Should landowners have to pay a tax to the Indian tribe that lived there?

Don't you think it's fair, that everyone who "owns" land in the "United States," should have to pay an annual tax to whatever Indian nation that once lived on that land, before it was stolen from them by Europeans?

that is what I think is fair

This whole continent was "stolen" by that standard. Why stop with native americans? Why not go all the way back to the roots of Europe?

We can't undo the sins of our fathers in war, invasion, slavery, etc. by "giving it back".

Reparations are equally difficult - if you tax people of mixed ethnicity to pay a reparation, aren't you defeating the purpose? Likewise would you make "them" give it back if they are a quarter or half or 1/8th native american?

There is a middle ground, and that is to recognize that native american poverty exists largely because it is a self-sustaining cycle of lower educational standards and fewer professional opportunities that allow an ethnic tribal group to remain together and sustain their culture. It is to act upon legislation that recognizes those disparities and seeks to amend them, rather than stonewall or sit in denial.

Do you own your own home? If so when do you plan on giving it back?

eom

I posted my thoughts. I don't care about your heritage all that much. You may be a native american but that doesn't mean you can hold a piece of property individually. You must give it to the tribe that once owned the land. Isn't that what you suggested in your post?

being snarky about it and then attributing it as "an opinion" is lame as hell. You were trying to through something at me, and missed badly.

You stated that its your opinion that all the land should be returned to the native americans. Native americans did not recognize property as individually owned therefore you ought to be the first to give your property to the tribe from which it was stolen.

yes of course I meant throw....

happy?

Click

and use 'em. Someone is in the corner for awhile.

:)

I disagreed with your statement that all lands should be returned to the native americans. I asked if you were willing to forfeit your home to the tribe that owned the land at some point in time. You never answered the question.

Some people are pretty generous with other peoples property when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I paid my hard earned cash for my property and I will be damned if I would "give it back". To believe the idea that people would "give it back" out of guilt is somewhat naive, isn't it?

Are you suggesting that Indians didn't steal their land from those that came before and who gave them the land in the first place. As far as I can tell all land on earth was stolen from someone at one time or another. It was my belief that Indians never claimed the land as their own before the White man came so why should they do that now?

Who were the first to travel to the americas and claim ownership?
Your going to have to look back thousands of years.

that all is well and all will be well.

Touchy subject with me I suppose.

I admit I have no solution....we just keep trying to keep the land entrusted to us 202 years ago as pristine as possible and hope we can keep it that way another 200. We are, after all, simply caretakers.

if we're not going to alter our environment to suit our needs...then what's the point of having an opposable thumb?

to whom, exactly?

i was under the impression that the native americans never considered the land to be their property...

it was horrible what happened to them, but ultimately- they lost the war. it wasn't the first time in human history that it happened(i.e.- the victors take the spoils) and it probably won't be the last.

our current world society has been built on a LOT of wrongs that will never be righted...it just isn't realistic.

move on.

You would see my resignation...and admitted lack of solution other than wishful thinking.

One can hope that wrongs will not continue...optimism is never dead.

And I "move on" at my own speed, thank you.

but beside that the native peoples also fought for land areas and won over other native peoples. The Inca enslaved and killed other native peoples. I don't want to say this is the way the human race always operates, but in a way it has a lot of application. It wasn't as if everything was totally peaceful before Europeans came.

of alcohol and smallpox???

we have reimbursed them enough, by making casinos and indian smoke shops...hahahaha, just kidding...:) Nice sarcasm, i love it. Oh, plus we gave them Dances with wolves....i think we are even, no?...:)

gift of syphilis to columbus and his crew.

damn, I didn't know, that..i must have missed that Staff meeting!...

to nirvana (it made it's first appearance in europe during the siege of naples in 1493) . . . of course, we (as in western europeans) shared it with everyone we could get our hands (or other parts) on. you, know, it's the gift that keeps giving.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that exhibit syphilitic damage are a result of another spirochetal disease, yaws. paleo-anthropologists have shown clearly syphlitic bones (indigenous) on hispanola, near where columbus and his men made camp. scientists have been debating from whence the clever spirochete, treponema pallidum, appeared, for hundreds of years. your post exhibits something of a lack of a grasp of the subject. try to do better next time. in retrospect, i did make a mistake, in saying that the seige of naples was 1493 when, in fact it was 1495 . . . coincidentially the time of the first documented syphilis epidemic.

go back to your magic drawing board.

see if miss nancy will conjure a birthday greeting for you.

i know feel that the pre-columbus evidence on spirochetal damage in bones in europe came from yaws, which was fairly common, and not syphilis.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_syphilis/

my bad about greece -- i've read other articles where the disease was found in greece -- but this indicates england was another place.

and the legacy of death that was passed around. No wonder we have bred the likes of Bush/Rumsfeld and Cheney who don't see what is wrong with invading a sovereign nation today and torturing their people...

