NationStates Jolt Archive

During the past few years theres been a trend in my area(western New York State) to sell land to Native American Nations. The most recent being the sale of a parcel of land in downtown Buffalo(my home town and city of roughly 300,000) to the Seneca Nation. The expressed purpose of this sale of land is to allow them to build a Casino. The land will no longer be taxed by any US government, including federal, state, county and city levels, and essentially none of our laws apply(including worker's rights etc.). Here in New York State, its illegal to gamble(with some exceptions), casinos are definitely out of the question according to state law. So why was the sale of public land to a foreign entity allowed by the various levels of government involved, only to get around a law they themselves passed? Im personally against such actions, what does everyone think???

I still for the life of me can't understand why we continue to put Native Americans in Reservations. They can either integrate themselves into society or fund their own organisations to preserve their culture.

Well, technically speaking they are the rightful owners of the entire country (entire continent, really), and since we basically invaded their land, raped, pillaged, murdered them, and stole everything they owned...

I don't think a relatively small parcel of land and the right to have a casino on it is too much to ask.

Well, technically speaking they are the rightful owners of the entire country (entire continent, really), and since we basically invaded their land, raped, pillaged, murdered them, and stole everything they owned...

I don't think a relatively small parcel of land and the right to have a casino on it is too much to ask.
It might even be a reasonable idea if the reservations were run properly, but many of them are nothing more than tribal ghettos.

Well, technically speaking they are the rightful owners of the entire country (entire continent, really), and since we basically invaded their land, raped, pillaged, murdered them, and stole everything they owned...

I don't think a relatively small parcel of land and the right to have a casino on it is too much to ask.

But what about all the people living around it? Casinos generally cause alot of crime and actually make the communities poorer. The businesses in the area would probably go out of business(this is beacuse casinos generally provide dining, shoping etc.) and they wont be taxed the nearly 9% sales tax within the casino, so things could easily be much cheaper.

there should be laws regulating just what land qualifies as eligible for being added to a reservation. in most places it has to be contiguous to the existing reservation.

that they are allowing some spot in the middle of buffalo to be declared part of the seneca reservation means that some big time non-indian money interest really really wants it.

im all for the idea of indian nations buying backthe land that was stolen from them. especially when they get the money by selling vice to the descendants of people who stole the land.

I still for the life of me can't understand why we continue to put Native Americans in Reservations. They can either integrate themselves into society or fund their own organisations to preserve their culture.
I have to admit to being unknowledgeable on the issue of reservations in general, however theres nothing stoping them(legally anyway) from integrating with us if they so desire. As far as funding, I had assumed they werent funded, at least not extensively so by the government.

there should be laws regulating just what land qualifies as eligible for being added to a reservation. in most places it has to be contiguous to the existing reservation.

that they are allowing some spot in the middle of buffalo to be declared part of the seneca reservation means that some big time non-indian money interest really really wants it.

im all for the idea of indian nations buying backthe land that was stolen from them. especially when they get the money by selling vice to the descendants of people who stole the land.

Well, I dont like the idea of it happening where I live, I would like to note that most people living in buffalo are desceded from immigrants who came here from Ireland and Poland during the late 1800's and early 1900's or the descendants of black slaves. So what did we ever do to them?

Well, I dont like the idea of it happening where I live, I would like to note that most people living in buffalo are desceded from immigrants who came here from Ireland and Poland during the late 1800's and early 1900's or the descendants of black slaves. So what did we ever do to them?
It's all very subjective from the beginning. How much do we owe them? Does everybody owe them or just the ancestors of those who did them wrong? How is that to be determined? It goes on and on. There's simply more questions than answers.

Well, technically speaking they are the rightful owners of the entire country (entire continent, really), and since we basically invaded their land, raped, pillaged, murdered them, and stole everything they owned...
Technically speaking, there is no “rightful” owner of any peace of land. Whoever happens to gain possession of it through whatever means are accepted by society at the time, generally gets the land. During colonization and expansion it was acceptable to rip someone’s land right out from underneath them, especially if they wern't white. Nowadays, we buy it.

I’d like to live in a la-dee-da world where everyone got what they “deserved” or what was “rightfully” theirs but short of miraculous technological breakthroughs, that is never going to happen.

If a bunch of New Yorkers plagued with White Guilt want to do this, that’s fine by me, doesn’t have much of an effect on me, but they better not come for my shit.

I just hope those bleeding-hearts realize that any reparations, especially for actions performed by those no longer living, are nigh impossible. What? Do they want the Anglo-Saxons to pay reparations to the Celts?

Well, I dont like the idea of it happening where I live, I would like to note that most people living in buffalo are desceded from immigrants who came here from Ireland and Poland during the late 1800's and early 1900's or the descendants of black slaves. So what did we ever do to them?
what im suggesting is that if you want to find out WHY its being allowed, you should follow the money trail. youll find some big time "white" interests involved. the senecas dont have enough power to force this on their own.

and what do "you" have to do with it? the laws governing the situation are long standing laws of the united states that existed before you were born and before any of your ancestors lived there. its not being done against you but in accordance with the law.

what im suggesting is that if you want to find out WHY its being allowed, you should follow the money trail. youll find some big time "white" interests involved. the senecas dont have enough power to force this on their own.

and what do "you" have to do with it? the laws governing the situation are long standing laws of the united states that existed before you were born and before any of your ancestors lived there. its not being done against you but in accordance with the law.

