UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Warren Dew » Sat May 05, 2012 11:22 pm

Thumpalumpacus wrote:I don't have a problem returning sites like the Paha Sapa back to the tribes.
I do.

At this point, "the tribes" no longer represent the people the land was taken away from. Many of today's descendants of the people the land was taken away from are the result of marriage out into the general population and are no longer identifiable as particularly native American, and many of those within the tribes have European blood. "The tribes" represent only political continuity, not human continuity, and it was the humans that were wronged, not the political entites abstracted from their human base.

Ultimately the solution with respect to native Americans is to absorb them into the modern American countries - ensuring that they are given full rights as citizens, rather than pretending that they are coequal with nations like the U.S. and Canada.

Notice how this is also the just solution in other areas with the issue: South Africa should have and ultimately did give the native Africans full citizenship, and the best solution for the West Bank is likewise annexation by Israel and giving all its residents full Israeli citizenship.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Seth » Sat May 05, 2012 11:25 pm

FBM wrote:I'm all for doing the right thing wrt the the native peoples of N. America, but does anyone else see the potential for a slippery slope in this? I mean, there's a lot of the U.S. and Canadia that was taken by very shady means...
Go back in the history of any nation on earth and you'll find conquest and change of ownership. Open that Pandora's box and it'll be never ending.

We had a war with the Indians. They lost. Sucks to be them. Get over it and move on.
UN official calls for US return of native land
A UN special rapporteur has called for the US to restore tribal lands, including the Black Hills of South Dakota, site of Mount Rushmore.

James Anaya announced the recommendation at the end of a 12-day tour, during which he met tribal leaders and government officials.

"The sense of loss, alienation and indignity is pervasive throughout Indian Country," Mr Anaya said.
Horseshit. Nobody alive today had anything taken from them. If they are living in indignity, it's because they choose to be there.
He met with tribes in seven states on reservations and in urban areas.

The trip, Mr Anaya's first tour of Native American lands, was to determine how the United States is faring on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

President Barack Obama endorsed the declaration in 2010, reversing a previous US vote against it.
Reversing my ass. The President doesn't speak for everyone, much less Congress, which must ratify treaties. The UN can declare anything it wants, but US law rules here.
'Restorative'

Mr Anaya used the Black Hills, located in South Dakota near reservations that are home to the Oglala Sioux tribes, as an example of land restoration.

"I'm talking about restoring to indigenous peoples what obviously they're entitled to and they have a legitimate claim to in a way that is not divisive but restorative," he said.

The Black Hills are public land but are considered sacred by the Sioux tribes. The area, as well as other lands, were set aside for the tribes in an 1868 treaty.

Nine years later, Congress passed a law taking the land.
The Sioux violated that treaty by waging war on the United States, and so the treaty is null and void.
The Sioux refused to accept a 1980 monetary award from the US Supreme Court, calling for the return of the Black Hills.
Fat chance.
The reservations near the Black Hills are some of the most poverty-stricken areas in the US, with extremely high rates of unemployment and much lower than average life expectancy.
Then why do they voluntarily remain there? Nobody's keeping them on the reservations anymore. They are free to leave any time they like and pursue success anywhere in the US because they are US citizens. Nobody wants to invest in businesses on tribal lands because the tribes are notoriously corrupt, unstable and frequently refuse to honor contracts.
Mr Anaya cited ongoing systemic and individual racial discrimination as common themes in his discussions with community leaders.
It's Indians discriminating against Indians most of the time. Just ask the Blackfeet what the Sioux did to them before the Europeans arrived. Not the noble savages at all, just savages.
He said ideas that native populations were gone, wanted handouts or that their culture has been reduced to casinos were "flatly wrong".
No it's not.
Mr Anaya will make formal recommendations in a report to be released in September.
which he can fold three times and shove up his ass, because the UN has no jurisdiction here.
The UN fact-finder said he had met members of the Obama administration and briefed the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, but was unable to meet individuals members of Congress.

