• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your thoughts on Indian reservations

Are you for or against Indian reservations?

  • I voted Hillary. I am for reservations, though they may need improvement.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
How are the 'forced' to remain in abject poverty? Arent they free to do what they like with their land? Are they not free to leave? Plus, it should be pointed out that American indians have always lived in abject poverty. No one put them there, that is how we found them and how they have chosen to remain.

No, they are not free to do with they like because they don't own the land their reservations are on. Yes, the U.S. Government put them there. Reservation land is held “in trust” for Indians by the federal government. The goal of this policy was originally to keep Indians contained to certain lands. Now, it has shifted to preserving these lands for indigenous peoples. But the effect is the same. Indians can’t own land, so they can’t build equity. This prevents American Indians from reaping numerous benefits.

Instead, Washington continues to send checks and micromanage these communities. The two primary agencies charged with overseeing the activities of Indians who live on reservations—the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, and the Bureau of Indian Education, or BIE, both part of the Department of the Interior—together have a total of 9,000 employees. That’s one employee for every 111 Indians on a reservation. They may possess a certain amount of land on paper, but they can’t put it to use by selling it, buying more to take advantage of economies of scale, or borrowing against it.

In the 1950's the US government forcefully relocated Native Americans from their land into urban areas to become “productive” members of society. It also intentionally placed Indian orphans into the homes of white families. Today, 78% of Native Americans live off-reservation, and 72% live in urban or suburban environments.

The real kicker is that many Native American reservations are located on prime real estate that contain almost 30% of the nation’s coal reserves west of the Mississippi, 50% of potential uranium reserves, and 20% of known oil and gas reserves,—resources worth nearly $1.5 trillion, or $290,000 per tribal member. Tragically, 86% of Indian lands with energy or mineral potential remain undeveloped because of federal control of reservations that keeps Indians from fully capitalizing on their natural resources if they desire.
 
I use a proxy because it's hard for people to admit they are for the federally mandated legal segregation of Indians based on genetics. A way to realize that injustice is to ask whether one would want their own race to be treated like the Indians under government law, assuming people know the condition of most reservations.

This translates to blacks when we have not so much legal segregation (well, admission standards and the like), but the social segregation of applying different social rules and standards to blacks.

Has nothing to do with genetics, has to do with the recognition of prior property rights and prior agreements.
 
It is not even close to the worst genocide in history. And it is not ignored at all.

A common estimate in the Americas is 90% killed.

Which genocides are you thinking of?
 
No, they are not free to do with they like because they don't own the land their reservations are on. Yes, the U.S. Government put them there. Reservation land is held “in trust” for Indians by the federal government. The goal of this policy was originally to keep Indians contained to certain lands. Now, it has shifted to preserving these lands for indigenous peoples. But the effect is the same. Indians can’t own land, so they can’t build equity. This prevents American Indians from reaping numerous benefits.

Instead, Washington continues to send checks and micromanage these communities. The two primary agencies charged with overseeing the activities of Indians who live on reservations—the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, and the Bureau of Indian Education, or BIE, both part of the Department of the Interior—together have a total of 9,000 employees. That’s one employee for every 111 Indians on a reservation. They may possess a certain amount of land on paper, but they can’t put it to use by selling it, buying more to take advantage of economies of scale, or borrowing against it.

In the 1950's the US government forcefully relocated Native Americans from their land into urban areas to become “productive” members of society. It also intentionally placed Indian orphans into the homes of white families. Today, 78% of Native Americans live off-reservation, and 72% live in urban or suburban environments.

The real kicker is that many Native American reservations are located on prime real estate that contain almost 30% of the nation’s coal reserves west of the Mississippi, 50% of potential uranium reserves, and 20% of known oil and gas reserves,—resources worth nearly $1.5 trillion, or $290,000 per tribal member. Tragically, 86% of Indian lands with energy or mineral potential remain undeveloped because of federal control of reservations that keeps Indians from fully capitalizing on their natural resources if they desire.

Thanks for the info. If all that is true, then there is no reason for anyone to support maintaining the status quo. No reason to support what sounds like failed socialist states within the US borders
 
Why does how we voted have anything to do with Indian reservations?

The Indian reservation issue has a lot to do with how one feels about treating Americans differently based on genetics. I was curious as to how that played out with voting.
 
Has nothing to do with genetics, has to do with the recognition of prior property rights and prior agreements.

I beg to differ - genetics is the deciding factor between Americans. One happens to have Irish DNA, the other Cherokee DNA. Both Americans - but they get different laws applied to them.
 