Youre right, I mean a large increase in crime around where my parents live shouldnt bother me one bit, nor the impending increase of already difficult economic circumstances. this couldnt possibly affect me or my family one bit. And I really couldnt care less who was setting up the casino if theyre "white" interests as you put or genuinely native americans(Id like to note that it oculd be them, theres no cap on the amount a tribal government can contribute to a politician's campaign, and there are rich native americans, believe it or not). Furthermore, the laws of a land should be shaped by those that live there, not those who used to, the constitution is amendable to ensure a fair government according to whoever is living at the time, not the way things used to be 100's of years ago. I cant see how you equate my ancestors not living here long ago to none of our interests mattering now, despite being citizens of this country.

But what about all the people living around it? Casinos generally cause alot of crime and actually make the communities poorer. The businesses in the area would probably go out of business(this is beacuse casinos generally provide dining, shoping etc.) and they wont be taxed the nearly 9% sales tax within the casino, so things could easily be much cheaper.
Yeah... that's SO not fair.

Technically speaking, there is no “rightful” owner of any peace of land. Whoever happens to gain possession of it through whatever means are accepted by society at the time, generally gets the land. During colonization and expansion it was acceptable to rip someone’s land right out from underneath them, especially if they wern't white. Nowadays, we buy it.

I’d like to live in a la-dee-da world where everyone got what they “deserved” or what was “rightfully” theirs but short of miraculous technological breakthroughs, that is never going to happen.

If a bunch of New Yorkers plagued with White Guilt want to do this, that’s fine by me, doesn’t have much of an effect on me, but they better not come for my shit.

I just hope those bleeding-hearts realize that any reparations, especially for actions performed by those no longer living, are nigh impossible. What? Do they want the Anglo-Saxons to pay reparations to the Celts?

Haha, yeah it'd be nice if those brits would hand me a wad of cash or some land for being SOBs to my ancestors, and while we're at it I'd like some money from Germany and Russia for invading Poland in 1936. As well as money from Austria for taking part in the partitions of poland during the 1700's. Obviously none of this will happen and is equally rediculous as any policy made to right past wrongs.

The whole "Native American" thing is a mess, but there is no way out because of the treaties signed generations ago.

One of the biggest things is "What is a Native American?" I have a great deal of sympathy for those that live on reservations and have no way to make a living. Anyone living in those conditions need help regardless of their ancestry. If a casino can improve those conditions, so be it. But I have problems giving special privilages for those that live in the greater society and suffer no harm from their blood lines. I know a guy who is 1/16 and has a card to prove it. No one would know if he didn't tell them. He gets paid the same as anyone else. He lives like anyone else. But he gets a casino kickback. He signed up his sons who are 1/32 and they also get a kickback. At what point are you no longer a hyphenated person?

The whole "Native American" thing is a mess, but there is no way out because of the treaties signed generations ago.

One of the biggest things is "What is a Native American?" I have a great deal of sympathy for those that live on reservations and have no way to make a living. Anyone living in those conditions need help regardless of their ancestry. If a casino can improve those conditions, so be it. But I have problems giving special privilages for those that live in the greater society and suffer no harm from their blood lines. I know a guy who is 1/16 and has a card to prove it. No one would know if he didn't tell them. He gets paid the same as anyone else. He lives like anyone else. But he gets a casino kickback. He signed up his sons who are 1/32 and they also get a kickback. At what point are you no longer a hyphenated person?
given that the issue of who qualfies as a tribal member is a very thorny one...

whats it to YOU if they decide to share tribal money with those who are 1/16th and 1/32nd? all they are doing is diluting the money that might more rightfully go to the full blood, 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8ths.

what do you care?

there should be laws regulating just what land qualifies as eligible for being added to a reservation. in most places it has to be contiguous to the existing reservation.

that they are allowing some spot in the middle of buffalo to be declared part of the seneca reservation means that some big time non-indian money interest really really wants it.

im all for the idea of indian nations buying backthe land that was stolen from them. especially when they get the money by selling vice to the descendants of people who stole the land.

But given that most reservations were selected based on being the poorest piece of land around, and not on the basis of what land they actually used (i.e. it generally has no connection to where their communities were historically located), why does it make sense to restrict them to land that is contiguous to an existing reservation? What if downtown Buffalo happens to be located on land that was once important to the Seneca?

Well, I dont like the idea of it happening where I live, I would like to note that most people living in buffalo are desceded from immigrants who came here from Ireland and Poland during the late 1800's and early 1900's or the descendants of black slaves. So what did we ever do to them?

Does where they come from make them any less part of the colonial project. I'm of Irish descent, and the Irish are still very bitter about being colonized by the English. But it sure as hell did not stop them from coming to North American and stealing land from the people here.

Do they want the Anglo-Saxons to pay reparations to the Celts?

Preferably ... I'd rather not have to take it from them by force. :)

But given that most reservations were selected based on being the poorest piece of land around, and not on the basis of what land they actually used (i.e. it generally has no connection to where their communities were historically located), why does it make sense to restrict them to land that is contiguous to an existing reservation? What if downtown Buffalo happens to be located on land that was once important to the Seneca?

Its nothing particularly important(in a cultural or religious sense), the entirety of the 5-tribes that made up the Iroqouis Condeferation were condensed into one entity(the seneca Nation). They once occupied much of New York State. the only important thing about it is that Buffalo "river"(its really more of a stream) ran through that area and it was the site of an earlier treaty signing, however that treaty didnt last very long and was generally unimportant.

Its nothing particularly important(in a cultural or religious sense), the entirety of the 5-tribes that made up the Iroqouis Condeferation were condensed into one entity(the seneca Nation). They once occupied much of New York State. the only important thing about it is that Buffalo "river"(its really more of a stream) ran through that area and it was the site of an earlier treaty signing, however that treaty didnt last very long and was generally unimportant.