He said that he typically meets individual legislators during his tours of countries but said he did not know the reason why that had not happened in the US.
Because he's an idiot and our Congress knows better than to give credence or recognition to a UN flunky who has no power or jurisdiction.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Ian » Sun May 06, 2012 12:09 am

A quick snipppet from Wikipedia (via other sources)...
The collective geographical area of all reservations is 55.7 million acres (225,410 km²), representing 2.3% of the area of the United States (2,379,400,204 acres; 9,629,091 km²). Twelve Indian reservations are larger than the state of Rhode Island (776,960 acres; 3,144 km²) and nine reservations larger than Delaware (1,316,480 acres; 5,327 km²). The territory of the Navajo Nation compares in size to West Virginia. Tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Posts: 1357
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Thumpalumpacus » Sun May 06, 2012 12:11 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Thumpalumpacus wrote:I don't have a problem returning sites like the Paha Sapa back to the tribes.
I do.

At this point, "the tribes" no longer represent the people the land was taken away from. Many of today's descendants of the people the land was taken away from are the result of marriage out into the general population and are no longer identifiable as particularly native American, and many of those within the tribes have European blood. "The tribes" represent only political continuity, not human continuity, and it was the humans that were wronged, not the political entites abstracted from their human base.

Ultimately the solution with respect to native Americans is to absorb them into the modern American countries - ensuring that they are given full rights as citizens, rather than pretending that they are coequal with nations like the U.S. and Canada.

Notice how this is also the just solution in other areas with the issue: South Africa should have and ultimately did give the native Africans full citizenship, and the best solution for the West Bank is likewise annexation by Israel and giving all its residents full Israeli citizenship.
It's hard to take issue with your points, except to note that there are many natives who do indeed identify as natives, who have mostly or entirely native blood in them, and that there's precedent for righting political as well as humanitarian wrongs.

Because of that, I can see assigning the Black Hills to Reservation governance; considering the symbolic significance it would have, it seems like a pittance to pay.

I agree with you that the best course is integration, but that's not going to happen, because there are those who reject that as anathema.
these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by FBM » Sun May 06, 2012 3:40 am

Seth wrote:
FBM wrote:I'm all for doing the right thing wrt the the native peoples of N. America, but does anyone else see the potential for a slippery slope in this? I mean, there's a lot of the U.S. and Canadia that was taken by very shady means...
Go back in the history of any nation on earth and you'll find conquest and change of ownership. Open that Pandora's box and it'll be never ending.

We had a war with the Indians. They lost. Sucks to be them. Get over it and move on.
Despite my sympathy for the natives, it's hard to argue with this. To the victor goes the spoils. But I wasn't talking about the actual fighting, nothing shady about that. I meant things like trading a handful of beads for vast tracts of land with a native who doesn't even represent the other tribes who lived in the area, unilaterally amending or abolishing treaties, smallpox blankets, Trail of Tears, etc.

But you're right, ultimately. The natives lost; we owe them nothing. But for me, that doesn't translate into justifying a lack of basic human compassion and sympathy for them.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by mistermack » Sun May 06, 2012 12:32 pm

I take it from all the comments that Argentina has well and truly lost any claim to the Falklands Islands, as they have been British since 1833?

The UN recognises Israel, which has only been a Jewish state since 1948. And Israel has all those inconvenient Arab natives. The Falklands had no natives.

How can the anybody endorse Israel, and not Endorse the British rights to the Falklands?
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41178
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Svartalf » Sun May 06, 2012 12:47 pm

Thumpalumpacus wrote:I don't have a problem returning sites like the Paha Sapa back to the tribes. Given that Dr Anaya drafted the Declaration mentioned in the article, it's hardly surprising that he should do it in the framework of American history.

I question the ability of any country to return seized territories "in a way that is not divisive but restorative," though. The "non-natives" displaced by such a policy weren't party to the seizures, and stripping them of their own land would seem to be punishing them for what is surely an accident of birth. With that being the case, I could see a compromise involving the return of grounds held sacred historically, but not all lands. The latter is certainly unrealistic.

