NationStates Jolt Archive

In a thread awhile ago, someone made the statement that Native Americans in the US were special, privileged citizens with all kinds of rights that other Americans don't have -- such as hunting and fishing rights and casinos.

It has been awhile, but I wanted to address this issue and -- if others share this view -- discuss it and perhaps persuade you otherwise.

But first, let us look at the overall status of Native Americans in the US. Setting aside the history, here are some nice facts about current life as a Native Americans from the US Surgeon General and the US Census:

In 2000, about 26% of Native Americans lived in poverty, compared to about 13% for the United States as a whole and 8% of white Americans. Almost one-third of Native American families with children under the age of 5 lived in poverty.


In 2000, the overall unemployment rate in the United States was 3.7%. For Native Americans, it was 7.5%


In 1995, the median household income in the US was $30,056. For Native Americans, it was $19,900. In 2000, the median household income in the US was $41,1994. For Native Americans, it was estimated to be $30,599.


In 1980, only 56% of Native Americans 25-years-old and over had graduated from high school. By 1990, this percentage had increased to 66%, but it was still below the 75% rate for the Nation as a whole. By 2000, it was down slightly to about 62% of Native Americans with a high school degree or equivalent -- while the Nation overall raised to almost 80%.


The prevalence rate of suicide for American Indians is 1.5 times the national rate.


Violent deaths – unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide – account for 75% of all mortality in the second decade of life for Native Americans.


While representing less than 2% of the U.S. population, it is estimated that Native Americans constitute 8% of Americans who are homeless.


In 1997, an estimated 1 out of every 25 Native Americansadults were in the criminal justice system. A 1998 study found that 1 out of every 2 adolescents in a Northern Plains reservation juvenile detention facility had a substance abuse or mental health disorder. Many of these youth had multiple disorders.


Prevalence rates for current alcohol abuse and/or dependence among Northern Plains and Southwestern Vietnam veterans have been estimated to be as high as 70% compared to 11 - 32% of their white, black, and Japanese American counterparts. The estimated rate of alcohol-related deaths for AI/ANs as a whole is much higher than it is for the general population


The rate of violent victimization of Native Americans is more than twice the national average. The higher rate of traumatic exposure results in a 22% rate of PTSD for Native Americans, compared to 8% in the general U.S. population.


Until 1978 when Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act to end "a pattern of discrimination against American Indians," an estimated 25 to 30% of Native Americans children had been removed from their families.

Clicky (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:t7q5dmILl9gJ:www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/cre/fact4.asp+native+american+factsheet&hl=en) and clicky (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/indian/ailang2.txt) and clicky (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_DP3&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP34&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP33&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP20&-selections=label|DEC_2000_SFAIAN_DP3&-reg=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_DP3:001|01A;DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP20:001|01A;DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP33:001|01A;DEC_2000 _SFAIAN_QTP34:001|01A|01B&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN&-TABLE_NAMEX=&-ci_type=T&-CONTEXT=qt&-redoLog=true&-charIterations=01A&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en&-search_map_config=|b=50|l=en|t=406|zf=0.0|ms=sel_00dec|dw=1.92903677595E7|dh=1.4467775819625001E7|dt =gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-1159354.4783500005|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=318:317:316:314:313:323:319|bl=362:393:358:357:356:35 5:354|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=381:403:204:380:369:379:368|g=01000US)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/388271.stm
Unemployment among native Americans is rife, with housing a chronic problem, and income far below the national average. ...

Less than two-thirds of native Americans are high school graduates. Some 29% are homeless, and more than half live in substandard housing.

More than a third of all native American children aged 6-11 live in poverty.

The government estimates that 50% of native Americans are unemployed, and at Pine Ridge the problem is even worse - 73% do not have jobs.

It is home to 38,000 people, but has no public transport network and only a few small native American-owned businesses such as cafes, video stores and petrol stations.

As noted above, reservation life is not privileged. See, e.g., Life on a Reservation (http://www.oprah.com/uyl/angel/uyl_angel_20020211_reservation.jhtml); Native American Youth (http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/nativeyouth/facts.html); Reservation Life Worse Than Iraq? (http://www.fcnl.org/act_nalu_curnt/indian_0317_05.htm); A Quiet Crisis (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf)

http://cadca.org/CoalitionsOnline/article.asp?id=825

Conditions on the [Lakota Sioux Cheyenne River Reservation] are dire. Life expectancy is only 45 years of age, unemployment is at a staggering 87.5 percent, and the high school drop out rate is 70 percent. In addition, nearly 400 elders don’t even have beds to sleep on.

Nor is life off of the reservation particularly privileged

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411233

Urban Indians have more serious health problems than the general population. Accidental deaths run 38 percent higher, cirrhosis and other liver diseases 126 percent higher, diabetes 54 percent higher and alcohol-related deaths 176 percent higher. Their poverty rate is 3.9 times, unemployment rate 2.4 times and homelessness rate three times that of urban whites. Pregnant, urban, Native women had less prenatal care and a higher rate of infant mortality than reservation counterparts in the same state.
I'll come back to the question of the handful of "special" privileges that some Indian Tribes have due to treaties. The short version is this: we forced tribes (mostly at gunpoint) to give us the land we live on in exchange for some reservation land and a few "privileges" like hunting and fishing. We still live on the land. If you think the deal was unfair to us, we should give the land back.

Economic justice and equallity for all races!

Economic justice and equallity for all races!

Agreed.

clearly, these are privilged people. we must do all we can to fight the opression of europeans by our native masters.

Except it's nothing more than a nice idea, there will always be inequality.

Out prosperity was not free, other people paid for it. Modern activists bitch and moan about injustices, but if given the chance they wouldn't want to give up the great life they have and let the Native Americans have their land back.

History has never been good to the Natives. Genocide, wars, oppression, and it's still going on today. :rolleyes:

Except it's nothing more than a nice idea, there will always be inequality.

Out prosperity was not free, other people paid for it. Modern activists bitch and moan about injustices, but if given the chance they wouldn't want to give up the great life they have and let the Native Americans have their land back.

Depends on what kind of equality you are talking about.

Equal rights and equal protection under the law should be a given.

Equal opportunity should be doable. We should at least work towards it. Even if perfect equality is unattainable, we should strive to reach as close as we can.

Equality of outcome isn't what we want.

Modern activists bitch and moan about injustices, but if given the chance they wouldn't want to give up the great life they have and let the Native Americans have their land back.

...And so, what? You would want, or be willing, to give up the great life you have and let the Native Americans have their land back, then? No?

Then why are you bothering to bring up how "modern activists" wouldn't? And how do you know this for certain? Do you know most of them or...?

Yeah, just drive through a reservation and see how privilegded the people are...

Erm, you do know that 25% of an American population is roughly 50 million (*shrug*) and 25% of Native American population is.....nowhere near 50 million?

My plan has always been for when I somehow sieze power is to simply evacuate all humans and vestiages of civilization out of the virtually empty mid western and western states like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana etc. Then we let the heards of buffalo, antelopes, bears and all that run free. Native americans can move there if they want but nobody else can live there. Eventually when cloning becomes feasible, some of these areas will be converted into dinosaur parks provided they have a warm enough climate. That would be so cool. I think we should do it. Hardly anybody lives there anyway.

Erm, you do know that 25% of an American population is roughly 50 million (*shrug*) and 25% of Native American population is.....nowhere near 50 million?

I'm missing your point. Please explain.

In 2000, about 26% of Native Americans lived in poverty, compared to about 13% for the United States as a whole and 8% of white Americans. Almost one-third of Native American families with children under the age of 5 lived in poverty.


In 2000, the overall unemployment rate in the United States was 7.4%. For Native Americans, it was 7.5%


In 1995, the median household income in the US was $30,056. For Native Americans, it was $19,900. In 2000, the median household income in the US was $41,1994. For Native Americans, it was estimated to be $30,599.


In 1980, only 56% of Native Americans 25-years-old and over had graduated from high school. By 1990, this percentage had increased to 66%, but it was still below the 75% rate for the Nation as a whole. By 2000, it was down slightly to about 62% of Native Americans with a high school degree or equivalent -- while the Nation overall raised to almost 80%.


The prevalence rate of suicide for American Indians is 1.5 times the national rate.


Violent deaths – unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide – account for 75% of all mortality in the second decade of life for Native Americans.


While representing less than 2% of the U.S. population, it is estimated that Native Americans constitute 8% of Americans who are homeless.


In 1997, an estimated 1 out of every 25 Native Americansadults were in the criminal justice system. A 1998 study found that 1 out of every 2 adolescents in a Northern Plains reservation juvenile detention facility had a substance abuse or mental health disorder. Many of these youth had multiple disorders.


Prevalence rates for current alcohol abuse and/or dependence among Northern Plains and Southwestern Vietnam veterans have been estimated to be as high as 70% compared to 11 - 32% of their white, black, and Japanese American counterparts. The estimated rate of alcohol-related deaths for AI/ANs as a whole is much higher than it is for the general population


The rate of violent victimization of Native Americans is more than twice the national average. The higher rate of traumatic exposure results in a 22% rate of PTSD for Native Americans, compared to 8% in the general U.S. population.


Until 1978 when Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act to end "a pattern of discrimination against American Indians," an estimated 25 to 30% of Native Americans children had been removed from their families.


I have no doubt about the numbers, but I'd be interested in seeing numbers stacked side-by-side against not just national averages, but against other regional and demographic specific groups.

I'd also be interested in seeing some various (and preferably competing) causal connections. Like, for example, maybe NA's have a higher genetic potential to have diabetes, or maybe they have a genetic tendency to be victimized by alcoholism more easily. Perhaps their access to schools is insufficient (which I don't doubt.) I don't really know.

Just me being nit-picky.

My plan has always been for when I somehow sieze power is to simply evacuate all humans and vestiages of civilization out of the virtually empty mid western and western states like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana etc. Then we let the heards of buffalo, antelopes, bears and all that run free. Native americans can move there if they want but nobody else can live there. Eventually when cloning becomes feasible, some of these areas will be converted into dinosaur parks provided they have a warm enough climate. That would be so cool. I think we should do it. Hardly anybody lives there anyway.

Um, all of the non-plains/Rocky Mountain tribes aren't really going to appreciate any of this. Not all Indians are Sioux.

(Not to mention the populations of those areas. Or anyone living there when you release dinosaurs.)

I'm missing your point. Please explain.
An example...

In 2000, the overall unemployment rate in the United States was 7.4%. For Native Americans, it was 7.5%
The U.S. unemployment rate could very well be 10 million in this scenario (I refuse to bother doing that math!)

But the Native American rate could be anywhere between ten thousand to a few hundred thousand.

Just pointing out stuff I learned in elementary. Otherwise it's a good argument.

I have no doubt about the numbers, but I'd be interested in seeing numbers stacked side-by-side against not just national averages, but against other regional and demographic specific groups.

I'd also be interested in seeing some various (and preferably competing) causal connections. Like, for example, maybe NA's have a higher genetic potential to have diabetes, or maybe they have a genetic tendency to be victimized by alcoholism more easily. Perhaps their access to schools is insufficient (which I don't doubt.) I don't really know.

Just me being nit-picky.

Go for it. I'd love to see those numbers as well.

Indians don't have special privileges - They have special powers. I am not familiar with them all, but know for a fact that Native Americans can talk to animals and be in two places at the same time.

Go for it. I'd love to see those numbers as well.
ahhhh, but I'm lazy...irregardless, I am looking at the census web site, trying to figure out what to click on. There are a lot of options.

An example...


The U.S. unemployment rate could very well be 10 million in this scenario (I refuse to bother doing that math!)

But the Native American rate could be anywhere between ten thousand to a few hundred thousand.

Just pointing out stuff I learned in elementary. Otherwise it's a good argument.

Actually, I screwed up. The unemployment rate for US as a whole was 3.7%. For Native Americans, it was 7.4%

Obviously, there are still fewer Native Americans that are unemployed than there are unemployed people of other groups -- but the rate of unemployment for NAs is double than of the general population.

ahhhh, but I'm lazy...irregardless, I am looking at the census web site, trying to figure out what to click on. There are a lot of options.
Heh, be happy if you don't have to go state-by-state.

Um, all of the non-plains/Rocky Mountain tribes aren't really going to appreciate any of this. Not all Indians are Sioux.

(Not to mention the populations of those areas. Or anyone living there when you release dinosaurs.)
Everybody would love it. It would be awesome. Millionaires could go on crazy safaris if they payed the exorbinant fees. You could hunt grizzly bears with muskets and bowie knives. Plus there aren't that many native americans' total left anymore anyway. I don't think the Rocky mountain indians would be crowded out. Those that decided to move there would have ample space to restart their civilizations where they left off 200 years ago.

As far as the dinosuars are concerned I make no apologies for the inevitable t-rex rampages. I think we could use a natural predator out there weaning out the weak members of the human heard. Everyday would seem more rich and exciting knowing you could be dinosaur snackums.

Actually, I screwed up. The unemployment rate for US as a whole was 3.7%. For Native Americans, it was 7.4%

Obviously, there are still fewer Native Americans that are unemployed than there are unemployed people of other groups -- but the rate of unemployment for NAs is double than of the general population.
Well that's all well and good. Rates and everything....

http://www.census.gov/

overwhelmed......

all yours everybody

Well that's all well and good. Rates and everything....

Come now. What else would you look at?

If you have some other measures, feel free to share the results. I'm fairly certain Native Americans are, on average, worse off than the general population by almost any measure.

Come now. What else would you look at?

If you have some other measures, feel free to share the results. I'm fairly certain Native Americans are, on average, worse off than the general population by almost any measure.
Uhhh....I dunno....Cambodians? Blacks? Hispanics? *shrug*

Seriously though, you'd have to look at ALL the numbers to make that conclusion. I'm sure NONE of us want to do that.

Actually, I screwed up. The unemployment rate for US as a whole was 3.7%. For Native Americans, it was 7.4%
Damn, I hope so. You almost launched me on a tirade Cat. Please do be more careful in the future. :)

Anyway, any idiot can see that the reservation system has failed the Native American population. They would probably be better off attempting to make it in the outside world, as many do quite well. The issue is, should they have to, to prosper? I have no basis for this opinion except for my family history, which includes Sioux on both sides prospering outside of reservations.

Uhhh....I dunno....Cambodians? Blacks? Hispanics? *shrug*

Seriously though, you'd have to look at ALL the numbers to make that conclusion. I'm sure NONE of us want to do that.

That is what I did. I took the numbers from the Census.

WTF other numbers are you talking about?

I think they deserve special privileges, I mean, after what we did to them?
They deserve special privileges more than most people.
Plus, Isn't it mainly our fault they got sick? We did bring the diseases over from europe.

Now education, public education is crap anyway...
It should be Classical education instead of this modern, "do what makes you feel good" education.

Im going to play devils advocate here and take the other side. I say we do away with all reservations, government handouts and disallow all the hunting, fishing and gaming rights. I say we intergrate them into society with everyone else. Problem solved. And no we dont owe the current indian populace anything as well we dont owe todays blacks reparations for slavery or reparations for the ill treatment of irish either. Its time for everyone to be treated the same.

Im going to play devils advocate here and take the other side. I say we do away with all reservations, government handouts and disallow all the hunting, fishing and gaming rights. I say we intergrate them into society with everyone else. Problem solved. And no we dont owe the current indian populace anything as well we dont owe todays blacks reparations for slavery or reparations for the ill treatment of irish either. Its time for everyone to be treated the same.

So screw the treaties and the part of the Constitution that makes them the law of the land then.

Just keep the land and fuck 'em.

So screw the treaties and the part of the Constitution that makes them the law of the land then.

Just keep the land and fuck 'em.


There you go, that's the spirit. :p

Anyway, we know the treaties aren't going to be broken anymore, but the truth is, because of them, until the natives begin to help themselves by importing into the reservations new jobs and industry OR move their children out, it's not going to get better.

At the very least, we need to remember to never make unlimited treaties with stone-age cultures again, (like in Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesian Islands etc.,) because at some point, the ability to live off the land as the only needed resource for a culture is not going to be sufficient.

Perhaps agricultural exports can be improved to become competitive with the large scale corporations, but the other farmers and ranchers aren't going to be happy if they get too much help from the feds because that industry is already over-stretched and high tech.

Perhaps textiles and clothing or ceramic tiles (household stuff for floors and walls, not the novelty stuff they produce now) can be produced starting with cheap labor (perhaps worker owned), recycled material construction milling (long lasting deck material etc.,) can be produced on some reservations.

All of that is going to take a lot of start up money though, and training and recruiting of workers... and obviously, there are too many reservations, from Alaska to Texas for new industry to start up in all of them. North Dakota, for example, can't keep population in the state, or out of the reservation, lots of places need help.

The states the reservations are in should be forced to subsidize the reservation education system at least to the level required for community college entrance ability, and then, provide them with grants and scholarships as necessary...

I'm out of ideas. I can't force them to give up commercial fishing, for example, but maybe they don’t need to… If they are determined to make things better for their children, and if they aren't required to leave their communities, things can get better, but if they aren’t willing to take some risk by accepting help and investment from outside, it might take another hundred years..

There you go, that's the spirit. :p

Anyway, we know the treaties aren't going to be broken anymore, but the truth is, because of them, until the natives begin to help themselves by importing into the reservations new jobs and industry OR move their children out, it's not going to get better.

Did you catch the quotes on how bad it is for urban (non-reservation) Indians?

At the very least, we need to remember to never make unlimited treaties with stone-age cultures again, (like in Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesian Islands etc.,) because at some point, the ability to live off the land as the only needed resource for a culture is not going to be sufficient.

Perhaps agricultural exports can be improved to become competitive with the large scale corporations, but the other farmers and ranchers aren't going to be happy if they get too much help from the feds because that industry is already over-stretched and high tech.

Perhaps textiles and clothing or ceramic tiles (household stuff for floors and walls, not the novelty stuff they produce now) can be produced starting with cheap labor (perhaps worker owned), recycled material construction milling (long lasting deck material etc.,) can be produced on some reservations.

All of that is going to take a lot of start up money though, and training and recruiting of workers... and obviously, there are too many reservations, from Alaska to Texas for new industry to start up in all of them. North Dakota, for example, can't keep population in the state, or out of the reservation, lots of places need help.

The states the reservations are in should be forced to subsidize the reservation education system at least to the level required for community college entrance ability, and then, provide them with grants and scholarships as necessary...

I'm out of ideas. I can't force them to give up commercial fishing, for example, but maybe they don’t need to… If they are determined to make things better for their children, and if they aren't required to leave their communities, things can get better, but if they aren’t willing to take some risk by accepting help and investment from outside, it might take another hundred years..

1. Of course, it is all their fault. It isn't like we took most of their land, put them in largely god-forsaken areas, moved them anytime it turned out their land had some value, discriminated against them, etc ...

2. Some of those "stone age" cultures were pretty damn sophisticated before we came along and started killing them and giving them diseases. We weren't so advanced either.

EDIT: Plus, aren't you one of those that thinks we should base our behavior on an even more primitive culture?

Did you catch the quotes on how bad it is for urban (non-reservation) Indians?



1. Of course, it is all their fault. It isn't like we took most of their land, put them in largely god-forsaken areas, moved them anytime it turned out their land had some value, discriminated against them, etc ...

2. Some of those "stone age" cultures were pretty damn sophisticated before we came along and started killing them and giving them diseases. We weren't so advanced either.

EDIT: Plus, aren't you one of those that thinks we should base our behavior on an even more primitive culture?


I don't believe I insulted anyone. It's a fact, not a derogatory name-calling situation, to point out that without outside investment a stone-age culture is not going to ‘catch-up’ all on it’s own by commercial fishing and being regulated to accepting welfare because there is no realistic way to pay for a modern day standard of living by collecting harvest from the land (outside of commercial farming as I already mentioned).

If it’s the government’s fault or their fault, or nobody’s fault, that is all entirely irrelevant at this point. How much good would it do now to go into the reservations and compensate each and every Native family a three hundred thousand dollar house. Forty years from now, without jobs, they'll have big old broken down houses.

What if we build community Universities and give everyone that wants it, essentially, a free 16 year education? (This is partially already being done except they are frequently required to leave the reservations for the higher education part of their schooling ~ but drop-out rates in high-school are too high and family structure is essentially destroyed from poverty and drug use and general hopelessness from abandonment etc., that the teenagers aren't being 'directed' to higher education as much as they should be...) Without jobs though, when they get done with school, they'll still have to leave the reservations or just sit around being educated and unemployed.

Getting plants and factories built on the reservations to start producing textiles, industrial goods or harvestable crops and food products, wherever these things are possible, is honorable and sustainable work for anyone, regardless of ethnicity, I fail to understand your objection.


Do you have a better suggestion or would you just rather sit around bitching and moaning about how bad things are for them and pointing fingers about who’s fault it all is ~ or would you actually like to contribute a suggestion about how it might reasonably be resolved so that the next generation does not end up in the same situation? Thankfully there is stuff being done, just not enough. Everyone can do better.


Some links of things that are being done:

Native American Journalist Association
http://www.naja.com/


Administration for Native Americans:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ana/index.html

Native American Business Alliance Celebrates 10th Anniversary at Annual National Business Conference Focused on “Strategic Growth & Planning for Future Generations.”:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/5/prweb239049.php

Textiles:
http://www.nativethreads.com/about/manufacture.php

Independant Indian News:
http://nativetimes.com/

So screw the treaties and the part of the Constitution that makes them the law of the land then.

Just keep the land and fuck 'em.

If they own the land then they own the land. I meant take away the reservation titles.

I dont want to see no more damn claims to land thats worth alot of money. It happens in the Puget Sound area where I happen to live. It just so happens that the Indians with help of the Nez Pierce and the Eastren Federation of tribes terrorized the europeans for along time in this particular area. Until the Federal government sent troops and at a decisive battle at connels prarie near Tacoma that the Indians were defeated. Mind you the Indians in my area only lived on coastal areas and the waterways. They did not live inland due to dense growth. So to say that us white man is living on Indian land is a farce. There were vast areas unihabitated by any humans.

The natives in my area sell cigarettes, fireworks, fish, hunt and run casinos. They are far from poor. In fact the Puyallup tribe of Tacoma recieves on average of 5k per household (monthly) because of the Native Casino in town. Sticking it to the white,black,asian,latino man i guess. I just want equal treatment for all. Not a special "You owe us" class.

Well, if we had continued the Ghost Dance, it woulda been all right. Wovoka's vision of Jesus and Wakan Tanka woulda been fulfilled, the paleface wounds would be sent away, and Tatanka would return. :mad: :mp5:

If they own the land then they own the land. I meant take away the reservation titles.

I dont want to see no more damn claims to land thats worth alot of money. It happens in the Puget Sound area where I happen to live. It just so happens that the Indians with help of the Nez Pierce and the Eastren Federation of tribes terrorized the europeans for along time in this particular area. Until the Federal government sent troops and at a decisive battle at connels prarie near Tacoma that the Indians were defeated. Mind you the Indians in my area only lived on coastal areas and the waterways. They did not live inland due to dense growth. So to say that us white man is living on Indian land is a farce. There were vast areas unihabitated by any humans.

The natives in my area sell cigarettes, fireworks, fish, hunt and run casinos. They are far from poor. In fact the Puyallup tribe of Tacoma recieves on average of 5k per household (monthly) because of the Native Casino in town. Sticking it to the white,black,asian,latino man i guess. I just want equal treatment for all. Not a special "You owe us" class.

Meh.

You forget I am from the Northwest as well. Your claims of native wealth are -- to say the least -- exaggerated.

And your history is a bit weak.

I worked on the Nez Perce reservation. I know exactly what they traded away and for what. Don't tell me they are living high on the hog.

I'd love to see proof that every household of the Puyallup tribe gets $5,000 per month from the Casino. If so, good for them. That is slightly better than the national median income.

The rights to the reservations and to certain hunting and fishing we part of the deal in which we got the land you live on in exchange. Tribes also remain partially sovereign. Thus, their are different laws applicable to casinos, cigarettes, fireworks, etc. You wish to unilaterally cancel the deal.

Fine. We unilaterally cancel your citizenship as well. Good luck making your way in Mexico.

Tell me why the one violation of the law and Constitution is valid and the other is not.

It isn't about "special rights" or "sticking it" to anyone. It is a matter of treaties. Contracts between the US and the respective tribes. So many conservatives and libertarians go on about economic freedom and the value of contracts. OK. Then don't bitch about the contract we have with the Indians.

They did get the short end of the deal. Complaining about the few scraps of land and minor rights they retained is very bad form.

There were vast areas unihabitated by any humans.

not really. sparsely populated and seasonally inhabited or used, yes. but not uninhabited. if it could be lived on, it was.

I would appreciate it greatly if people stopped referring native Americans as "Indians".

