View Full Version : US Should Give Stolen Land Back to Indian Tribes
Maybe Britain ought to give hers back to the Druids, then. Then, the Druids need to give it back to the freaking Neanderthals, or whoever they got it from. :rolleyes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/04/us-stolen-land-indian-tribes-un
A United Nations investigator probing discrimination against Native Americans has called on the US government to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward combatting continuing and systemic racial discrimination.
James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.
Anaya said that in nearly two weeks of visiting Indian reservations, indigenous communities in Alaska and Hawaii, and Native Americans now living in cities, he encountered people who suffered a history of dispossession of their lands and resources, the breakdown of their societies and "numerous instances of outright brutality, all grounded on racial discrimination".
"It's a racial discrimination that they feel is both systemic and also specific instances of ongoing discrimination that is felt at the individual level," he said.
Anaya said racism extended from the broad relationship between federal or state governments and tribes down to local issues such as education.
"For example, with the treatment of children in schools both by their peers and by teachers as well as the educational system itself; the way native Americans and indigenous peoples are reflected in the school curriculum and teaching," he said.
"And discrimination in the sense of the invisibility of Native Americans in the country overall that often is reflected in the popular media. The idea that is often projected through the mainstream media and among public figures that indigenous peoples are either gone or as a group are insignificant or that they're out to get benefits in terms of handouts, or their communities and cultures are reduced to casinos, which are just flatly wrong."
Close to a million people live on the US's 310 Native American reservations. Some tribes have done well from a boom in casinos on reservations but most have not.
Anaya visited an Oglala Sioux reservation where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national average, and life expectancy is about 50 years.
The two Sioux reservations in South Dakota – Rosebud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country's poorest living conditions, including mass unemployment and the highest suicide rate in the western hemisphere with an epidemic of teenagers killing themselves.
"You can see they're in a somewhat precarious situation in terms of their basic existence and the stability of their communities given that precarious land tenure situation. It's not like they have large fisheries as a resource base to sustain them. In basic economic terms it's a very difficult situation. You have upwards of 70% unemployment on the reservation and all kinds of social ills accompanying that. Very tough conditions," he said.
Anaya said Rosebud is an example where returning land taken by the US government could improve a tribe's fortunes as well as contribute to a "process of reconciliation".
"At Rosebud, that's a situation where indigenous people have seen over time encroachment on to their land and they've lost vast territories and there have been clear instances of broken treaty promises. It's undisputed that the Black Hills was guaranteed them by treaty and that treaty was just outright violated by the United States in the 1900s. That has been recognised by the United States supreme court," he said.
Anaya said he would reserve detailed recommendations on a plan for land restoration until he presents his final report to the UN human rights council in September.
"I'm talking about restoring to indigenous peoples what obviously they're entitled to and they have a legitimate claim to in a way that is not devisive but restorative. That's the idea behind reconciliation," he said.
But any such proposal is likely to meet stiff resistance in Congress similar to that which has previously greeted calls for the US government to pay reparations for slavery to African-American communities.
Anaya said he had received "exemplary cooperation" from the Obama administration but he declined to speculate on why no members of Congress would meet him.
"I typically meet with members of the national legislature on my country visits and I don't know the reason," he said.
Last month, the US justice and interior departments announced a $1 billion settlement over nearly 56 million acres of Indian land held in trust by Washington but exploited by commercial interests for timber, farming, mining and other uses with little benefit to the tribes.
The attorney general, Eric Holder, said the settlement "fairly and honourably resolves historical grievances over the accounting and management of tribal trust funds, trust lands and other non-monetary trust resources that, for far too long, have been a source of conflict between Indian tribes and the United States."
But Anaya said that was only a step in the right direction.
"These are important steps but we're talking about mismanagement by the government of assets that were left to indigenous peoples," he said. "This money for the insults on top of the injury. It's not money for the initial problem itself, which is the taking of vast territories. This is very important and I think the administration should be commended for moving forward to settle these claims but there are these deeper issues that need to be addressed."
Snip
What a freakin idiot......that is what you get when you appoint a 'politcal advocate' to anything and that is just what the UN wanted.