It would be nice to see the UN apply these standards to other countries equably, too.
In a country that rendered a decision like Kelo vs New London, I don't see expropriating people unwilling to sell their lands as a problem.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41178
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Svartalf » Sun May 06, 2012 1:51 pm

Clinton Huxley wrote:What would Sean Penn do?
You mean William Penn, surely?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41178
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Svartalf » Sun May 06, 2012 1:53 pm

Ian wrote:A quick snipppet from Wikipedia (via other sources)...
The collective geographical area of all reservations is 55.7 million acres (225,410 km²), representing 2.3% of the area of the United States (2,379,400,204 acres; 9,629,091 km²). Twelve Indian reservations are larger than the state of Rhode Island (776,960 acres; 3,144 km²) and nine reservations larger than Delaware (1,316,480 acres; 5,327 km²). The territory of the Navajo Nation compares in size to West Virginia. Tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.
When Amerindian tribes get seats in the UN (useless as that may be), let's talk about it again?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Ian » Sun May 06, 2012 2:02 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Ian wrote:A quick snipppet from Wikipedia (via other sources)...
The collective geographical area of all reservations is 55.7 million acres (225,410 km²), representing 2.3% of the area of the United States (2,379,400,204 acres; 9,629,091 km²). Twelve Indian reservations are larger than the state of Rhode Island (776,960 acres; 3,144 km²) and nine reservations larger than Delaware (1,316,480 acres; 5,327 km²). The territory of the Navajo Nation compares in size to West Virginia. Tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.
When Amerindian tribes get seats in the UN (useless as that may be), let's talk about it again?
I wasn't really trying to make a point one way or the other, just throuwing out some information for perspective.

There are many tribal areas within other modern countries - should they all expect seats at the UN?
For that matter, can an Amerindian not participate in US government and represent the country at the UN? Of course. Dreadful as the history of Native Americans and the US govt. was through the 19th Century (and beyond), they're American citizens now. Are you suggesting that there's a popular movement within tribes to claim independence from the US and establish fully sovereign territory?

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41178
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Svartalf » Sun May 06, 2012 2:07 pm

Indeed... and I was reminding how limited their "sovereignty" is...
I'd like to see what would happen if they started arming up and maintaining a regular warrior force, or revived those societies like the one Sitting Bull was part of....
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun May 06, 2012 2:14 pm

Ian wrote:I wasn't really trying to make a point one way or the other, just throuwing out some information for perspective.

There are many tribal areas within other modern countries - should they all expect seats at the UN?
For that matter, can an Amerindian not participate in US government and represent the country at the UN? Of course. Dreadful as the history of Native Americans and the US govt. was through the 19th Century (and beyond), they're American citizens now. Are you suggesting that there's a popular movement within tribes to claim independence from the US and establish fully sovereign territory?
The Wahewa are making good money off Samcro. :read:
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
amused
amused
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
About me: Reinvention phase initiated
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by amused » Sun May 06, 2012 2:39 pm

The whole concept of tribal lands seems like an anachronism that should be erased. All lands are 'stolen' at some point in their history if you go back far enough. It would be very un-PC of us, but I think it's time that the US simply incorporate the reservations into the US at large and do away with them.

Even today when the US goes into places like Iraq and Afghanistan and sets up new governments, said nation building is in effect stealing the entire country from the previous government.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun May 06, 2012 4:42 pm

I would disagree to a certain point. The first people into South America didn't take the land from any other humans. It went downhill after that, of course. but you still have times when a people died out and the gaps were filled by immigrants from other areas without violence or displacement.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Posts: 1357
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:13 pm
About me: Texan by birth, musician by nature, writer by avocation, freethinker by inclination.
Contact:

Re: UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

Post by Thumpalumpacus » Sun May 06, 2012 5:57 pm

Svartalf wrote:In a country that rendered a decision like Kelo vs New London, I don't see expropriating people unwilling to sell their lands as a problem.
It was a shitty decision.
these are things we think we know
these are feelings we might even share
these are thoughts we hide from ourselves
these are secrets we cannot lay bare.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests