How about it! Let’s finally give reparations to the native Americans, whose land we have stolen and whom we have ethnically cleansed. It is about time.
Or, perhaps we could return most of our national parks and much federal land to them.
What about $500,000 for each man, woman and child as well as a formal written apology?
How much Indian ancestry will a person have to have to get this compensation? Does it have to be from a tribe that was cheated, or can descendents of members of one of the few tribes that was treated fairly get it too? How are we going to prove line of descent from a culture that did not keep written records?
I’m all for it if I can get the $500,000. I have some Native ancestors, though you couldn’t tell from looking at me.
:rolleyes:
Even if it were economically feasible…
Yea, and let’s give $500,000 to every African American because we enslaved their ancestors. And better give $500,000 to every woman because they couldn’t vote. And then we’ll give 500K to every Chinese because of the way the railroad companies abused them. Oh, let’s not forget the Jews, Italians and Irish who were shut out of jobs. We did pay off the Japanese Americans who were interred during WW2, but they only got about 90K, so we’ll need to make up the difference. Did we get the German Americans who were interred too? (Yes, there were some camps in Texas IIRC.) We’ve also got to take care of all the Union and Confederate prisoners of war who were mistreated in prison camps.
:calculation:
OK, everybody has to pay themselves $500,000 unless they were directly and personally harmed by any of these historical events.
Almost everyone’s ancestors got abused in one way or another by someone else’s. Keep pointing fingers and this kind of thing will never go away.
[Now, concerning the fact that Native Americans have a greater rate of poverty than the general population…]
Sure, we need to be sensitive to the fact that historical forces shape current events, that the majority in some cases induced poverty on minorities, and that poverty can remain for generations even if the racism has died down. Throwing money at the problem will not necessarily help because poverty is not always caused by a lack of money–if that were the case, all lottery winners would be rich. There are other factors involved–personal motivation, initiative, ability to manage money and responsibilities, and plain old luck.
The most reasonable monetary solution I can come up with is to offer financial aid to the most motivated college students from disadvantaged families. I think we are already doing this in our country. For the unmotivated, we have to work on a more personal level–mentoring perhaps? Targeting inner city and rural poor kids? There’s no “one size fits all” solution.
Inevitably determination, character, and opportunity are far more valuable than any currency. Simply treating the symptom won’t cure the disease.
There would be no need to give reparations to American Indians if the United States simply paid them what they are owed. The case I cite above may involve as much as forty billion dollars owed to Indians which has inexplicably disappeared.
As I said in the Chief Wahoo thread, the hardest part of my job is cutting through bullshit like this. I refer you to Kappler’s Indian Affairs Laws And Treaties. If you look, you will see such travesties as the 1818 treaty with the Delawares, where in return for ceding all claim to the entire state of Indiana, the United States is required to set them up with their own country and to fully compensate them for the sale of the land, including setting them up with a perpetual annuity.
The United States did not gain America by conquering the Indians. They bought it. They did not pay, and still have not completely paid for it. And if you’re thinking “it’s not my problem,” think again. Our Indian friends were too clever for that, and insisted on guarantees that would be immune to the test of time.
I also note that these are treaties, the highest law of my land outside of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled countless times that there is no statute of limitations on treaties outside of the limits set forth within each individual treaty, that the United States must adhere to those treaties if they are not specifically abrogated by act of Congress, and that the rights of Indians take precedence above all other claims, including those who are now living on defrauded land.
Harry Truman was the first President to really try to fix the problem. He set up the Indian Claims Commission, which heard hundreds and hundreds of appeals from Indian tribes, because practically none of the treaties signed by the United States were honored in full. They awarded millions of dollars in compensation, and after thirty plus years, the Commission was disbanded after completing only part of their mission.
Here is the bottom line: America purchased most of the United States from its rightful owners, American Indians. In order to ensure Indians that the Great White Father was dealing honestly, an irreversible system of laws was put in place that guaranteed just compensation and Indian sovereignty, with no statute of limitations. The United States then violated its own laws by not justly compensating the Indians, by abrogating its own treaties, and by eroding the sovereignty of Indian tribes. The people of the United States cynically painted themselves into a corner, on the premise that the problem would eventually go away. They were wrong, and we are now the inheritors of the problem.