This is your interpretation or theirs? It had no pre-contact significance whatsoever?

Does where they come from make them any less part of the colonial project. I'm of Irish descent, and the Irish are still very bitter about being colonized by the English. But it sure as hell did not stop them from coming to North American and stealing land from the people here.

No, it doesnt matter where they were from, however if there wasnt ANY stealing of Native's land done by a person's ancestors, why should they be penalized for the actions of others in thier race. I wasnt saying that there werent any Irish possibly involved in this, just that it was unlikely since most the irish came over during the potatoe famine during mid-late 1800's(somewhere around 1865, I think). And the poles came even later, thus removing any chance to "steal" land from native americans, since such issue had been resolved years before then(at least in this area). WOULD they have taken land from the natives if allowed? I dont see why not, but it just wasnt an option at the time.

This is your interpretation or theirs? It had no pre-contact significance whatsoever?

Not that Im aware of, however certainly if it did theyre just defiling it just as bad as us, if not worse by building a casino there, so I'd geuss not. I'll admit that I'm really not sure.

No, it doesnt matter where they were from, however if there wasnt ANY stealing of Native's land done by a person's ancestors, why should they be penalized for the actions of others in thier race. I wasnt saying that there werent any Irish possibly involved in this, just that it was unlikely since most the irish came over during the potatoe famine during mid-late 1800's(somewhere around 1865, I think). And the poles came even later, thus removing any chance to "steal" land from native americans, since such issue had been resolved years before then(at least in this area). WOULD they have taken land from the natives if allowed? I dont see why not, but it just wasnt an option at the time.

They may not have actively participated in the theft, but they continue to actively benefit from it, so why shouldn't they have to pay some of the reparations?

But given that most reservations were selected based on being the poorest piece of land around, and not on the basis of what land they actually used (i.e. it generally has no connection to where their communities were historically located), why does it make sense to restrict them to land that is contiguous to an existing reservation? What if downtown Buffalo happens to be located on land that was once important to the Seneca?

it may well be that if you look at the treaty binding the seneca nation in peace to the united states you might find that their original resevation includes buffalo (i have no knowlege of this treaty, this is just a 'what if')

that would mean that the seneca have every right to put a casino any place they can and that if they found the right lawyer they would be in a position to dictate many many things to the good citizens of new york.

while i have no idea of the details of the seneca treaties there IS precedence in other treaties.

the sandia pueblo in new mexico has recently been awarded (pending final court proceedings i think) with the undeveloped foothills on the north side of albuquerque extending all the way to the crest of the mountains.

the ......oh i dont remember which tribe...of maine was discovered to have a claim to something like 40% of the state around 25 years ago. rather than try to sue to throw people out of their homes, the tribe made a reasonable monetary and unoccupied land settlement.

the souix in south dakota won a court case giving them a pretty big monetary settlement for the loss of the black hills that they had been "given" in treaty with the united states. they didnt take the settlement and continue to try to win the return of the land. i dont think its going well

anyway, it depends on the terms of the treaty, not necessarily on the historic territory of the particular tribes. i dont think its necessary to allow tribes to add to their official reservations. although they can buy any land they want just like anyone else treaty rights only pertain to official reservation land. it might be possible to restrict additions to contiguous parcels or to not allow official addition at all.

given that the issue of who qualfies as a tribal member is a very thorny one...

whats it to YOU if they decide to share tribal money with those who are 1/16th and 1/32nd? all they are doing is diluting the money that might more rightfully go to the full blood, 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8ths.

what do you care?
If I recall, official recognition ends at documented 1/16th.

No, it doesnt matter where they were from, however if there wasnt ANY stealing of Native's land done by a person's ancestors, why should they be penalized for the actions of others in thier race. I wasnt saying that there werent any Irish possibly involved in this, just that it was unlikely since most the irish came over during the potatoe famine during mid-late 1800's(somewhere around 1865, I think). And the poles came even later, thus removing any chance to "steal" land from native americans, since such issue had been resolved years before then(at least in this area). WOULD they have taken land from the natives if allowed? I dont see why not, but it just wasnt an option at the time.
this isnt about reparations, its about treaty rights. those rights are not granted by the current population of buffalo but by the united states.

its not like the seneca are trying to toss you out of your homes by claiming the ownership of buffalo. they bought the land fair and square, they didnt take it from anyone who wasnt willing to part with it for the right sum of money.

They may not have actively participated in the theft, but they continue to actively benefit from it, so why shouldn't they have to pay some of the reparations?

Because they did nothing wrong. Besides I dont believe in going back and righting "wrongs" done to nations in the past.

it may well be that if you look at the treaty binding the seneca nation in peace to the united states you might find that their original resevation includes buffalo (i have no knowlege of this treaty, this is just a 'what if')

that would mean that the seneca have every right to put a casino any place they can and that if they found the right lawyer they would be in a position to dictate many many things to the good citizens of new york.

while i have no idea of the details of the seneca treaties there IS precedence in other treaties.

the sandia pueblo in new mexico has recently been awarded (pending final court proceedings i think) with the undeveloped foothills on the north side of albuquerque extending all the way to the crest of the mountains.

the ......oh i dont remember which tribe...of maine was discovered to have a claim to something like 40% of the state around 25 years ago. rather than try to sue to throw people out of their homes, the tribe made a reasonable monetary and unoccupied land settlement.

the souix in south dakota won a court case giving them a pretty big monetary settlement for the loss of the black hills that they had been "given" in treaty with the united states. they didnt take the settlement and continue to try to win the return of the land. i dont think its going well

anyway, it depends on the terms of the treaty, not necessarily on the historic territory of the particular tribes. i dont think its necessary to allow tribes to add to their official reservations. although they can buy any land they want just like anyone else treaty rights only pertain to official reservation land. it might be possible to restrict additions to contiguous parcels or to not allow official addition at all.