Maybe I missed something.What does the two candidates in the last Prez election have to do with how people feel about Indian reservations? I don't recall either of them ever addressing the issue.
 
You can leave it to the paleface to want to, yet again, break agreements made with the Native American nations.

Leave them alone. They are sovereign. They will do much better for themselves, deciding their own destiny, than they will ever do trusting in the American government.

They have been exploited enough. Time to develop a national conscience of historical rights and wrongs and make any and all efforts to not repeat them.
 
This is a very insulting and ignorant thread.

A bunch of basically white guys discussing the futures of indigenous peoples that are mostly of sovereign nations by treaties, who also enjoy dual citizenship.

This is typical patronizing white superiority racism and bigotry at work. "White people know what is best for Indians."

The OP's poll missed a question. Should we take Indian children away from their families and teach them how to be white?

Indigenous peoples of North America are not homogenized, not genetically, not culturally, not by economic class, not by any status mentioned in this thread. At times they unite in the face of bitter enemies, you. Most often they do not.

Your knowledge of the reservations are filled with myths, caricatures, and lies.

For instance, the approximate 9.3 mi² (9.3 mi² Land / 26 acres Water) of the Onondaga Reservation of NYS currently houses 471 people, most of which consider their Res houses secondary abodes. More than 27k Onondaga people own another 250k acres in NYS, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania and more live on the 6 Nations Res of Canada, as well as on independently owned lands in Canada. 3 of the top ten wealthiest families living in NYS are Onondaga tribal members. These families have made their money from farming, Finger Lake Fishing, mining, quarries, furring, investing in IBM, Apple, Cisco..... Some own no land, and choose to rent.

When Gov of NYS George Pataki was inaugurated a shooting war, more than 30 Onondaga dead, more than 70 more seriously wounded, between rival traditionalist and modernist was ongoing, and Pataki decided to send in State Troopers, NYS Police, to quiet things down. 14 State Troopers were killed during the ensuing two days, and killing would have continued if US Army Troops hadn't arrived to bar the Troopers from continuing to invade the Res. Marie Buist, Spiritual leader of the Traditionalists called for a truce and the war has been on hold since.

Not one of you had a clue, of either the war, or the bitter cultural divisions between members of the Tribe.

The conversation of this thread is not for you. You have no say in the future of North American indigenous peoples. You insult their intelligence and their sovereignty. And you don't know jack.

It is believed that somewhere between 1.2 to 18 million people lived in North America, from the southern most part of Mexico, to the northern climes of the Arctic Circle, coast to coast, the majority in what is now known as Mexico when Columbus arrived. Today, in the US alone, there are 6.2 million self described "full blood" Indians alive. About 1.9 mil in Canada, and more than 26 mil in Mexico.

None of them want you telling them what their futures should be. In their eyes, you are a bigoted racist.
 
I beg to differ - genetics is the deciding factor between Americans. One happens to have Irish DNA, the other Cherokee DNA. Both Americans - but they get different laws applied to them.

Really? Where is it documented that laws and polices applied to the the reservations and treaties were/are based on genetics?
 
It is as if people are wanting to do more to what is left of North American Indians. One of the worst genocides in human history, largely ignored by the history books, and here we are debating removal of reservations? How white does this nation need to be to make some of you happy?

The vast majority of deaths were caused by disease.....and there really isn't any historical evidence to suggest that that was in any way intentional.
 
Sure, maybe remind people in your next post that the Native American Indians were here first and we're all (every one of us) immigrants to this country.

Except there is no such collective "Native American" identity. There were dozens of tribes, none of whom were sitting on the land that originally belonged to them when the Europeans showed up.

That's a constant theme throughout history---it's always the dominant tribes, the tribes which had spent decades kicking around the other tribes, which go up against the Europeans---and their former foes who always are willing to help the Europeans crush the formerly dominant tribes.
 
The Indian reservation issue has a lot to do with how one feels about treating Americans differently based on genetics. I was curious as to how that played out with voting.
I don't think so. What's the connection?
 
Really? Where is it documented that laws and polices applied to the the reservations and treaties were/are based on genetics?

The Americans affected by those laws must conform to the genetic and racial criteria as per this document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Degree_of_Indian_Blood

I have no issues with different racial (genetic) qualifications when describing foreigners, but I am opposed to different rules for American citizens based on racial genetics.
 
The vast majority of deaths were caused by disease.....and there really isn't any historical evidence to suggest that that was in any way intentional.