Sofa King: You seem pretty knowledgeable about this subject… At what point do you think the treaty obligations go away from a practical standpoint? IIRC, right now we are about 111 years from the last major battle (Wounded Knee 1890, correct?), and now, for all intents and purposes, the Indian nations do not have any real sovereignty (as in a recognized nation, seat at the UN, etc.). Certainly the US gov’t should fulfill its promises, but doesn’t it become pointless after awhile for the great-great-great-grandchildren to continue to pay for the sins of their fathers? And even more pointless for new immigrants to pay for them?
Appreciating one’s heritage is one thing. Living in the past is another.
On behalf of my Anglo-American ancestors, I hereby apologize to my Native American ancestors.
::Removing crisp 100-dollar bill from right pocket, and placing it into left pocket::
Done!
Well, mrblue92, that’s the emotive argument that I run across all the time. It makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.
I’ll give you the short version of my opinion, and feel free to grill me for more info if I haven’t adequately explained myself.
Heh. We’re even farther away than Wounded Knee. Congress decreed that the United States should no longer treat with Indians in 1871. However, due to the weight of treaty law and the voluminous statutes, regulations, and case law, those treaties (and lesser statutes) remain in effect. At the risk of repeating myself, Indian law was designed to be quite permanent.
So legally, the answer right now is, “never, or until specifically revoked by Congress.” Practically, I would say that the obligations begin to diminish once the important facets of the agreements have been met. In practical terms, that means land and money that is owed to American Indians should be paid in full. I don’t think I need to point out that not only do Indians legally deserve this, they rather need it, even today.
Well, I disagree. Tribes have their own governments and regulate their own affairs. They enjoy sovereign immunity, just as states do, and states (although they push harder and harder every day) cannot in most cases interfere with Indian tribes. Some tribes control land bases larger than some states and have populations that come close… to Montana’s, anyway. The unique status of Indian tribes defies simple explanation, but in several ways they are (very) roughly similar to the status of Germany and Japan in 1946.
In this unique case, I say, “no.” This is one of the very few examples of “living history,” because of the permanent nature of the laws involved. Permanent clauses are invoked for a very serious reason: they are supposed to dissuade someone from breaking those clauses. They are a warning to the future. Therefore, American Indians have the legal right, the moral right, and really, a duty to pursue just compensation.
Plus, don’t you want to know what happened to that forty billion dollar slush fund? I sure do.
Oh, and spoke-, the point is, that ain’t your hundred dollar bill!
Well, the clock on the wall shows Beer:30, so I’ll mercifully cut this short. Ask me all you want–it’s part of my job to answer questions, and I do enjoy my job.
Yes, I understood that part. I’m not questioning the legal interpretation here; rather, I wonder how much time you think should go by before we say, “It’s enough already.” 200 years? 500 years? 1,000 years? Forever is a hell of a long time.
Except that you seem to imply that some of these treaties have no expiration. I’m not about to try to dig up, read and understand all of them (there must be hundreds and I’m not a lawyer). How long do we pay for a “perpetual” treaty?
I thought I was trying to make it clear I was referring to nation-states like Germany, not the “sovereign state of Louisiana”. Sovereign as in the dictionary definition: “supreme authority”. True national sovereignty. Doesn’t the US Gov’t have the authority to interfere in Indian affairs? And from that standpoint, isn’t abiding by the current treaties (or technically any treaty for that matter) more of a polite and proper gesture from Congress than a real requirement? Yes, technically treaties are legally binding, but we live in a real world where politics can potentially change at the drop of a hat. There’s the letter of the law, and then there’s the practical application of it.
Except for the very obvious differences, which I’ll resist pointing out…
Uh huh. Legal right, sure, I’ll agree with that. Moral right and duty? That sounds suspiciously lawyer-esque, as if someone’s getting their percentage… I personally wouldn’t call milking the gov’t for all I can possibly get my “duty”, but that’s just me.
Me? Not particularly. If it wasn’t spent one place it was spent somewhere else, probably arming the Iraqis when they were still our “friends”…
I understand where you’re coming from here, but when does all this petty squabbling end? Yea, I know 40 billion doesn’t seem petty. But in reality, it’s only money; it’s not going to fix the things that were done no matter how much is spent–it makes me just want to say, “Get over it already, folks.” The whole concept is not much better than the Arabs and Jews killing each other over a little patch of God-forsaken desert. (Yes, I know it’s a totally different situation.) IMHO, life is too short to waste so much time on this kind of thing.