I admittedly know very little about the US treaties, but I would be surprised to learn that treaty rights only pertain to reservation land. I know on the West Coast at the very least they retained significant rights to fish and hunt on various historical hunting and fishing sites.

In any event it is irrelevant because it sounds like in this case they did buy the land (rather than claim a treaty right to it), but had it designated as a reservation afterward.

I don't think the Sioux were "given" the Black Hills by anybody. They were sacred to the Sioux and they refused to sell them at any price. So the US government took them anyway.

Because they did nothing wrong. Besides I dont believe in going back and righting "wrongs" done to nations in the past.

Someone who accepts stolen property knowing it to be stolen and does nothing about it is still a wrongdoer.

If I recall, official recognition ends at documented 1/16th.
i think so too.

but i suppose the money is the tribes to do with as it pleases and if they want to send money to non-reservation people with 1/32 blood its their business.

given that the issue of who qualfies as a tribal member is a very thorny one...

whats it to YOU if they decide to share tribal money with those who are 1/16th and 1/32nd? all they are doing is diluting the money that might more rightfully go to the full blood, 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8ths.

what do you care?
I guess I have a sense of right and wrong. Is it right to take money from the poor to give to the rich? Even you said "more rightfully". I guess I could say, What do I care if Haliburton charges twice the going rate? What do I care if people rip off the welfare system while others starve? What do I care if the Gov uses eminate domain to take land from the poor to give to the rich?

this isnt about reparations, its about treaty rights. those rights are not granted by the current population of buffalo but by the united states.

its not like the seneca are trying to toss you out of your homes by claiming the ownership of buffalo. they bought the land fair and square, they didnt take it from anyone who wasnt willing to part with it for the right sum of money.

I think this has all gone off-topic... Its really not an issue of buying the land, rather what theyre doing with it. I wouldnt mind if they were just buying it and still had to obey all the laws of the state, county etc. However this was an attempt to go around new york state law and permit gambling within the state. What is the point of the law if theyre going to allow it to be broken anyway?

I admittedly know very little about the US treaties, but I would be surprised to learn that treaty rights only pertain to reservation land. I know on the West Coast at the very least they retained significant rights to fish and hunt on various historical hunting and fishing sites.

yeah but those are specific treaty rights. that doesnt mean that they could make the same arrangements with parcels outside those specified in the treaty and not face state or federal government disapproval.

same with land


In any event it is irrelevant because it sounds like in this case they did buy the land (rather than claim a treaty right to it), but had it designated as a reservation afterward.
wasnt there a post about a treaty that had included the buffalo river? that might give them right to call it reservation land no matter what new york, buffalo or the US wants. otherwise i think there can be successful challenges to any land added to a reservation. not that there WILL be such a challenge but that there COULD be.

I don't think the Sioux were "given" the Black Hills by anybody. They were sacred to the Sioux and they refused to sell them at any price. So the US government took them anyway.
thats why the "given" was in " ". the souix would never have sold the black hills. the land was stolen from them after gold was discovered in the black hills and white people wanted it.

I think this has all gone off-topic... Its really not an issue of buying the land, rather what theyre doing with it. I wouldnt mind if they were just buying it and still had to obey all the laws of the state, county etc. However this was an attempt to go around new york state law and permit gambling within the state. What is the point of the law if theyre going to allow it to be broken anyway?

Then its the decision to designate the land as reservation land, not the decision to purchase the land, that you should be concerned about.

Basically it comes down to a question of jurisdiction. The State does not have jurisdition to regulate on reservation land. Only the federal government and the Seneca nation do. It's not as if no laws apply. It's just the state's that don't.

Someone who accepts stolen property knowing it to be stolen and does nothing about it is still a wrongdoer.

And whats to say the uneducated masses of europe had any idea that the land used to be inhabited (I use inhabited because they didnt have a sense of land ownership and therefore couldnt have owned it, and this could also lead to an argument that it wasnt stolen, since you cnat steal something if no one owns it) by someone else, or that they had been forcibly removed.

wasnt there a post about a treaty that had included the buffalo river? that might give them right to call it reservation land no matter what new york, buffalo or the US wants. otherwise i think there can be successful challenges to any land added to a reservation. not that there WILL be such a challenge but that there COULD be.



I'm confused then ... was the land purchased in order to fulfil a treaty obligation?

I think this has all gone off-topic... Its really not an issue of buying the land, rather what theyre doing with it. I wouldnt mind if they were just buying it and still had to obey all the laws of the state, county etc. However this was an attempt to go around new york state law and permit gambling within the state. What is the point of the law if theyre going to allow it to be broken anyway?
arent there indian casinos already in new york?

turn out that on reservation land the laws of the state are pretty much irrelevant. the law of the united states pertain.

if a state allows any gambling.... say the state lottery.. it forfeits any right to deny gamling on reservation land.

its not that i dont know why youre pissed. anyone would be. i just think you are pissed at the wrong people. follow the money trail and youll see who you should really be pissed at.