It is an offense to them and is an offense to Indians. :)

All because Columbus lost his way. Idiot.

realisticaly has´nt giving these "priviledges" to the in Indians caused more long term problems than its solved?
They don't seem to a benefitted at all from the last 80 years of US growth, except for the fact that they are allowed to build casinos....

5000 per month would be about 70000 per year, which, if it is above the national median income, is higher then i expected.

Secondly, citenzenship may be guaranteed by the consitution once gained, but the United States is not required to follow treaties it has made. In fact, the US is known for ignoring treaties it has agreed to.

As for the urban population statisitic, it could be easily skewed by the low population of Native AMericans living in urban, a broad term, areas.

The concept of reservations needs to be given up. It is outdated and at times abused. The reservations once were state land, and according to the constitution a state and its implied land remain part of the united states indefinetly. If we want to force countries, such as China, to conform to an unprivledged market, ie one without sweat shops and child labor, we can at least agree for all citizens of the United States to operate in the same market, ie without lucrative casino liscensing. Hypocricy has never been a good way of changing others views.

Except it's nothing more than a nice idea, there will always be inequality.

Out prosperity was not free, other people paid for it. Modern activists bitch and moan about injustices, but if given the chance they wouldn't want to give up the great life they have and let the Native Americans have their land back.
Hmmm...except for those of us who happen to be activists AND Native Americans:)

I just want to say, thank you Cat. Everyone seems to have an opinion about us, but no one really wants to talk about us, or to us in any meaningful way. I don't know how many times I've tried to start a similar thread, and gotten hardly any response. Maybe its easier if people think that the people involved won't be around to discuss this with? I'm not sure.

Indians don't have special privileges - They have special powers. I am not familiar with them all, but know for a fact that Native Americans can talk to animals and be in two places at the same time.
Seriously? Man...why didn't I know this? *talks to a raven and is in the bathroom and her office at the same time*

I would appreciate it greatly if people stopped referring native Americans as "Indians".

It is an offense to them and is an offense to Indians. :)

All because Columbus lost his way. Idiot.
They'll keep calling us Indians until our own countries stop doing so. We are still governed by the "Indian Act" in Canada.

I prefer aboriginal. Most Canadian Natives do. I hear it's not popular in the US though.

And let us not forget...the attempts to wipe out our culture, and kill our native identies continued well into the twentieth century. The last residential school in Canada closed in Saskatchewan in 1996. Sexual and physical abuse were common, children were forbidden to speak their language or practice their culture (though that stance softened in the late 80s, by then the damage had been done). Families were broken up, and children so alienated from their culture, yet not accepted into 'white' culture, lost, adrift, that communities are forever marked by 'before residential school' and 'after residential school'. I would challenge any one of you who think we should 'get over it' to imagine honestly what it would be like if you and your siblings were forcibly removed from your homes, beaten when you spoke English, told you were savage, evil, sinful, forced to learn that everything about you was bad, raped at night by priests...how well would you do after an experience like that? This is not ancient history. This is my parent's generation, even some of my cousins went to residential schools.

Let All that is Indian Within you Die!! ( http://www.twofrog.com/rezsch.html)

Residential Schools in Canada (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/gs/schl_e.html)

realisticaly has´nt giving these "priviledges" to the in Indians caused more long term problems than its solved?
They don't seem to a benefitted at all from the last 80 years of US growth, except for the fact that they are allowed to build casinos....
We have been given no privileges. Treaties were signed with sovereign Indian nations. Signed, and quite often, broken. Our territories were settled, and we were removed to small plots of land, despite the fact that few tribes were not nomadic. We lived off the land, and to some extent, are allowed to continue hunting in our traditional territories. These things were not given...they were allowed to continue by the conquerors. Residential schools were not given...the were forced upon us. When some bands found minerals under their 'land', depending on the treaty they signed, they could either exploit that resource or not. This was not 'given' to us. What, exactly, has been 'given' us?

While the fact remains that these aboriginals were abused, the overall system could be better if they were weaned off national pay-out teat. Yes, they should be compensated, those who were abused more recently, but, everything more than twenty-years past, unless there is something relevant, should be left to rest.

I'm tired of seeing my tax payer dollars go to pay some native indian because someone else's bloody ancestors annexed that poor native's ancestor's land some long years past.

I hate these pay outs as much as I hate affirmative action. it's still discrimination and I for one think that this generation and those who WERE NOT involved shouldn't pay for our ancestor's sins. We have no control over what they did! And it's about high and bloody damn time that the aboriginals learned this!

As for those of you who think the reservation system should be disbanded, you are forgetting an important thing. Native culture is not middle-class white North American culture. We are not individualistic, we are communal. Our traditions, our families, our identities are formed on that basis. My family is not a nuclear family. It includes hundreds of blood relations, from great aunts to third and fourth cousins. We are all family. Aunties raise the children in common. Even our language reflects this...my mother's daughters are my sisters in Cree. There is no distinction between us as being daughters of sisters.

You might say, so what? Modernise! Get used to things!

You forget. We were here when you came. You are the immigrants, not us. Why should we have to give up our identities, our way of life, simply because you think your way is better? It works for you. It doesn't work for us. Those of us cut adrift, lost in the cities without ties to our people, those of us who have come from broken families, broken because they were separated from the community...we are not well, we are not succeeding in your individualistic world. Take away our reservations, as bad as they are, and we are well, and truly lost. We are dead. We are no longer aboriginal. That is not the answer.

Ok, so by your logic, this puny reservation is your ENTIRE culture?

The people who have immigrated here recently are just as displaced, but they find their own place within the rest of North American (or whereever) society and fit in, while still holding onto their cultural heritage (and baggage); they even find ways to live in their own ghettos. And yet, we don't need to give them reservations.

I'm not any particular culture because I'm mixed blood.

yes, My family is no longer just one race, but we are not dead! we're a new race; we're a new culture, one that embraces a new set of ideas. It's called ultural evolution. Everyone has a role in it, whether subtle or direct.

While the fact remains that these aboriginals were abused, the overall system could be better if they were weaned off national pay-out teat. Yes, they should be compensated, those who were abused more recently, but, everything more than twenty-years past, unless there is something relevant, should be left to rest.

I'm tired of seeing my tax payer dollars go to pay some native indian because someone else's bloody ancestors annexed that poor native's ancestor's land some long years past.

I hate these pay outs as much as I hate affirmative action. it's still discrimination and I for one think that this generation and those who WERE NOT involved shouldn't pay for our ancestor's sins. We have no control over what they did! And it's about high and bloody damn time that the aboriginals learned this!
And yet, it is just that we pay for your ancestor's sins?

This is not simply about the annexation of land. This is about cultural genocide...and it is still going on. We are losing ourselves, losing our language, losing our culture, and that is seen as a positive thing. You just don't get this. You want US to change, to completely change and fit it, without any give on your part? You made treaties with us, again, as sovereign nations, not as supplicants, not as inferiors. Just as you would honour a treaty with a foreign nation, so should you honour it with us.

Instead, we are forced into your schools systems. Systems which still do not reflect our way of life. We need year round schooling, with time off during the hunting seasons. We don't get it. We need to be allowed to learn our language in school. We can only do this on reservation schools. Our communities are plagued with FASD, alcoholism and drug abuse, sexual and physical abuse, poverty, suicide, violence of all kinds...and we are considered culpable, alone, for all of this. Deny it. Deny that the residential schools had any impact. Deny that losing piece by piece, our cultural identity has had any impact. Deny that you have anything to do with the continuation of the apartheid that forever keeps us on the outside. Revile us when we don't make it...revile us when we finally DO, bringing employment into our communities with casinos, or by exploiting subsurface resources. You don't care to understand us because you don't want us to be who we are...you want us to assimilate, just like you have always wanted. That is more than clear.

Ok, so by your logic, this puny reservation is your ENTIRE culture?

The people who have immigrated here recently are just as displaced, but they find their own place within the rest of North American (or whereever) society and fit in, while still holding onto their cultural heritage (and baggage); they even find ways to live in their own ghettos. And yet, we don't need to give them reservations.

I'm not any particular culture because I'm mixed blood.

yes, My family is no longer just one race, but we are not dead! we're a new race; we're a new culture, one that embraces a new set of ideas. It's called ultural evolution. Everyone has a role in it, whether subtle or direct.
We are not immigrants. Understand that difference. We have no cultural homeland to 'go back to'. This is it. When we lose it, we lose ourselves. When an immigrant feels culturally dislocated, they at least know their culture continues on. We have no such assurance.

What you are talking about is not cultural evolution. It is cultural assimilation. And we resist it.

*SNIP*
BITTER! You're damn bitter!

What I'm saying is that people like me and my generation; my parent's generation; everyone who NEVER had a damn bloody thing to do with the displacement of the native indians should NOT have to pay the price because of a damaged culture.

Those of us who were never there had nothing to do with it, and yet we're expected to pay? That's pure blackmail! It's extortion! No... it's blood highway robbery!

I don't give a flying damn if you assimulate or not; just stop whining! Most o us had NOTHING, NOTHING to do with the treatment, and the government is forced to give handouts from tax payer money! Money that could be used ti improve life for ALL members of society instead of one segment!

Resist whatever the flying rat's ass you want! Just leave those of us who had nothing to do with it, OUT OF THE PICTURE! We have no reason to pay for something we never did. This is a society of equals and right now, it's not very equal for those of us who weren't lucky enough to be born as people of colour!

Stop holding "us" responsible! I NEVER DID A BLOODY THING TO YOU!

It was the "ancestors" of the "white" people who did.

The mid-late generations of the 20th century never forced any of this crap on your people!

Get over this use of targetting those of us who have done no wrong!

yes there are corrupt police officers, but they are not the rest of us who are tired of this "compensation" issue when we've done nothing that justifies such payouts and having to cater to the needs of those who were wronged by generations who are now long since dead!!!

BITTER! You're damn bitter! You're damn right I'm bitter. Bitter at this ignorance, which is the position you are speaking from. Pure, unadulterated ignorance.


What I'm saying is that people like me and my generation; my parent's generation; everyone who NEVER had a damn bloody thing to do with the displacement of the native indians should NOT have to pay the price because of a damaged culture.

Those of us who were never there had nothing to do with it, and yet we're expected to pay? That's pure blackmail! It's extortion! No... it's blood highway robbery! You are absolutely culpable. You are part of the society that continues to attempt cultural assimilation, and you apparently agree with this process. THAT makes you guilty. Your government signed treaties with sovereign Indian nations. Just like a treaty signed with another nation, say, China, you and the rest of the citizens of your nation are forced to abide by those treaties, signed in your name. You can not escape that fact, and more and more, you are losing in your attempts to wiggle out of these treaties.

http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/aboriginal/index.asp

http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/aboriginal/AboriginalProfile.pdf

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v4n3/inne43.html
Many treaties have not yet been completely settled. We need to do that before we can move on. A fairly recent case ( http://home.istar.ca/~bthom/rights.htm) has determined that our oral traditions can be used as evidence in land claims. There are more cases pending in British Colombia. As well, the move for tribal sovereignty needs to go forward. And we are so, so much more than hands looking for money. We fight for the environment, we fight against racism, we fight for the implementation of promises that were made to us. We use the law too, and so far, it has been on our side. We are fighting for our rights within the laws that exist...sadly, we have to fight for them, because despite being guaranteed, these are rights that have been denied us. How do you justify that? When even the Charter of Rights and the Government of Canada can't?



I don't give a flying damn if you assimulate or not; just stop whining! Most o us had NOTHING, NOTHING to do with the treatment, and the government is forced to give handouts from tax payer money! Money that could be used ti improve life for ALL members of society instead of one segment!
Whining? Yes. Why don't we just sit on our reservations and shut up. I'm sure you'll live up to your promises all on your own.

Get over the fact that we are not supplicants in this country. We are not receiving welfare payments, we are receiving monies guaranteed us in treaties we signed with you, in return for the land that your nation took. You don't like the terms of the treaty? Give the land back, get the hell out, and shut up. Otherwise, you will follow your word. And where you won't, we will fight you tooth in nail in the courts until you do.

Resist whatever the flying rat's ass you want! Just leave those of us who had nothing to do with it, OUT OF THE PICTURE! We have no reason to pay for something we never did. This is a society of equals and right now, it's not very equal for those of us who weren't lucky enough to be born as people of colour!

Stop holding "us" responsible! I NEVER DID A BLOODY THING TO YOU!

It was the "ancestors" of the "white" people who did.

The mid-late generations of the 20th century never forced any of this crap on your people!
Again. Pure ignorance. You think this all stopped back in the 1800s? Funny. Must be your history books leaving us out again.

Get over this use of targetting those of us who have done no wrong!
No. YOU get over it, because that is what you are doing. You think it is perfectly fine to blame us for everything we have become, as though the past only counts when it is convenient? You didn't do it directly, but you live in the society that did, that continues to, and that LIES about it. You support that. THAT is where you are at fault. Done no wrong? Silence is complicity. As is ignorance.

yes there are corrupt police officers, but they are not the rest of us who are tired of this "compensation" issue when we've done nothing that justifies such payouts and having to cater to the needs of those who were wronged by generations who are now long since dead!!!

Neil Stonechild (http://www.stonechildinquiry.ca/finalreport/default.shtml) died mere years ago. The children sexually abused in residential schools are now in their forties. That is not ancient history. The continued racism we face, the incarceration rates, the HATRED we are faced with continue. You will blame this on us, no doubt, because looking into the soul of your own society is too painful. We are on the fringe, and when we protest, when we fight that, we are faced only with anger. So we become militant. We become smart. We fight you using your own tools, and we win. And will continue winning.

BITTER! You're damn bitter!

What I'm saying is that people like me and my generation; my parent's generation; everyone who NEVER had a damn bloody thing to do with the displacement of the native indians should NOT have to pay the price because of a damaged culture.

Those of us who were never there had nothing to do with it, and yet we're expected to pay? That's pure blackmail! It's extortion! No... it's blood highway robbery!

I don't give a flying damn if you assimulate or not; just stop whining! Most o us had NOTHING, NOTHING to do with the treatment, and the government is forced to give handouts from tax payer money! Money that could be used ti improve life for ALL members of society instead of one segment!

Resist whatever the flying rat's ass you want! Just leave those of us who had nothing to do with it, OUT OF THE PICTURE! We have no reason to pay for something we never did. This is a society of equals and right now, it's not very equal for those of us who weren't lucky enough to be born as people of colour!

Stop holding "us" responsible! I NEVER DID A BLOODY THING TO YOU!

It was the "ancestors" of the "white" people who did.

The mid-late generations of the 20th century never forced any of this crap on your people!

Get over this use of targetting those of us who have done no wrong!

yes there are corrupt police officers, but they are not the rest of us who are tired of this "compensation" issue when we've done nothing that justifies such payouts and having to cater to the needs of those who were wronged by generations who are now long since dead!!!
it just doesnt work that way. you dont have to feel guilty because of what your ancestors may or may not have done but you do have to follow the laws that they created because of it. nations exist as entities in and of themselves and the history and laws of those nations live as long as those nations do.

the US constitution is 200+ years old. should we consider it null and void because no one alive today voted for it?

indian nations still exist. you may not like it, but there it is. you cant erase them because you find their existance to be anachronistic. should the day come when they cease to exist, then you can claim that the laws should be wiped off the books.

until that day youre stuck paying a buck or 2 to honor the treaties and laws your nation made with the various indian nations. its so little compared to the wealth that taking their land and resources has given us.

Skooled by the facts :cool:

We have been given no privileges. Treaties were signed with sovereign Indian nations. Signed, and quite often, broken. Our territories were settled, and we were removed to small plots of land, despite the fact that few tribes were not nomadic. We lived off the land, and to some extent, are allowed to continue hunting in our traditional territories. These things were not given...they were allowed to continue by the conquerors. Residential schools were not given...the were forced upon us. When some bands found minerals under their 'land', depending on the treaty they signed, they could either exploit that resource or not. This was not 'given' to us. What, exactly, has been 'given' us?

asking about this in thread title..
In a thread awhile ago, someone made the statement that Native Americans in the US were special, privileged citizens with all kinds of rights that other Americans don't have -- such as hunting and fishing rights and casinos.

They'll keep calling us Indians until our own countries stop doing so. We are still governed by the "Indian Act" in Canada.

I prefer aboriginal. Most Canadian Natives do. I hear it's not popular in the US though.

it is my understanding that there is quite a bit of debate within the native groups themselves down here over which term is best. at least for the general term - specific band/tribe names are, of course, preferred. i think i saw a thing by russell means advocating the term 'american indian' as opposed to 'native american'.

a similar sort of debate is occuring within the indigenous groups of the kalahari (bushmen, san, !kung, etc) as part of their political struggle to defend their ways of life from forced relocations and settlements.

You know, Sinhue - I just don't care any more.

I'm part of the society which is getting sick of all the treaties, repeated pay-outs and the whole business. I know it won't go away, but, it would solve a lot of problems, if the Native Aboriginals of Canada (and other places) accepted that this is the 21st century, and that is is time to move on.

Further, life would be better for the natives if they started to mirgate to the cities, and using what they have from the government rebuild where they can access the same level of services that other Canadians (or whatever) have.

No, living in a town or city won't eradicate your rights or culture, but it would improve. By living on the reserves, you're remaining at the mercy of a government that is corrupt and not readily open to change.

The staggering statistics quoted in the initial post could be fixed if the reservations were eliminated, not to displace the people, but to direct them to a place where they can become stronger.

life would be better for the natives if they started to mirgate to the cities

evidence?

I agree with Sinehue. It takes an Indian to understand another Indian ;)

You have to be from a colonised country to understand what it means to be under forcible colonial rule.

evidence?
You've got a greater chance to access all the services provided to the general population. It has also been proven (I forgot what study) that people living in cities and such, tend to walk more and use transit because every is closer, whereas in the fringes and small villages, they use their cars more often than not.

Also, it takes longer for essential services like fire and ambulance to get out to remoter areas, whereask in a town or city, you can either driven quickly to the closest hospital, or call and get a good response from the emergency service to get you the help you need.

There are generally better job opportunities.

Life isn't expensive if you live in the right place.

Also, many of the statistics showing very desperate situations could be improved with better access overall to the same education, healthcare and other essential services.

The level of substance abuse could also be pushed down because they wouldn't be isolated and the cycle could be broken with help.

karma has a funny way of manifesting itself, you know how the europeans utterly screwed the natives...but then the natives gave the europeans >drum roll please< TOBACCO, wouldnt you call the death toll even by now?

all kidding aside though. Ill take the bill cosby stance on this issue, if you dont know what that is its basically, they just have to pull themselves up by the bootsraps, same goes for all races who feel oppressed, including latinos, of which i am.

You've got a greater chance to access all the services provided to the general population. It has also been proven (I forgot what study) that people living in cities and such, tend to walk more and use transit because every is closer, whereas in the fringes and small villages, they use their cars more often than not.

Also, it takes longer for essential services like fire and ambulance to get out to remoter areas, whereask in a town or city, you can either driven quickly to the closest hospital, or call and get a good response from the emergency service to get you the help you need.

There are generally better job opportunities.

Life isn't expensive if you live in the right place.

Also, many of the statistics showing very desperate situations could be improved with better access overall to the same education, healthcare and other essential services.

The level of substance abuse could also be pushed down because they wouldn't be isolated and the cycle could be broken with help.

would it surprise you to learn that most indigenous people in the united states already live in urban areas? and that it doesn't appear to have been the wonderful panacea you believe it to be?

That 'living in the city' argument can be made for people living in the suburbs or in Appalachia. What's more, at least in the US, some of the most obese populations are found in major cities, while the Amish who live very remotely (they have no cars or phones) or are some of the healthiest.

The point is that the government made promises and broke treaties and created a situation that is deplorable. So the government should be held responsible for what they did. Sometimes the government delivered but many times they did not.
This is only in regards to the United States. I cannot speak on Canada or any other nation that mistreated aboriginals.

Mistreatment that has taken place over a large span of years is not fixed in one day or with a lame apology.

Meh.

You forget I am from the Northwest as well. Your claims of native wealth are -- to say the least -- exaggerated.

And your history is a bit weak.

I worked on the Nez Perce reservation. I know exactly what they traded away and for what. Don't tell me they are living high on the hog.

I'd love to see proof that every household of the Puyallup tribe gets $5,000 per month from the Casino. If so, good for them. That is slightly better than the national median income.

The rights to the reservations and to certain hunting and fishing we part of the deal in which we got the land you live on in exchange. Tribes also remain partially sovereign. Thus, their are different laws applicable to casinos, cigarettes, fireworks, etc. You wish to unilaterally cancel the deal.

Fine. We unilaterally cancel your citizenship as well. Good luck making your way in Mexico.

Tell me why the one violation of the law and Constitution is valid and the other is not.

It isn't about "special rights" or "sticking it" to anyone. It is a matter of treaties. Contracts between the US and the respective tribes. So many conservatives and libertarians go on about economic freedom and the value of contracts. OK. Then don't bitch about the contract we have with the Indians.

They did get the short end of the deal. Complaining about the few scraps of land and minor rights they retained is very bad form.

No my history is not weak. It was taught in a liberal state U. You probably heard of it, University of Washington.

As far as the Puyallup tribal families. Other than posting a cancelled tribal check I dont know any other way to prove that. I do know it for a fact though with the Puyallups as I know several. The Nez Pierce were not mentioned by me as far as wealth. They were mentioned in the fact they allied with Eastren Washington Indians to attack Westren Washington settlements. Did you know the burned and sacked Auburn and attacked the settlements at Kent and Renton. The settlers had to pull back to Seattle and Tacoma which were under military protection.They were however soundly defeated.

Now the particular land that I live on wasnt inhabited by Indians. It was dense forest land thus uninhabitable. So that arguement that I live on Indian land is bogus. Indians for one did not own the land. This wasnt a concept in there culture.

My citizenship was not granted to me by the Indians. It is granted to me under the US government. Which last time I checked was founded by a majority of Europeans.

As far as tribal sovereignty. They are under treaty still. I would if I had the power cancel those treaties. They do not serve the nation as a whole any good. Treaties throughout history have been cancelled/broken and otherwise overlooked if they outlive there usefullness. It is time I believe that intergration not seperation is the answer.

Lastly, I get tired of the old "we owe them" attitude. The fact is that we dont. We came and conquered, not the other way around. Are you going to say the same thing to the rest of the nations in the Americas? They all did the exact same thing. So should anyone from european ancestory now pay anyone with native American blood some type of income for using there land? Well I would pay myself seeing how my grandmother was a full blooded blackfoot. So maybe my 3/4 european should pay my other 1/4 native money. Sounds stupid because it is.

karma has a funny way of manifesting itself, you know how the europeans utterly screwed the natives...but then the natives gave the europeans >drum roll please< TOBACCO, wouldnt you call the death toll even by now?

all kidding aside though. Ill take the bill cosby stance on this issue, if you dont know what that is its basically, they just have to pull themselves up by the bootsraps, same goes for all races who feel oppressed, including latinos, of which i am.


Bill Cosby is a great American. good post.

it is my understanding that there is quite a bit of debate within the native groups themselves down here over which term is best. at least for the general term - specific band/tribe names are, of course, preferred. i think i saw a thing by russell means advocating the term 'american indian' as opposed to 'native american'.

a similar sort of debate is occuring within the indigenous groups of the kalahari (bushmen, san, !kung, etc) as part of their political struggle to defend their ways of life from forced relocations and settlements.
Finding a name for ourselves is indeed difficult. There are many. Indian, native, first nations, aboriginal, indigenous person, etc, etc. Most of us use our band name (Paul Band Cree), but especially for those living outside of North America, this doesn't convey our ethnicity. In Canada, we especially try to avoid using 'american' in our name, because it is often confused with nationality rather than continental allegiance. Very few call themselves native Canadian...because the term native can mean more than aboriginal.

It can be very confusing for others, and for ourselves. We can not decide, because we are such a diverse group. The Inuit are not the same as the Cree, as the Salish, as the Iroquois. We are many nations, and so a word that is meant to represent us all is hard to find. We refer to ourselves collectively as First Nations people. This is another term that is very common here. But for many of us, aboriginal reflects us better, and allows us to link ourselves to aboriginal communities around the world, who, while culturally distinct from us, share many of the same experiences.

It will evolve. Our names for ourselves were taken from us, and this is why we have such a vacuum to fill. We have been renamed by the colonisers, and while we reject the names we've been given, it is hard to truly get rid of such a powerful thing. Names are power. When we search for our name, we are searching for our identity, and a way to regain the power over our names.

You know, Sinhue - I just don't care any more. Then step aside. It may not matter to you, but it matters very much to us.

I'm part of the society which is getting sick of all the treaties, repeated pay-outs and the whole business. I know it won't go away, but, it would solve a lot of problems, if the Native Aboriginals of Canada (and other places) accepted that this is the 21st century, and that is is time to move on. Repeal your constitution, and I will agree that you should be allowed to repeal all laws made by men dead long ago. Until then, you will have to accept that this is the 21st century, a century that intends to live up to international agreements.