Seems to me if the land was bought, it ought to be paid for. Simple concept. 40 bil is a drop in the bucket as far as the Federal budget is concerned, after all. (This last budget came in just a hair under two trillion, if I remember right.)
Well if we’re going to give reparations for Native Americans, and African Americans, I’m betting us Jews have a good case against Egypt. I mean WE DID BUILD those damn pyramids, ya’ know. And not for fun!;j
Hey, those are great questions.
(Boy, I wish this were a comic strip, where I could simply throw out a few factually incorrect statements and convert you, but Jack Chick has cornered the market on it. Hmmmm.)
Seriously,
Yep. It’s as long as the grass is green and the sky is blue. Pay 'em, and the troubles will quickly alleviate themselves.
Both sides are culpable for the problem. Many Indian tribes are uncompromising, while the United States is continually weaselish. That comment is not intended to disparage the people who intrepidly work on these matters on the Federal side. They have been eternally underfunded, and they have done the best they can to address the matter.
Forever, of course, and it wouldn’t have been difficult had not Congress agreed to the treaties and then decided not to devote the money to the trust funds. And then turned the authority to run the sometimes-paid-for trust funds to an executive bureau which didn’t see the need to have an Accounts Receivabo Department until the 1970s. H-Dog would have their marker-sniffin’ asses!
What we were supposed to do is to set aside a fair amount of money in an account which will appreciate at a rate slightly better than inflation. The profit is expendable for the benefit of tribes. In most cases, that didn’t happen, and when it did, it was managed poorly and perhaps maliciously.
America is a nation of fifty states, a couple of commonwealths that are not also states, a protectorate with a delegate in Congress, a Federal District, and 550 tribes. All, except the District, are sovereign in the eyes of the law, to some extent. All have a government-to-government relationship with each other. We’ll need a whole 'nother thread to go into that.
The squabbling is ended when justice is served. Justice, or its lack thereof, can transcend entire lifetimes, and in this case it has.
My point:
What happens when the obligor on a debt marries the obligee? After a few generations of inter-marriage, who owes whom? (And I’m addressing the OP, here.)
And Sofa King, what do you mean when you say the hundred-dollar bill isn’t mine?
To me, it’s awfully suspect to say that one person owes another based on the race of the two parties involved. At some point, you do have to abandon old grievances, or you wind up like the Balkans or the Middle East.
What was/is being done to Native Americans is worse than what happened to any persecuted/enslaved/discriminated against minority in the US. Blacks could easily return to Africa and turn their back on the racism of America. Jews have a homeland that desperately needs their contribution. Hispanics have a continent and a quarter south of the border to luxuriate in their culture and language. But, even with all the discrimination, few in those groups seem to want to leave the essentially Anglo-based US culture. But I bet it would be real hard to find one Native American who didn’t wish that one of his ancestors had slit Columbus’ throat when they had the chance and that these continents were free of white folks, no matter what stage of culture that would have left them in.
I would not give them money though, I would give them untransferable land. Their status has evolved somewhat from sovreign status to something more like a corporation. Corporations could manage land for the good of the tribe, however so determined, in perpetuity.
The fact is, the government of the United States made legally binding treaties with Native tribes. The gist of the treaties was that in return for the Natives land (every non-native in North America immigrated here remember) the government would assure their well being. Besides the land, the Natives gave up their whole lifestyle. When half-hearted assimilation failed, the piper wanted to be paid. If the government had just paid originally, it’s hard to argue the Natives of the United States today would face the abject poverty, and all the baggage that follows poverty, that they face today. If you want to end these claims for just compensation, pay up! The compensation will not cripple the US economy, I’m sure it could be spread out over a short term such as 5 or 10 years without too much objection. What it all boils down to is: Legal agreements were made between the United States and Native bands, the United States has failed to meet its responsibilities in the agreements.It will all end when the United States meets those resposibilities. But that is just my opinion… 
After reading all the responses, I thiink the best way would be to examine various treaties between the us and various tribes, examine the areas where the US broke the treaties and then work out payment to the tribe either in the form of money or of land. The tribes could dispense the money or land as they wished to their own members - however they wished to define them.
spoke- said
Well, see, that’s where things get a little dicey. Technically, the United States is dealing with 550+ separate nations, who happen to be classified as a particular race. On the other hand, many benefits that Indians are entitled to have been consolidated simply along racial lines. I’ll be the first to tell you that the situation as a whole is a confusing, even surreal, mess.