And whats to say the uneducated masses of europe had any idea that the land used to be inhabited (I use inhabited because they didnt have a sense of land ownership and therefore couldnt have owned it, and this could also lead to an argument that it wasnt stolen, since you cnat steal something if no one owns it) by someone else, or that they had been forcibly removed.

Given that many of the people you mention (such as Irish and Polish) had been forcibly disposessed of their land, I'm sure they had a pretty good idea of what it entailed.

Further, even if the people that took it at the time didn't know, it is obvious that some of the people that acquired if more recently were aware of the theft. And it doesn't matter how many hands it passes through, stolen goods are stolen goods. Or to put it in the language of property law, there was a defect in the title, and it ran with the land.

Then its the decision to designate the land as reservation land, not the decision to purchase the land, that you should be concerned about.

Basically it comes down to a question of jurisdiction. The State does not have jurisdition to regulate on reservation land. Only the federal government and the Seneca nation do. It's not as if no laws apply. It's just the state's that don't.

I suppose I made that part ambiguous... I not trying to stop them from owning property, but I dont want the government to be selling land for the expressed purpose of circumventing state laws. (the whole purchase and desire for it to count as reservation lands was to build a casino, this was openly sated from the start by the Seneca nation)

I suppose I made that part ambiguous... I not trying to stop them from owning property, but I dont want the government to be selling land for the expressed purpose of circumventing state laws. (the whole purchase and desire for it to count as reservation lands was to build a casino, this was openly sated from the start by the Seneca nation)

Fair enough. The Seneca can't really be circumventing the state laws because they are not subject to them in the first place. If they are entitled to the land either by virtue of a treaty or a strong historical or cultural claim, then that is the end of that.

However, if it is the developers and the state itself that are trying to get around state laws, it is a whole different story. As Ashmoria said, we need to follow the money trail and see who is really the bad guy here.

arent there indian casinos already in new york?

turn out that on reservation land the laws of the state are pretty much irrelevant. the law of the united states pertain.

if a state allows any gambling.... say the state lottery.. it forfeits any right to deny gamling on reservation land.

its not that i dont know why youre pissed. anyone would be. i just think you are pissed at the wrong people. follow the money trail and youll see who you should really be pissed at.

I dont know who you think Im pissed at, But it happens to be the Government!!! Theyre double crossing bastards. they got thier cut of the cash and thats all the care about, they couldnt give a rat's ass about how this will affect people in the area.(some percentage of profits go to the state, a smaller amount to the county and a measily amount to the city, Im not sure on the numbers, but that how it works out) If I could I'd dissolve the entire government of the state and set it back up again such that the long established corruption would be weeded out, at least for a short time.

EDIT: I dont blame the senecas, theyre just doing what anyone would, profiting off a good situation for them, as well as any developers, etc. involved in it, theyre just following the capitalist system and trying to screw everyone over for thier own benefit like anybody else. but the government is supposed to protect it's people not look out for it's own interests with no regard for the public's well founded concerns.

I'm confused then ... was the land purchased in order to fulfil a treaty obligation?
nooooooo

these treaties are quite a legal specialty

the seneca treaties would be some of the oldest in the united states and there are probably quite a few of them. as white people encroached more and more on indian land in upstate new york, sometimes treaties would be renegotiated, sometimes just ignored. the various tribes were pushed into a smaller and smaller area until they have whatever they have today.

but the treaties still exist even if the control of the land has lapsed.

so (maybe) if the tribe buys land in land that is covered by some old treaty as being in their reservation, its in the reservation no matter what anyone else might want.

i dont know the details of this purchase but it might very well be that the money came from some big developer from new york city who wants to put a casino into buffalo. as long as he does it under the umbrella of the tribe, he gets what he wants regardless of the laws of new york and the will of the citizens of buffalo. all he needs is money, a good lawyer or 2, and a sympathetic judge.

nooooooo

these treaties are quite a legal specialty

the seneca treaties would be some of the oldest in the united states and there are probably quite a few of them. as white people encroached more and more on indian land in upstate new york, sometimes treaties would be renegotiated, sometimes just ignored. the various tribes were pushed into a smaller and smaller area until they have whatever they have today.

but the treaties still exist even if the control of the land has lapsed.

so (maybe) if the tribe buys land in land that is covered by some old treaty as being in their reservation, its in the reservation no matter what anyone else might want.

i dont know the details of this purchase but it might very well be that the money came from some big developer from new york city who wants to put a casino into buffalo. as long as he does it under the umbrella of the tribe, he gets what he wants regardless of the laws of new york and the will of the citizens of buffalo. all he needs is money, a good lawyer or 2, and a sympathetic judge.

Thanks for the crash course. My knowledge of "Indian Law" in the US is pretty limited ... I know a few of the leading cases, and a bit about the Treaties in the Pacific Northwest, but that is about the extent of my treaty knowledge. I know a bit more about aboriginal law here in Canada.

I don't think the Sioux were "given" the Black Hills by anybody. They were sacred to the Sioux and they refused to sell them at any price. So the US government took them anyway.
I lived in the area a few years ago and as I remember it there was a big fight because the Sioux were originally from Minnesota and only spent a short time in the Black Hills. The debate was over how long it took for land to become sacred.

Anyway the land was stolen because of gold. The largest gold mine in the US is in the Black Hills.

I have been on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge many times. That is an area where the governmenet should do something to help the people. But the government has tried many things and nothing seems to work. I don't know if they have a casino but It would be good to get some money into the tribal government. They did build a lot of casinos in Deadwood (I think, I know it was one of those tourist towns) But I don't know if any of them belong to the natives.

The Tribe does charge to go into the Badlands. I was happy to pay it.