The worst thing the Govt. ever did was 'give' land/money whatever to the dif tribes......they live in socialist squalor because of it.
Peregrino
05-04-2012, 20:17
James Anaya, the UN special racketeer on the rights of indigenous peoples, ---------------- ad nauseum.
Mejor dicho.
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2012, 20:17
While they're at it, the feds should give all the land they currently control back to the states.
Every national park, national forest, wildlife refuge, BLM lands, and especially all of those lands which have oil and gas under them.
They can have D.C.
The first and only land that I would agree to giving back to its original owners would be the land that the U.N sits on in New York City. I would then kick these sorry individuals asses out of our COUNTRY!
Destrier
05-05-2012, 02:17
I guess having the reservations closed and telling them to go out and get jobs like the rest of us is out of the question. Unless they wish to live like their ancestors did (much like the Amish).
Only if they give up horses and pickup trucks.
I like to see all that Federal land sold to pay off the national debt. And then in an ideal world let's get out of the UN and throw the bums out of New York. They just aren't worth all the hassles they create.
Of course, the indian side of my family is pretty happy with the crappy land they were given on the reservation that no one wanted. Can you say "Black Gold". They're filthy rich..
We used to do medical and engineering project nation building MTTs to the reservations in the early 70s under MG Emerson's SPARTAN programs; they needed the aid. Our Group CDR had property and relatives in Arizona so we wound up providing NHS MEDCAP support and BIA directed engineering projects mostly to the Navajo, Hopi, and Havasupai tribes there in Arizona, although some teams did go work with tribes in Montana, Utah, and the Dakotas.
As far as the UN-American.org thinking in that article goes - astounding :eek: - but certainly not unexpected.
And for the 'pink font' crowd here...a poster I'm surprised the UN didn't include in their report. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
05-05-2012, 07:03
While they're at it, the feds should give all the land they currently control back to the states.
Every national park, national forest, wildlife refuge, BLM lands, and especially all of those lands which have oil and gas under them.
They can have D.C.
:p
Big Teddy :munchin
Papa Zero Three
05-05-2012, 08:40
Maybe Britain ought to give hers back to the Druids, then. Then, the Druids need to give it back to the freaking Neanderthals, or whoever they got it from. :rolleyes:
If you are going to make comparisons, compare apples to apples. As far as I can tell, there never were any treaties signed by the Brits promising the Druids land of their own so they could live as they chose to.
The US Government on the other hand, the Government mind you, actually entered into treaties with various tribes, as many as 500 treaties at one point, through out the years. Most of these treaties were never honored and or were broken by the US Government. We expect the US Government to uphold the promises they make to the people so why shouldn't the existing treaties promised to the various tribes be recognized and honored today? The simple truth of the matter is that the Government at the time saw an opportunity and chose to pursue it over honoring their word.
The reason no one from Congress would meet with the author of that article is that any educated man in the US knows that the US Government royally screwed over the Native Americans and to actually try and go back and honor the agreements that were entered into and that are still valid today, would fundamentally unravel society. Imagine if the treaties were enforced and the land was given back and you got a notice in the mail from the US Government saying:
"Hey, we're sorry, but a long time ago we legally entered into an agreement and promised this land to the native Americans and by law, it's rightfully theirs. So now that house/business and the land it sits on that you thought you owned now belongs to someone else and were gonna have to ask that you move out as soon as possible, thanks".
How well do you think something like that would go over? I highly doubt any of you have lived on a reservation or have a real idea of the poverty that most reservations deal with. Not every tribe has a casino, thats another stereotype and misconception.
De Oppresso Liber is the motto we live by and espouse. Yet we have forgotten about the oppressed right here at home.
Of course, the indian side of my family is pretty happy with the crappy land they were given on the reservation that no one wanted. Can you say "Black Gold". They're filthy rich..
Osage?
Pat
Kyobanim
05-05-2012, 10:25
If you are going to make comparisons, compare apples to apples. As far as I can tell, there never were any treaties signed by the Brits promising the Druids land of their own so they could live as they chose to.