Further, life would be better for the natives if they started to mirgate to the cities, and using what they have from the government rebuild where they can access the same level of services that other Canadians (or whatever) have. Again, you are showing your complete ignorance of our culture and our modernity. Many of us are urban. It has not made things magically better. Prostitutes are disproportionately aboriginal. As are the homeless, and the very poor. Why do we not succeed? What is wrong with us?

It is not necessarily what is wrong with us. It is what is wrong with forcing us to fit into your philosophy of individuality. Again, I'll point out that our culture is very different than yours. We are communal. Our children are raised in common. Our traditions are kept in common. You spread us out, break those connections, and our culture, our identity will indeed be slowly lost. It will be the final success of an assimilation program begun when first Europeans stepped foot on our shores. We do not feel the need to make it in this world 'your way'. Our traditions still sustain us. We are allowed to live in common on the reservation. This would not be allowed off of it. For example, were we to live in urban centres, we could have houses next to one another (could we afford it, which is not a likliehood), but we would not legally be allowed to have many families living together, nor would we hold land in common. We would have no access to our traditional lands.

You have a very short understanding of time. Your past stretches back only as far as you deem important. A scant few hundred years. Your future is unknowable, and vague, and therefore of little consequence past your own lifetime. We are not like you. Our past stretches back thousands of years, kept in our oral traditions. Our elders can remind us of events that have been kept in our collective memory through stories, twenty, thirty, a hundred generations ago. The elders know how the shape of the land has changed, how the watercourses have shifted, how the mountains have moved. This is not mystical mumbo jumbo...this is placing an importance on these things, and enshrining them in our culture, so that we remember. Our future is not unfathomable. We think generations ahead. Our actions now are meant to reverberate down through seven generations. When we oppose a new hydro electric dam that plans to divert a river running through our reservation, it is not simply with the thought of how that dam will affect us now. We think of how it will affect all the generations of children to come, the land itself. If we lose that hold on time, our worldview, we cease to be aboriginal. We cease to be us. We will not make that change, just to 'fit in' to your society now.


No, living in a town or city won't eradicate your rights or culture, but it would improve. By living on the reserves, you're remaining at the mercy of a government that is corrupt and not readily open to change.
I hope this topic sparks your interest, and you make an effort to learn about it. I'm disappointed that despite the attempts to introduce information about our history and our struggles into the curriculums of your schools, that you have been left with such a lack of understanding of who we are, and what we are in the midst of trying to do.

The current struggle is one for sovereignty. Self-rule. And in Canada, though the process has been slow, it is happening. More and more, decision making powers about aboriginals are being shifted into our own hands. There have been setbacks, but also wonderful successes. I think the best example is in the Northwest Territories. There, the Inuvialuit (Inuit) and Gwitchin (Dene) bands have clearly defined lands and boundaries. They control the resources within those lands, and the use of those lands. They grant hunting privileges, or not, privileges to develop within those areas, or not, and they are sovereign. The Federal government itself can not reverse decisions made by the bands in regards to those areas.

What this means is consultation, not isolation. Logging must be done in an environmentally sound way. Companies must commission and environmental assessment, not only from a company they are comfortable with, but also from the band itself. The band makes the ultimate decision, and so the company must convince the people, ALL the people, that what they will do will be environmentally sound. We are not adverse to development. We are opposed to develop that is forced upon us, in violation of treaties, and without our consultation. More and more, that is what we are fighting to stop. We want in, all the way...as active partners in our own lives. Self-determination. And more and more, that is what we are getting.

The agreements so far have been that once we achieve self-rule, we will no longer need, or receive federal government monies. The slow road to self-sufficiency is the path we are currently on. If you truly want to cut us free, this is how it will happen. You cut us off now, unprepared, lost, we will simply shift the burden onto social programs. While your lifetime may seem like a great stretch of years, it isn't. Not truly. You must be prepared for this process to outlast your lifetime, because that is how real, significant change happens. Slowly, but with the force of a mountain moving.

I agree with Sinehue. It takes an Indian to understand another Indian ;)

You have to be from a colonised country to understand what it means to be under forcible colonial rule.
But what Indians are we? West Indians? East Indians? American Indians? I'M SO CONFUSED!!!! :D

And please people...you don't have to be aboriginal to participate in this thread. If you can manage not to break out into open hostility, I'll resheathe my claws and answer any questions you'd like about this issue, or just discuss it with you. One of the worst thing about aboriginal issues is that so few people know anything about them, and don't feel qualified to speak about them. Well, there's always time to learn, and these are absolutely things that affect you, especially if you consider that self-rule means little islands of sovereignty within your lands, that are not completely governed by federal, state, provincial or territorial governments in the way that the rest of your country is. Does that not interest you at all?

There's some recent genetic evidence that many of the eastern Indian tribes were actually settlers from Europe based on DNA they have in common with the Basques and some Finns and Irish. So really, it was just Europeans conquering other Europeans, just drawn out over thousands of years.

Again, you are showing your complete ignorance of our culture and our modernity. Many of us are urban. It has not made things magically better. Prostitutes are disproportionately aboriginal. As are the homeless, and the very poor. Why do we not succeed? What is wrong with us?

It is not necessarily what is wrong with us. It is what is wrong with forcing us to fit into your philosophy of individuality. Again, I'll point out that our culture is very different than yours. We are communal. Our children are raised in common. Our traditions are kept in common. You spread us out, break those connections, and our culture, our identity will indeed be slowly lost.

i have to wonder about people who are still pushing the 'give up your identity so you can integrate with your colonizers' line. its not as if the tragic and horrific effects of this aren't utterly predictable and well-documented. no matter where in the world this is done, it has similarly bad results.

Actually, I screwed up. The unemployment rate for US as a whole was 3.7%. For Native Americans, it was 7.4%

Obviously, there are still fewer Native Americans that are unemployed than there are unemployed people of other groups -- but the rate of unemployment for NAs is double than of the general population.
Are the unemployed people living on the reservation or off of it. It would be interesting to see if the unemployment rate of NA's was really that much higher off of the reservation than the general baseline.

There's some recent genetic evidence that many of the eastern Indian tribes were actually settlers from Europe based on DNA they have in common with the Basques and some Finns and Irish. So really, it was just Europeans conquering other Europeans, just drawn out over thousands of years.
Yes, yes, I've heard this before, usually as the reason we shouldn't be calling ourselves 'natives'. Nonetheless, the fact remains that humans have spread out from their first humble origins and developed very different cultures. We are ALL descended from the same people...and all belong to the same human family. That does not mean we are the same.

We settled in the Americas thousands of years ago. There may have been people here before us, but how much contact we would have had with them is impossible to know. We did not descend as a raging horde upon these lands. We trickled in as family units, over vast territories, migrating thousands of kilometres. We never owned the land. We lived off of it. Land ownership only becomes and issue now because of the European systems that have been imported here. Systems that, despite our common DNA were vastly different than our own way of viewing land.

Britain, indeed, all of Europe is a seething mass of various groups who have gained ascendancy, waned, and even died out. How could you possibly sort out who has 'first claim' to that land? Who would try?

Our argument has never been, "we were here first, and therefore we own this land". It has always been, "our way of life requires that we live off the land, and our territories are large. Much like bears can not live all together on a small plot of land, we roam so as to spread out our impact on natures resources so that we, and the earth, are sustained."

Europeans themselves recognised that we were, while not owners of the land, at least peoples who had right to the resources of that land. They did not truly understand our way of life, thought it quaint, yet foolish, but nonetheless, they treated with us, however dishonestly, as nations of people. ALL peoples resist cultural assimilation. Some are more successful than others. This is not a struggle unique to aboriginal cultures, and it is not founded on notions of 'we were here first'. They are founded on notions of identity, identity which is tied into our land and our way of life. Take us all, give us a country somewhere, and let us rule it...this would as surely take our culture from us as forced assimilation does. We don't want to say, "THIS IS OURS BECAUSE WE WERE HERE BEFORE YOU". We simply want to keep our ties to the places that have nurtured our people down through the millennia.

i have to wonder about people who are still pushing the 'give up your identity so you can integrate with your colonizers' line. its not as if the tragic and horrific effects of this aren't utterly predictable and well-documented. no matter where in the world this is done, it has similarly bad results.
And the fact is, even where aboriginal peoples have been integrated in such ways, and lost touch completely with their cultures, they have not truly been accepted into the fold of the mainstream culture. Prejudice will always affect humans, and aboriginal people, though they may talk, walk, and act the same as everyone else, will always stand apart from them, always be different. Aboriginal success will not necessarily lead to the abolition of prejudice against aboriginals.

My wife's side of the family is Indian (with cards and everything)and calling them "Native American" is a swift step to an asswhuppin'. They (her family) find the term pretentious and condescending.



I would appreciate it greatly if people stopped referring native Americans as "Indians".

It is an offense to them and is an offense to Indians. :)

All because Columbus lost his way. Idiot.

Are the unemployed people living on the reservation or off of it. It would be interesting to see if the unemployment rate of NA's was really that much higher off of the reservation than the general baseline.

I'll give you some stats from Canada, if you'd like: (our last census was 2001):

First, you have to look at unemployment on a province/territory basis, as some have much higher rates than others. The unemployment rates in Canada, as of 2001 were:

Canadian employment rates, for all Canadians (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-222-XIE/2004000/chart-c12.htm)

This doesn't tell you what the rates of unemployment for aboriginals in each region are, but the general rule of thumb is that it is lower than for non-aboriginals.

As well, depending on age, education, and sex, the rates vary, of course. Métis people (mixed aboriginal and European blood, with Métis status) also have lower rates of employment than do aboriginal peoples.

Aboriginal Employment rates, by sex (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-222-XIE/2004000/chart-o79.htm)
Notice, these are employment rates, not unemployment rates, so it's difficult to compare them to the unemployment of all Canadians. I haven't found yet any reliable numbers for aboriginal compared to non-aboriginal employment or unemployment. So far, all the stats are region by region, and even city by city.:(

Education (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-222-XIE/2004000/chart-o80.htm) clearly narrows the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginals in terms of employment.

However, non-Reserve natives are more likely to be employed. ( http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-222-XIE/2004000/chart-o81.htm)

My wife's side of the family is Indian (with cards and everything)and calling them "Native American" is a swift step to an asswhuppin'. They (her family) find the term pretentious and condescending.
Meh. It really depends on the people. Some call themselves Indian, some abos, some just by their band names. The problem is, what offends some, doesn't offend others, and we can't reach consensus on a final name. Funny that...I mean, it's not like we're wildly diverse, with different languages and cultures or anything...oh...wait:)

And please people...you don't have to be aboriginal to participate in this thread. If you can manage not to break out into open hostility, I'll resheathe my claws and answer any questions you'd like about this issue, or just discuss it with you. One of the worst thing about aboriginal issues is that so few people know anything about them, and don't feel qualified to speak about them. Well, there's always time to learn, and these are absolutely things that affect you, especially if you consider that self-rule means little islands of sovereignty within your lands, that are not completely governed by federal, state, provincial or territorial governments in the way that the rest of your country is. Does that not interest you at all?

Hi Sinuhue, I've got one or 2 questions.
1. the territories controlled by aboriginals, is it infact territory independent of the USA or Canada?
1.a. If not, are you still allowed to make your own laws?
1.b If so, are all aboriginal territories treated as one land/gov. Do they work together?
2. How different is one nation from another? In your eyes. Are we talking about only minor differences, or are they more extreme?
3. You've mentioned that your people view things in the long term impact. Are are casinos factored into this? I understand that they must bring in useful revenue, but what about the potential social problems, ie crime/stereotypes/etc..?
4. in films they always show aboriginals as not being able to hold their alcohol. Is this true or a stereotype?

have more, but will need to post later. Will check later for answers....

Before I respond, I'd just like to let everyone know that I am by no means an expert on self-government in all its legal manifestations, but I will try my utmost to provide accurate information.
Hi Sinuhue, I've got one or 2 questions.
1. the territories controlled by aboriginals, is it infact territory independent of the USA or Canada?
From what I understand, the territories that are governed by aboriginal groups are not wholly independent of Canada. They are administered much like a territory. They are a legal part of Canada, and as such, federal and provincial laws apply, but much as a municipal government has power over taxation and spending, as well as bylaws and such, so would these territories. Now, that power would be extended somewhat to cover things like sentencing circles (alternative methods of justice and punishment). To what extent has yet to be determined. In essence, because we are not just talking about towns, native sovereignty would extend much like a county does, over the town, and the surrounding lands. They would also undertake certain programs that might normally be in the provincial or federal jurisdiction, like health care and education, but that also is being debated.


1.a. If not, are you still allowed to make your own laws?
Yes. Bands can already make bylaws within the townships. This would extend that power over the entire region 'belonging' to the band. Again, the sticking points are in areas that are normally regulated provincially or federally that the bands want to control, such as health care, justice and so on.



1.b If so, are all aboriginal territories treated as one land/gov. Do they work together?
No. A treaty may cover a certain area, within which reside a number of bands, but that would be as much as these 'nations' would be linked. For example, there are many bands within Treaty 6 land, in Alberta. The natives would not own that entire area of Alberta. Instead, their traditional lands would be accessible to them, much as they are now, for hunting and trapping. Within the communities, however, natives would be given more power over the way the bands are run. The areas surrounding them that are deemed band land would be regulated by the band.

As for working together, there is some possibility of that. We have a national band council. However, the terms of all the different treaties are so different, and some have been settled, while others are being negotiated, that it would be impossible to work from a common framework in terms of treaties. We, however, are in consultation with one another as to the kinds of powers we are petitioning for. It's a murky, murky area, and many legal minds are immersing themselves in it.


2. How different is one nation from another? In your eyes. Are we talking about only minor differences, or are they more extreme?
Major differences, and many similarities. Land is the biggest difference, and this of course impacts hunting practices, spirituality and all of that. West coast natives have one traditional diet, while the Inuit of the Mackenzie Delta region have another. Plains Cree once lived nomadically, in teepees...the Iroquois were more settled and had long houses. Our languages are different, our memories and traditions relating to the territories we live in are different.

However, the majority of us give the same importance to our tie to the land, though the lands be vastly different. We also share similar experiences of colonisation, and struggle to keep our identity. The framework for how natives will have self rule will likely be very similar for all of us, adapted to our specific territories. But we will be separate cultures within that framework.


3. You've mentioned that your people view things in the long term impact. Are are casinos factored into this? I understand that they must bring in useful revenue, but what about the potential social problems, ie crime/stereotypes/etc..?
We know we are supposed to think that way...but we don't always do it. In fact, many of us truly have assimilated, and have adopted the business practices of regular North Americans. Believe me, there has been great resistance within native communities to the building of casinos. But people are divided. On one hand, we know we need to bring employment to the reservations so that we stop losing our young ones, but on the other, we know what problems come with addictions like gambling. For some bands, with no mineral resources to exploit, casinos are the only option to create employment, and wealth. We want to be able to improve our schools, and educated our children. It is hard, because we have placed a terrible burden on our children. Every people look to their children as being the future...be we look to them as our salvation. It is going to be up to them to keep our ways alive, and right now, we are unclear on how we can help them do that.

Some of us feel that we can adopt certain practices, and deal with the bad consequences in the traditional ways. Others feel that allowing these sorts of things on the reservations is akin to willful assimilation. Yet for many, it is a pragmatic issue of money, and the immediate consequences are more important.

4. in films they always show aboriginals as not being able to hold their alcohol. Is this true or a stereotype? Ah. There has been some research done that shows natives have a genetic difficulty with metabolising alcohol. However, there have also been studies that debunk this. It is a very controversial issue.

Some natives, such as the Mapuche of southern Chile and Argentina, brewed their own alcohol...and yet alcoholism is a problem in their communities too. Is this because they are genetically weaker? Doubtful.

In our own communities, alcohol is a curse. Many of our children are affected by FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorders) which is essentially serious brain damage, caused by the mother drinking alcohol while pregnant. That sort of damage is irreversible. As well, it has been shown that alcoholism can be a genetic trait...alcohol abuse can alter the genes enough to damage them, and this damage can be passed down. So are aboriginal alcoholics prone to alcoholism because of socioeconomic factors or genetic one? It is probably a bit of both. One factor alone is not enough.

It is also interesting to note that while we have high rates of alcoholism in our communities, we also have higher rates of abstinence than in non-aboriginals. Meaning, more of us are completely alcohol free than in mainstream society. Much of this has to do with the way alcohol abuse has impacted us. It is a conscious decision based on that negative exposure, exposure which not as many non-aboriginals have (so less abstinence-by-choice on their part because of it).

My wife's side of the family is Indian (with cards and everything)and calling them "Native American" is a swift step to an asswhuppin'. They (her family) find the term pretentious and condescending.

Oh, yea, people don't like their identity to be confused with others, especially people of ancient cultures like India. In India, atleast where I come from, Native Americans are called "Red Indians". When I was a kid, I assumed they were red in color. :D

I wonder how that name came about. I haven't seen any "redness" in the Native people I had the chance to meet.

Sinehue

But what Indians are we? West Indians? East Indians? American Indians? I'M SO CONFUSED!!!!

It does not matter. Indians of the world unite ! :D

From your posts, I can empathize with you very much. Something similar to this happens in India too. India has this reservation or quota system which makes around 30% of seats in educational institutions reserved only for candidates from the so called backward castes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Due to this , even though a candidate from a higher caste may have better qualifying marks he may lose the admission to a candidate from a lower caste. There is some resentment amongst the so-called forward castes that this is reverse discimination and since Indian constitution says that all citizens are equal, then how can reservation priviledges be made for one group. There is lots of debate around this issue.

Here is a bit of background on native sovereignty in the US ( http://www.airpi.org/pubs/leventhl.html), and some on sovereignty in Canada:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_016804_recentconsti.htm
Sovereignty remains central to the disputes between First Nations and the Canadian government. Federal and provincial officials have tended to resist the notion of native sovereignty, largely out of the fear of its implications for political power and revenue sharing. Nevertheless, recent developments—including the statement by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that First Nation sovereignty exists in law even without constitutional guarantees, and the election in 1993 of a Liberal government that is receptive to this concept—give some cause for optimism. There has also been a recent flurry of modern-day treaty making. In 1991, an agreement with the Gwich'in of the Yukon gave them control over 15,000 square kilometers, and compensation of $75 million. A 1992 agreement to establish the territory of Nunavut has given the Inuits 350,000 square kilometers and $580 million. These modern treaties are not based on the premise that First Nations will disappear, but instead appear to lay the groundwork for a vibrant future. It appears that the nature of Canadian federalism is changing. Canadians are moving away from the "two nations" concept and toward the idea that their nation is a place where the diversity of First Nations and other cultures can be respected.

Now, of course there are those who want to take control of tax revenues AND get monies from the Canadian government. There are always greedy people, no matter their ethnicity. Some want us to be able to make our own laws and not abide by any Canadian laws. These people are not the majority, however. We are willing to make agreements with Canada, just as Nunavut has done, in terms of development and so on. The idea, again, is that we become self-reliant, and in turn, actively participate in Canada.

What worked in the Yukon, the NWT and in Nunavut won't necessarily work in more inhabited areas like southern BC, Alberta and so on. We don't really think we can be given thousands of hectares of land, but we do want more power over how programs are run and utilised in our communities, and we want the ability to raise fund through taxation, much as provinces or municipalities do. This is a major sticking point of course, as any gain in revenue on our part will mean a loss for another government authority.

Im going to play devils advocate here and take the other side. I say we do away with all reservations, government handouts and disallow all the hunting, fishing and gaming rights. I say we intergrate them into society with everyone else. Problem solved. And no we dont owe the current indian populace anything as well we dont owe todays blacks reparations for slavery or reparations for the ill treatment of irish either. Its time for everyone to be treated the same.

Right on. Everyone should just accept Western European values and beliefs. All rival belief systems should be abolished. The world would be a better place.

I hate these pay outs as much as I hate affirmative action. it's still discrimination and I for one think that this generation and those who WERE NOT involved shouldn't pay for our ancestor's sins. We have no control over what they did! And it's about high and bloody damn time that the aboriginals learned this!

Why don't you think you should pay for your ancestor's sins if you still actively benefit from them?

Further, life would be better for the natives if they started to mirgate to the cities, and using what they have from the government rebuild where they can access the same level of services that other Canadians (or whatever) have.


The staggering statistics quoted in the initial post could be fixed if the reservations were eliminated, not to displace the people, but to direct them to a place where they can become stronger.

Actually, the quality of life is often worse for the urban aboriginal population than the reserve aboriginal population, as the staggering statistics at the beginning suggest.

I agree with Sinehue. It takes an Indian to understand another Indian ;)

You have to be from a colonised country to understand what it means to be under forcible colonial rule.

Some time in Ireland (even though some Irish were colonizers in turn) taught me alot about the perspectives of a colonized people, enough that I could appreciate the situation of aboriginal people alot better when I returned to canada.

Indians for one did not own the land. This wasnt a concept in there culture.


Right. Land was of no importance in aboriginal culture. They were just waiting around for the Europeans to show up and teach them the value of property.

There's some recent genetic evidence that many of the eastern Indian tribes were actually settlers from Europe based on DNA they have in common with the Basques and some Finns and Irish. So really, it was just Europeans conquering other Europeans, just drawn out over thousands of years.

Absolutely correct DNA doesnt lie. Now that same evidence proves African migration into central and southren America. Chinese DNA evidence in the westren US.

Right on. Everyone should just accept Western European values and beliefs. All rival belief systems should be abolished. The world would be a better place.

I think your mis-interpeting what i said. Assimilation as in being treated equally as everyone else. There is nothing in my statement stating abolishing anyones traditions. In fact I would encourage anyone to keep there family traditions alive.

Before I respond, I'd just like to let everyone know that I am by no means an expert on self-government in all its legal manifestations, but I will try my utmost to provide accurate information.

From what I understand, the territories that are governed by aboriginal groups are not wholly independent of Canada. They are administered much like a territory. They are a legal part of Canada, and as such, federal and provincial laws apply, but much as a municipal government has power over taxation and spending, as well as bylaws and such, so would these territories. Now, that power would be extended somewhat to cover things like sentencing circles (alternative methods of justice and punishment). To what extent has yet to be determined. In essence, because we are not just talking about towns, native sovereignty would extend much like a county does, over the town, and the surrounding lands. They would also undertake certain programs that might normally be in the provincial or federal jurisdiction, like health care and education, but that also is being debated.



Yes. Bands can already make bylaws within the townships. This would extend that power over the entire region 'belonging' to the band. Again, the sticking points are in areas that are normally regulated provincially or federally that the bands want to control, such as health care, justice and so on.




No. A treaty may cover a certain area, within which reside a number of bands, but that would be as much as these 'nations' would be linked. For example, there are many bands within Treaty 6 land, in Alberta. The natives would not own that entire area of Alberta. Instead, their traditional lands would be accessible to them, much as they are now, for hunting and trapping. Within the communities, however, natives would be given more power over the way the bands are run. The areas surrounding them that are deemed band land would be regulated by the band.

As for working together, there is some possibility of that. We have a national band council. However, the terms of all the different treaties are so different, and some have been settled, while others are being negotiated, that it would be impossible to work from a common framework in terms of treaties. We, however, are in consultation with one another as to the kinds of powers we are petitioning for. It's a murky, murky area, and many legal minds are immersing themselves in it.



Major differences, and many similarities. Land is the biggest difference, and this of course impacts hunting practices, spirituality and all of that. West coast natives have one traditional diet, while the Inuit of the Mackenzie Delta region have another. Plains Cree once lived nomadically, in teepees...the Iroquois were more settled and had long houses. Our languages are different, our memories and traditions relating to the territories we live in are different.

However, the majority of us give the same importance to our tie to the land, though the lands be vastly different. We also share similar experiences of colonisation, and struggle to keep our identity. The framework for how natives will have self rule will likely be very similar for all of us, adapted to our specific territories. But we will be separate cultures within that framework.



We know we are supposed to think that way...but we don't always do it. In fact, many of us truly have assimilated, and have adopted the business practices of regular North Americans. Believe me, there has been great resistance within native communities to the building of casinos. But people are divided. On one hand, we know we need to bring employment to the reservations so that we stop losing our young ones, but on the other, we know what problems come with addictions like gambling. For some bands, with no mineral resources to exploit, casinos are the only option to create employment, and wealth. We want to be able to improve our schools, and educated our children. It is hard, because we have placed a terrible burden on our children. Every people look to their children as being the future...be we look to them as our salvation. It is going to be up to them to keep our ways alive, and right now, we are unclear on how we can help them do that.

Some of us feel that we can adopt certain practices, and deal with the bad consequences in the traditional ways. Others feel that allowing these sorts of things on the reservations is akin to willful assimilation. Yet for many, it is a pragmatic issue of money, and the immediate consequences are more important.

Ah. There has been some research done that shows natives have a genetic difficulty with metabolising alcohol. However, there have also been studies that debunk this. It is a very controversial issue.