I dont know who you think Im pissed at, But it happens to be the Government!!! Theyre double crossing bastards. they got thier cut of the cash and thats all the care about, they couldnt give a rat's ass about how this will affect people in the area.(some percentage of profits go to the state, a smaller amount to the county and a measily amount to the city, Im not sure on the numbers, but that how it works out) If I could I'd dissolve the entire government of the state and set it back up again such that the long established corruption would be weeded out, at least for a short time.

EDIT: I dont blame the senecas, theyre just doing what anyone would, profiting off a good situation for them, as well as any developers, etc. involved in it, theyre just following the capitalist system and trying to screw everyone over for thier own benefit like anybody else. but the government is supposed to protect it's people not look out for it's own interests with no regard for the public's well founded concerns.
i think the state loses money on the deal unless they take a bigger cut than sales tax would be or they get lots of out of state money that they never would have gotten before.

the state of new mexico and the cities near indian reservations here lose alot of sales tax money from people spending their extra cash in gambling rather than things that might bring in sales tax money

we have just been told by the federal government that we have very limited ability to regulate what the various tribes do so we take what we can get

SO, the point is that the politicians probably got some good "donations" for allowing the whole deal to go through. its good for them rather than good for the state.

i think the state loses money on the deal unless they take a bigger cut than sales tax would be or they get lots of out of state money that they never would have gotten before.

the state of new mexico and the cities near indian reservations here lose alot of sales tax money from people spending their extra cash in gambling rather than things that might bring in sales tax money

we have just been told by the federal government that we have very limited ability to regulate what the various tribes do so we take what we can get

SO, the point is that the politicians probably got some good "donations" for allowing the whole deal to go through. its good for them rather than good for the state.

Thats what Im saying, the money that the state gets will probably not cover the losses(especially whne the 15-yr agreement ends and they can choose not to pay anything), but its a couple extra bucks they can extort from us and spend on people in other areas who'll reelect 'em.

I lived in the area a few years ago and as I remember it there was a big fight because the Sioux were originally from Minnesota and only spent a short time in the Black Hills. The debate was over how long it took for land to become sacred.



That is an interesting question. From what I have encountered, indigenous concepts of land and sacredness can be very different than European concepts of the same. The relationship with the land might have been such that it would not have taken long to develop important beliefs around its central features. I think anyone who has seen the Black Hills can understand why anyone would value them. They say the Sioux considered them to be the centre of the world.

I still for the life of me can't understand why we continue to put Native Americans in Reservations. They can either integrate themselves into society or fund their own organisations to preserve their culture.
You don't 'continue' to put us in Reservations. You abide by the treaties you signed which state that certain parcels of land are reserved for us alone. Don't like the treaties? Go ahead. Ask us to renegotiate them, give up the land, and live in your urban slums. That'll go over really well.

It might even be a reasonable idea if the reservations were run properly, but many of them are nothing more than tribal ghettos.
Hmmm...perhaps because the reserved lands were generally of the lowest quality, and because there are no major industries to boost employment? At least the casinoes provide jobs and income to the bands. How else do you expect reservations to rise up out of tribal 'ghettohood'?

I know a guy who is 1/16 and has a card to prove it. No one would know if he didn't tell them. He gets paid the same as anyone else. He lives like anyone else. But he gets a casino kickback. He signed up his sons who are 1/32 and they also get a kickback. At what point are you no longer a hyphenated person?
Blood quantum is a government imposed identification, not ours. One of the things aboriginal groups are fighting for is the right to determine their OWN membership...and trust me...bloodlines alone are not usually considered enough. So go ahead and complain about blood quantum...but complain to the right people.

No, it doesnt matter where they were from, however if there wasnt ANY stealing of Native's land done by a person's ancestors, why should they be penalized for the actions of others in thier race.
Because you joined the nation that did it.

But you are all confusing the issue. A Reservation buying land is not getting 'reparations'. It is paying money for land...just like anyone else can. The tribes are not asking for reparations in the sense that you all seem to mean it...asking for money for the land that was stolen, or for that land to be given back. That is a fake argument constructed by whites. What the tribes fight for is to have the treaties honoured. What was promised in the treaties, in many cases, was never given, and that includes annual payments of money. So think of it as collecting back taxes....your nation signed agreements with our nations. Does it surprise you that we expect you to live up to them, even now? Deal with it.

Well, they had their land violently taken away from them back then, so it's just right if they get it back!
Let them do what they want there, it's their land!

Someone who accepts stolen property knowing it to be stolen and does nothing about it is still a wrongdoer.
Yes.

Put it another way. You buy a section of land, and fence it. Ten years later, the owner of the adjacent land comes to you and says, 'part of your fence is on my land'. You have the land surveyed, and discover that this is true. Your fence strays onto his land. Are you able to shrug and say, 'ah well, time has passed, too late now!'? No. You have to move the fence.

The treaties defined the boundaries of the reserved lands. Reserved lands do not just mean the area where natives have built homes (in some cases, the town that has sprung up). Reserved lands often included a vast tract of land surrounding the main camp area. Over the years, many municipalities and farms have been built on reserved land. They violated the boundaries. Is it too late, and a case of 'oh well'? No. Move your damn fence.

How else do you expect reservations to rise up out of tribal 'ghettohood'?

by surrendering their treaty rights, disbanding their cultures, and taking minimum wage jobs in cities far from home. duh.

by surrendering their treaty rights, disbanding their cultures, and taking minimum wage jobs in cities far from home. duh.
Yeah, that's the message I'm getting too. If that's 'success', we don't want it.