The US Government on the other hand, the Government mind you, actually entered into treaties with various tribes, as many as 500 treaties at one point, through out the years. Most of these treaties were never honored and or were broken by the US Government. We expect the US Government to uphold the promises they make to the people so why shouldn't the existing treaties promised to the various tribes be recognized and honored today? The simple truth of the matter is that the Government at the time saw an opportunity and chose to pursue it over honoring their word.
The reason no one from Congress would meet with the author of that article is that any educated man in the US knows that the US Government royally screwed over the Native Americans and to actually try and go back and honor the agreements that were entered into and that are still valid today, would fundamentally unravel society. Imagine if the treaties were enforced and the land was given back and you got a notice in the mail from the US Government saying:
"Hey, we're sorry, but a long time ago we legally entered into an agreement and promised this land to the native Americans and by law, it's rightfully theirs. So now that house/business and the land it sits on that you thought you owned now belongs to someone else and were gonna have to ask that you move out as soon as possible, thanks".
How well do you think something like that would go over? I highly doubt any of you have lived on a reservation or have a real idea of the poverty that most reservations deal with. Not every tribe has a casino, thats another stereotype and misconception.
De Oppresso Liber is the motto we live by and espouse. Yet we have forgotten about the oppressed right here at home.
I'm with you on this one. Good post.
I'm with you on this one. Good post.
Me too! Very good post.
.......The US Government on the other hand, the Government mind you, actually entered into treaties with various tribes, as many as 500 treaties at one point, through out the years.................
And where did the tribes get the land from? Were they the first and only people to live on it. Did they have clear title to it? Nobody else? Or were they just the ones squatting on it when a superior culture came along?
Why does land title in the Americas begin at 1492?
One culture submerging another has been the norm since history began. Only in the Americas where the superior culture tried to make accommodations has it turned out poorly for both sides - but more poorly for the losers.
The Indian Wars have been pretty much wrapped up since the 1880's. Maybe the modern plight of the Indians is not so much the broken treaties - but that they've been wards of the US Government for the last 120 some years.
Ever notice how inner cities are beginning to resemble reservations in many respects as the years go by?
Papa Zero Three
05-05-2012, 12:42
And where did the tribes get the land from? Were they the first and only people to live on it. Did they have clear title to it? Nobody else? Or were they just the ones squatting on it when a superior culture came along?
Why does land title in the Americas begin at 1492?
One culture submerging another has been the norm since history began. Only in the Americas where the superior culture tried to make accommodations has it turned out poorly for both sides - but more poorly for the losers.
The Indian Wars have been pretty much wrapped up since the 1880's. Maybe the modern plight of the Indians is not so much the broken treaties - but that they've been wards of the US Government for the last 120 some years.
Ever notice how inner cities are beginning to resemble reservations in many respects as the years go by?
Lets not have the chicken and egg discussion. The fact of the matter is that the then US Government recognized it as Native American lands and entered into a legal agreement with the Native Americans and have yet to up hold them.
If word is bond and we consider ourselves to be men of honor and to "do the right thing even when no one is looking" why shouldn't the Government be expected to live up to its commitments?
You can try and rationalize this away all day long but in the end, the US Government was and is as wrong as two boys fucking when it comes to the way they have handled this issue since its inception.
Lets not have the chicken and egg discussion. The fact of the matter is that the then US Government recognized it as Native American lands and entered into a legal agreement with the Native Americans and have yet to up hold them.
If word is bond and we consider ourselves to be men of honor and to "do the right thing even when no one is looking" why shouldn't the Government be expected to live up to its commitments?
You can try and rationalize this away all day long but in the end, the US Government was and is as wrong as two boys fucking when it comes to the way they have handled this issue since its inception.
What would you suggest the government do?
Doc Diego
05-05-2012, 13:39
When I lived in Bishop, Ca I saw first hand how a check from Uncle Suger can ruin a people. I was taught that the money was restitution for their land, but in reality it made the Indian problem disappear. I don't expect our govt.(or the UN) will fix this situation, just make it worse.