A myth. While many indigenous peoples of North America didn't possess the antibodies necessary to fight off European and Asian based diseases, actual fatal results from such diseases accounted for less than 8% of their victims' deaths. Continued warfare between the tribes, and warfare with the encroaching European immigrants were both far greater sources of premature death. During 1714 the entire Iroquois confederation eliminated more than 4000 Pomonok Indians on Long Island for daring to fish in the Hudson River and hunt on the mainland in what is now the Bronx and Westchester counties of NY. The Pomomoks had been the dominant tribe on Long Island for more than 800 years.

During the 18th century more than 20k cases of the measles infected Iroquois citizens. Less than 1% of the cases were fatal. Small pox during the 18th century killed a greater percentage of European immigrants than Native Americans, by almost 4-1.

There is evidence that British forces gave infected blankets, both with measles and chicken pox to enemy tribes.
 
Except there is no such collective "Native American" identity. There were dozens of tribes, none of whom were sitting on the land that originally belonged to them when the Europeans showed up.

That's a constant theme throughout history---it's always the dominant tribes, the tribes which had spent decades kicking around the other tribes, which go up against the Europeans---and their former foes who always are willing to help the Europeans crush the formerly dominant tribes.

The first massive organized Indian war response to European encroachers was in 1689, Delawares vs. the Pennsylvanians. The Delawares were a subservient tribe to the Iroquois Confederation and were punished for acting without Iroquois approvals, forced to flee their lands under threat of death from the Iroquois, moving south and west. Unlike Europeans, Indians fought wars with minimum loss of their own warriors. When Iroquois forces later went up against Europeans, they used Delaware warriors as shock troops in the front lines, they didn't care if Delaware warriors died in battle.

Stop spewing BS.
 
The Americans affected by those laws must conform to the genetic and racial criteria as per this document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Degree_of_Indian_Blood

I have no issues with different racial (genetic) qualifications when describing foreigners, but I am opposed to different rules for American citizens based on racial genetics.

More white man lies. Genealogy is not based on genetic science, but on documented record keeping of family lineages. When most of those treaties and Federal regulations were written, genetic science did not yet exist. Patronizing BS from another bigot. It isn't up to you to set any qualifications or determine if Federal qualifications pursuant to treaties have been met. Read those treaties, acceptance to tribes is a final determination of tribal councils. A man or woman of any ethnic background, adopted by a tribe is considered an equal member of the tribe, regardless of a lack of documentation prior to that adoption.

When the Western Tribal Alliance, ordered and paid for a genetic study of surviving Comanches, more than 70% of gene markers showed European ancestry. Comanches, who had broken off from Sux (Sioux), Fox, Cherokee, Dakota and others, had a habit of adopting all captured children when raiding, and made raids solely for the purpose of capturing children for tribal expansion. It was a faster method for tribal expansion than allowing nature to make do. The term "White Comanche (Comanchero in Spanish), was more feared in Texas and the former Texas territories as well as northern Mexico, with good reasons.

Cut the BS.

Never trust a wiki.
 
I often use Indians as a proxy to get to the root of the black/white racial discussion. I have a guess as to what the results will be. I'm very interested in your reasoning behind your choice.

1.) what proxy is there with reservations to get to the root of black/what discussion.... what is black white discussion
2.) cant say im really educated to the full extent of them but my education on them doesnt matter to the question much because the PEOPLE ON THEM is what matters I would think.....they are free to be or not to be there...

and since your poll sucks i voted for neither and dont have a problem with them that i know of
 
The first massive organized Indian war response to European encroachers was in 1689, Delawares vs. the Pennsylvanians. The Delawares were a subservient tribe to the Iroquois Confederation and were punished for acting without Iroquois approvals, forced to flee their lands under threat of death from the Iroquois, moving south and west. Unlike Europeans, Indians fought wars with minimum loss of their own warriors. When Iroquois forces later went up against Europeans, they used Delaware warriors as shock troops in the front lines, they didn't care if Delaware warriors died in battle.

Stop spewing BS.

Oh look, you are up on your high horse again......and you post doesn’t actually contradict anything I said.

Funny how that happens.

The Spanish never could have toppled any of the massive empires of Central and South America so easily had itnly been for the aid of those empire’s subject tribes. In the American West the US Army benefitted hugely from the help of “Indian scouts”.

The one “spewing bs” is you, who clearly are far more interested in stroking your own ego than learning actual history.
 