Oh, people will say, "But every other group has to come here and assimilate". To that I remind you...WE are not immigrants. This is our homeland. We have not asked you to assimilate to our culture, you go ahead and keep yours. But respect ours. You have homelands where your culture is still strong. So do we. Yours are overseas. Ours are right here.

I've got nothing against Native Americans or casinos. If they want to buy up land and build casinos, fine. Let them. It's not like selling our ports to state-owned Arab countries. Land for casinos isn't a national security issue, it's just an economic issue, and I'm in favor of letting Native Americans build up a good economy to feed their kids.

I wonder if the casino issue is less of an....issue...here as casinoes are legal. Native and non-native.

During the past few years theres been a trend in my area(western New York State) to sell land to Native American Nations. The most recent being the sale of a parcel of land in downtown Buffalo(my home town and city of roughly 300,000) to the Seneca Nation. The expressed purpose of this sale of land is to allow them to build a Casino. The land will no longer be taxed by any US government, including federal, state, county and city levels, and essentially none of our laws apply(including worker's rights etc.). Here in New York State, its illegal to gamble(with some exceptions), casinos are definitely out of the question according to state law. So why was the sale of public land to a foreign entity allowed by the various levels of government involved, only to get around a law they themselves passed? Im personally against such actions, what does everyone think???

lucky we don't scalp you're white a** in the process.:sniper:

ho-ka hey! it is a good day to fight, it is a good day to die! brave and strong hearts to the front; weak hearts and cowards to the rear!
-Crazy Horse, Battle of the Greasy Grass

only in america will there be a fight for land and the future generation will just hand it back to the original people later:headbang:

if they want to "preserve" their lifestyle, they shouldnt be trading with the big organizations, they shouldnt have paved roads, they shouldnt have electricity, this is nothing but liberal socialist bullshit

only in america will there be a fight for land and the future generation will just hand it back to the original people later:headbang:

if they want to "preserve" their lifestyle, they shouldnt be trading with the big organizations, they shouldnt have paved roads, they shouldnt have electricity, this is nothing but liberal socialist bullshit
Wait, aren't they buying the land? Who's giving them anything?

Preserving their culture doesn't mean they can't take usefull inventions from other cultures.

if they want to "preserve" their lifestyle, they shouldnt be trading with the big organizations, they shouldnt have paved roads, they shouldnt have electricity, this is nothing but liberal socialist bullshit
Thank you for demonstrating you haven't the faintest grasp of the issues whatsoever. What a pointless post.

only in america will there be a fight for land and the future generation will just hand it back to the original people later


It's not about giving land back. It's about honouring treaty commitments that were made and are still legally valid.

only in america will there be a fight for land and the future generation will just hand it back to the original people later:headbang:

Hmm...

I suppose then if someone came to your house, shot you, booted your children onto the street, moved in with their eighteen year old children, and then promptly had a heart attack and died, their children wouldn't be under any obligation to give the house back to your children?

Not that that's the issue here.

only in america will there be a fight for land and the future generation will just hand it back to the original people later:headbang:

if they want to "preserve" their lifestyle, they shouldnt be trading with the big organizations, they shouldnt have paved roads, they shouldnt have electricity, this is nothing but liberal socialist bullshit

and my parents told me never to trust Whites for a reason...
1. they'll lie to you.
2. they'll kill you.
3. they'll kill you more if you try and do something about it.
4. they're hypocrites.
5. they take what isnt theirs to begin with.
6. they were sent by the Wen to decieve us.

Lol @ all the people talking about how the poor poor indians are suffering daily because the white man is a devil in a 3 piece. I'm not against indians, but I AM against people telling everybody about how bad they have it. Here's a thought: let them decide that. I have yet to hear a real life indian say "o noes teh americans maed bad thigns T_T", yet every white person on earth is happy to crucify themselves just because the Cherokee are bad traders.

Let em build a casino, what bad could come of it? Some moron goes broke from gambling, it's his fault he didn't stop.

Lol @ all the people talking about how the poor poor indians are suffering daily because the white man is a devil in a 3 piece. I'm not against indians, but I AM against people telling everybody about how bad they have it. Here's a thought: let them decide that. I have yet to hear a real life indian say "o noes teh americans maed bad thigns T_T", yet every white person on earth is happy to crucify themselves just because the Cherokee are bad traders.

Let em build a casino, what bad could come of it? Some moron goes broke from gambling, it's his fault he didn't stop.
If you'd like, you could ask a 'real life indian' right here what she thinks. Just because you haven't heard it, doesn't mean we aren't saying it.

If you'd like, you could ask a 'real life indian' right here what she thinks. Just because you haven't heard it, doesn't mean we aren't saying it.

You live in Canada. Go away.

If you'd like, you could ask a 'real life indian' right here what she thinks. Just because you haven't heard it, doesn't mean we aren't saying it.

pshaw, everyone knows there aren't any real life indians left - just a bunch of whiners and fakers.

Hmm...

I suppose then if someone came to your house, shot you, booted your children onto the street, moved in with their eighteen year old children, and then promptly had a heart attack and died, their children wouldn't be under any obligation to give the house back to your children?

Not that that's the issue here.
Off the subject, but this is the arguement the Palistinians use.

Lol @ all the people talking about how the poor poor indians are suffering daily because the white man is a devil in a 3 piece. I'm not against indians, but I AM against people telling everybody about how bad they have it. Here's a thought: let them decide that. I have yet to hear a real life indian say "o noes teh americans maed bad thigns T_T", yet every white person on earth is happy to crucify themselves just because the Cherokee are bad traders.