Some natives, such as the Mapuche of southern Chile and Argentina, brewed their own alcohol...and yet alcoholism is a problem in their communities too. Is this because they are genetically weaker? Doubtful.

In our own communities, alcohol is a curse. Many of our children are affected by FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorders) which is essentially serious brain damage, caused by the mother drinking alcohol while pregnant. That sort of damage is irreversible. As well, it has been shown that alcoholism can be a genetic trait...alcohol abuse can alter the genes enough to damage them, and this damage can be passed down. So are aboriginal alcoholics prone to alcoholism because of socioeconomic factors or genetic one? It is probably a bit of both. One factor alone is not enough.

It is also interesting to note that while we have high rates of alcoholism in our communities, we also have higher rates of abstinence than in non-aboriginals. Meaning, more of us are completely alcohol free than in mainstream society. Much of this has to do with the way alcohol abuse has impacted us. It is a conscious decision based on that negative exposure, exposure which not as many non-aboriginals have (so less abstinence-by-choice on their part because of it).

This may very well be the most interesting post I've ever read. I would love to hear more about your heritage and what you know of it.

Then step aside. It may not matter to you, but it matters very much to us.

Repeal your constitution, and I will agree that you should be allowed to repeal all laws made by men dead long ago. Until then, you will have to accept that this is the 21st century, a century that intends to live up to international agreements.

Again, you are showing your complete ignorance of our culture and our modernity. Many of us are urban. It has not made things magically better. Prostitutes are disproportionately aboriginal. As are the homeless, and the very poor. Why do we not succeed? What is wrong with us?

It is not necessarily what is wrong with us. It is what is wrong with forcing us to fit into your philosophy of individuality. Again, I'll point out that our culture is very different than yours. We are communal. Our children are raised in common. Our traditions are kept in common. You spread us out, break those connections, and our culture, our identity will indeed be slowly lost. It will be the final success of an assimilation program begun when first Europeans stepped foot on our shores. We do not feel the need to make it in this world 'your way'. Our traditions still sustain us. We are allowed to live in common on the reservation. This would not be allowed off of it. For example, were we to live in urban centres, we could have houses next to one another (could we afford it, which is not a likliehood), but we would not legally be allowed to have many families living together, nor would we hold land in common. We would have no access to our traditional lands.

You have a very short understanding of time. Your past stretches back only as far as you deem important. A scant few hundred years. Your future is unknowable, and vague, and therefore of little consequence past your own lifetime. We are not like you. Our past stretches back thousands of years, kept in our oral traditions. Our elders can remind us of events that have been kept in our collective memory through stories, twenty, thirty, a hundred generations ago. The elders know how the shape of the land has changed, how the watercourses have shifted, how the mountains have moved. This is not mystical mumbo jumbo...this is placing an importance on these things, and enshrining them in our culture, so that we remember. Our future is not unfathomable. We think generations ahead. Our actions now are meant to reverberate down through seven generations. When we oppose a new hydro electric dam that plans to divert a river running through our reservation, it is not simply with the thought of how that dam will affect us now. We think of how it will affect all the generations of children to come, the land itself. If we lose that hold on time, our worldview, we cease to be aboriginal. We cease to be us. We will not make that change, just to 'fit in' to your society now.



I hope this topic sparks your interest, and you make an effort to learn about it. I'm disappointed that despite the attempts to introduce information about our history and our struggles into the curriculums of your schools, that you have been left with such a lack of understanding of who we are, and what we are in the midst of trying to do.

The current struggle is one for sovereignty. Self-rule. And in Canada, though the process has been slow, it is happening. More and more, decision making powers about aboriginals are being shifted into our own hands. There have been setbacks, but also wonderful successes. I think the best example is in the Northwest Territories. There, the Inuvialuit (Inuit) and Gwitchin (Dene) bands have clearly defined lands and boundaries. They control the resources within those lands, and the use of those lands. They grant hunting privileges, or not, privileges to develop within those areas, or not, and they are sovereign. The Federal government itself can not reverse decisions made by the bands in regards to those areas.

What this means is consultation, not isolation. Logging must be done in an environmentally sound way. Companies must commission and environmental assessment, not only from a company they are comfortable with, but also from the band itself. The band makes the ultimate decision, and so the company must convince the people, ALL the people, that what they will do will be environmentally sound. We are not adverse to development. We are opposed to develop that is forced upon us, in violation of treaties, and without our consultation. More and more, that is what we are fighting to stop. We want in, all the way...as active partners in our own lives. Self-determination. And more and more, that is what we are getting.

The agreements so far have been that once we achieve self-rule, we will no longer need, or receive federal government monies. The slow road to self-sufficiency is the path we are currently on. If you truly want to cut us free, this is how it will happen. You cut us off now, unprepared, lost, we will simply shift the burden onto social programs. While your lifetime may seem like a great stretch of years, it isn't. Not truly. You must be prepared for this process to outlast your lifetime, because that is how real, significant change happens. Slowly, but with the force of a mountain moving.
This post is overwhelming. It's amazing to me that anyone would wish to just wipe away the ability of the original peoples of the Americas to self-govern and to continue to live in their way of life as much as is possible after the damage done by conquering them. The idea of retracting treaties that allow this is sickening to me. There are few issues for which I would be willing to stand, armed if necessary, against my government regardless of the cost to myself, but this is certainly one. In terms of the US, a US that decided it was not necessary to honor these treaties they have only really begun to honor is not the US that I stood up and fought for and is certainly not a US I would align myself with (not suggesting that there is a widespread desire to do such a thing). Thank you for your posts. They are inspiring, and I intend to find out more information about this. Thank you.

I apologize for largely abandoning this thread the last day or two. Unfortunately, my participation will continue to be spotty. Damn that real life!!! I will try to answer some points and questions as soon as I get a chance.

THANKS SINUHUE!!!!

You've been a replacement that is an improvement over the original. ;) :)

Hi Sinuhue, I've got one or 2 questions.
1. the territories controlled by aboriginals, is it infact territory independent of the USA or Canada?
1.a. If not, are you still allowed to make your own laws?
1.b If so, are all aboriginal territories treated as one land/gov. Do they work together?
2. How different is one nation from another? In your eyes. Are we talking about only minor differences, or are they more extreme?
3. You've mentioned that your people view things in the long term impact. Are are casinos factored into this? I understand that they must bring in useful revenue, but what about the potential social problems, ie crime/stereotypes/etc..?
4. in films they always show aboriginals as not being able to hold their alcohol. Is this true or a stereotype?

have more, but will need to post later. Will check later for answers....

In the US, Indian tribes are semi-sovereign. It is pretty complicated. (And that sets aside those that advocate for more or less tribal sovereignty.)

The US Supreme Court case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/30/1.html ), 30 US 1, 15-17 (1831) is the seminal (if somehwhat patronizing) case on the matter (and also answers some of the points raised in this thread). Chief Justice Marshall explained for the Court:

... A people once numerous, powerful, and truly independent, found by our ancestors in the quiet and uncontrolled possession of an ample domain, gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms, have yielded their lands by successive treaties, each of which contains a solemn guarantee of the residue, until they retain no more of their formerly extensive territory than is deemed necessary to their comfortable subsistence. ...

Is the Cherokee nation a foreign state in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution?

The counsel for the plaintiffs have maintained the affirmative of this proposition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument as was intended to prove the character of the Cherokees as a state, as a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has, in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a state from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee nation as a state, and the courts are bound by those acts.

A question of much more difficulty remains. Do the Cherokees constitute a foreign state in the sense of the constitution?

The counsel have shown conclusively that they are not a state of the union, and have insisted that individually they are aliens, not owing allegiance to the United States. An aggregate of aliens composing a state must, they say, be a foreign state. Each individual being foreign, the whole must be foreign.

This argument is imposing, but we must examine it more closely before we yield to it. The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence. In the general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term foreign nation is, with strict propriety, applicable by either to the other. But the relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist no where else. The Indian territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States. In all our maps, geographical treatises, histories, and laws, it is so considered. In all our intercourse with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, subject to many of those restraints which are imposed upon our own citizens. They acknowledge themselves in their treaties to be under the protection of the United States; they admit that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with them, and managing all their affairs as they think proper; and the Cherokees in particular were allowed by the treaty of Hopewell, which preceded the constitution, 'to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to congress.' Treaties were made with some tribes by the state of New York, under a then unsettled construction of the confederation, by which they ceded all their lands to that state, taking back a limited grant to themselves, in which they admit their dependence.

Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations.

Some will kick and fuss over the right of Indians to reservation lands and to enforce the obligations of treaties. They piss in the wind. The Constitution specifically provides for treaties with Indian tribes and makes treaties the LAW OF THE LAND -- second only to the Constitution.

The law and actions that confined tribes to reservations and to certain rights were very hostile to Indians. They weren't handed favors. They and their allies fought hard for what little they have. They earned it. Nothing is being given. Merely retained. The rest of the nation has benefitted greatly from what was taken from the Indians. Begrudging them the little they kept is simply petty.

I think your mis-interpeting what i said. Assimilation as in being treated equally as everyone else. There is nothing in my statement stating abolishing anyones traditions. In fact I would encourage anyone to keep there family traditions alive.

Well, based on what you have said so far, when you say you want everyone to be treated equally, you mean you want everyone to be treated the same. When you say you want everyone to be treated the same, you mean you want everyone to be treated the way you want to be treated. And by treating everyone the way you want to be treated, you mean being treated in a manner that is consistent with European values and beliefs. That is not exactly a perspective that lends itself to the survival of other values and belief systems.

I think your mis-interpeting what i said. Assimilation as in being treated equally as everyone else. There is nothing in my statement stating abolishing anyones traditions. In fact I would encourage anyone to keep there family traditions alive.

And I don't think I misinterpreted what you said. If you really meant "equal treatment" you shouldn't have used the term "assimilation". Assimiliation means the absorption of other cultures. It says nothing about equal treatment.

I think your mis-interpeting what i said. Assimilation as in being treated equally as everyone else. There is nothing in my statement stating abolishing anyones traditions. In fact I would encourage anyone to keep there family traditions alive.
Hmmm...Jolt ate my response to this last night I guess. I'll give it another go:)

I think what you want for us is for us to succeed. The way you feel that this will become possible is if we become less isolated on reservations, and more integrated into the wider society. In a sense, you are correct, and in many ways, this is also what we desire.

However, there are some fundamental problems with the idea of assimilation. Yes, people are able to keep their culture, speak their language in their home, eat traditional foods, attend traditional functions, and still be part of mainstream Canada (or the US). If certain cultural aspects are sloughed off, or lost in the meantime, this does not mean the culture is dying, because immigrant cultures are not the sum of their culture. They are an extension of it. The root culture remains, in their country of origin.

Our countries of origin are here. When we lose bits and pieces of our culture, there is no assurance of continuity. We can not regain what has been lost, and that culture will not be renewed by new arrivals.

Natives who live overseas (and yes, there are a few, though by no means forming large communities as do other immigrant groups with larger numbers) are mainstreamed. But they know that when they return home, their culture will once again enfold them.

In our homelands, however, we comprise the totality of native culture. Once we have assimilated, native culture will have lost its roots, and forever be set adrift. We will truly lose our identities.

What is it about integration that would be so culturally threatening to us?

The basis of our culture is community, and our ties to the land. Remove us from the land, remove us from each other, and we can not function culturally. Off the reservation, we are not allowed to live in common. Sure, we could live in houses next to one another, we could form a little micro-community in urban centres, but the other major cultural component, our tie to the land, would be missing. We could live on farmsteads carved out of our traditional lands...but the spaces between us would remove the communal cultural component. We must have both.

Were we to live in little 'reservation communities' in the urban centres, in a whole community of 'Moccasin Flats' we still would not be integrated anyway. Isn't this the argument against China Towns and Little Italys? That groups who stick together, and create little pockets of their home countries are refusing to join mainstream society? I don't think you would want this to be the 'solution' to reservations for us.

It is a terrible paradox. In order for us to integrate with mainstream society, and remain healthy, individually and communally, we would have to reject everything that makes up that mainstream society. To do otherwise, would be to descend into misery, into loss of identity, into illness, both mental, physical, and spiritual. Clearly, we can not integrate, and reject at the same time.

What would we be rejecting? Individualism over communalism, which would extend to the way we deal with all social programs, health care, physical and mental, education etc, as well as the way live in our physical spaces. Western food over traditional. Consumerism over conservation. Success (as defined by Western mores) over success (as defined by us).

We can retain our cultures, strengthen them, and slowly enter your world...but we want to do it on our own terms. In essence, it is very much like entering a different country when you step off the reservation. Sometimes that's a bad thing. And sometimes it's a necessary barrier.

Thank you for the information. VERY informative. Might have some more questions later when i get a proper chance to post.
again thanks

Yeah, just drive through a reservation and see how privilegded the people are...

and whose fault is it? are they helpless morons?

and whose fault is it? are they helpless morons?

Wow, what an informed post! Don't bother to think before you speak, you're more entertaining this way.

Thanks Cat for the legal explanation. The more I looked into US cases, the more I realised how much agreements can vary. The fundamental similarity between tribal sovereignty in Canada and the US is that despite the unresolved nature of the beast, it is not a question of legality. Tribal sovereignty is a legal fact. It is, instead, the details of what it will entail in its entirety that is being hammered out.

A misconception that I believe many people approaching this subject are working from is that native bands receive 'welfare' or constant 'restitution payments'. This is incorrect. Let me give a bit of background information on what monies are being paid, and why.

My band is dealing with Treaty Six ( http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/trty6_e.html), signed with the Queen of England and her proxies in 1876. Notice the wording of this preamble:

And whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty's said Commissioners that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, immigration and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty, and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty's bounty and benevolence.

The idea here is that the Crown was seeking the consent of the natives before immigration and settlement was to begin. I bring this up to drive home the notion that we were treated with as though we had original claim to the land in question. They did not come simply as invaders (not legally), but rather as representatives of one nation, dealing with the representatives of another.

Within the treaty, the Crown set out its responsibilities, the limitations of the land that would be considered reserve land, and the monies that would be paid to band members (indexed for inflation, in 1876, $5 per every man, woman and child) each year. Certain services were guaranteed by the federal government. Education, which is normally a provincial affair, is a federal one in respect to natives. The founding of this nation was based on the understanding that payments would be made to native people in return for their agreement to cede the land outside agreed boundaries for the settlement of non-natives. We would never had made this agreement otherwise. This treaty predates Confederation by a few months. You undo this kind of agreement, and you open the doors to the undoing of all legal agreements made since that time, including the joining of each province and territory into the Confederation. What you would be talking about here is not just doing away with one agreement, and stopping payments, but with the challenge by every since province and territory (Quebec specifically) to Confederation based on the illegal annulment of these contracts. It would threaten the stability of the entire Dominion of Canada.

Another very important issue to consider, is that the monies gained from the sale of land outside reserved territory went not to the natives, but to the government of Canada, in the name of the Crown. You think about how much money that is, you index THAT to account for inflation, and then tell us that the monies we receive are excessive.

As well, the Cree understanding of the treaty was clearly different than the understanding of the Canadian government. We approached it with and understanding of reciprocity, as two nations who would continue to have economic and social ties to one another. This is unfortunately where the biggest misunderstandings have been since.

http://old.sifc.edu/indian%20studies/IndigenousThought/fall99/treatyfour.htm
The Cree also made it clear in the treaty negotiations that they wanted help from Canada in settling on the reserves and developing a new way of life, through farming. Trough the mutual obligations that the signing of the treaties implied, the Cree expected the government to balance the land that the Cree were surrendering with supplies and money. Some Indians wondered was the government understood the Cree concept of reciprocity. Stripped Gopher wanted ensure the government knew their responsibility.

How Kichokima [Kihci-ôkimâw], great leader. I understand you have come to buy my land which is very big. Possibly you know what you are putting yourself into, for you will never finish paying for the land, even if you completely cover it with money bills. Furthermore, we are numerous, we can consume much food. Do you think you can truly shoulder the responsibility of looking after us? (Dion 1993: 77).

In addition, a older woman, who insisted on to speaking to the commissioners, cautioned the commissioners: "Kitchikimaw [Kihci-ôkimâw], you have come to make a deal with our brothers who is my child. I nursed him even as you derive our first nourishment from your mother’s breast. She loves you as I love my son. Do not try to cheat him, for he deserves to live even as you do" (Dion 1993: 77-78). This did not mean to be that the government was to be the literally the Indian mother. The old woman’s warning placed the government within the Cree kinship circle and outlined to the government the responsibility of reciprocity expected of it.
The idea for us has always been that we wanted to be self-sufficient. Who would choose otherwise? We did not throw up our hands and say, "Finally, someone to take care of us!". Give us the power of taxation within reserve lands, allow us as sovereign nations to deal with businesses within reserve lands, and you can keep your damn money:) Neither of us can have it both ways.

Something I find interesting: I found out the other day that I'm at least 1/16 American Indian, and even though I'm white as the day is long, I'm eligible for government assistance based on that heritage. Does that seem a bit odd to anyone else?

Something I find interesting: I found out the other day that I'm at least 1/16 American Indian, and even though I'm white as the day is long, I'm eligible for government assistance based on that heritage. Does that seem a bit odd to anyone else?
What kind of government assistance do you think that makes you eligible for? This is another thing that interests me...what people think 'being Indian' actually gets you. You don't get band monies if you aren't a band member, so that's out. Most funded programs aimed at aboriginals are programs that can be accessed by anyone...the ones specifically for aboriginals are often federally funded, while the ones for non-aboriginals can be federal, or provincial, and of course aboriginal programs focus on aboriginal culture (traditional healing circles and so on). I suppose you could access that...but would it mean anything to you?

You won't get free schooling. You have to live in a specific area (reservation or proscribed area) for a specific number of years to get funded post-secondary education...and you have to have the marks to be admitted first. So that's not a benefit. You could, as a non-aboriginal, go live in one of these areas and also be eligible for this.

It's a myth that we all don't pay the Goods and Services Tax. This is only for people living on reserve. Just like an American traveling in Canada gets the GST refunded (if they ask) upon leaving, so do reservation natives. Those of us off rez pay GST just like everyone else.

You could possibly get extended hunting and fishing rights. That's about the only tangible right you would be able to access, and only within the traditional lands of your band. So if your people are Stoney, and you live in Iroquois land...you need to get your butt to Stoney lands to hunt:)

The blood quantum issue is a sad thing. Dogs and horses are bred like this...and natives are the only people who are judged by blood percentage. For a time, it was used as a method to breed us out...a woman lost her native status the second she married a non-aboriginal, and her children were considered non-aboriginal. We finally challenged this enough to change it, but no one is really sure how to define a native, so they fall back on hackneyed blood percentages.

Priviledged, in some respects. People always bitch and moan about how they have the higher unemployment rates. Especially how terrible life is on the reserves. So, question, why the FUCK do we keep them on the reserves!? Integrate them with the rest of society, I doubt they have to worry about assimilation in this day and age in Canada. :headbang:

I was watching Peter Pan the other night...the more recent live-action version, not the Disney one, and I noticed that this version downplayed the 'red indians' much more than any version I've seen. They were still referred to as 'Indians' by the children, who, being British and not having any of their own ;) were quite excited at the prospect of meeting some. The actors were native, wearing fairly authentic dress, and speaking a real native language, but Tiger Lily was really kind of an afterthought to the plot. At one point, she was referred to as a 'savage' by one of the boys, though he then went on to call Hook a 'savage', in an attempt by the director I believe to make it clear he wasn't calling natives savages. Still...I sensed a bit of discomfort...a bit of avoidance. People are not really sure how they should be portraying natives anymore, and frankly, I'm glad. It means they're thinking about it. Just having real natives playing native roles, speaking their language, is a step forward in my mind. Now if only we could get a wildly popular movie made with a native main character...

...and speaking of native movies, I have a couple of suggestions for viewing. These may be a bit hard to find, but if you have a good alternative video outlet that showcases 'foreign' films, you might find these gems: (And the best thing is, most of these were written by natives, and acted by natives...we are more than capable of speaking for ourselves, thanks!)

Atanarjuat, the Fast Runner ( http://www.atanarjuat.com/) It's the first movie ever written, produced, directed and acted by Inuit. It's in Inuktitut (I believe that's the dialect they use), with English subtitles.

Snow Walker ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337721/) This is less about native culture as it is about the harsh land the Inuit call home. A bush pilot crashes and ends up trekking through the wilderness with an Inuit woman. It's the best visual and aural description of the damn BUGS up there that I've ever seen!

Hank Williams First Nation ( http://www.mytelus.com/movies/mdetails.do?movieID=59952a) This was filmed in Northern Alberta with some faces you might remember from Dances with Wolves and North of Sixty ( http://www.aptn.ca/en/scheduling/singleProgramDetailPage?theSeries=A00651&theStrand=Entertainment&theBeginDate=2005-07-13&theEndDate=2005-07-27)(if you've ever caught that television show). This is an awesome insight into reservation life and modern natives.

Mocassin Flats ( http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/pfa_programs/women_of_color/film_pages/film2004_moccasin_flats.html) is a movie about the urban native, and the clash between tradition and modernity. It's a harsh look at the reality of many urban natives, and the problems those trying to escape poverty and ignorance face.

Priviledged, in some respects. People always bitch and moan about how they have the higher unemployment rates. Especially how terrible life is on the reserves. So, question, why the FUCK do we keep them on the reserves!? Integrate them with the rest of society, I doubt they have to worry about assimilation in this day and age in Canada. :headbang:
Now that you've made your statement...perhaps you can actually read this thread? You might find some insight as to why getting rid of the reservations is not a good option.

...and speaking of native movies, I have a couple of suggestions for viewing. These may be a bit hard to find, but if you have a good alternative video outlet that showcases 'foreign' films, you might find these gems: (And the best thing is, most of these were written by natives, and acted by natives...we are more than capable of speaking for ourselves, thanks!)

Atanarjuat, the Fast Runner ( http://www.atanarjuat.com/) It's the first movie ever written, produced, directed and acted by Inuit. It's in Inuktitut (I believe that's the dialect they use), with English subtitles.

i found this one either at hollywood video or family porno. so it shouldn't be hard to track down.

i found this one either at hollywood video or family porno. so it shouldn't be hard to track down.
Family porno?

Why don't you think you should pay for your ancestor's sins if you still actively benefit from them?
Because I don't benefit from the oppression of the Irish Catholics; I don't benefit from the oppression of any of them. I don't benefit from them because I wasn't English or French. I never benefitted from any of their "sins", as my family came from oppressed sections of society. My Welsh ancestors wre oppressed my the English.. I got no benefits from their "sins".

And I shouldn't pay because you know what? My ancestors weren't the ones who came here first.

Family porno?

the actual name is 'family video'. it's a chain of dirt cheap video stores, all of which have an expansive selection of porn.

And I shouldn't pay because you know what? My ancestors weren't the ones who came here first.
Nonetheless. As a citizen of your country, you are bound by all laws and treaties signed by your government. That is the bottom line. I've already outlined the alternative. You repeal the treaties, leave this land, and renegotiate from your ancestral homes. :D

the actual name is 'family video'. it's a chain of dirt cheap video stores, all of which have an expansive selection of porn.
Okay, good. Because the name didn't sound to enticing otherwise:)

Did you see Atanarjuat? What did you think?

Something I find interesting: I found out the other day that I'm at least 1/16 American Indian, and even though I'm white as the day is long, I'm eligible for government assistance based on that heritage. Does that seem a bit odd to anyone else?

Yes. Same thing happened to me. I'm actually 1/16th Canadian aboriginal, and I learned that in like, grade 9. However, I'm also really really white, blond, generally well off. So I would feel really bad taking money from the government when so many others need it more. AND, it kind of bugs me that this is why people assume I'm interested in aboriginal issues. Not true. I've cared about this for ages, long before I learned that I have maybe an ounce of Cree blood in me

Did you see Atanarjuat? What did you think?

yeah, i saw it. it was good. of course, i'm also one of those people that doesn't mind subtitles.

Yes. Same thing happened to me. I'm actually 1/16th Canadian aboriginal, and I learned that in like, grade 9. However, I'm also really really white, blond, generally well off. So I would feel really bad taking money from the government when so many others need it more. AND, it kind of bugs me that this is why people assume I'm interested in aboriginal issues. Not true. I've cared about this for ages, long before I learned that I have maybe an ounce of Cree blood in me
Good for you (being interested I mean)....but I ask you too...what monies do you think you could claim from the government, were you not honest with yourself and others as to your cultural identity?

yeah, i saw it. it was good. of course, i'm also one of those people that doesn't mind subtitles.
I love hearing the original language, and I'm a quick reader, so subtitles are fine. Actually, I even use subtitles in English movies, because the girls are usually sporadically loud and I miss a lot. Plus...have you noticed that the sound in most new movies varies so much? It seems to get way too loud, then way to soft...I find I'm constantly playing with the volume to compensate. So subtitles are great. The hubby hates them...he's a very slow reader:)

And can you USians get APTN (the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network)? It's pretty neat. A lot of programs are centered on Inuit and other northern natives because they tend to be the ones who live most traditionally, and the Inuit are the strongest group linguistically, with the most native speakers among the younger populations. As well, Nunavut has given priority to providing programs in the Inuit languages...but not necessarily with subtitles, so sometimes you get programs you won't understand. However, they also do a lot of interviews with elders, and do translations, or highlight certain communities of aboriginals all over the world...it's pretty neat exposure. They play movies and television programs that are starred in or are about natives as well. I quite like it! (Think of it more like a Discovery Channel type station, rather than a pure entertainment channel)

I'm going to put this in big letters so people can read it and not pass it up.



NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR A GREATER PART OF OVER 5 MILLION YEARS. THEY CAN'T BE KICKED OUT. IF ANYTHING THE PEOPLE WHO CAME HERE VIA BOAT (EUROPEANS) SHOULD BE KICKED OUT!

I'm going to put this in big letters so people can read it and not pass it up.

NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR A GREATER PART OF OVER 5 MILLION YEARS. THEY CAN'T BE KICKED OUT. IF ANYTHING THE PEOPLE WHO CAME HERE VIA BOAT (EUROPEANS) SHOULD BE KICKED OUT!
Um...no big letters necessary. I haven't seen anyone advocating that we be 'kicked out' :confused:

NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR A GREATER PART OF OVER 5 MILLION YEARS.

no they haven't

The Bering Strait Land Bridge Theory

Based on anthropological and genetic evidence, scientists generally agree that most Native Americans descend from people who migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, between 17,000–11,000 years ago.

And not everyone agrees with this theory anyway. But the oldest human remains (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2538323.stm) found in the Americas is nowhere near 5 million years old...just 13,000:)

But the oldest human remains (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2538323.stm) found in the Americas is nowhere near 5 million years old

which isn't really surprising, since 5 million years ago the only human ancestors around were australopithicines. and they lived in africa.

which isn't really surprising, since 5 million years ago the only human ancestors around were australopithicines. and they lived in africa.
Mmmhmmm. I appreciate the, um, support Shaz, but it's a bit misinformed, and uneeded, since no one has really made that particular argument. In my mind, 10,000 years plus is plenty impressive.

Because I don't benefit from the oppression of the Irish Catholics; I don't benefit from the oppression of any of them. I don't benefit from them because I wasn't English or French. I never benefitted from any of their "sins", as my family came from oppressed sections of society. My Welsh ancestors wre oppressed my the English.. I got no benefits from their "sins".

And I shouldn't pay because you know what? My ancestors weren't the ones who came here first.

You benefit because you live in a country where the land was taken from someone else without adequate compensation. The French and the English may have started it, but the Canadian and American governments have perpetuated that injustice. You benefit every time you use public lands such as a park. You benefit every time economic activity such as resource extraction takes place on lands that were never properly paid for, and the government collects its resource royalties, and the companies make their profits that help the economy. You benefit every single day, and your refusal to see that only makes you more complicit.

Nonetheless. As a citizen of your country, you are bound by all laws and treaties signed by your government. That is the bottom line. I've already outlined the alternative. You repeal the treaties, leave this land, and renegotiate from your ancestral homes. :D
Uh... I can't because I'm extremely mixed blood (and not even pure "white" because of my Turkish blood). I'm not of one ethnic background. I would have a failing chance in 2 of the countries from whence my ancestors came, including my mother's father, who left everything because he was a traitor.

I was born here; my parents were born here. All but one of my grandparents were. But either way, I'm not of the "white" brand that made the mistakes.

I know that treaties are in place, but I don't feel that the majority should be punished for the actions of so few! It's extremely unjust. Many of us have no relation or ethnic ties to those who committed the "sins", so it's undemocratic and pure contempt that we're held in such light.

The laws that apply to everyone and could apply if they do something or another; or serve to prevent unlawful actiosn et cetera are just laws even if they are at time asinine because they apply to all of us.

The aboriginal population of Canada gets both GST and income tax relief, as in you don't have to pay. They sue the government and the innocent tax payer pays the dues. That is not fair.

The aboriginals get to circumvent the laws that the rest of us can't.

That is unjust.

You can't earn respect by demanding it. You can't get respect by making people pay. You can't earn respect by punishing the majority for something they never did.

Let's put this in prespective...

From the perspective of the majority, the minority is getting too big for its britches. It's getting too many perks. It gets away with more than we can. And our reward for trying to create a tolerant society (yes, excluding the narrow-minded assholes like Mike Harris and his ignorant solution that caused the tragedy at Ipperwash), is getting burned because the aboriginals aren't seeing the big picture. They are punishing many of us who are just as much of the victim of the system as they are.

And not everyone agrees with this theory anyway. But the oldest human remains (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2538323.stm) found in the Americas is nowhere near 5 million years old...just 13,000:)

Weren't footprints found recently on a volcano that date to about 25,000 years ago?

...
Nobody picks their place of birth.

No, I'm not complicit; I'm just sick of the minority sticking it to the majority of Canadians (millions upon millions of which never had a historical ethnic relation to the situation).

Do not the aboriginals benefit from living here? They get the same medical healthcare that we do. They get the same rights. Just because they are getting back the land that they once had isn't like they are being oppressed.

They benefit from economic decisions made by the government.

Those who live in reserves benefit by not having to pay income tax. All of them benefit from not paying GST. They benefit from special laws that the rest of us don't have.

I get screwed over. I pay taxes. I don't see my income go to places that would be better.

I hate the parks because of all the dogs and children so I don't benefit. They make the experience unpleasant.

I don't benefit from the resources because the money goes to the hands of the multi-billion dollar coperation that cooks its books and gets away with not paying tax. Have you talk to revenue lately? They have many of these companies they haven't collected from. They have massive backlogs because they can't get auditors to collect the money and the ones they get can't speak a bloody word of English and the ink on their passport has barely dried!

There are lots of cases of tax evasion involving these guys because of all the loopholes in the Canada Taxation Act, which was brought in during WWI to pay the cost and was only made a proper act under the Liberal government in the 90s.

I know that treaties are in place, but I don't feel that the majority should be punished for the actions of so few! It's extremely unjust. Many of us have no relation or ethnic ties to those who committed the "sins", so it's undemocratic and pure contempt that we're held in such light.What do you think these treaties are...apologies and restitution payments? We're not talking about paying for sins here, we're talking about honouring agreements made between sovereign nations.


The aboriginal population of Canada gets both GST and income tax relief, as in you don't have to pay. They sue the government and the innocent tax payer pays the dues. That is not fair. Again, even though I've already explained this, I'll give you the information you understand this fallacy. Aboriginals living on reserve are GST exempt, just like Americans, or Australians visiting Canada are exempt. Once you live off reserve, you pay GST. And you are wrong about income tax. Again, there are credits for living on reserve. Off reserve, there are none. And ANYONE, non-aboriginal or not can be eligible for these tax credits if they live in a proscribed zone (such as the Northwest Territories, or Northern Alberta). You are arguing about things that do not exist. I hope you look into these things for yourself, because I'm not sure where you are getting this misleading information.

And as for suing the government...absolutely. When the government, in a legal document, makes promises, they must be held to it. Period. No exceptions. And when a government run educational system employs people who sexually and physically abused children, the government, as the employer of these people, is culpable. You don't like that? You make damn sure that sort of thing doesn't go on anymore then. You belong to a representational democracy. These people are acting on your behalf. That means you take the bad with the good.

From the perspective of the majority, the minority is getting too big for its britches. It's getting too many perks. It gets away with more than we can. And our reward for trying to create a tolerant society (yes, excluding the narrow-minded assholes like Mike Harris and his ignorant solution that caused the tragedy at Ipperwash), is getting burned because the aboriginals aren't seeing the big picture. They are punishing many of us who are just as much of the victim of the system as they are.
Ok, I need to know...what 'perks' are you talking about? Seriously? What are these wonderful things we are being given?

Your entire argument is based on fallicies...the treaties are not reparation payments for 'sins' committed, and these 'perks' you speak of are mostly illusionary.

Weren't footprints found recently on a volcano that date to about 25,000 years ago?
I'm not sure. It's possible. Tools have been found that predate 14,000 years ago, but no associated human remains were found with them. The knowledge we have is far from complete.

*SNIP*
I get my tax information from someone who works at CRA (Canada Revenue Agency); no, I get it from 3 different people, all of whom have at one point worked in collections. One of them still works in auditing.

I get my tax information from someone who works at CRA (Canada Revenue Agency); no, I get it from 3 different people, all of whom have at one point worked in collections. One of them still works in auditing.
Well, I hope your informants lose their jobs for incompetence.

I pay income tax, just like you. I pay GST, just like you. I'm an off-reserve native. Tell me I'm the only one. :rolleyes:

I got tax credits for living in Inuvik, NWT. But I'm not an Indian from there, so it wasn't from having native status. My husband, and every other person living and paying taxes in Inuvik got it. How is that preferential treatment toward aboriginals?

Uh... I can't because I'm extremely mixed blood (and not even pure "white" because of my Turkish blood). I'm not of one ethnic background. I would have a failing chance in 2 of the countries from whence my ancestors came, including my mother's father, who left everything because he was a traitor.

I was born here; my parents were born here. All but one of my grandparents were. But either way, I'm not of the "white" brand that made the mistakes.

I know that treaties are in place, but I don't feel that the majority should be punished for the actions of so few! It's extremely unjust. Many of us have no relation or ethnic ties to those who committed the "sins", so it's undemocratic and pure contempt that we're held in such light.

The laws that apply to everyone and could apply if they do something or another; or serve to prevent unlawful actiosn et cetera are just laws even if they are at time asinine because they apply to all of us.

The aboriginal population of Canada gets both GST and income tax relief, as in you don't have to pay. They sue the government and the innocent tax payer pays the dues. That is not fair.

The aboriginals get to circumvent the laws that the rest of us can't.

That is unjust.

You can't earn respect by demanding it. You can't get respect by making people pay. You can't earn respect by punishing the majority for something they never did.

Let's put this in prespective...

From the perspective of the majority, the minority is getting too big for its britches. It's getting too many perks. It gets away with more than we can. And our reward for trying to create a tolerant society (yes, excluding the narrow-minded assholes like Mike Harris and his ignorant solution that caused the tragedy at Ipperwash), is getting burned because the aboriginals aren't seeing the big picture. They are punishing many of us who are just as much of the victim of the system as they are.
you are canadian. as a canadian you benefit from the treaties that took the land from the various indian tribes of canada. as a canadian you are bound by all canadian laws no matter when they were made.

the part where your ancestors couldnt possibly have screwed over the indians means you dont have to feel guilty about it. (not that i think that anyone alive today should feel guilty about things they didnt do themselves.)

the majority doesnt like it that as the indians do what you suggest they "assimilate" and get good educations, they come back home and make sure that the government is bound by the laws it very freely entered into. they force the various governments of north america to abide by the treaties they signed. for more than 100 years the indian nations have gotten screwed by those treaties. now that they are being used to enforce indian rights and WE feel screwed, its way too late to call foul.

I hate the parks because of all the dogs and children so I don't benefit. They make the experience unpleasant. :rolleyes:

I don't benefit from the resources because the money goes to the hands of the multi-billion dollar coperation that cooks its books and gets away with not paying tax. Have you talk to revenue lately? They have many of these companies they haven't collected from. They have massive backlogs because they can't get auditors to collect the money and the ones they get can't speak a bloody word of English and the ink on their passport has barely dried!

There are lots of cases of tax evasion involving these guys because of all the loopholes in the Canada Taxation Act, which was brought in during WWI to pay the cost and was only made a proper act under the Liberal government in the 90s.
And this is an aboriginal issue? Start your own "I hate the Canadian government" thread if you wish...

Uh... I can't because I'm extremely mixed blood (and not even pure "white" because of my Turkish blood). I'm not of one ethnic background. I would have a failing chance in 2 of the countries from whence my ancestors came, including my mother's father, who left everything because he was a traitor.

I was born here; my parents were born here. All but one of my grandparents were. But either way, I'm not of the "white" brand that made the mistakes.

I know that treaties are in place, but I don't feel that the majority should be punished for the actions of so few! It's extremely unjust. Many of us have no relation or ethnic ties to those who committed the "sins", so it's undemocratic and pure contempt that we're held in such light.

The laws that apply to everyone and could apply if they do something or another; or serve to prevent unlawful actiosn et cetera are just laws even if they are at time asinine because they apply to all of us.

The aboriginal population of Canada gets both GST and income tax relief, as in you don't have to pay. They sue the government and the innocent tax payer pays the dues. That is not fair.

The aboriginals get to circumvent the laws that the rest of us can't.

That is unjust.

You can't earn respect by demanding it. You can't get respect by making people pay. You can't earn respect by punishing the majority for something they never did.

Let's put this in prespective...

From the perspective of the majority, the minority is getting too big for its britches. It's getting too many perks. It gets away with more than we can. And our reward for trying to create a tolerant society (yes, excluding the narrow-minded assholes like Mike Harris and his ignorant solution that caused the tragedy at Ipperwash), is getting burned because the aboriginals aren't seeing the big picture. They are punishing many of us who are just as much of the victim of the system as they are.

Too many perks? They are asking that an agreement that was made with the government is kept. The government is an entity in and of itself. Simply because the people who made the agreements are dead does not negate the agreements. The only one here is suggesting circumventing the law is you and people who do not want to honor the treaties. Understand that you complaints about these treaties is like complaining that since your parents gave you a house that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for it or continue the house payments. Pay up or give up your house. You're wrong that you don't have an inherited benefit from the people who came before you. The people who made this deal with aboriginal peoples made these deals with the understanding that honoring these treaties and all that comes with it is the cost of ownership of the land that you live on. So you may decide you don't wish to keep paying but then give the land back from whence it came.

Let's put this in perspective... only this time we'll base it in reality.

Most importantly, you talk about the big picture but you only want others to see YOUR big picture. You have no wish to see theirs. What giant unfair benefits are they getting that has made them so much more advantaged to you? The near extinction of their people? The increasing and continuous loss of their culture? The harassment by people like you for asking the government to continue to honor the agreements made between our two peoples? The vast problems with poverty and alcoholism that come with all of the aforementioned problems?

Friend, remove that plank from your eye before criticizing them for the speck in theirs.

I get my tax information from someone who works at CRA (Canada Revenue Agency); no, I get it from 3 different people, all of whom have at one point worked in collections. One of them still works in auditing.

I call bullshit. Your *ahem* imaginary *ahem* friends at the CRA seem to have a little difficulty with reality. There is nothing funnier than someone claims they have referenced authorities on the matter and then say something blatantly untrue. Perhaps you could post the Tax law that they are referring to. I'd be interested to see it.

...

I think that if you believe that Aboriginals really benefit from being part of the Canadian state, you probably haven't read some of the information that Cat-Tribes provided very carefully. They benefit the least of any Canadians from the economic decisions that are made, yet the decisions are made tend to have a massive impact on their culture and traditional ways of life.

Health care is a band-aid solution and does not deal with the problem of communities that are fundamentally unhealthy.

The tax exemption is alot narrower than you think. In terms of income tax, it only benefits status Indians in limited circumstances, usually when they work on reserve. The exemption from sales tax is limited to on-reserve shopping only. Seeing as most reserves have little in the way of shopping, most status Indians spend most of their money off reserve and derive only an occasional benefit from the tax exemption. It does not apply to other aboriginal peoples such as Inuit, Metis, and non-status Indians. The limited benefits hardly outweight the losses that Aboriginal peoples have suffered.

Provincial governments collect a huge amount of resource royalties which they use to pay for social programs such as health care. All Canadians benefit from these revenues. And while some corporations do get away with paying little or no income tax, there are plenty that do, again to the benefit of all Canadians. Not to mention the job opportunities that are generated from these economic projects. When the majority benefits at the expense of a "minority", I hardly think that asking for fair compensation and treatment is "sticking it to" the majority.

I am not sure what "special laws" you are referring to. If you mean the Indian Act, is probably imposes more burdens than benefits.

While you don't choose your place of birth, you can choose to acknowledge the problems inherent in the way your country operates, and do something about it. Or you can ignore them, and thereby be further complicit in the problem.

My ancestors were largely French Protestants and Irish Catholics. They left their home countries in many cases to escape different forms of oppression and lack of opportunity. But in coming to Canada, they became part of a colonial project that is unjust. I personally don't think that the oppression they suffered justifies them treating others unfairly.

Gives big hugs to all everyone on this thread who is being reasonable:)

Thank you for the information. VERY informative. Might have some more questions later when i get a proper chance to post.
again thanks

You are most welcome. Your thirst for information is refreshing.

Here are some links to helpful information (although I am not sure how good the 3rd link is):
Archived US Bureau of Indian Affairs Answers to FAQs (http://web.archive.org/web/20010405185044/www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/q_and_a.html)
Native American Rights Fund, Answers to FAQs (http://www.narf.org/pubs/misc/faqs.html)
Indian Country Resource Guide: Answers to 100 Questions for 500 Nations (http://www.sheriwhitefeather.com/indian.htm)

Law Summary: Indian Gaming (http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/gaming/index.html)
Law Summary: Indian Lands (http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/ilands/index.html)

This source requires some digging around, but has a wealth of good information: The Harvard Project on American Indian Development (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/res_main.htm)

US Dept. of Interior: What are the Benefits & Services Provided to American Indians & Alaska Natives - The Myth of the Monthly Check (http://www.doi.gov/benefits.html)

There has long been a myth that Indians receive a monthly check from the U.S. Government because of their status as Indians. There is no basis for this belief other than misinformation and misconception of the status of American Indians. Some tribes, tribal members and lineal descendants received payments from the Federal Government resulting from claims settlements. But there are very few judgment funds per capita payments that remain today.

Some tribes distribute payments to enrolled members when revenues from the sale of tribal assets such as timber, hydroelectric power or oil and gas permit. Many tribes cannot make per capita payments because they do not have natural resources or other revenue from which they make a fund distribution.

Some Tribes have successful businesses, such as defense contracting, casino operations and information technology compainies. If profits warrant it, and tribal members approve it. Funds from those operations can be paid out as monthly, yearly or occasional stipends to tribal members. ....


Archived US Bureau of Indian Affairs Answers to FAQs (http://web.archive.org/web/20010405185044/www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/q_and_a.html)

Are Indians wards of the government?

No. The Federal Government is a trustee of Indian property, it is not a guardian of individual Indians. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized by law, in many instances, to protect the interests of minors and incompetents, but this protection does not confer a guardian-ward relationship.

Do Indians get payments from the government?

No individual is automatically paid for being an Indian. The Federal Government may pay a Tribe or an individual in compensation for damages for losses resulting from treaty violations, for encroachments on Indian lands, or for other past or present wrongs. A Tribe or an individual may also receive a government check for payment of income from their lands and resources. This occurs because their resources are held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior and payment for their use has been collected from users by the Federal Government in their behalf. Fees collected from oil or grazing leases are an example of this situation.

Are Indians entitled to a free college education?

No. An individual does not automatically receive funding because of Indian ancestry. The Indian higher education program provides financial aid to eligible students, based on demonstrated financial need, who have plans to attend an accredited institution of higher education. A student must obtain an application packet and other financial aid information form their tribe, home BIA Agency, or Area Office of Indian Education Programs. The Higher Education Grant Program is available to an individual who is a member of a federally Recognized Indian tribe.

Are Indians U.S. citizens?

Yes. Before the U.S. Congress extended American citizenship in 1924 to all Indians born in the territorial limits of the United States, citizenship had been conferred upon approximately two-thirds of the Indian population through treaty agreements, statutes, naturalization proceedings, and by "service in the Armed Forces with an honorable discharge" in World War I. Indians also are members of their respective Tribes and thus have dual citizenship.

Native American Rights Fund, Answers to FAQs (http://www.narf.org/pubs/misc/faqs.html)

Are Indians U.S. citizens?

Not until 1924 were all Native Americans granted citizenship. Before this juncture only individuals who were mem bers of federally recognized tribes and "naturalized" individuals were given the rights of a United States citizen. Presently all Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States are by law citizens. Native Americans have had the privilege of voting in national elections since 1924; however, until recently some states prohibited Native Americans from voting in local elections. New Mexico, for example, did not extend the vote to Native Americans until 1962. Most native people, of course, also are members of their respective sovereign tribes.

Are Native Americans exempt from military service?

Native Americans, despite tribal sovereignty, have the same obligations for military service as all other U.S. citizens.

Do Indians pay taxes?

All Indians are subject to federal income taxes. As sovereign entities, tribal governments have the power to levy taxes on reservation lands. Some tribes do and some don't. As a result, Indians and non-Indians may or may not pay sales taxes on goods and.services purchased on the reservation depending on the tribe. However, whenever a member of an Indian tribe conducts business off the reservation, that person, like everyone else, pays both state and local taxes. State income taxes are not paid on reservation or trust lands.

Do Native Americans receive any special rights or benefits from the U.S. government?

Contrary to popular belief, Indians do not receive payments from the federal government simply because they have Indian blood. Funds distributed to a person of Indian descent may represent mineral lease income on property that is held in trust by the United States or compensation for lands taken in connection with governmental projects. Some Indian tribes receive benefits from the federal government in fulfillment of treaty obligations or for the extraction of tribal natural resources - a percentage of which may be distributed as per capita among the tribes membership.

You are most welcome. Your thirst for information is refreshing.

Keep on debunking these ridiculous comments about how treaties are unfair "to the good, hardworking Joes who just want to keep what's theirs," but my thirst for information goes more toward Sinuhue and those like her that are willing to tell us about her culture and heritage. I can't read enough about how she feels about her roots and how they were affected by the settlement of this land by Europeans and those that followed.

the US federal government owes at least $10billion to somewhere around 500,000 native americans. they are due money for land leases that the BIA managed but never gave the land owners the money for. The suit revolves around Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts that are administered by the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Back in the 1880s, the government divided more than 11m acres of tribal land into parcels of 80 to 160 acres that were assigned to individual Indians. Because these parcels were rarely occupied by their new owners, the government assumed responsibility for managing them. As the Indians' trustee, it leased the land out for grazing, logging, mining and oil drilling—but it was supposed to distribute the royalties to the Indian owners.

In fact, officials admit that royalties have been lost or stolen. In some cases the money was never collected in the first place. Records were destroyed, and the government lost track of which Indians owned what land. The plaintiffs say that money is owing to 500,000 Indians, but even the government accepts a figure of about 300,000.
http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w188/Indians/lawsuit.htm

the blackfeet estimate the amount owed to be more like $40billion. the courts will decide in the end.

so instead of being leeches, they have been denied some serious money over the years. no wonder they are so poor eh?

What kind of government assistance do you think that makes you eligible for? This is another thing that interests me...what people think 'being Indian' actually gets you.

I wasn't trying to say that I was going to be able to ride through life on this stuff, and I wasn't trying to say that American Indians were taking advantage of the system. But I did check up on it and I was told by an official in the office that handles admissions at the local college (public institution) that I was eligible for certain admissions benefits. Whether or not it's true I don't know, what the benefits are I don't know. Anyway I just found it interesting that such a thing might be applicable to me since nobody would ever be able to tell without looking at a family tree. I understand from your post that I was misinformed or confused, and I'm sorry :confused:

Well, based on what you have said so far, when you say you want everyone to be treated equally, you mean you want everyone to be treated the same. When you say you want everyone to be treated the same, you mean you want everyone to be treated the way you want to be treated. And by treating everyone the way you want to be treated, you mean being treated in a manner that is consistent with European values and beliefs. That is not exactly a perspective that lends itself to the survival of other values and belief systems.

Your assuming alot. You know what assuming gets you. But anyway Americans dont use the European value system im sorry. It is clearly a mix of many cultures. European being only a part. And yes I want everyone treated the same way under the US law. Values has really nothing to do with it.

Hmmm...Jolt ate my response to this last night I guess. I'll give it another go:)

I think what you want for us is for us to succeed. The way you feel that this will become possible is if we become less isolated on reservations, and more integrated into the wider society. In a sense, you are correct, and in many ways, this is also what we desire.

However, there are some fundamental problems with the idea of assimilation. Yes, people are able to keep their culture, speak their language in their home, eat traditional foods, attend traditional functions, and still be part of mainstream Canada (or the US). If certain cultural aspects are sloughed off, or lost in the meantime, this does not mean the culture is dying, because immigrant cultures are not the sum of their culture. They are an extension of it. The root culture remains, in their country of origin.

Our countries of origin are here. When we lose bits and pieces of our culture, there is no assurance of continuity. We can not regain what has been lost, and that culture will not be renewed by new arrivals.

Natives who live overseas (and yes, there are a few, though by no means forming large communities as do other immigrant groups with larger numbers) are mainstreamed. But they know that when they return home, their culture will once again enfold them.