When I lived in Bishop, Ca I saw first hand how a check from Uncle Suger can ruin a people. I was taught that the money was restitution for their land, but in reality it made the Indian problem disappear. I don't expect our govt.(or the UN) will fix this situation, just make it worse.
That's about the way I've looked at it for years-haven't even seriously thought about the subject since the late 60's-but Papa Zero Three made a couple of very compelling points in his post.
Definitely something for me to reflect on. You're never too old to learn, or relearn.
As opposed to merely representing a microcosm of the entitlement-dependant cross-section of the Country, the issue with Indians is different in many aspects, and the problem warrants more empathy than I've given it in the past.
.....If word is bond and we consider ourselves to be men of honor and to "do the right thing even when no one is looking" why shouldn't the Government be expected to live up to its commitments?.......
What? Kinda' like "Free Health Care for Life"? That one went the way of the Dodo and the courts backed the government's move.
Breaking it's promise to the military is just a long line of broken promises for the US government. Wait until SS goes tits up.
mojaveman
05-05-2012, 16:13
The Indian reservations in California are small and so are the tribal populations. Since many of them were given the right to build legal gambling casinos the poor Native Americans suddenly became filthy rich. I met a few of the members because my father was a tax consultant and did business with them. 10k a month for just being a member of a casino owning tribe ain't bad money. Most of them don't even work at the establishments they just sit back and collect a paycheck.
Papa Zero Three
05-05-2012, 16:50
What would you suggest the government do?
Thats the problem. There really is no way to go back and fix something that is as broke as this issue. Simply giving the land back, as I stated above, is not an answer/solution to the problem. Doing so would in fact create a pandoras box of new issues with all the people it would in turn displace and who would have to forfeit what they considered their land/property. Simply giving all the Native American tribes that have unfulfilled treaties a lump sum of money back dated to the 1800's wouldn't fix the situation either, not to mention it would be a huge sum of money. I am also certain a lot of tribes would not want what would be considered a payoff or a handout once again from the Government. Its a complex issue and if there had been a clear cut and easy solution I would like to think someone would have implemented it a long time ago.
I think y'all are missing the historical perspective on this issue in the time frame of the thinking during the creation and settling of the USA - anybody ever read of our strongly perpetuated and held cultural beliefs in regards to 'Manifest Destiny' and the 'White Man's Burden' and their influence on our historical narratives like this one?
Today's a different story...and as we used to say at the AmEmbassy-Bonn during the period when 'Die Wand' (IGB) was coming down, the two Germanies were uniting, and Europe was pushing towards a TBD Euro-federalist structure of some sort, "Es geht nur nach vorne!"
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Peregrino
05-05-2012, 20:42
Manifest Destiny is one name for it, though I think Social Darwinism is probably a better descriptor. The Indians could not compete; therefore, they lost (in actual practice they were displaced by a more successful culture). It's only in today's America that everybody gets a trophy; the real world tends to treat losers harshly. If the Indians want to succeed, maybe they ought to try assimilation. To help them along maybe the Federal Government should abrogate ALL of the treaties, close the reservations, and ignore the tribes as political/legal entities. Take away the Benevolent Great White Father B.S. and make them fend for themselves. A level playing field for everybody. The current system has destroyed the Indians as a people. I can't understand why blacks never drew a lesson from what happened to the Indians as soon as they became government dependants; why a significant percentage of blacks think they too are owed a living by "the man". Can't they see what being deprived of initiative and responsibility does? (Another reason to despise socialists.)
mark46th
05-05-2012, 21:36
It was a war. Each side did horrible things to each other. Native americans were a divided people, each nation disliked the other as much as they disliked the Europeans. They were living in an environment that didn't require technological advances to survive. They lost...
