuntarily taken out of trust and sold, some more than 100 years ago. If white people own land in fee simple that happens to be within the physical bounds of the reservation, the Tribe cannot prevent them from living there because it’s not Tribal land and the owners are not Tribal members. This is not to say the land isn’t still subject to Tribal adminsitration regulations, like zoning regulations for example; it is.
For Tribal land, the Tribe can say who can or cannot live there, but I am unaware of any Tribe that refuses to allow any non-natives to live on their reservation. Non-natives are considered guests, not residents, unless they are, for example, married to a Tribal member in which case their residency may be recognized, though that would not make them members of the Tribe. Non-natives who don’t behave can be kicked off the reservation – as, for that matter, can Tribal members (banishment). IOW, if you own the land they can’t kick you off; if they own the land, they can.
Frankly, there aren’t a lot of non-natives that want to live on a lot of the reservations unless they have family or business there, because the reservations tend to be poor, sometimes very poor. But that itself is a generalization: The Flathead Indian Reservation in northwest Montana (Salish-Kootenai Tribes) is in prime tourist/recreation country and lots of people would like to live there (and only about 2/3 of the reservation land is actually in Tribal hands). On the other hand, the Pine Ridge Reservation in southern South Dakota (Oglala Sioux) is in the middle of nowhere and very poor – poorest reservation in the U.S., arguably worst poverty in the U.S. period – and I can’t imagine anyone would live there who didn’t have strong family or busines reasons to do so.
Thanks, Jodi.
Where I am from in Connecticut, we have one of the most, if not THE most successful Native American Tribes in the USA. Have you guys ever heard of Foxwoods . The largest Casino on Earth. Right here in CT. I wouldn’t have believed it either if it wasn’t in my back yard. Personally, I support their efforts. Check out their history… For a small tribe they have a huge voice.
You know, it’s not necessary to quote Jodi’s entire post to make a reply.