In our homelands, however, we comprise the totality of native culture. Once we have assimilated, native culture will have lost its roots, and forever be set adrift. We will truly lose our identities.

What is it about integration that would be so culturally threatening to us?

The basis of our culture is community, and our ties to the land. Remove us from the land, remove us from each other, and we can not function culturally. Off the reservation, we are not allowed to live in common. Sure, we could live in houses next to one another, we could form a little micro-community in urban centres, but the other major cultural component, our tie to the land, would be missing. We could live on farmsteads carved out of our traditional lands...but the spaces between us would remove the communal cultural component. We must have both.

Were we to live in little 'reservation communities' in the urban centres, in a whole community of 'Moccasin Flats' we still would not be integrated anyway. Isn't this the argument against China Towns and Little Italys? That groups who stick together, and create little pockets of their home countries are refusing to join mainstream society? I don't think you would want this to be the 'solution' to reservations for us.

It is a terrible paradox. In order for us to integrate with mainstream society, and remain healthy, individually and communally, we would have to reject everything that makes up that mainstream society. To do otherwise, would be to descend into misery, into loss of identity, into illness, both mental, physical, and spiritual. Clearly, we can not integrate, and reject at the same time.

What would we be rejecting? Individualism over communalism, which would extend to the way we deal with all social programs, health care, physical and mental, education etc, as well as the way live in our physical spaces. Western food over traditional. Consumerism over conservation. Success (as defined by Western mores) over success (as defined by us).

We can retain our cultures, strengthen them, and slowly enter your world...but we want to do it on our own terms. In essence, it is very much like entering a different country when you step off the reservation. Sometimes that's a bad thing. And sometimes it's a necessary barrier.

Sinuhue I have no problem groups of people living in communties. Asians do it, Latinos do it, heck even blacks and whites do it to a degree. You stay around people that your comfortable with.

The fact is that the US is a unique nation. All cultures are assimilated into one to form the American experience. All I want is for all peoples to be treated equally and fairly under one set of laws. This goes for absolutely everyone. No group of people should have a different set of rules applied to them. That is my whole arguement in a nutshell.

I think it is absolutely great that I dont have to travel very far from my home to experience different cultures in the US. Lived in the UK and in Morocco, travelled almost all of Europe and throughout the middle east in a private/corporate and a military roles. I have seen how other people live. There is no other place on this planet that has so well intergrated so many different types of cultures into one. All I want is a happy mix of cultures where we can all be treated equally and respectively. That to me would be America. We have our problems of course but I think special treatment for anyone is not in step with what America is about.

Your assuming alot. You know what assuming gets you. But anyway Americans dont use the European value system im sorry. It is clearly a mix of many cultures. European being only a part. And yes I want everyone treated the same way under the US law. Values has really nothing to do with it.

Americans may not share all modern European values. However the US is founded on principles that reflect European values at the time of the enlightenment, i.e. democracy, the rights of the individual, the free market, etc. But if it makes you more comfortable, I will use the label "Western" values. Other cultures may be mixed in but those Western values are the dominant belief. The belief that equal treatment means everyone should be treated the same is part of that value system

The fact is that the US is a unique nation. All cultures are assimilated into one to form the American experience. All I want is for all peoples to be treated equally and fairly under one set of laws. This goes for absolutely everyone. No group of people should have a different set of rules applied to them. That is my whole arguement in a nutshell.



But who then decides what rules will apply to everyone? Usually the dominant group. And the dominant group is most likely to select a set of rules that are most favourable to them, even if they apply equally to everyone. So I hardly see how that is fair and equal treatment.

But who then decides what rules will apply to everyone? Usually the dominant group. And the dominant group is most likely to select a set of rules that are most favourable to them, even if they apply equally to everyone. So I hardly see how that is fair and equal treatment.


The dominate group is quickly becoming evened out with the minorities. I could quoute statistics but i know you could look them up very easily.

What rules would favor one group over another in the current constitution/bill of rights set up? I mean basic us law. Constitution, Bill of Rights. That is what US law im reffering too. The ones that trump all the local and state laws.

Am I wrong in thinking that some of you may be argueing for not having everyone live under the same set of laws? If that is the case how can that make sense? It doesnt to me. That flies in the face of what the ideology of the US system.

Sinuhue I have no problem groups of people living in communties. Asians do it, Latinos do it, heck even blacks and whites do it to a degree. You stay around people that your comfortable with.

The fact is that the US is a unique nation. All cultures are assimilated into one to form the American experience. All I want is for all peoples to be treated equally and fairly under one set of laws. This goes for absolutely everyone. No group of people should have a different set of rules applied to them. That is my whole arguement in a nutshell.

I think it is absolutely great that I dont have to travel very far from my home to experience different cultures in the US. Lived in the UK and in Morocco, travelled almost all of Europe and throughout the middle east in a private/corporate and a military roles. I have seen how other people live. There is no other place on this planet that has so well intergrated so many different types of cultures into one. All I want is a happy mix of cultures where we can all be treated equally and respectively. That to me would be America. We have our problems of course but I think special treatment for anyone is not in step with what America is about.

You should have no trouble accomplishing this. First, admit that you wish to steal land from the indians, as currently it still belongs to them, by the treaties as agreed to by the US government. Next, you have to amend the part of US Constitution that guarantees the treaties will be honored. But, hey, if you don't like the Constitution or honoring contracts, then all you need to do is get 2/3rds of the US behind you. Better get started.

The dominate group is quickly becoming evened out with the minorities. I could quoute statistics but i know you could look them up very easily.

What rules would favor one group over another in the current constitution/bill of rights set up? I mean basic us law. Constitution, Bill of Rights. That is what US law im reffering too. The ones that trump all the local and state laws.

Oh, you mean the same document that says we'll honor treaties? If you respect it so much why do you wish to violate it.

Am I wrong in thinking that some of you may be argueing for not having everyone live under the same set of laws? If that is the case how can that make sense? It doesnt to me. That flies in the face of what the ideology of the US system.
Then why did they put it in the US Constitution?

And, pray tell, what are these special rights and priveleges that are being given that are so unfair and damaging to the rest of the US citizens?

Economic justice and equallity for all races!
Hmm. All Americans are treated equal and given equal rights on American soil.

However, what you people seem to be missing is the fact that the casinos aren't allowed because the owners are Native Americans, but because **Gasp** Native Americans have soveriegn nations within the United States ("Cherokee Nation" isn't just something they put on their license plates...), and in those soveriegn states, they can make their own laws, even if that means not outlawing gambling.

*snip of wonderful, myth-busting facts*

Thank you Cat. It really makes me angry how people make these claims about us, and yet refuse to believe that they are absolutely, and utterly wrong, without ever providing a shred of evidence to back themselves up. I have to question this blindness. Is it truly that you people need to find something to back up your dislike of us? Or is it truly just what you have been taught? Please question it. Look at the facts. Much of what you 'hold against us' is based in opinions alone.

Keep on debunking these ridiculous comments about how treaties are unfair "to the good, hardworking Joes who just want to keep what's theirs," but my thirst for information goes more toward Sinuhue and those like her that are willing to tell us about her culture and heritage. I can't read enough about how she feels about her roots and how they were affected by the settlement of this land by Europeans and those that followed.
Well, if you have any specific questions, I can answer them:) I don't want to start writing a novel about it though, so I'm going to confine myself to responding to specific posts!

I wasn't trying to say that I was going to be able to ride through life on this stuff, and I wasn't trying to say that American Indians were taking advantage of the system. But I did check up on it and I was told by an official in the office that handles admissions at the local college (public institution) that I was eligible for certain admissions benefits. Whether or not it's true I don't know, what the benefits are I don't know. Anyway I just found it interesting that such a thing might be applicable to me since nobody would ever be able to tell without looking at a family tree. I understand from your post that I was misinformed or confused, and I'm sorry :confused:
No no no...don't get me wrong. I'm not saying, "hey you pretend Indian, defend yourself!":) No, it's just that people assume that there are all these benefits that go along with being native, and I was wondering what benefits you in particular thought you might be eligible for. Yes, some post-secondary institutions have 'preferred status' for natives going into certain programs, but rarely are those seats filled. VERY rarely. Most of us don't have the education or the marks to get in.

Hmm. All Americans are treated equal and given equal rights on American soil.

However, what you people seem to be missing is the fact that the casinos aren't allowed because the owners are Native Americans, but because **Gasp** Native Americans have soveriegn nations within the United States ("Cherokee Nation" isn't just something they put on their license plates...), and in those soveriegn states, they can make their own laws, even if that means not outlawing gambling.

Um, not exactly. They are not actually soveriegn nations so to speak.

Um, not exactly. They are not actually soveriegn nations so to speak.
Yeah, they're more like unofficial territories.

The dominate group is quickly becoming evened out with the minorities. I could quoute statistics but i know you could look them up very easily.

What rules would favor one group over another in the current constitution/bill of rights set up? I mean basic us law. Constitution, Bill of Rights. That is what US law im reffering too. The ones that trump all the local and state laws.

Am I wrong in thinking that some of you may be argueing for not having everyone live under the same set of laws? If that is the case how can that make sense? It doesnt to me. That flies in the face of what the ideology of the US system.
Not really. It would simply add a separate level of government to specific areas. Like a municipal government, with some overlap into state/provincial/territorial powers and federal powers. There would be no, "this native killed a man, but we won't abide by American laws on the issue, we will deal with him in our own courts". We will still be under federal and state/provincial/territorial regulations. What would start being administered by us would be, for example, our own health care and social systems, our own education (of course it would have to match up with the state/provincial/territorial curriculum...it would make no sense for our education to only be good within the reservation) etc. We already ARE a community of people...why would we simply pick up and move into the city and form a community there? The way we will become more integrated is by taking back control over ourselves and not feeling culturally threatened anymore. Then we can start going out into American/Canadian/whatever society and know our roots are firm.

A native living in an urban centre, outside of 'Indian territory' would be as any other citizen of that nation. The differences on the reserves would simply be in who runs the services, and how they are tailored to aboriginal needs. I'm not really sure what you object to here...?

Cat brought up an important point too. These 'payouts' that natives supposedly get. Some bands still receive a fairly paltry payment from the government on an annual basis, depending on the treaty they signed. In fact, some payments were NOT indexed to inflation, and so people get $12 A YEAR. Kind of pointless that:) The majority of monies being paid out to band members are profits from band enterprises. Think of a reservation as a big co-operative. Everyone is a shareholder, and so everyone gets a share in the profits. Some bands have little money because they have few resources to exploit, and others have a LOT of money. It varies quite extremely. This is not money coming from taxpayers. It's money coming from OUR businesses.

Hmm. All Americans are treated equal and given equal rights on American soil.

However, what you people seem to be missing is the fact that the casinos aren't allowed because the owners are Native Americans, but because **Gasp** Native Americans have soveriegn nations within the United States ("Cherokee Nation" isn't just something they put on their license plates...), and in those soveriegn states, they can make their own laws, even if that means not outlawing gambling.
Semi-sovereign states:) Which means they can't make laws that contravene state/provincial/territorial/federal laws unless they've made some sort of agreement with the states/etc/etc/etc.

But you've made a good point...native lands are native soil, part of yet separate from the rest of the country.

It's a legal mess :eek:

I am not sure what constitutes the 'native American.' I live on the east coast of the USA and, to my knowledge, have seen native Americans only in films. Yet the US government has granted privileges to groups of people (in Connecticut, for example) who say they are native Americans but who do not look like the native Americans I have seen on film, nor do they speak a native American language. At a pow-wow I attended, the 'native Americans' included blonds and redheads, not distinguishing characteristics of the 'native American.'

To my mind, the native Americans of the western states, the Lakota, Hopi, Navaho, the various nations of the Iroquois in NY, etc. (if they still speak their native language and adhere to the culture of their ancestors) are real native Americans, and their plight in the USA is unforgivable. If a few of them benefit from the 'largesse' of the US government that permits them to open and manage casinos (normally with heavy investments from non-native Americans who benefit the most), the more power to them.

Sadly, in the society in which we live, the plight of the less fortunate is ignored in favor of corporate welfare (Halliburton, etc.) and 'entitlement programs' (such as handsome health and retirement packages for senators and congressmen, paid at the taxpayers expense) for the well-off. It is ironic that the new native American museum in Washington, D.C. opens at a time when native American languages and cultures are slowly dying, and with them the rich legacy of great peoples.

At a pow-wow I attended, the 'native Americans' included blonds and redheads, not distinguishing characteristics of the 'native American.'
Many natives are now mixed blood, and blonde or red hair can be present. However, in Canada, the bands themselves decide who belong to the band...you can not claim to be Alexis Stoney Native and be accepted as such. You have to be on the band roster to get "Indian" status. You can perhaps get Métis status if you are say, 1/16th native, but the Métis themselves research your bloodlines and make the final decision. The government does not decide who or who is not native. As well, you can be adopted into a tribe, regardless of your heritage and be given status.

And I am all for people wanting to learn more about our culture, and even participating in it. What a way to honour a people! I welcome those of you would want to see, and know more, and so do most native people. We willingly present our dances, our songs, our legends, our stories to you, and find joy in the sharing. What we resent, is our stories being told FOR us, by non-natives. We have our own voices. We resent people who want to claim our culture as their own, without fully knowing what that culture is. Those that have a drop or two of native blood that speak about the "Indian" experience. If you want to rediscover your heritage, come and live with us. Ask for teachings. Be honest and open with us. But do not use your blood to make yourself a voice for a people who are perfectly capable of using their own. You don't have to be one of us to appreciate our culture and be welcomed by us in our communities.

The majority of monies being paid out to band members are profits from band enterprises. Think of a reservation as a big co-operative. Everyone is a shareholder, and so everyone gets a share in the profits. Some bands have little money because they have few resources to exploit, and others have a LOT of money. It varies quite extremely. This is not money coming from taxpayers. It's money coming from OUR businesses.

maybe they just object to cooperative/collective businesses? "it's barbaric and unfair that everybody gets a share of the wealth created. they should join modern society and have almost all of that wealth go to a tiny elite. savages."

maybe they just object to cooperative/collective businesses? "it's barbaric and unfair that everybody gets a share of the wealth created. they should join modern society and have almost all of that wealth go to a tiny elite. savages."
Hehehehe...no, I don't think most people realise that this is where the money is coming from. The believe the story that the government gives us these huge handouts.

Economic justice and equallity for all races!

Great, close the reservations and force them to assimilate. You're all heart, dude-part of the problem,is that our ancestors made their ancestors into a permanent dependent-class of the Government. Reservation life is a perfect example of why I tend to oppose Nanny-State Socialism in the United States, It didn't work for them, what makes you think it's going to work with everyone else?

The problem is far, far, more complicated than some empty slogan. To solve it, you have to stop looking at 'races' and start addressing the victims of it as 'people'.

The part of all of this that I find so flooring is that there would people running around wasting their energy on the 'unfair' aboriginal privelege, while, in the US, at least, all of the presidents look like me, most of the CEOs look like me, most of the domestic terrorists look like me, most of the serial killers look like me. I've seen the same people in this thread and in other threads complaining that the US constitution protects the treaties with aboriginal peoples and offers equal protection under the law. Personally, I grew up very poor and have struggled for everything I have, but I would totally understand if this thread was about white privelege. I could see if people suggested that they felt threatened by white males in this country or that they are overly priveleged. Though I hate when people lump an entire subset of people together by how they look or what dangles (or doesn't) between their legs, I could understand where the sentiment comes from.

However, how could one possibly argue that honoring the agreements freely entered into by our government is unfair? How could one argue that 'Indians' are getting all the breaks or even too many of them? How could one argue that they are getting the long end of the stick (little inuendo for my friend, Sinuhue)?

I know that we've had a few hours of peace on the subject, but this has been bothering me all night.

When we don't have a president whose father was a president and brother is a governor (elected twice), I might worry about the privelege of someone other than people like him. When the last two candidates who ran against that president (that actually had a sporting chance) weren't sons of Senators, I might worry a little more about the privelege of someone other than people like them. When all of them can't trace their family trees back to the founding fathers of the country, I might worry a little more about the privelege of someone other than people like them. Even if you felt like aboriginals were getting too many breaks, it's like complaining that it's humid in the middle of a category five hurricane.

And when I have more than a ridiculously remote chance of coming across a family of aboriginals at the local grocery store or sitting next to them on a plane, I might consider their 'privelege'. Till then, I think I have bigger fish to fry.

Great, close the reservations and force them to assimilate. You're all heart, dude-part of the problem,is that our ancestors made their ancestors into a permanent dependent-class of the Government. Reservation life is a perfect example of why I tend to oppose Nanny-State Socialism in the United States, It didn't work for them, what makes you think it's going to work with everyone else?

Whoa, slow down here. You can NOT compare the reservation system to "nanny-state socialism". Part of the problem was that our entire way of life and methods of sustaining ourselves were suddenly no longer possible. Within one or two generations, thousands of years of hunting and gathering methods had to be discarded, or changed radically as we were no longer free to roam nomadically, and we no longer had as much access to resources as we once had. The Plains Cree, as an example, a nomadic group of hunter/gatherers were encouraged to begin farming as a method of feeding ourselves. You do not 'create' farmers in a single generation, not after than many years of every aspect of our culture being focused towards hunting and gathering. We were made dependent because our way of life was curtailed, not because of 'socialist' policies.

Whoa, slow down here. You can NOT compare the reservation system to "nanny-state socialism". Part of the problem was that our entire way of life and methods of sustaining ourselves were suddenly no longer possible. Within one or two generations, thousands of years of hunting and gathering methods had to be discarded, or changed radically as we were no longer free to roam nomadically, and we no longer had as much access to resources as we once had. The Plains Cree, as an example, a nomadic group of hunter/gatherers were encouraged to begin farming as a method of feeding ourselves. You do not 'create' farmers in a single generation, not after than many years of every aspect of our culture being focused towards hunting and gathering. We were made dependent because our way of life was curtailed, not because of 'socialist' policies.

It's "whoa, slow down here, Sparky." Do you even listen to what TCT has to say?

It's "whoa, slow down here, Sparky." Do you even listen to what TCT has to say?
Huh? I'm not understanding why you quoted that response and then referred to TCT :confused:

Huh? I'm not understanding why you quoted that response and then referred to TCT :confused:

Hey, look up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. It's my joke.

You said, "Whoa, slow down here." and TCT would have added Sparky. read your response out loud and a Sparky would fit nicely. I was just trying to lighten the mood. It failed miserably. *mopes*

Hey, look up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. It's my joke.

You said, "Whoa, slow down here." and TCT would have added Sparky. read your response out loud and a Sparky would fit nicely. I was just trying to lighten the mood. It failed miserably. *mopes*
Oh. Okay, I do get it now (remember the infamous 'sparky' issue in the Bozzy thread). I was just confused, sorry! I thought you meant I went overboard on my reply.

And to Cadillac, please don't take my post as an attack...I just don't think you can compare the native situation to socialism.

Oh. Okay, I do get it now (remember the infamous 'sparky' issue in the Bozzy thread). I was just confused, sorry! I thought you meant I went overboard on my reply.

And to Cadillac, please don't take my post as an attack...I just don't think you can compare the native situation to socialism.

It didn't sound like an attack to me and, personally, I think Sparky is snarky and that's why I like it.

I met a girl and she was snarky
Although she had a ton of class
She said, "whoa, settle down, Sparky"
As I fell for her hot, injun ass.

Am I wrong in thinking that some of you may be argueing for not having everyone live under the same set of laws? If that is the case how can that make sense? It doesnt to me. That flies in the face of what the ideology of the US system.

No it doesn't, because as we have already discussed, treaties are part of the law of the land of the US. That is what you were railing against.

The other question is why should Native Americans have to submit to a set of laws that were imposed on them given that they had no choice in the creation of the US.

The part of all of this that I find so flooring is that there would people running around wasting their energy on the 'unfair' aboriginal privelege, while, in the US, at least, all of the presidents look like me, most of the CEOs look like me, most of the domestic terrorists look like me, most of the serial killers look like me. I've seen the same people in this thread and in other threads complaining that the US constitution protects the treaties with aboriginal peoples and offers equal protection under the law. Personally, I grew up very poor and have struggled for everything I have, but I would totally understand if this thread was about white privelege. I could see if people suggested that they felt threatened by white males in this country or that they are overly priveleged. Though I hate when people lump an entire subset of people together by how they look or what dangles (or doesn't) between their legs, I could understand where the sentiment comes from.

However, how could one possibly argue that honoring the agreements freely entered into by our government is unfair? How could one argue that 'Indians' are getting all the breaks or even too many of them? How could one argue that they are getting the long end of the stick (little inuendo for my friend, Sinuhue)?

I know that we've had a few hours of peace on the subject, but this has been bothering me all night.

When we don't have a president whose father was a president and brother is a governor (elected twice), I might worry about the privelege of someone other than people like him. When the last two candidates who ran against that president (that actually had a sporting chance) weren't sons of Senators, I might worry a little more about the privelege of someone other than people like them. When all of them can't trace their family trees back to the founding fathers of the country, I might worry a little more about the privelege of someone other than people like them. Even if you felt like aboriginals were getting too many breaks, it's like complaining that it's humid in the middle of a category five hurricane.

And when I have more than a ridiculously remote chance of coming across a family of aboriginals at the local grocery store or sitting next to them on a plane, I might consider their 'privelege'. Till then, I think I have bigger fish to fry.

Bravo!

Whoa, slow down here. You can NOT compare the reservation system to "nanny-state socialism". Part of the problem was that our entire way of life and methods of sustaining ourselves were suddenly no longer possible. Within one or two generations, thousands of years of hunting and gathering methods had to be discarded, or changed radically as we were no longer free to roam nomadically, and we no longer had as much access to resources as we once had. The Plains Cree, as an example, a nomadic group of hunter/gatherers were encouraged to begin farming as a method of feeding ourselves. You do not 'create' farmers in a single generation, not after than many years of every aspect of our culture being focused towards hunting and gathering. We were made dependent because our way of life was curtailed, not because of 'socialist' policies.

What I was referring to, was the creation of a system of dependence. Socialism siezes control of the means of production,then distributes it according to whatever arcane formula the government dictates. The intent of the treaty-makers may not have been that, but the impact was the same-in a very real sense, it's an incomplete conquest that continues to do damage to this day. I think someone pointed out that the 'payments' agreed to under treaty were never indexed to inflation (not surprisingly-Economics wasn't really a respected field of study until the very late 19th Century in government circles, and the Government of the time viewed people very much by their 'ethnic/race' background...)

You don't create Farmers in a single generation-but it's easier to farm on land that isn't infertile, rocky, scrub with almost no water when you're just-now-learning-how. The means of production were siezed and destroyed by the Government (or by private agencies with government backing), and a paltry 'payment' was and is made based on arcane formulae that have no basis in reality.

Hence, the creation of a badly-treated permanent dependence in far too many places. A few bands here and there have found ways to get out of the cycle, but the problems remain in far too many cases, and the questionable sovereignty of Reservations just works against fixing it. Either you're sovereign, or you're not. Half-in/half-out generates nothing but problems and legal conflicts (Think "Wounded Knee" and "Oka" as extreme examples, or the "Rosebud" reservation in South Dakota) that turn out badly.

Like I said later in my post, it's not a "Groups" problem, it's a "People" problem-the more someone identifies others as members of a "Group" with "Rights" (as opposed to Individuals with Rights), the easier it is to circumscribe those rights to a weird and distorted minimum-compliance, the easier it is to marginalize, ignore, and exploit them.
It also makes it easier for greedy, small-minded men to resent, hate, and hold bigotry when they are presented with an easily identified target that doesn't technically belong (Segregation). The present arrangement is Apartheid in North America (imagine, a white conservative saying this...) It's like the conquest never stopped oppressing the losing side, a situation that ought to be intolerable in an allegedly free society.

It also makes it easier for greedy, small-minded men to resent, hate, and hold bigotry when they are presented with an easily identified target that doesn't technically belong (Segregation). The present arrangement is Apartheid in North America (imagine, a white conservative saying this...) It's like the conquest never stopped oppressing the losing side, a situation that ought to be intolerable in an allegedly free society.

Well, the apartheid system of 'homelands' was based on our reservations systems after all...

Well, the apartheid system of 'homelands' was based on our reservations systems after all...

Exactly. They also used the worst land they could find, only with better methods of screwing over their victims since they were more aware of mineral wealth potentials.

I think Tribes should be taking greater advantage of their tax-status, and graduating as many business majors as possible (instead of civil-rights lawyers and activists) to really give the wrench to things. Poverty is best fought by making piles and piles of cash, not demanding/begging/applying for it. It's a simple thing: it's a lot easier to be generous to your "Family" if you have lots of money coming in. Here in Washington, the Tulalips have the right idea-get the suckers to come gamble their money away, pull in businesses that want to avoid ordinances and red-tape, etc. etc... but they need sharper, meaner, negotiators and more aggressive salesmen in every reservation and annex-real power is still solvency-the more money you have, the less Regulations matter. (ask General Motors, Bill Gates, or Norinco.)

On the question in the title: No, not yet. with work, they could well become privelaged.

*snip*
Have you ever read Svaha, by Charles de Lint? It describes a future where the tribes essentially did what you are describing...made piles of cash off their music actually, trained their youth in business, science, and law, and sealed off the reservations with types of forcefields. When the rest of the world went to shit, the reservations were the only non-poisoned lands left. It's an interesting read...

I'm not sure why this is even being argued (reasonable discussion to bring attention to the problem and consider possible solutions would be much more appropriate) - our government made the treaties and we should live up to them. If there are parts that have not been fulfilled, they should be attended to immediately considering most of them were made over a century ago. No one else would tolerate waiting that long for contracted compensation.

I don't know what the current situation is here in the US with regard to education on reservations, but I believe the individual State where the reservation is located should be required to provide the same public education that it provides in any other community. The individual tribes and bands should also be encouraged to have their own schools run in a more traditional fashion. This way parents could choose either or a combination of both.

As far as the casinos are concerned, I wish we HAD a reservation in my State because gambling is not permitted here except for certain events held by non-profit groups.

I do have a question though. Are the majority of people living on the reservations still living in the traditional manner? i.e. longhouses, a-frames, tents rather than modern homes; open fires and stone/earth ovens rather than modern appliances; etc.

I'm about 1/8 Cherokee but unfortunately, I was never taught anything about the traditions or even current living conditions of my very extended family.

Have you ever read Svaha, by Charles de Lint? It describes a future where the tribes essentially did what you are describing...made piles of cash off their music actually, trained their youth in business, science, and law, and sealed off the reservations with types of forcefields. When the rest of the world went to shit, the reservations were the only non-poisoned lands left. It's an interesting read...

Nope. but the principle I think would work. It would require some hard choices in the short-term.

The ability to generate wealth, is the ability to dictate how Power is used. I see no reason why the Tribes shouldn't be able to buy just as many congresscritters as the Corporations do.

I do have a question though. Are the majority of people living on the reservations still living in the traditional manner? i.e. longhouses, a-frames, tents rather than modern homes; open fires and stone/earth ovens rather than modern appliances; etc.

Nope, sorry:) Though we live that way when we go out in the bush to hunt, our homes are much like everyone else's...usually more rundown and with many families living in one house:)

That doesn't mean we don't live traditionally at all. But why would you live in a teepee when you are no longer nomadic?

Cultural note: most native youths love hip hop and rap, and many are really, really good dancers :D

Semi-sovereign states:) Which means they can't make laws that contravene state/provincial/territorial/federal laws unless they've made some sort of agreement with the states/etc/etc/etc.

But you've made a good point...native lands are native soil, part of yet separate from the rest of the country.

It's a legal mess :eek:
Well, the point is...

Native Americans don't have special rights becasue they are a special race. Native Americans have special rights because they happen to own special land (and actually...as far as some of them are concerned, all the American lands that they don't own is rightfully theirs anyway).

Speaking of gambling laws and how rediculous they are...

Anyone here know what I'm talking about if I say "those blue-water prize games in taco bell"?

Yea, anyway...so in Springdale, Arkansas (semi-major town in NW area of the state, just north of a more major city, Fayetteville), some person won, then told the manager that it was gambling.

And since gambling (of any form) is 100% completely outlawed in FArkansas, I didn't win my damn free taco a couple weeks ago when I landed my dime on the spinny thing, and yet the boys and girls club still got the 27 cents I dropped in there.

No it doesn't, because as we have already discussed, treaties are part of the law of the land of the US. That is what you were railing against.

The other question is why should Native Americans have to submit to a set of laws that were imposed on them given that they had no choice in the creation of the US.

These treaties should be ended. They have no place in the US at this date.

The arguement that the natives had no choice to submit. Your right they did however fight against the English, Spanish at some points the French and then the Americans. So if you fight and lose. Well Im sorry, but really what say do you have? Your failing to realise that the land wasnt taken peacefully in alot of places including the area im in. It was determined on the battlefield who was going to control it. The victors dictate the terms not the losers.

Not really. It would simply add a separate level of government to specific areas. Like a municipal government, with some overlap into state/provincial/territorial powers and federal powers. There would be no, "this native killed a man, but we won't abide by American laws on the issue, we will deal with him in our own courts". We will still be under federal and state/provincial/territorial regulations. What would start being administered by us would be, for example, our own health care and social systems, our own education (of course it would have to match up with the state/provincial/territorial curriculum...it would make no sense for our education to only be good within the reservation) etc. We already ARE a community of people...why would we simply pick up and move into the city and form a community there? The way we will become more integrated is by taking back control over ourselves and not feeling culturally threatened anymore. Then we can start going out into American/Canadian/whatever society and know our roots are firm.

A native living in an urban centre, outside of 'Indian territory' would be as any other citizen of that nation. The differences on the reserves would simply be in who runs the services, and how they are tailored to aboriginal needs. I'm not really sure what you object to here...?

I am simply objecting to special rights for American Natives. Seeing how your from Canada maybe you can enlighten us Americans on how Canadian government deals with native tribes. I personally think there is a different set of histories in Canada vs the US in dealings with the native population. Maybe this is where you and I are disagreeing. Your perspective is from the Canadian history with natives and mine obviously is with US history in dealings with natives. The US history is entrenched in warfare with the natives. To be honest I dont know the Canadian dealings. So enlighten me and my fellow posters on a brief history of Canadian/Native affairs.

You should have no trouble accomplishing this. First, admit that you wish to steal land from the indians, as currently it still belongs to them, by the treaties as agreed to by the US government. Next, you have to amend the part of US Constitution that guarantees the treaties will be honored. But, hey, if you don't like the Constitution or honoring contracts, then all you need to do is get 2/3rds of the US behind you. Better get started.


Stealing is a misnomer. As I have stated time again in this thread there is what is called the "Indian Wars" in the US. The Indians lost, therefore they lost there land. I know its hard for some of you to accept the facts of life in wartime. But this is it. Secondly treaties can be revoked. They have in the past and will in the future. As soon as it doesnt suit the US or any other nation then they become obsolete. Therefore I propose ending the treaties that we have with the Native Americans on the grounds that they serve no national interests.

Stealing is a misnomer. As I have stated time again in this thread there is what is called the "Indian Wars" in the US. The Indians lost, therefore they lost there land. I know its hard for some of you to accept the facts of life in wartime. But this is it. Secondly treaties can be revoked. They have in the past and will in the future. As soon as it doesnt suit the US or any other nation then they become obsolete. Therefore I propose ending the treaties that we have with the Native Americans on the grounds that they serve no national interests.
interesting proposal

luckily the rest of the country isnt interested in abrogating those treaties. we would be a much poorer country without the cultural influence of our indian brothers.

we dont prosper as a country by acting shamefully. indian reservations are not a huge expense to the rest of the country. mostly they pay for themselves. if the reservations were stopped, the land would be divided up among the registered members. no gain to anyone there. i see no national interest in forcibly destroying native cultures.

I do have a question though. Are the majority of people living on the reservations still living in the traditional manner? i.e. longhouses, a-frames, tents rather than modern homes; open fires and stone/earth ovens rather than modern appliances; etc.

some of the older navajos still do. very few of those under age 60 would consider it. in places like isleta pueblo where they have a very successful casino they are building really nice housing developments--such a difference from the little boxes the federal government used to build for them.

what you DO see out in the country are modest houses or mobile homes with a hogan in the yard. i dont know if anyone ever uses it, but its common to see. there are also lots of adobe ovens in peoples yards. im not sure what the word for them is but they are still used to bake bread.

silver jewelry making, rug weaving, pottery making and sheep herding are all still done for a living in new mexico.

These treaties should be ended. They have no place in the US at this date.

The arguement that the natives had no choice to submit. Your right they did however fight against the English, Spanish at some points the French and then the Americans. So if you fight and lose. Well Im sorry, but really what say do you have? Your failing to realise that the land wasnt taken peacefully in alot of places including the area im in. It was determined on the battlefield who was going to control it. The victors dictate the terms not the losers.

And the victors dictated those terms a hundred years ago. They can't just change them because they don't like them. NOW, those terms are protected by the constitution, just like your right to talk about things you clearly don't understand.

I am simply objecting to special rights for American Natives. Seeing how your from Canada maybe you can enlighten us Americans on how Canadian government deals with native tribes. I personally think there is a different set of histories in Canada vs the US in dealings with the native population. Maybe this is where you and I are disagreeing. Your perspective is from the Canadian history with natives and mine obviously is with US history in dealings with natives. The US history is entrenched in warfare with the natives. To be honest I dont know the Canadian dealings. So enlighten me and my fellow posters on a brief history of Canadian/Native affairs.

Or you could read the thread.

Stealing is a misnomer. As I have stated time again in this thread there is what is called the "Indian Wars" in the US. The Indians lost, therefore they lost there land. I know its hard for some of you to accept the facts of life in wartime. But this is it. Secondly treaties can be revoked. They have in the past and will in the future. As soon as it doesnt suit the US or any other nation then they become obsolete. Therefore I propose ending the treaties that we have with the Native Americans on the grounds that they serve no national interests.

I suggest you read up on treaties, first. The founding fathers you keep mentioning considered it dishonorable to violate treaties.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html#1

Second of all, nations grow and evolve and we have. At one time we had lots of conquered people working as slaves, but we grew and evolved and discontinued the practice. Now you wish to finish destroying the culture of a people because we conquered them and you're whining that it's not fair that we didn't wipe them out altogether. Fortunately, almost no one educated agrees with you so it will NEVER happen. And if it does, it was a peace treaty. Effectively we'll have broken the peace. This country won't be able to look to me to help them complete the destruction of these people. I don't know of anyone they will be able to look to.

I'm happy that you weren't involved in the negotiations between GB and Ireland or China and Hong Kong. Your complete lack of respect for people who don't look like you is appalling.

Your complete lack of respect for people who don't look like you is appalling.


This has got to be one of the more ignorant statements. Will have you know im a 1/4 blackfoot native american. 3/4 European decent and married to a Moroccan woman that is not white. So for you to off hand judge me in that manner is absolutely appalling. Talk about a lack of respect for people.

And the victors dictated those terms a hundred years ago. They can't just change them because they don't like them. NOW, those terms are protected by the constitution, just like your right to talk about things you clearly don't understand.


The lack of understanding comes from people like you. There is a discrepency on how classified native Americans are treated vs how other Americans are treated. All I want is an even playing field for everyone. How hard is this to figure out? So your in favor of special treatment for some and not others? I wonder if you would have supported American policies in the past against blacks and certain European immigrants. I mean they are the same arguements. Having rules for some that dont apply to others. This isnt much different.

I am simply objecting to special rights for American Natives.

You still have not explained what these "special rights" are, or why treating people differently is wrong. You seem to assume that treating people the same is treating them equally. As I have stated earlier, I disagree.

Stealing is a misnomer. As I have stated time again in this thread there is what is called the "Indian Wars" in the US. The Indians lost, therefore they lost there land. I know its hard for some of you to accept the facts of life in wartime. But this is it. Secondly treaties can be revoked. They have in the past and will in the future. As soon as it doesnt suit the US or any other nation then they become obsolete. Therefore I propose ending the treaties that we have with the Native Americans on the grounds that they serve no national interests.

Since when do nations automatically lose all of their land because they lost a war? There are plenty of nations still in existence on the planet that have lost a few wars in their time.

If the treaties were indeed the terms on which the US and the Native Americans agreed to co-exist after the "Indian Wars", then the US government can only claim ownership of the land through those treaties. IF they abrogate the treaties, they have to give back the land. Would that serve the national interest?

I wonder if you would have supported American policies in the past against blacks and certain European immigrants. I mean they are the same arguements. Having rules for some that dont apply to others. This isnt much different.

No, it is a totally different situation than European immigrants, and substantially different than the situation of the blacks. Native Americans lived on this land in their own organized societies thousands of years before anyone else arrived. They were prior sovereign nations, entitled to continue to live under their own laws, and not to have the laws of newcomers imposed on them. They did not choose to become part of the US and live under US law (which makes the situation of most African Americans closer to them), unlike the many immigrants who came and chose to accept to live under US law. There is nothing comparable that would make it acceptable to differentiate between different waves of immigrants (such as Europeans and later arrivals).

Your assuming alot. You know what assuming gets you. But anyway Americans dont use the European value system im sorry. It is clearly a mix of many cultures. European being only a part. And yes I want everyone treated the same way under the US law. Values has really nothing to do with it.


Then you have no reason to complaing about tribal soveriegnty and tribal rights.

They are enshrined in the ultimate Law of the Land -- and are themselves the law of the land.

Indian Tribes are specifically recognized as separate entities several times in the US Constitution. Congress is granted the power to "regulate Commerce with the Indian Tribes" while the President was empoyered to make treaties, necessariliy including Indian treaties, with the consent of the Senate. U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3: Art II, sec. 2, cl.2. Article VI, clause 2 declares: "This Constitution ... and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." (emphasis added).

The reservation land -- which tribes own -- is the remnant of land left to the tribes via treaty. It is a small portion of what was considered theirs at the time of the treaty. The hunting and fishing rights you complain about are remnants -- small retained portions of the broader rights that the tribes gave up under the treaties. You can't on the one hand say "they lost the war, tough" about broader rights to which tribes could make a claim and at the same time complain about what little rights were retrained under the terms of surrender. At the vary least you can't make such a claim in the name of equal protection under the law. You wish to strip tribes of exactly that -- equal treatment of the contracts they signed with the federal government.

Under the Constitution and under the treaties (and under over 200 years of statutes and caselaw, the tribes retain certain sovereignty within their reservation. This is almost entirely subject to federal control, however.
Thus, much like California can have different laws than Washington or Oregon, individual tribes can have different laws within the borders of their reservation. Again, the tribal laws are general subject to federal supremacy (even more so than states are subject to federal supremacy). Also, tribal laws do not necessary apply to non-tribal members on the reservation in the same way they apply to tribal members. (This is generally to the advantage of non-tribal members, so doesn't support your complaint.)

You vague allegations of unfair treatment don't hold water.

If a tribe has a business -- a casino -- and the tribal members make money from it, isn't that a good thing?

How are your equal rights harmed? Nevadans have casinos. Is that unfair to you as well?

Sinuhue I have no problem groups of people living in communties. Asians do it, Latinos do it, heck even blacks and whites do it to a degree. You stay around people that your comfortable with.

The fact is that the US is a unique nation. All cultures are assimilated into one to form the American experience. All I want is for all peoples to be treated equally and fairly under one set of laws. This goes for absolutely everyone. No group of people should have a different set of rules applied to them. That is my whole arguement in a nutshell.

I think it is absolutely great that I dont have to travel very far from my home to experience different cultures in the US. Lived in the UK and in Morocco, travelled almost all of Europe and throughout the middle east in a private/corporate and a military roles. I have seen how other people live. There is no other place on this planet that has so well intergrated so many different types of cultures into one. All I want is a happy mix of cultures where we can all be treated equally and respectively. That to me would be America. We have our problems of course but I think special treatment for anyone is not in step with what America is about.

So you are entirely against the existence of states, counties, cities and other legal entities that have separate laws and rules that apply to their citizens and/or within their borders. :rolleyes: :headbang:

And there is one set of citizens -- American Indians -- to whom certain parts of the Constitution and federal laws no longer apply.

Nice. :headbang:

There you go, that's the spirit. :p

Anyway, we know the treaties aren't going to be broken anymore, but the truth is, because of them, until the natives begin to help themselves by importing into the reservations new jobs and industry OR move their children out, it's not going to get better.

At the very least, we need to remember to never make unlimited treaties with stone-age cultures again, (like in Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesian Islands etc.,) because at some point, the ability to live off the land as the only needed resource for a culture is not going to be sufficient.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the highlighted statement, but indegenous "stone age" cultures have maintained an environmentally friendly way of life for tens of thousands of years, whereas the "developed" cultures are already burning themselves out and threatening to destroy the planet through nuclear warefare just two hundred years after the industrial revolution. How is their way of life less sufficient and sustainable than ours?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the highlighted statement, but indegenous "stone age" cultures have maintained an environmentally friendly way of life for tens of thousands of years, whereas the "developed" cultures are already burning themselves out and threatening to destroy the planet through nuclear warefare just two hundred years after the industrial revolution. How is their way of life less sufficient and sustainable than ours?

Those that endorse the life of the Noble Savage should go live that way for a bit. You know, go down to the Amazon, leave your clothes behind and see if you can cut it in the jungle without metal weapons and tools, antibiotics, synthetic or industrially produced clothing, packed and prepackaged foods, running water, Glass jars with lids that seal, plastic (anything), Computers, vehicles, temperature/environmental controls, Refrigerators, etc. etc. spend twenty years like that, then talk about how good a life it is-if you live that long.

Me? I'll stick with civilization because I have enough of the right skills to know which side is going to be better for me and mine. (I've made obsidian arrow and spearpoints before, know how to find flint, pyrites,make fire without, and weave rope from raw vegetable fibre, and how to use every part of an animal, as well as tracking said animal and setting snares. No desire for that to be a way of life, thanks. I prefer my gas stove, electric lights, central heating, refrigeration, walls that aren't made of mud, and nice, asphalt-shingled roof. Tennis shoes are comfier than being barefoot, too, and guns make animals stop running much more humanely than bleeding them out through an arrow or spear wound...)

Point being, there's a reason we don't see the Stone-Age culture predominant in modern Earth.
Hobbes had it right: the life of a primitive is nasty, brutish, and short.

While the fact remains that these aboriginals were abused, the overall system could be better if they were weaned off national pay-out teat. Yes, they should be compensated, those who were abused more recently, but, everything more than twenty-years past, unless there is something relevant, should be left to rest.

History is cause and effect. Society is continuously being affected by things that happened thousands of years ago. I agree with your comment that the overall system could be better. The first step is to make native americans part of the national legislative proccess and let their decisions affect you for a change.

I'm tired of seeing my tax payer dollars go to pay some native indian because someone else's bloody ancestors annexed that poor native's ancestor's land some long years past.

I hate these pay outs as much as I hate affirmative action. it's still discrimination and I for one think that this generation and those who WERE NOT involved shouldn't pay for our ancestor's sins. We have no control over what they did! And it's about high and bloody damn time that the aboriginals learned this!

Maybe your ancestors didn't come over on the May Flower, or partake in the genocide of the north american tribes, but if you live and prosper in the Americas you certainly benefit from their loss.

I think your mis-interpeting what i said. Assimilation as in being treated equally as everyone else. There is nothing in my statement stating abolishing anyones traditions. In fact I would encourage anyone to keep there family traditions alive.

Part of native tradition was to live off the land and migrate across the territories known today as Canada, U.S. and Mexico. The modern industrialized way of life is in direct conflict with aboriginal culture. This is why Africans, Australian Aboriginals and natives across the Americas have a difficult time immersing themselves with your way of life, while European cultures that have been conquered by other European cultures are able to flourish despite military and political set backs. The question that must be addressed is do people of the "developed" world want to integrate with aboriginal cultures? Integration means change on both sides. You must adapt to their ways as much as they must adapt to yours.

The only other alternative is to continue the genocide.

[QUOTE]Those that endorse the life of the Noble Savage should go live that way for a bit. You know, go down to the Amazon, leave your clothes behind and see if you can cut it in the jungle without metal weapons and tools, antibiotics, synthetic or industrially produced clothing, packed and prepackaged foods, running water, Glass jars with lids that seal, plastic (anything), Computers, vehicles, temperature/environmental controls, Refrigerators, etc. etc. spend twenty years like that, then talk about how good a life it is-if you live that long.

I never said living that kind of lifestyle was easy. But then this is why I admire the culture of the "noble savage".

Me? I'll stick with civilization because I have enough of the right skills to know which side is going to be better for me and mine. (I've made obsidian arrow and spearpoints before, know how to find flint, pyrites,make fire without, and weave rope from raw vegetable fibre, and how to use every part of an animal, as well as tracking said animal and setting snares. No desire for that to be a way of life, thanks. I prefer my gas stove, electric lights, central heating, refrigeration, walls that aren't made of mud, and nice, asphalt-shingled roof. Tennis shoes are comfier than being barefoot, too, and guns make animals stop running much more humanely than bleeding them out through an arrow or spear wound...)

Point being, there's a reason we don't see the Stone-Age culture predominant in modern Earth.
Hobbes had it right: the life of a primitive is nasty, brutish, and short.

If the life of the primitive is nasty, brutish and short it is in large part due to the inhumanity of the more "civilized" countries.

[QUOTE=Cadillac-Gage]

I never said living that kind of lifestyle was easy. But then this is why I admire the culture of the "noble savage".



If the life of the primitive is nasty, brutish and short it is in large part due to the inhumanity of the more "civilized" countries.

No. It's nasty, brutish, and short because in the wild, a cut, or a sprain, can and likely will kill you slowly. It's nasty, brutish and short because with stone and bone weapons, you aren't the top predator, you're slow, weak, and easy-to-kill prey. It's nasty, brutish and short because you're at the mercy of Mother Nature, who doesn't give two shits about you. Without medicine, especially antibiotics, a minor cut will fester into a lethal infection if the local soil doesn't support the right herbs, while a sprain means you can neither effectively pursue prey, nor run away from trouble. it also means difficulty dealing with gathering... Without proper insulation you will freeze to death, or die of sunstroke, without clean water (that's free of Natural fun-stuff, like Ghirardia, or a little microorganism nicknamed "Beaver Lice" in the American southwest, or contaminated by animals shitting while they drink in the stream upriver from you-also known as E.Coli) you get lethal dose of Cholera, or Montezuma's revenge, or any number of other fun things found in Nature. Without insecticides, or Quinine (an industrially produced medicine) you are vulnerable to something called "malaria" if you live in a warm, wet part of the world. There are so many things in nature that can, and will, kill you if given the chance I could fill pages and pages with them, and never repeat myself.
EVER.

And never once mention man, or civilization.

See, Even the worst civilizations follow rules of some sort that allow the commoners to live their lives in relative peace and comfort without being the prison-bitch of the natural world.
This is why even the most backwards people, when exposed to civilization, grasp for it desperately across their Majority populations.

I'd wager you find more Australian Aboriginal descent people in Perth or Sydney than you do in the Outback, and I'll further bet they're wearing shoes.

How many times do we have to explain??

The "special laws" (as you call them) do NOT apply to a group of people, but to a plot of land! This is no different than the differences in traffic laws and such in different States. We do not have a Federal law that prohibits gambling, that is left to individual states - this is the case in many instances, for instance: in Ohio it is illegal to make a U-turn on any public road unless there is a sign specifically allowing it, in some other states, U-turns are legal unless a sign prohibits it. The treaties signed with the Federal Government place reservations in a similar category to States. They may make any laws they choose provided those laws do not contradict the Constitution or Federal Law.

Are you saying that people who live in Las Vegas and/or Atlantic City are receiving "special privileges" too?

Your assuming alot. You know what assuming gets you. But anyway Americans dont use the European value system im sorry. It is clearly a mix of many cultures. European being only a part. And yes I want everyone treated the same way under the US law. Values has really nothing to do with it.

What country does the expression "L'aissez faire" come from?

What country does the expression "democracy" come from?

What country did the anestors of your ruling class come from?

What country does the expression "L'aissez faire" come from?
France. 18th Century.

What country does the expression "democracy" come from?

'Democracy' is a corruption of the Greek term for the system employed in the City of Athens. The spelling is English-by-way-of-Rome and Norman France.


What country did the anestors of your ruling class come from?
Which ones? We have Irish, Chinese (former Governor Gary Locke), French, English, somewhere-in-Africa, etc. Which leaders, which Ruling families? Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Congresscritter from Colorado) is pretty high on the "Native American" gene count, as was Sojourner Truth (Famous supreme court justice. Person of great significance in American political history.)

What's YOUR ruling class derived from?

[QUOTE]No. It's nasty, brutish, and short because in the wild, a cut, or a sprain, can and likely will kill you slowly.

Unless you treat it, but then the same could be said of an untreated cut or wound in the city.

It's nasty, brutish and short because with stone and bone weapons, you aren't the top predator, you're slow, weak, and easy-to-kill prey. It's nasty, brutish and short because you're at the mercy of Mother Nature, who doesn't give two shits about you. Without medicine, especially antibiotics, a minor cut will fester into a lethal infection if the local soil doesn't support the right herbs, while a sprain means you can neither effectively pursue prey, nor run away from trouble. it also means difficulty dealing with gathering... Without proper insulation you will freeze to death, or die of sunstroke, without clean water (that's free of Natural fun-stuff, like Ghirardia, or a little microorganism nicknamed "Beaver Lice" in the American southwest, or contaminated by animals shitting while they drink in the stream upriver from you-also known as E.Coli) you get lethal dose of Cholera, or Montezuma's revenge, or any number of other fun things found in Nature. Without insecticides, or Quinine (an industrially produced medicine) you are vulnerable to something called "malaria" if you live in a warm, wet part of the world. There are so many things in nature that can, and will, kill you if given the chance I could fill pages and pages with them, and never repeat myself.
EVER.

