• 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
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.

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 ensuring 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.
I don't need a history lesson.... I've actually taken a few college courses on Native American history.
They were conquered, and lost... something they were very familiar with and also did with each other even after they formed their 'nations'.

move on.

Again you don't know me, or my history. I am an individualist... I don't care about any collective cause that is beyond a generation or two. RIGHT NOW I treat people as individuals, with fairness, and compassion. Using history to simplify the story of the 400 million individuals that live in America is an injustice to me.
 
I've never actually had to make one, I just walk in and there is always a table available.
 
I don't need a history lesson.... I've actually taken a few college courses on Native American history.
They were conquered, and lost... something they were very familiar with and also did with each other even after they formed their 'nations'.

move on.

Again you don't know me, or my history. I am an individualist... I don't care about any collective cause that is beyond a generation or two. RIGHT NOW I treat people as individuals, with fairness, and compassion. Using history to simplify the story of the 400 million individuals that live in America is an injustice to me.

Yet, according to the 1930s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, we haven't moved on. The reservation issue continues.
 
But I'm from the government and therefore you must trust me when I say that it is for the greater good. ;)

Ah, dangit, good point. My bad. :embarrassed:
 
Yet, according to the 1930s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, we haven't moved on. The reservation issue continues.

They seem to like it.

I am not sure what to do with it, so I guess we'll remain status quo. They need to ween themselves off government subsidies though, for their own good... it's wrecking their community. Welfare is what is destroying the reservations.

Stossel has a good documentary on it. Tribes that were not able to get reservation status have been doing great, above national average.... tribes that did, are being run down by the welfare state.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.
 
Last edited:
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.

I think that Indian reservations are a great idea.

I think that those reservations should be given even more self-autonomy.

I think that it would be great if ALL groups in our unique nation were given their own safe zones, where people of like mind could live and work -- on a voluntary basis, of course.

If there were more "reservations" for people who wanted to live on one, it would help reduce the current animosity that grips our nation.
 
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.
abolish them. DNA everyone factually and give one million dollars per sliding scale to every 100% native.
 
abolish them. DNA everyone factually and give one million dollars per sliding scale to every 100% native.

DNA tests are not that accurate. And by DNA there is no 100% native.
 
I think that Indian reservations are a great idea.

I think that those reservations should be given even more self-autonomy.

I think that it would be great if ALL groups in our unique nation were given their own safe zones, where people of like mind could live and work -- on a voluntary basis, of course.

If there were more "reservations" for people who wanted to live on one, it would help reduce the current animosity that grips our nation.

You do have a point. If one is in favor of federal safe zones for Indians, it stands to reason that other races should also be offered their own racial safe zone. It could be that Americans of Irish or Swedish descent, lacking a federal safe space, have fallen behind the Native American, and that just doesn't seem fair.
 
abolish them. DNA everyone factually and give one million dollars per sliding scale to every 100% native.

I like this - it starts with abolishment. While I'm not in favor of continuing the 'treat Indians differently' theme, it could be that some form of payment would make sense, since the vast majority of people consider Indians racially different than other Americans and are thus deserving of different treatment. The public must be sated.

However, once that payment is made, the racial recognition of "Indian", as far as the government is concerned, should be wiped.
 
DNA tests are not that accurate. And by DNA there is no 100% native.
i know this already. There should be a scale were we get the hangsaroundtheforts out into meaningful society plus compensate the losses inflicted upon the ones who fled into the woods.
 
I like this - it starts with abolishment. While I'm not in favor of continuing the 'treat Indians differently' theme, it could be that some form of payment would make sense, since the vast majority of people consider Indians racially different than other Americans and are thus deserving of different treatment. The public must be sated.

However, once that payment is made, the racial recognition of "Indian", as far as the government is concerned, should be wiped.
yes. Wiped. While realizing that only real dna testing will solve this long lasting embarrassment of the states and federal government.
 
Back
Top Bottom