Papa Zero Three
05-06-2012, 06:55
Manifest Destiny is one name for it, though I think Social Darwinism is probably a better descriptor. The Indians could not compete; therefore, they lost (in actual practice they were displaced by a more successful culture). It's only in today's America that everybody gets a trophy; the real world tends to treat losers harshly. If the Indians want to succeed, maybe they ought to try assimilation. To help them along maybe the Federal Government should abrogate ALL of the treaties, close the reservations, and ignore the tribes as political/legal entities. Take away the Benevolent Great White Father B.S. and make them fend for themselves. A level playing field for everybody. The current system has destroyed the Indians as a people. I can't understand why blacks never drew a lesson from what happened to the Indians as soon as they became government dependants; why a significant percentage of blacks think they too are owed a living by "the man". Can't they see what being deprived of initiative and responsibility does? (Another reason to despise socialists.)
Your statement smacks of racial bigotry, not sure if that was your intent but thats how it reads. Try assimilation? Last time I checked, Native Americans in the US are considered US citizens and participate in society across many social and economical levels. Lets set the racial differences aside as its clear that is a touchy subject and some people are inclined towards prejudices.
The comparison you made between the blacks "being owed a living" and this issue are two separate and entirely different matters. If you think Native Americans think the US Government "owes" them a living you clearly have missed the point. Its not a handout thats being looked for, its the fulfillment of the promises that were made to them by the US Government in a legally binding document. Last time I looked in the history books, blacks never entered into a treaty with the US Government in order to come to the US and live. Expecting someone to give you something for doing nothing is a handout, expecting someone to give you something for something that you both mutually agreed on and were promised in a legal document is not a handout. Hopefully you can clearly see the differences between the two issues.
Your statement smacks of racial bigotry, not sure if that was your intent but thats how it reads. Try assimilation? Last time I checked, Native Americans in the US are considered US citizens and participate in society across many social and economical levels. Lets set the racial differences aside as its clear that is a touchy subject and some people are inclined towards prejudices.
The comparison you made between the blacks "being owed a living" and this issue are two separate and entirely different matters. If you think Native Americans think the US Government "owes" them a living you clearly have missed the point. Its not a handout thats being looked for, its the fulfillment of the promises that were made to them by the US Government in a legally binding document. Last time I looked in the history books, blacks never entered into a treaty with the US Government in order to come to the US and live. Expecting someone to give you something for doing nothing is a handout, expecting someone to give you something for something that you both mutually agreed on and were promised in a legal document is not a handout. Hopefully you can clearly see the differences between the two issues.
I understand where you are coming from, but here is my question: The Indian Tribes that were stakeholders in the treaties know the USG is never going to give them those lands, for the reasons you have already outlined. So the question becomes, how do these tribes take what they have been given, and make it better for themselves and generations to come?
....... Try assimilation? Last time I checked, Native Americans in the US are considered US citizens and participate in society across many social and economical levels. .........
Some do - many don't.
It seems those who left the reservation behind and strike out as the typical American does, have done what the typical American has done. Some fair well, others not so well.
So what is it about the reservation system that beats down the inhabitants?
And I don't see Peregrino's whole statement as bigoted. Their culture could not compete, they lost and through the reservation system their culture is being diminished.
But why should we worry about preserving their culture? They are Americans - or are they Indians that live in America?
I have a cultural history that was not preserved. The bulk of my family comes from Norway. A thousand years ago my culture were pagans raiding and plundering Europe. I and my new culture have moved on. Time for others to do the same.
Papa Zero Three
05-06-2012, 08:50
I understand where you are coming from, but here is my question: The Indian Tribes that were stakeholders in the treaties know the USG is never going to give them those lands, for the reasons you have already outlined. So the question becomes, how do these tribes take what they have been given, and make it better for themselves and generations to come?
That's the million dollar questions and one I and people much smarter than I have not found an answer to as it's not a simple 1+1=2 solution. In some instances, some tribes are doing very well with what they have and others not so much.
But why should we worry about preserving their culture? They are Americans - or are they Indians that live in America?
I have a cultural history that was not preserved. The bulk of my family comes from Norway. A thousand years ago my culture were pagans raiding and plundering Europe. I and my new culture have moved on. Time for others to do the same.
Native Americans aren't asking anyone to preserve their culture other than themselves. Preserving ones culture is something that varies amongst different cultures and peoples to varying degrees. I know for a fact that there are people in Norway who have preserved the old Norwegian culture, which incidentally is very similar to Native American culture. Thats not to say every Norwegian wants to do that or even considers it but its there if they choose it.