A myth. While many indigenous peoples of North America didn't possess the antibodies necessary to fight off European and Asian based diseases, actual fatal results from such diseases accounted for less than 8% of their victims' deaths. Continued warfare between the tribes, and warfare with the encroaching European immigrants were both far greater sources of premature death. During 1714 the entire Iroquois confederation eliminated more than 4000 Pomonok Indians on Long Island for daring to fish in the Hudson River and hunt on the mainland in what is now the Bronx and Westchester counties of NY. The Pomomoks had been the dominant tribe on Long Island for more than 800 years.

During the 18th century more than 20k cases of the measles infected Iroquois citizens. Less than 1% of the cases were fatal. Small pox during the 18th century killed a greater percentage of European immigrants than Native Americans, by almost 4-1.

There is evidence that British forces gave infected blankets, both with measles and chicken pox to enemy tribes.

Oh look, you are spewing that particular myth. Having actually looked into it, there isn’t actually any evidence that the words of Jeffrst Amherst were actually acted on. Furthermore, there is no logical reason to believe the Europeans would indulge in an action that was already occurring on its own with far more efficiency; unless, of course, you are under the laughable delusion that the Europeans did it “for the evulz” or some such crap.

Furthermore

“Many Native American tribes experienced great depopulation, averaging 25–50 percent of the tribes' members lost to disease. Additionally, smaller tribes neared extinction after facing a severely destructive spread of disease.[2] The significant toll that this took is expounded upon in the article Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. A specific example was Cortes' invasion of Mexico. Before his arrival, the Mexican population is estimated to have been around 25 to 30 million. Fifty years later, the Mexican population was reduced to 3 million, mainly by infectious disease. This shows the main effect of the arrival of Europeans in the new world. With no natural immunity against these pathogens, Native Americans died in huge numbers.”

“By 1700, less than five thousand Native Americans remained in the southeastern coastal region.[4] In Florida alone, there were seven hundred thousand Native Americans in 1520, but by 1700 the number was around 2000.[4]”

“In summer 1639, a smallpox epidemic struck the Huron natives in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes regions. The disease had reached the Huron tribes through traders returning from Québec and remained in the region throughout the winter. When the epidemic was over, the Huron population had been reduced to roughly 9000 people, about half of what it had been before 1634.[10] The Iroquios people faced similar losses.[4]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics#Impact_on_population_numbers

It has become increasingly clear you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
 
I did not do the poll, because I don't think which political party one is has any business in the poll. Abolishing reservations, no. Our government stole their land, deliberately killed buffalo by the thousands to starve plains Indians. Whether diseases were introduced unintentionally or not, they were devastating. As was alcohol, which was introduced intentionally in many instances. Generations of alcohol abuse is very sad. If you've ever seen children born with fetal alcohol syndrome, it is very tragic. Another thing in history; for a time our government used to take kids away from their parents and send them away to government "Indian" schools in attempting to educate (civilize and stamp out their culture).

Despite all the above (and countless other past injustices done to them) many Indian people are very proud and have rich cultures and traditions today. The idea of assimilation into the white population is not welcomed.
 
Oh look, you are spewing that particular myth. Having actually looked into it, there isn’t actually any evidence that the words of Jeffrst Amherst were actually acted on.

You're correct, not because there is no evidence, but because Baron Amherst wasn't involved, it was Captain Simeon Ecuyer at Fort Pitt.

Four other occasions when British forces used infected blankets against enemy tribes are well document in records of the Hudson Bay Company, The East India Company and the Northwest Company.

“Many Native American tribes experienced great depopulation, averaging 25–50 percent of the tribes' members lost to disease. Additionally, smaller tribes neared extinction after facing a severely destructive spread of disease.[2] The significant toll that this took is expounded upon in the article Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. A specific example was Cortes' invasion of Mexico. Before his arrival, the Mexican population is estimated to have been around 25 to 30 million. Fifty years later, the Mexican population was reduced to 3 million, mainly by infectious disease. This shows the main effect of the arrival of Europeans in the new world. With no natural immunity against these pathogens, Native Americans died in huge numbers.”

The Mexican National Archive tells a different story. Mexico, inclusive of southern Panama, through northern California and all lands west of what would later be known as the Indiana Territory, inclusive of what we would be known as Louisiana and Florida, had an estimated population of 37 million, started collapsing as the Aztec empire commenced self destruction, with full blown wars between the Aztecs and subject states accounting for a population loss of more than 20%. The Aztecs descended into complete descent hastened by the arrival of the Spanish who they saw as Gods. Continued wars with subject states, civil wars, and accompanying starvation and pestilence further reduced the population by another 20%, with small pox and far more devastating measles epidemics killing off another 10-12% of the population during the 50 years subsequent to the arrival of Spanish and Portuguese missionaries, and later Conquistadors.