Let em build a casino, what bad could come of it? Some moron goes broke from gambling, it's his fault he didn't stop.

They have decided that, and that is why they say it so often and that is why they form groups to change it.

hmmm wierd... I have heard that several times over the course of my life.

You live in Canada. Go away.


You live in what? A bubble? How could you have never heard complaints from native Americans about how bad things are for so many tribes in the US as well as Canada?

Trolling and flamebaiting are frowned upon here btw.

You live in Canada. Go away.
That is frickin' hilarious.

That is frickin' hilarious.
I think you have a new quote for your signature...
but that kind of thing might only apply to my sense of humor.

I've needed a change...

nice sig, Sinuhue.

By the way, I'm actually glad that casino building by native groups is so easy here in Canada, as I am employed in one of the industries that is supported by these projects.

This whole thread is very interesting in how it highlights people's ideas or ignorances about the subject at hand.

nice sig, Sinuhue.

By the way, I'm actually glad that casino building by native groups is so easy here in Canada, as I am employed in one of the industries that is supported by these projects.

This whole thread is very interesting in how it highlights people's ideas or ignorances about the subject at hand.
What bothers me about this highlighted ignorance, is how those espousing ridiculous notions never seem to actually want the truth. They prefer their baseless prejudices against native people, creating issues to fight that don't actually exist.

What bothers me is that there's no Indian casino close to my house. I have to go all the way to Barrie and then some. It'd be nice if there was one along the subway line.

I'm going to repost from a native thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451839) from a while back:


Much has been made of the casino issue...the fact that in some states in the US, where gambling is illegal, the casinos are allowed to exist on Reservations. However, I want to point out that the main goal of the Reservation, the goal of our people mind you, not the original intent of the government that created this system, is to become self-sufficient, and viable. We are losing most of our people to urban centres, because they can not support themselves on the Reserve. We need to create jobs, and infrastructure. Some Reserves are blessed with abundant resources, and others are on the least desired rocky scraps of land possible. Those Reserves need some way of creating employment and income. Within native communities there is a huge debate as to whether we should be turning to casinos for funding...many of us believe that it will ultimately weaken us as we introduce and encourage vice. And yet, the situation is dire...we need income NOW, not later. I can't see existing casinos withering away once we find some others ways to support ourselves though, and it's a problem we are going to have to deal with at some point. However, this source of income has allowed previously destitute Reservations to become profitable, self-sufficient AND attractive to our youth. Perhaps the pay-off is worth the chance of corruption and addiction? I can't really decide.

What bothers me is that there's no Indian casino close to my house. I have to go all the way to Barrie and then some. It'd be nice if there was one along the subway line.
So in your mind, the problem is the lack of casinos:)

I personally dont care. None of this stuff affects me in any direct way.
Although i am Native, i dont beleive the ones in buffalo should biuld a casino. They Give everyone a bad name and/or reputation.

So in your mind, the problem is the lack of casinos:)
Oh, so many slot machines and so little time :)

I personally dont care. None of this stuff affects me in any direct way.
Although i am Native, i dont beleive the ones in buffalo should biuld a casino. They Give everyone a bad name and/or reputation.
Who are you people, Nature's Splender?

Oh, so many slot machines and so little time :)
Perhaps Chiapas will open itself up to international gambling in 'Mayan' theme casinos..."Come, gamble for the Revolution!":D

Perhaps Chiapas will open itself up to international gambling in 'Mayan' theme casinos..."Come, gamble for the Revolution!":D
That'd be a great idea. But first the government would have to grant them autonomy and they don't seem close to even consider the issue. None of the current candidates will even touch on the subject :(

That'd be a great idea. But first the government would have to grant them autonomy and they don't seem close to even consider the issue. None of the current candidates will even touch on the subject :(
That is because, as we know, they are all hijos de la grande puta que los parió.

Because you joined the nation that did it.

But you are all confusing the issue. A Reservation buying land is not getting 'reparations'. It is paying money for land...just like anyone else can. The tribes are not asking for reparations in the sense that you all seem to mean it...asking for money for the land that was stolen, or for that land to be given back. That is a fake argument constructed by whites. What the tribes fight for is to have the treaties honoured. What was promised in the treaties, in many cases, was never given, and that includes annual payments of money. So think of it as collecting back taxes....your nation signed agreements with our nations. Does it surprise you that we expect you to live up to them, even now? Deal with it.

My response was to someone's opinion on reparations, I was in no way insunuating that allowing them to buy land amounted to a reparation payment.

Yes.

Put it another way. You buy a section of land, and fence it. Ten years later, the owner of the adjacent land comes to you and says, 'part of your fence is on my land'. You have the land surveyed, and discover that this is true. Your fence strays onto his land. Are you able to shrug and say, 'ah well, time has passed, too late now!'? No. You have to move the fence.

The treaties defined the boundaries of the reserved lands. Reserved lands do not just mean the area where natives have built homes (in some cases, the town that has sprung up). Reserved lands often included a vast tract of land surrounding the main camp area. Over the years, many municipalities and farms have been built on reserved land. They violated the boundaries. Is it too late, and a case of 'oh well'? No. Move your damn fence.

I think he was refering to the fact that ALL land in america is "stolen", the land in question in downtown Buffalo was not part of thier reservation, and therefore your analogy doesnt really work in light of this.

I wonder if the casino issue is less of an....issue...here as casinoes are legal. Native and non-native.

However, Casinos are ILLEGAL according to New York State law. My grievance is in the state selling out to whatever interests wanted this.