However, lets not loose track of the issue as culture isn't the root of what is being addressed, its that the US Government has reneged on agreements that it entered into with Native Americans. Had those agreements been honored, the landscape of our world might not be much different today but instead of that shopping plaza being owned by company X, it might be owned by a Native tribe, same could be said for mineral and oil rights on some of those lands and the companies that mine them.
I think a big reason why most Americans don't understand this topic is there is a gap in the history involved that isn't taught in schools or that the general public just isn't aware of. Lets re-visit the idea of assimilation. Its not a new idea, in fact it was tried by the US Government on the Native tribes. Children were taken from their homes and placed in christian schools, they were forced to wear clothing that white men and women wore at the time, their hair was cut and they were forbidden to speak in their native language or practice a religion other than christianity or live by their cultural norms. Does any of that sound right to anyone these days as a way to assimilate people into any society? This is just a small example of many of the things that were done that have influenced Native Americans then and now. We claim to be masters of FID and UW and stress knowing the operational environment yet most Americans don't even know the history of how the US interacted with the Native Americans and why many Native Americans feel the way they do about the Government as an entity.
RE: assimilation
SSG June, one of my NCOs at Tower Branch when I was the OIC, was a full-blood Navajo who was also a 'chief' on their tribal council. He was an outstanding Black Hat who had spent some 8 years in the 82nd prior to coming to us - quiet, professional, caring, and technically competent. He used to go back home 3-4 times a year for major council gatherings and, because it sometimes required me to authorize an exception to our leave policies at the time to allow him to go, we used to talk about some of their issues on the reservation, assimilation being one of them. FWIW - he was as flummoxed with the situation amongst his tribe as we seem to be in this discussion.
Time will tell.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Oldrotorhead
05-06-2012, 11:43
While they're at it, the feds should give all the land they currently control back to the states.
Every national park, national forest, wildlife refuge, BLM lands, and especially all of those lands which have oil and gas under them.
The UN shoould also give back all the money it got from the United States that it has wasted. The US Government should collect back all the money it has pissed away on Illegal aliens.
Won't happen but it is good to dream.:D
Lets not have the chicken and egg discussion. The fact of the matter is that the then US Government recognized it as Native American lands and entered into a legal agreement with the Native Americans and have yet to up hold them.
If word is bond and we consider ourselves to be men of honor and to "do the right thing even when no one is looking" why shouldn't the Government be expected to live up to its commitments?
You can try and rationalize this away all day long but in the end, the US Government was and is as wrong as two boys fucking when it comes to the way they have handled this issue since its inception.
There once was a time when a man's word was all that was needed for an agreement. Times have changed to people talking out of the side of one's mouth or with a forked tongue. It is how society is being raised, with both parents working to support their families, or single parents, who is raising our children to be upstanding citizens and not be a bunch of thugs?
The Government has always done and will always do what is in the best interest of the government. We've seen it with "free healthcare", sorry not written in your contract, here's your $500 premium.
There once was a time when a man's word was all that was needed for an agreement.
Well...historically speaking, of course, but that kinda changed around the time of Hammurabi's codification of laws in Babylonian times some several millenia before the CE which established the idea that written or inscribed law actually took precedent over such verbal agreements. Just sayin'...;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
twistedsquid
05-07-2012, 20:22
the government made treaties with cultures that lacked the concept of personal ownership...deliberate?
I don't claim to be an expert but from what I understand the natives never really claimed "ownership" of the lands. Many of the midwest tribes were transient and other tribes who weren't believed that the land was no ones.
So with them never really claiming ownership until ex post facto it doesn't seem to matter in the end.
twistedsquid
05-07-2012, 20:46
I don't claim to be an expert but from what I understand the natives never really claimed "ownership" of the lands. Many of the midwest tribes were transient and other tribes who weren't believed that the land was no ones.
So with them never really claiming ownership until ex post facto it doesn't seem to matter in the end.
yes...exactly