Your thoughts on Indian reservations

Rickeroo said:

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.

Click to expand...

I once wired a head for a reservation.

If the Indians want them then I'm all for them.

celticwar17 said:

"We" didn't steal nothing.... That's what I don't get... that was 400 years ago, no one alive stole anything from anyone xD.... hey.... maybe YOU did, but I certainly didn't.

Click to expand...

As another poster pointed out, no one said you did. But if you live anywhere in the U.S., you have benefited from theft perpetrated in the past. Imagine if, for example, I stole all the wealth your family has and killed 90% of your bloodline, giving all that I stole to my children. I get away with it--the police don't catch me. My children, grand-children, and great grand-children use the wealth I stole to become wealthy and prosperous, while your descendants remain in poverty due to the effects of my theft. Then someone finally figures out what I did. Is it right that we should just leave things as they are, since my great-grandchildren didn't steal anything? Seems to me that, obviously, we should not.

Not a perfect analogy, because what I've left out is that your descendants (analogous to the Indians) are forced into situations where they are unable to accumulate wealth again--forced onto bad land from which a living can barely be scraped, forced to go to schools where the genocide continued for nearly a century (this is something hardly anyone knows about--the Indian schools), and suffering from the general effects of racism. So saying your descendants could just go on to accumulate their own wealth again is no out. It's only fairly recently that some tribes have been able to start accumulating wealth again. What happened to the Indians is a massive injustice that can probably never be righted.

OldFatGuy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your case......that you think you are a lot smarter than you actually are? Because that's the only thing that's been "proven".

As it is, your total inability to provide links of any sort means that there zero reason why anyone should just take your word for it.

When all sources say one thing, and you another......you lose out on that particular equation.

Indians were given the ****tiest, most baron land, ensuring they will continue to have a thriving economy. I'm surprised people still stay on the reservations

Rickeroo said:

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

Click to expand...

I have no idea where the BIA stands on adoption. Never cared, never asked.

Do you understand the words honor and respect? I acted from honor and respect for my wife's family. That mutual acceptance brought responsibilities. Marriage gives most of us a second family.

Tigerace117 said:

Your case......that you think you are a lot smarter than you actually are? Because that's the only thing that's been "proven".

As it is, your total inability to provide links of any sort means that there zero reason why anyone should just take your word for it.

When all sources say one thing, and you another......you lose out on that particular equation.

Click to expand...

You have nothing but your bigotry.

ashurbanipal said:

As another poster pointed out, no one said you did. But if you live anywhere in the U.S., you have benefited from theft perpetrated in the past. Imagine if, for example, I stole all the wealth your family has and killed 90% of your bloodline, giving all that I stole to my children. I get away with it--the police don't catch me. My children, grand-children, and great grand-children use the wealth I stole to become wealthy and prosperous, while your descendants remain in poverty due to the effects of my theft. Then someone finally figures out what I did. Is it right that we should just leave things as they are, since my great-grandchildren didn't steal anything? Seems to me that, obviously, we should not.

Not a perfect analogy, because what I've left out is that your descendants (analogous to the Indians) are forced into situations where they are unable to accumulate wealth again--forced onto bad land from which a living can barely be scraped, forced to go to schools where the genocide continued for nearly a century (this is something hardly anyone knows about--the Indian schools), and suffering from the general effects of racism. So saying your descendants could just go on to accumulate their own wealth again is no out. It's only fairly recently that some tribes have been able to start accumulating wealth again. What happened to the Indians is a massive injustice that can probably never be righted.

Click to expand...

You don't know what I have benefited from... you don't know me. You have no idea what my families history is like or what my childhood was like... again, you don't know me.

The biggest and most significant thing that happened to the Native American's when Europeans started to come was being infected by diseases. Which was no one's fault. The power games the Europeans played with the Native Americans were no different than the games they played with each other. Eventually, as the world has evolved, we all live under one nation as one people... I call everything you said BS...

celticwar17 said:

You don't know what I have benefited from... you don't know me. You have no idea what my families history is like or what my childhood was like... again, you don't know me.