“By 1700, less than five thousand Native Americans remained in the southeastern coastal region.[4] In Florida alone, there were seven hundred thousand Native Americans in 1520, but by 1700 the number was around 2000.[4]”

The Apalachicola, other Muskogean ethnic groups of the Florida panhandle, an ethnic deviation from all other Native American peoples, had their own written language. Basically a Eurasian group, their records from the early 16th century showed a Florida population of less than 2k, with worries about population maintenance and religious purity. There were only a scattering of other occupants throughout Florida. Other Native American groups avoided the Apalachicola, other Muskogean ethnic groups because they feared their supernatural powers. As Seminoles, escaped Creek and Choctaw slaves of the British in the northern colonies escaped, they started moving into Florida during the early 17th century, intermarrying with The Apalachicola, and other Muskogean ethnic groups, adopting their language, both verbal and written. By the time Andy Jackson was president, there were less than 70k people living in all of Florida, tho wild speculatory reports claimed a million or more, using their numbers to catalyze wars with threatening tribes of the south. Also leading to causes for later acquisition by the US from Britain, even tho a British treaty with Spain promised the return of Florida to Spain. Part of the settlement and treaties ending the War of 1812.

Here's a kicker for you, the gene patterns for the Apalachicola and Muskogean ethnic groups display more connections with the Ainu of Japan, the Hza of northern Korea, and the Chulu peoples of New Zealand than with other Native Americans. This is a gene pattern that is know to have come out of northern India about 8000 BC, and it is found in northwestern Russia as well as among Inuit peoples of the Arctic. Archeologists are suspecting that this gene pattern was part of a distinct early wave of peoples from Eurasia into the Americas across the arctic continent. Additional evidence of the gene pattern has also been found in Patagonia, parts of the Peruvian mountain ranges. An interesting beginning for new migration theories.

continued
 
“In summer 1639, a smallpox epidemic struck the Huron natives in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes regions. The disease had reached the Huron tribes through traders returning from Québec and remained in the region throughout the winter. When the epidemic was over, the Huron population had been reduced to roughly 9000 people, about half of what it had been before 1634.[10] The Iroquios people faced similar losses.[4]”

Thanks for the chuckles. When smallpox brought by French traders hit the Hurons, they barely had a presence on the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River, having already suffered a devastating war with the Iroquois. Their last bastion, was west of Lake Huron. Colonial NY Indian Commissioner William Johnson saved them from annihilation by stopping a further war with the Iroquois, long planned by the Iroquois. Less than 3% of Native Americans who contracted small pox died from the disease. Measles was far more deadly. Internecine wars between the tribes were far more fatal for Native Americans than diseases. Starvation and pestilence resulting from the wars were no less fatal than the wars in Europe and Asia, along with India and China's long histories.

Thanks for using a wiki and making my case.
 
Oh look, you are up on your high horse again......and you post doesn’t actually contradict anything I said.

Funny how that happens.

The Spanish never could have toppled any of the massive empires of Central and South America so easily had itnly been for the aid of those empire’s subject tribes. In the American West the US Army benefitted hugely from the help of “Indian scouts”.

The one “spewing bs” is you, who clearly are far more interested in stroking your own ego than learning actual history.

I'm not going to even bother.

You do not represent Native Americans. No one wants you representing Native Americans, that is all that matters. Just your pandering.

My wife was 3/4 Onondaga, 1/4 Cayuga. I was adopted into the tribes prior to our wedding ceremony. That doesn't authorize me to speak in behalf of Native Americans. But I will counter bigotry and lies when I see them.
 
A man or woman of any ethnic background, adopted by a tribe is considered an equal member of the tribe, regardless of a lack of documentation prior to that adoption.

Are you saying that without any Indian heritage, I could be adopted by a tribe, then fall under the Bureau of Indian Affairs? In further research, some tribes require blood quantum and others do not:

Tribal Enrollment Requirements

Blood quantum / genealogy and familial/racial genetics amount to the same thing. My genetics say that I am not Indian. Blood quantum says I am not Indian.

For those tribes that don't have blood quantum qualifications, I applaud them. For those that do, I think I'm in a position to appeal to the government. I am being racially excluded from a set of government laws that only apply to Indians through blood quantum. I have no control over my blood quantum, and government that applies laws because of it is discrimination against my blood quantum.
 
Back
Top Bottom