But I would just like to mention that your contention that Indians have assimilated with American culture is largely untrue. There are still about 1.2 million American Indians living in tribal relations, and those 1.2 million are the ones of which I speak. That, by definition, is not assimilation.
As far as that hundred-dollar bill goes, it’s like this. That hundred dollar bill may have been one dollar owed to a tribe. Over a hundred and thirty years, with inflation and investment, that one dollar could easily be a Benjamin. Had it been properly managed, as promised, in perpetuity, as promised, that one hundred dollars should today be held in trust by the United States for the use of the tribe. It was not. Instead, it became a hundred dollars of the United States’ money, and a small part of it found its way into your pocket. So I probably should have said that part of that crisp c-note is not yours.
I can tell you for certain that the unpaid money “trickled down” to Indian tribes like the last drops of Chuck Berry’s urine onto a prostitute’s face.
I’m here to tell you that we do not have to abandon these old grievances. In fact, we can’t, as far as the law goes. Indian Affairs is the perfect example of we the people setting up a system that is honest but which nobody really cares about, and then we try to forget about it without changing the law to reflect the inherent dishonesty of our actions.
The easiest, simplest, most honest way to deal with the situation comes in two diametrically opposed forms. The first is to pay the goddamned debt, which really wasn’t much then and still isn’t much now, considering what we got out of it. The second is for Congress to honestly and directly sever the government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. Even if you do that, the unmet obligations still hold the weight of law, and likely must be paid.
Therefore, the only course of action which will end the dispute is to pay American Indians what they are owed.
**Well, just a couple days ago the grass was brown and the sky was grey, so…
Makes sense to me. Of course, knowing the way gov’t works (or rather, doesn’t work) it may take a small miracle for either…
I’m personally of the opinion that there’s no such thing as “forever” when it comes to any sort of contract made between people or nations simply because change is a constant. I would just hope that someday we can look back at the past as something to learn from, not something to continually piss people off. I would choose to make that day sooner rather than later.
Pardon me, my optimism is showing…
[hijack]
Bookworm:
The pyramids were built centuries before any Jews were enslaved in Egypt.
[/hijack]
um…and you know this how?
The problem is we’re talking about two different things.
The OP (as I understood it) was talking about a general scheme of reparations, payable to all Native Americans.
Sofa King, on the other hand, is talking about curing specific treaty violations.
I am opposed to a general scheme of reparations on several grounds:[ul][li]It is unworkable for the reasons I have stated. I don’t know about your part of the country, SK, and in fact I don’t know what your part of the country is, but in most of the eastern US there has been a lot of assimilation and intermarriage. The percentage of citizens who have some Indian blood in many Eastern states is going to be very high. Many or even most of the folks who have such mixed ancestry don’t even realize it. Who gets paid? Only the unassimilated Indians? Only full-blooded?[/li][li]If we have to pay reparations to, say, the Cherokee, for the land our ancestors took from them, do the Cherokee then have to pay reparations for the land they took from the Muscogee? Or for the English colonists they killed? And so on…Where does it end? Will the English pay me for the land they took from my forebears? Or will the Norse, Danish and Swedish governments pay reparations for Viking raids? Will Italy pay reparations for the Roman conquest? How far back do we go?[/li][li]Which leads back to the Balkanization dilemma. At some point we do have to let go of past grievances, stop looking ever-backward, and move on.[/li][li]Why should a black man pay reparations to a Native American? Why should a white man whose ancestors came here as indentured servants and virtual slaves make such payment? Would it make a difference if some of those ancestors were killed in an Indian raid? Would that loss merit an exemption?[/ul][/li]
As for treaties, well we have been talking in very general terms, and we’ve all been operating under the assumption that treaties have been broken. I’m sure that assumption is correct, but I would prefer to talk in specifics rather than generalities. Sofa King, can you point us to a specific treaty or treaties which have been violated? I don’t know if you have any links at your firngertips, but if so, those would be appreciated.
If the US has violated a specific treaty with a specific nation or nations, then I’m all for taking a look at remedying any such breach. That is a separate issue from a general payment of reparations.
Even resolving a treaty violation will raise thorny issues. Sure, some Indians have stayed on the reservations and have declined assimilation. On the other hand, some have not. Some have entered US society at large, have assimilated, have intermarried, and now have descendants who may be indistinguishable from those around them. Do such descendants get a piece of the pie?