Click to expand...

Read what I wrote again: if you live anywhere in the U.S., you have benefited from theft perpetrated in the past. You're right, I don't know you. If you don't live in the U.S. (or well, really, anywhere in the western hemisphere) then you are exempt from this comment. If you happen to be a member of a tribe, then you are also exempt. Otherwise, it doesn't matter who you are, what your station in life is, where your family was from originally, how many moles you have on your skin, or anything else. I don't need to know you to know that what I said is true. If you have land here, the land you're living on was stolen from people who had it previously.

celticwar17 said:

The biggest and most significant thing that happened to the Native American's when Europeans started to come was being infected by diseases.

Click to expand...

Well...except even the very first contacts that Europeans had with Indians were rapacious, so in the process of killing them, taking their stuff, forcing them to work, and so on, the Europeans did indeed spread infectious diseases to the Indians. If I kidnap someone, throw her in my basement, and, while raping her, transmit HIV (which I don't know I have), am I blameless for giving her HIV? Obvious not...

celticwar17 said:

The power games the Europeans played with the Native Americans were no different than the games they played with each other.

Click to expand...

Uh...SO. DAFUQ. WHAT? Because I beat members of my own family and steal from them, it's OK that I beat members of your family and steal from them? C'mon.

celticwar17 said:

Eventually, as the world has evolved, we all live under one nation as one people... I call everything you said BS...

Click to expand...

Except, one nation and people where some are very much better off than others, thanks to the aforementioned genocides, thefts, deceptions, etc.

ashurbanipal said:

Read what I wrote again: if you live anywhere in the U.S., you have benefited from theft perpetrated in the past. You're right, I don't know you. If you don't live in the U.S. (or well, really, anywhere in the western hemisphere) then you are exempt from this comment. If you happen to be a member of a tribe, then you are also exempt. Otherwise, it doesn't matter who you are, what your station in life is, where your family was from originally, how many moles you have on your skin, or anything else. I don't need to know you to know that what I said is true. If you have land here, the land you're living on was stolen from people who had it previously.



Well...except even the very first contacts that Europeans had with Indians were rapacious, so in the process of killing them, taking their stuff, forcing them to work, and so on, the Europeans did indeed spread infectious diseases to the Indians. If I kidnap someone, throw her in my basement, and, while raping her, transmit HIV (which I don't know I have), am I blameless for giving her HIV? Obvious not...



Uh...SO. DAFUQ. WHAT? Because I beat members of my own family and steal from them, it's OK that I beat members of your family and steal from them? C'mon.



Except, one nation and people where some are very much better off than others, thanks to the aforementioned genocides, thefts, deceptions, etc.

Click to expand...

No people on Earth, ever, did not take from others when they had the chance. This included American Indians, who committed genocide before any Europeans arrived.

Jack Hays said:

No people on Earth, ever, did not take from others when they had the chance. This included American Indians, who committed genocide before any Europeans arrived.

Click to expand...

I think there's at least some evidence that there have been entirely peaceful peoples. There are some stories in some tribal lore to the effect that a tribe wiped out (for instance) 12 foot tall red haired groups, or alternately, a tribe of dwarves that behaved like frogs. I'm afraid I'm not aware of any credible evidence that Indians committed genocide before European contact, however.

It certainly is the case that various tribes warred against each other. With that out of the way, it wasn't alright then, and it wasn't alright for Europeans to do it either. That everyone ever, as you put it, does something immoral doesn't suddenly make it moral. And with that out of the way, what the Europeans did to the Indians wasn't merely wage war. They did far worse.

ashurbanipal said:

I think there's at least some evidence that there have been entirely peaceful peoples. There are some stories in some tribal lore to the effect that a tribe wiped out (for instance) 12 foot tall red haired groups, or alternately, a tribe of dwarves that behaved like frogs. I'm afraid I'm not aware of any credible evidence that Indians committed genocide before European contact, however.