And never once mention man, or civilization.

Would you be willing to include SARS, AIDS and cancer to your list?

See, Even the worst civilizations follow rules of some sort that allow the commoners to live their lives in relative peace and comfort without being the prison-bitch of the natural world.

When you say worste civilizations does this include the civilization that is responsible for Gitmo, Mogadishu, the bombings of Churches in Alabama, the African slave trade in the U.S., the My Lai Massacre and, oh yeah, the genocide of the native Americans?

This is why even the most backwards people, when exposed to civilization, grasp for it desperately across their Majority populations.
I'd wager you find more Australian Aboriginal descent people in Perth or Sydney than you do in the Outback, and I'll further bet they're wearing shoes.

If you make an effort to read more than just the parts of my posts you think you can best manipulate in order to prove your points you'll see that I advocate a compromise in the integration of cultures. Not a return to the stone age.

France. 18th Century.

'Democracy' is a corruption of the Greek term for the system employed in the City of Athens. The spelling is English-by-way-of-Rome and Norman France.


Which ones? We have Irish, Chinese (former Governor Gary Locke), French, English, somewhere-in-Africa, etc. Which leaders, which Ruling families? Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Congresscritter from Colorado) is pretty high on the "Native American" gene count, as was Sojourner Truth (Famous supreme court justice. Person of great significance in American political history.)

What's YOUR ruling class derived from?

Europeans... unfortunately.

Point being, there's a reason we don't see the Stone-Age culture predominant in modern Earth.

because despite the horrific problems and catastrophic decline in life expectancy directly caused by argriculture, it allows the mass production of more people that allows them to win by numbers alone - particularly when foraging societies weren't prepared for the all-out slaughter the starving plague-ridden masses were willing to engage in when ordered to?

No. It's nasty, brutish, and short because in the wild, a cut, or a sprain, can and likely will kill you slowly. It's nasty, brutish and short because with stone and bone weapons, you aren't the top predator, you're slow, weak, and easy-to-kill prey.

spoken like a good partisan of the neolithic revolution. this is standard fare for neolithic revolutionary propaganda. it's also complete bullshit, as even a cursory examination of the actual evidence will show.

This has got to be one of the more ignorant statements. Will have you know im a 1/4 blackfoot native american. 3/4 European decent and married to a Moroccan woman that is not white. So for you to off hand judge me in that manner is absolutely appalling. Talk about a lack of respect for people.

Where did I mention white people? How does your wife have anything to do with you're hateful statements? Did she make them? Does having a Moroccan wife make it impossible for you to be prejudiced? Some of the most openly racist people against black people were mixed. I judge based on the value of your argument. You've shown yourself to widely interested in taking entire races and mistreating them or further mistreating them. Don't be surprised when people judge you based on that FACT.

The lack of understanding comes from people like you. There is a discrepency on how classified native Americans are treated vs how other Americans are treated. All I want is an even playing field for everyone. How hard is this to figure out? So your in favor of special treatment for some and not others? I wonder if you would have supported American policies in the past against blacks and certain European immigrants. I mean they are the same arguements. Having rules for some that dont apply to others. This isnt much different.

That discrepency is encased in a treaty made with their nations. We are REQUIRED to honor that treaty. I'm in favor of honoring the law. I'm in favor of honoring the agreements of our country. I'm in favor of actually learning about treaties before dismissing them. You're not in favor of any of these things. If we made a treaty with Cuba for example that said they would willing become a part of the US provided they maintained a level of sovereignity and they could keep their land under special law, I would expect us to honor that treaty or turn it away. That's not racism, that's being honorable. You've done a poor job at equating the two.

And would you like to enumerate exactly what this special treatment that is be afforded aboriginals based on race rather than the fact they are people living on a reservation?

Hobbes had it right: the life of a primitive is nasty, brutish, and short.

I will note that at the time Hobbes made that statement about so called primitive cultures, the life of an ordinary European in the "civilized" world was nasty brutish and short. Only the elite like Hobbes enjoyed a better quality of life.

Well, I can only speak for my state (Washington) when I say natives are destroying the fishing and crabbing industry. You should have seen the uproar when a tribe wanted to kill a whale. Fuck kill a whale or two there are plenty of them, but the extremely excessive overfishing is causing salmon and crab populations to be destroyed. There were actually reports of tribes dumping 7000 tons of fish remains into the puget sound. And people wonder why the water is so bad. AND technically we didnt take the land from them. They never owned it. We just moved them. Come on if black people can come back from hundreds of years of slavery you think indians could do the same. (no im not PC i say indians and black ppl) But they arent helping themselves either. Most of the money made in casinos goes straight to Vegas. And Id also like to see some numbers on the wealth distrobution between indians. I bet there are some RIIIICH casino owners out there.

WeAND technically we didnt take the land from them. They never owned it.

How do you figure?

Come on if black people can come back from hundreds of years of slavery you think indians could do the same. (no im not PC i say indians and black ppl)

Yes, blacks in America are doing SO well. It's not about PC buddy. It's about tolerance.

spoken like a good partisan of the neolithic revolution. this is standard fare for neolithic revolutionary propaganda. it's also complete bullshit, as even a cursory examination of the actual evidence will show.

Oh, and yes, I'm VERY much opposed to going back to the old regime, cowering in darkness and struggling to find food without becoming food doesn't appeal to me, you Paleolithicist counter-revolutionary! :p (actually, I'm really an extremist, neolithicism doesn't go far enough, I want the Scientific Method, and the other benefits of a society based on Enlightenment Principles!)

I want the Scientific Method, and the other benefits of a society based on Enlightenment Principles!

oh, i'm all in favor of that too. but i doubt it was really worth the 10,000 year terror of the agricultural revolution.

These treaties should be ended. They have no place in the US at this date.

The arguement that the natives had no choice to submit. Your right they did however fight against the English, Spanish at some points the French and then the Americans. So if you fight and lose. Well Im sorry, but really what say do you have? Your failing to realise that the land wasnt taken peacefully in alot of places including the area im in. It was determined on the battlefield who was going to control it. The victors dictate the terms not the losers.
Go ahead and look at it that way if you please...but the fact remains...the
'victors' DID dictate the terms, but failed to live up to them. I find it ironic that the 'victors' are now being told by their own court systems to abide by the agreements they made. You could always just 'do away' with those court systems if you don't agree with their judgements...but you risk disolving your civil society if you do. Is it worth the risk to default on the debt you willingly took upon yourself?

I am simply objecting to special rights for American Natives. Seeing how your from Canada maybe you can enlighten us Americans on how Canadian government deals with native tribes. I personally think there is a different set of histories in Canada vs the US in dealings with the native population. Maybe this is where you and I are disagreeing. Your perspective is from the Canadian history with natives and mine obviously is with US history in dealings with natives. The US history is entrenched in warfare with the natives. To be honest I dont know the Canadian dealings. So enlighten me and my fellow posters on a brief history of Canadian/Native affairs.
There are similarities and differences in terms of the dealings between native peoples in Canada and the Europeans, and the situation in the US. Certain tribes aligned themselves with the French or the English as those two powers battled for dominance, and agreements were made in exchange for that alignment. For the tribes involved, the payout was often supremacy amongst their neighbours, and weapons with which to glean an advantage over rivals. However, it seems as though the Europeans in Canada intermarried much more with natives than has been the case in the US, causing there to be stronger ties perhaps? As well, we recognise these people of mixed blood, these Métis as a group separate from both aboriginals and Europeans.

Because of Canada's status as a primary resource provider, the majority of people that came to our shores were single men. Traders, trappers and so on. There was not a great push for colonisation, as there was in the US. As a consequence, need for title to the land was not as great. The Europeans could get the resources they needed with minimal conflict with the natives. Again, many families were begun in those times, and the bloodlines mixed much more than happened in the US. When colonists finally did begin trickling over, a system of trade had already been established with the natives, and full-scale warfare against us was uncommon (though not unheard of). The tensions grew when treaties were signed, but not fulfilled. And those tensions have grown through the attempts to assimilate us through Residential schools and so on (the Inuit, for example, lost their names in the official census and were given, instead, numbers to represent them). The tension between natives and non-natives in Canada is a slow burn...one that has deep roots in conflicting ties between us and those of European decent, as well as the tension between regions (regionalism being a very strong force in Canada).

If anything, natives in the US have more reason for real anger and resentment because of atrocities committed against them during the 'pacification', and less reason to feel any strong ties to non-aboriginals than Canadian natives do. I don't see how your arguments that treaties should be broken play into this difference, however. Maybe now you could 'enlighten me' as to how those differences come into this?

Secondly treaties can be revoked. They have in the past and will in the future. As soon as it doesnt suit the US or any other nation then they become obsolete. Therefore I propose ending the treaties that we have with the Native Americans on the grounds that they serve no national interests.
Please list some examples of treaties that have been revoked unilaterally.

And would you like to enumerate exactly what this special treatment that is be afforded aboriginals based on race rather than the fact they are people living on a reservation?
They won't...if you get too close to the man they are pointing at, you'll see it's made out of straw...

oh, i'm all in favor of that too. but i doubt it was really worth the 10,000 year terror of the agricultural revolution.
Versus the two hundered plus thousand years of Nature's Tyranny? The Agricultural Revolution has done more good, for more people, over a longer period than anything else in history. Further, you can't have Science, high Technology (including computers and INternets) without Civilization-and Civilization requires Agriculture.

Well, I can only speak for my state (Washington) when I say natives are destroying the fishing and crabbing industry. You should have seen the uproar when a tribe wanted to kill a whale. Fuck kill a whale or two there are plenty of them, but the extremely excessive overfishing is causing salmon and crab populations to be destroyed.

Right. Large-scale commercial fishing has nothing to do with that...it's all the native's fault.

I have a problem with natives who use their status to run large commercial outfits...but the majority of natives...the VAST majority of us do not exploit resources to this extent. It is frankly laughable that you would say that we, a people who are so small in number, are responsible for the depleted stocks when those areas have been over fished by non-aboriginals for decades.



There were actually reports of tribes dumping 7000 tons of fish remains into the puget sound. And people wonder why the water is so bad.
Yes. Fish guts, not industrial waste is the main pollution problem. :rolleyes: A biology class might enlighten you as to the decomposition cycle within a marine environment, and the difference between organic and non-organic waste...


AND technically we didnt take the land from them. They never owned it. We just moved them.
Technically, you are wrong, because the treaties themselves are written with the understanding that the land in question was under our care. No, we don't own land in our cultures. Land ownership is not the issue. The issue is access to traditional resources, and living communally and retaining our culture. We can not do that if the land we depend upon is being used as a garbage dump by industry, or is full of housing projects. We are dealing with issues of territory, not plots of land. It is important to understand the difference.


Come on if black people can come back from hundreds of years of slavery you think indians could do the same. (no im not PC i say indians and black ppl) But they arent helping themselves either. Most of the money made in casinos goes straight to Vegas. And Id also like to see some numbers on the wealth distrobution between indians. I bet there are some RIIIICH casino owners out there.
Casino money in Canada (where gambling is not illegal in most provinces anyway) goes to the band. There are absolutely inequalities and corruption when it comes to divvying up the profits. We are not above, or immune to corruption. We are just like anyone else, no better, no worse. Corruption within OUR ranks can not be a reason to 'do away' with the reservations. Not unless it's a reason to do away with all of you...?

Versus the two hundered plus thousand years of Nature's Tyranny?
Oh that evil mother nature...maybe we should take her to court too... :D

Well, I can only speak for my state (Washington) when I say natives are destroying the fishing and crabbing industry. You should have seen the uproar when a tribe wanted to kill a whale. Fuck kill a whale or two there are plenty of them, but the extremely excessive overfishing is causing salmon and crab populations to be destroyed. There were actually reports of tribes dumping 7000 tons of fish remains into the puget sound. And people wonder why the water is so bad. AND technically we didnt take the land from them. They never owned it. We just moved them. Come on if black people can come back from hundreds of years of slavery you think indians could do the same. (no im not PC i say indians and black ppl) But they arent helping themselves either. Most of the money made in casinos goes straight to Vegas. And Id also like to see some numbers on the wealth distrobution between indians. I bet there are some RIIIICH casino owners out there.

That reminds me of the STA (Stop Treaty Abuse) protests in northern Wisconsin maybe 10 years ago ... they were protesting Chippewa spear-fishing rights going back to a 100ish-year-old treaty.

Versus the two hundered plus thousand years of Nature's Tyranny? The Agricultural Revolution has done more good, for more people, over a longer period than anything else in history. Further, you can't have Science, high Technology (including computers and INternets) without Civilization-and Civilization requires Agriculture.
What are you even debating about here? Life is not an either or proposition. No, my people can never go back to their pre-contact way of life. We understand that. We are willing to straddle two worlds here. We can continue many of our traditional practices, and still be 'modern'. We don't need to kill our entire culture in the process.

Your debate is getting a bit off topic. This thread is not about the merits and drawbacks of what you like to deem 'civilisation'. A new thread on that topic would be appropriate (and interesting). It doesn't quite belong here.

They won't...if you get too close to the man they are pointing at, you'll see it's made out of straw...

No, he has been asked several times, but this would require having a basis for his argument and we can't have that now can we? I don't actually expect him to return and address our questions or our points. I can pretend to be him.

"You have made dozens of points and my answer is these treaties are not useful to us so let's screw the redskins."

How'd I do? I had a little trouble with the voice, but I think I nailed the tone.

The Agricultural Revolution has done more good, for more people, over a longer period than anything else in history.

bullshit. up until very recent history, the ag rev was a complete unmitigated disaster for everybody except the tiny ruling elites. seriously; name a standard to compare on, and its almost certain that your average agriculturalist comes out on the bottom.

Further, you can't have Science, high Technology (including computers and INternets) without Civilization-and Civilization requires Agriculture.

didn't say that you could. i much prefer the now to the utter hellhole our cultural ancestors have lived in for the past 10,000 years. however, if i had the option, i would not choose to put generations of humanity through famine and disease and body-crushing and soul-destroying labor and general collapse of life-expectancies that they went through, just so i can make fun of creationists on the internet.

This applies to this thread also. Will include the link. Shows how "Native Hawaiin" are excluding outsiders. Of course we could go into the whole supposed Native Hawaiin group. Which is a mix of alot of cultures itself.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/02/hawaiian.school.ap/index.html

Where did I mention white people? How does your wife have anything to do with you're hateful statements? Did she make them? Does having a Moroccan wife make it impossible for you to be prejudiced? Some of the most openly racist people against black people were mixed. I judge based on the value of your argument. You've shown yourself to widely interested in taking entire races and mistreating them or further mistreating them. Don't be surprised when people judge you based on that FACT.

I clearly have not shown any hostility to natives other than I think that there special rights are not something they should have over the rest of the Americans. You basically called me a racist which im far from one. I found offense in that. Now me not readily jumping on the bandwagon of the original poster does not make me one. I simply disagree. You disagree with me. Which is fine I dont mind. But dont accuse me of being something that im not.

This applies to this thread also. Will include the link. Shows how "Native Hawaiin" are excluding outsiders. Of course we could go into the whole supposed Native Hawaiin group. Which is a mix of alot of cultures itself.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/02/hawaiian.school.ap/index.html

A good example of how they were not afforded special rights. Thanks. Now do you want to show support for your own argument or just support for ours?

I clearly have not shown any hostility to natives other than I think that there special rights are not something they should have over the rest of the Americans. You basically called me a racist which im far from one. I found offense in that. Now me not readily jumping on the bandwagon of the original poster does not make me one. I simply disagree. You disagree with me. Which is fine I dont mind. But dont accuse me of being something that im not.

Can you show what special rights Native Americans are receiving? You haven't yet.

I didn't call you a racist, however I accuse you of assigning things to a race based on the fact they are of that race. And I definitely call that racism and I didn't only base it on this thread. So far I have only seen you argue for taking rights away from minority groups in the US, particular minority groups, but minority groups none-the-less. You're not arguing for equal rights or you would be arguing for these treaties and for not specially searching a particular group because they happen to look like some terrorists. There's a saying - if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Can you show what special rights Native Americans are receiving? You haven't yet.

Read through the post my friend. I clearly have said Indian gaming, Fishing, Hunting and not collecting local taxes from sales on there reservations. They also in Alaska eskimos get free healthcare from the government. My brother interned there as a doctor.
Might I add that they dont have to abide by local or state laws. As someone stated earlier.

Also you havent read anywhere where I have made any racist remarks. So to call you an idiot would be ok? I mean if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck.

A good example of how they were not afforded special rights. Thanks. Now do you want to show support for your own argument or just support for ours?


That was an example of Hawaiins excluding non-Hawaiins. Clearly a case for my side of the arguement. They thought they could do this. Until someone called them to the carpet. Native Hawaiins for example are not covered under treaty. Why is that? Can you tell me? Will give you a cookie if you get it correct.

Well, I can only speak for my state (Washington) when I say natives are destroying the fishing and crabbing industry. You should have seen the uproar when a tribe wanted to kill a whale. Fuck kill a whale or two there are plenty of them, but the extremely excessive overfishing is causing salmon and crab populations to be destroyed. There were actually reports of tribes dumping 7000 tons of fish remains into the puget sound. And people wonder why the water is so bad. AND technically we didnt take the land from them. They never owned it. We just moved them. Come on if black people can come back from hundreds of years of slavery you think indians could do the same. (no im not PC i say indians and black ppl) But they arent helping themselves either. Most of the money made in casinos goes straight to Vegas. And Id also like to see some numbers on the wealth distrobution between indians. I bet there are some RIIIICH casino owners out there.

Im in Tacoma and this is exactly what im talking about.

Cat challenged me to find treaties broken by the US unilaterally. Here you go. This is just a few of what i found. Read where Jimmy Carter broke a few himself.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm


Also want to add a Norton Encyclopedia about Native American treaties.


http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_040100_treaties.htm

Versus the two hundered plus thousand years of Nature's Tyranny? The Agricultural Revolution has done more good, for more people, over a longer period than anything else in history. Further, you can't have Science, high Technology (including computers and INternets) without Civilization-and Civilization requires Agriculture.

A bit off topic but; so you would choose the life of a medieval peasant/serf or a factory worker living in a disease-ridden slum during the industrial revolution (with a life expectancy of about 18) over the life of a hunter gatherer? Interesting choice, although there is plenty of evidence you'd be moving down the quality of life scale. Hunter gatherers had both more leisure time and a better diet than farmers or early industrial workers. The agricultural revolution created some benefits for very few, and burdens for many. Same with the industrial revolution. It is only very recently that we have started to see a better quality of life for a broader section of society. Of course, to point to the benefits of industrial civilization and ignore it's costs is a bit short sighted.

Cat challenged me to find treaties broken by the US unilaterally.

She asked for treaties that were unilaterally revoked, not broken.

Read through the post my friend. I clearly have said Indian gaming, Fishing, Hunting and not collecting local taxes from sales on there reservations. They also in Alaska eskimos get free healthcare from the government. My brother interned there as a doctor.
Might I add that they dont have to abide by local or state laws. As someone stated earlier.

Also you havent read anywhere where I have made any racist remarks. So to call you an idiot would be ok? I mean if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck.

Care to show the evidence of this? Some links, please.

So you haven't suggested searching arabs simply because they're arabs? Wow, that must have been someone else with your name. EDIT: Can't say I won't admit when I'm wrong. I was mixing you up with someone with a similar name, like people mix me up with Jordaxia. You never said anything about Arabs which was mostly what made me feel like every time I see you, you are talking about taking rights away from a minority group. I apologize for placing an argument on you, you never made. I want to say this again. I APOLOGIZE. /EDIT

As far as my 'idiocy' concerned, I'm comfortable being judged by others on the quality of my posts and my ability to see through bullshit. Now maybe saying the overpriveleged Native Americans should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop crying about that whole genocide thing isn't racist, but again I'll just let that be judged by each individual as they read your posts.

That was an example of Hawaiins excluding non-Hawaiins. Clearly a case for my side of the arguement. They thought they could do this. Until someone called them to the carpet. Native Hawaiins for example are not covered under treaty. Why is that? Can you tell me? Will give you a cookie if you get it correct.

No, it does not support you. You suggested the government gives them special rights, but the courts denied them the right to do this. This is an example of equal treatment under the law. What's next? Are you going to show that the if a white guy beats up a black guy and then is sentenced to a jail term it will be example of special treatment of white people?

They thought they should get special treatment and the government let them know that they have no such protection. How could you not see this?

I'll just use your links to show the government does not sanction special treatement regardless of what special rights some Hawiians and you think they might receive.

Now as far as the treaty question? Which one? There's like a dozen treaties between the US and Hawaii. Besides the treaties generally honor a group or nation and its citizens and don't specifically address origin, much like a treaty with Texas or California would have originally. What's your point? How does this contradict the points any of us are making?

That was an example of Hawaiins excluding non-Hawaiins. Clearly a case for my side of the arguement. They thought they could do this. Until someone called them to the carpet.

are you high? lots of people think lots of things, doesn't mean that they are correct on them. you linked to an article about the government telling one of the largest landholders in hawai'i that they could not in fact discriminate based on race in their schools' admissions. so what special right does this demonstrate the existence of?

are you high? lots of people think lots of things, doesn't mean that they are correct on them. you linked to an article about the government telling one of the largest landholders in hawai'i that they could not in fact discriminate based on race in their schools' admissions. so what special right does this demonstrate the existence of?

Exactly. It actually demonstrates that the government denies that they have special rights (or at least this particular right).

Read through the post my friend. I clearly have said Indian gaming, Fishing, Hunting and not collecting local taxes from sales on there reservations. They also in Alaska eskimos get free healthcare from the government. My brother interned there as a doctor.
Might I add that they dont have to abide by local or state laws. As someone stated earlier.



No-one has yet explained why treating people differently (possibly according to different needs and aspirations) is treating people unequally.

Read through the post my friend. I clearly have said Indian gaming, Fishing, Hunting and not collecting local taxes from sales on there reservations. They also in Alaska eskimos get free healthcare from the government. My brother interned there as a doctor.
Man...you are stubborn aren't you? Clearly, despite all the information that has been given to you, you simply can not comprehend that Native Americans have different status, based on the founding documents of our nations. We have not been GIVEN rights. Our rights were continued. Our rights to hunting and fishing were continued. Taxation within the boundaries of our territories (territories that are associated with, but not completely a part of the rest of the nation) goes along with that. Tribal soveriegnty is a legal fact, and all your bitching and moaning about supposed 'favourable treatment', is not going to change that. Since you feel compelled to continue stating your opinion, without bothering to inform yourself, or base that opinion on facts, I'd suggest you stop wasting our time, and yours, and not bother posting. You aren't discussing, you're repeating, and it's tiresome. The rest of us would like to actually address the issue. Your broken record posts are interfering with that.


Might I add that they dont have to abide by local or state laws. As someone stated earlier. Exhibit A. Lies and ignorance. But nice try.

Cat challenged me to find treaties broken by the US unilaterally. Here you go. This is just a few of what i found. Read where Jimmy Carter broke a few himself.
Actually that was me. And the point of that request was for you to see the serious consequences of unilaterally breaking a treaty. It is not a thing done lightly. You consider what would happen now if you broke a treaty signed with people now residing within your borders. You imagine the kind of anger that would provoke, and the kind of civil (and uncivil) actions that would result. Imagine Oka, a thousand times bigger. For what? What would breaking these treaties get you? Seriously? What do you think to gain? I'm interested...because I think you'd be creating a problem a hundred times worse than what you currently perceive (wrongly) as a problem.

And did you bother to read your own Norton link?

Treaties are documents used to formalize relations between two or more international states. Only international states may enter into treaties. To be recognized as a state by the United States, an entity must have territorial boundaries and a self-governing people. Generally, treaties provide the method for legalizing comprehensive agreements and understandings between international states. The terms of the treaty may serve to alter the international relationship of the signatory states, such as creating alliances or exchanging protections. After declaring independence but before creating the Union, the original thirteen states of the United States were international states, each capable of entering into international treaties.

The fact that the United States entered into treaties with Indian tribes is evidence that American leaders imagined an international relationship between the United States and tribes. Like the original thirteen states, the Indian tribes were viewed as international states with territorial boundaries and self-governing peoples. However, the terms of every treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe served to alter the parties' original international relationship. Every treaty between the United States and tribes provided for overlapping spheres of political sovereignty between the United States and those tribes.


That's right. We are like separate countries. Get that through your head. It's not going to change. There are overlaps, because there have to be. But our territories do not belong to you, never have, never will. Live with it.