It certainly is the case that various tribes warred against each other. With that out of the way, it wasn't alright then, and it wasn't alright for Europeans to do it either. That everyone ever, as you put it, does something immoral doesn't suddenly make it moral. And with that out of the way, what the Europeans did to the Indians wasn't merely wage war. They did far worse.

Click to expand...

The Sioux exterminated the Illinois before any European entered what had been the land of the Illinois.
The displacement of one population by another in a given place was neither moral nor immoral in human history. It was merely human.

Rickeroo said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think Pocahontas Warren demonstrates the fact that American Indians gained great advantages when singled out by the US government to be recognized as a special class of citizens.

I voted for neither but I'm fine with allowing natives to have some sovereignty.

Rickeroo said:

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.

Click to expand...

I hate polls that pretend that everyone is one or the other screwed up political party. They always turn out to be hyper partisan leading questions.

marke said:

I think Pocahontas Warren demonstrates the fact that American Indians gained great advantages when singled out by the US government to be recognized as a special class of citizens.

Click to expand...

It's true that in very few examples, the babysitting mentality of the federal government (and indeed, American society in general) towards Indians will benefit an Indian here or there, or one that claims such racial status.

Overall though, the concept (and laws) that dictate that Indians are 'different' Americans has ravaged their potential.

FreedomFromAll said:

I hate polls that pretend that everyone is one or the other screwed up political party. They always turn out to be hyper partisan leading questions.

Click to expand...

Actually, I am disappointed that so many Trump voters are in favor of the racial segregation of reservations. I expected lots of Hillary voters to feel 'sorry' for Indians, and 'do the right thing' by racially segregating them to reservations.

I believe American citizens are equal under the law. Conservatives shouldn't tolerate any race-based polices - that is the realm of democrats. Then again, it may be that both parties, for one reason or another, favor racial segregation of Indians at the federal level.

No one bothers to ask themselves if they want to be on a reservation. It's all about how "different" the Indians are and what happened to them over a century ago. If reservations are the 'cure' to such ills, if reservations are so just and good, I think people should petition the government to let their own race be part of those reservations.

If one wouldn't want to be put on a reservation, how could one advocate that same treatment for another American who happens to be a different race?

Rickeroo said:

Actually, I am disappointed that so many Trump voters are in favor of the racial segregation of reservations. I expected lots of Hillary voters to feel 'sorry' for Indians, and 'do the right thing' by racially segregating them to reservations.

I believe American citizens are equal under the law. Conservatives shouldn't tolerate any race-based polices - that is the realm of democrats. Then again, it may be that both parties, for one reason or another, favor racial segregation of Indians at the federal level.

No one bothers to ask themselves if they want to be on a reservation. It's all about how "different" the Indians are and what happened to them over a century ago. If reservations are the 'cure' to such ills, if reservations are so just and good, I think people should petition the government to let their own race be part of those reservations.

If one wouldn't want to be put on a reservation, how could one advocate that same treatment for another American who happens to be a different race?

Click to expand...

Either way it is not about partisan politics.

Rickeroo said:

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.

Click to expand...

I voted for neither, and gave absolutely no thought to Native Americans when I cast my vote for Jill Stein. My primary concern, at the time, was whether or not the outcome of the election would more likely perpetuate the vicious cycle that we've found ourselves in. Normally I would have voted Democrat, but I felt that a win in the general would not only reinforce the tactics and rhetoric that they used during the primary, but would effectively kill the progressive movement.

Reservations are a bit tricky. The fact that natives are relagated to small patches of land is beyond insulting, but our constitution grants Native-American tribes partial sovereignty, to act as nations within a nation. If that's going to change, then it must be up to Native Americans to choose that for themselves. I'm not about to disolve what's left of these tribes and their sovereignty against their will, but would support that decision if it is, indeed, what the majority of Native Americans want.

Rickeroo said:

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.

Click to expand...

What an ignorant post - trying to correlate political candidates with Indian reservations.

ttwtt78640 said:

I voted for neither Hillary nor Trump and think that tribal ownership of land is fine. Unless you are proposing reservations for black/white people then I see no racial proxy parallel.

Click to expand...

<--- Ditto, though my understanding of the reservations (which is very limited and heavy on anecdote) is that they often serve as effectively self-imposed slums.

cpwill said:

<--- Ditto, though my understanding of the reservations (which is very limited and heavy on anecdote) is that they often serve as effectively self-imposed slums.

Click to expand...

That they are often mismanaged does not make them a bad idea. Plenty of our cities, counties and states are mismanaged as well, but you can't blame the concept of cities, counties and states for their mismanagement.

ttwtt78640 said:

That they are often mismanaged does not make them a bad idea. Plenty of our cities, counties and states are mismanaged as well, but you can't blame the concept of cities, counties and states for their mismanagement.

Click to expand...

Don't you tell me what I can and can't do!

cpwill said:

Don't you tell me what I can and can't do!

Click to expand...

But I'm from the government and therefore you must trust me when I say that it is for the greater good.

celticwar17 said:

"We" didn't steal nothing.... That's what I don't get... that was 400 years ago, no one alive stole anything from anyone xD.... hey.... maybe YOU did, but I certainly didn't.

Click to expand...

Wow.

- The United States of America is only 229 years old.

- The U.S. was negotiating treaties (and breaking most) with tribes to expand territory into the later half of the nineteenth century, which was roughly about 150 years ago.

- And it is not about what "you" did. It is about the European and American legacy of prior generations, in which current generations have to face:

Both Native Americans and Europeans belonged to nations, but they differed on definition. Tribes such as the Creek, the Iroquois, and the Cherokee were nations. They owned territory and made peace treaties with each other just like Europeans did between their nations. What these tribes did not have were borders upon a map, which was understood by Europeans as defining a nation. And according to the contemporary understanding of the laws of international diplomacy, Native Americans had no claims against growing European colonies. And since they were reduced to lacking citizenship, they also held no power in the colonial court systems. This left only banditry, warfare, and treaties (which were only meant to typically define newer European borders.) It was game on.

Shortly after the colonies gained independence (229 years ago), the dominant group established the United States of America upon former indigenous nations. When the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788, the Framers intentionally excluded Native Americans. Article I, Section 2 reads, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States...excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." The Three-Fifths Compromise at least recognized African slaves as being a part of the new nation in some fashion thereby placing them within the culture. "Indians" were simply excluded. Thus, between 1830–1868, the efforts to remove Indians away from expanding American territories eventually became a systematic function that evolved into reservations.

The establishment of reservations prior to the Civil War organized the numerous recognized tribes into a sort of separated cultural sovereignty. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, following the War, altered Article I and reads, "Representatives shall be apportioned...according to their respective numbers, counting whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." The fact that African Americans existed within the dominant groups conscious and within the mainstream culture mattered greatly in determining equal citizen status. The Three-Fifths Compromise ceased to exist. However, not addressed, was the continued exclusion of "Indians" from any representation in government. But the reservations at least served to spare Native Americans from total genocide while providing a haven where resisting government attempts to force assimilation translated to preserving their distinct tribal cultures.

Now we have modern history. With the Reorganization Act of 1934, the U.S. government acknowledged that American Indian reservations should self-govern and that government agencies needed to reduce their paternalistic role. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which came out of the Civil Right's Marches, extended the Bill of Rights towards individual Native Americans in order to ensure civil rights and liberty. In 1975, the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act reversed the separatist intent of the Reorganization Act by increasing aid to reservation schools while at the same time increasing tribal control.

So, this is not 400 years ago. This has been an enduring issue in which the U.S. government has constantly tried to make amends by at least recognizing that "we" as a collective society created this. Current generations have the same responsibility as the ones of the 1970s, the 1960s, the 1930s, etc.

Rickeroo said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump have to do with this.

Was this a campaign discussion?