How am I a sad poster? I have knowledge of American History, and it isn't the romaticized horseshit that is force feed at the high school, or even college level.

Will the Indians be paying a tax to the people they stole it from? There were other Native American tribes living on whatever piece of land before the ones who happened up against the evil white man.

Besides, they don't have the votes.

and the Native Americans land came up.
It all started with him saying we invaded Iraq to protect Israel. I responded that Israel should be thrown off the land they took from the Palestinians. He then said maybe we should give the Indians back their land as well.
I told him they probably wouldn't want it now, after we have pretty much destroyed it.
He retorted with something about the group of people who have possession of land regardless of how they received it are entitled to ownership and not accountable to the people they took it from. I laughed at his excuse and gave up.
But my point was that our ancestors took the land from the Indians who lived one with the land and all it's resources, we owe them something if not the land it's self.

according to him, if I went in, and forced him off his land I would not be accountable to him for taking it?

I am not sure how I stand on the Native American issue, but as for this guy's comment, perhaps he should think before he issues a blanket statement. What would he think if the govt came and took his land for a Walmart?

I have wanted some property to put horses on for a while, maybe I'll just go TAKE IT! :sarcasm:

patriotic or some dumb ass thing.

i thought israel bought their land from the british

if we are going to define just having the nerve to be alive & living someplace as stealing, then who is not a thief?

this kind of argument is endless

try reading up on it. I would suggest Google for starters.

we don't "owe" anyone anything. the native americans that were slaughtered by the invading whites ultimately lost The War, because they were not as technologically advanced as the invaders. It wasn't the first time in history that it happened, and probably won't be the last, especially as the current civilizations begin to crumble.

it was horrible, yes- but there is no debt owed to the vanquished...that's not how it works.

It was a flim flam, more than a loss of war. The indians could continue the fight, but ultimately they knew the war was going to be lost, so they made treaties with the USA in order to stop armed conflict. The USA hasn't kept up on much of its end of the bargain. Because of the treaties, i am sorry to say, there are debts to be paid to the vanqished. You make it seem like, its a so sad, so bad issue, which it isn't. My ancestors paid the ultimate price for me, and they paid it in BLOOD. To say there is no debt is pretty coldhearted. Albeit what the original poster said, i believe is impossible...

than cheat you out of it.

"My ancestors paid the ultimate price for me, and they paid it in BLOOD..."

sorry- it doesn't wash...we ALL have ancestors that paid the "ultimate price...in BLOOD".

but by and large, they didn't do it for us(or you), no matter what kind of romanticized connotations you want to put on it- they were more concerned about their own lives, and the lives of their own children- than to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of generations that might be there hundreds of years later.

as for the treaties that were broken- shit happens...it's in the past, and we aren't going back- any 'debt' or other obligations that some might consider to be owed will never be paid- you admit so yourself...so- wouldn't it be a LOT better for the descendants of the vanquished to 'move on', and join in on the society that replaced their's, rather than hope for handouts that aren't coming?

My ancestors did do it for US, they did it to preserve their race, their future generations. It isn't romaticized connotations either, its what happened, they signed treaties to end armed conflict, and the US has down a horrible job keeping up their end of the bargain(how is that romanticized?). Its like a father taking out life insurance for his kids in the event of his death(for say 500,000), to make sure his wife/children have $ to take care of things...he paid the insurance to insure that his loved ones are taken care of. But in the case of the indians, that contract, that insurance, the TREATIES have been ignored/under funded greatly. Its like that same insurance company paying out 40,000 on that half a million life insurance policy, and by your standard, his family should be happy about what they got (handouts supposedly) and move on?

Yes, we all have ancestors that paid the ultimate sacrifice in blood, but the native americans have DOCUMENTS called Treaties, that are suppose to be held up by the Federal Government, there is a difference there, there is a signed document, TREATIES. And by your comments of treaties broken-shit happens, thank you so much for saying that totally ignorant remark, thank you...:) By the way, do you work in insurance?...:)

The Federal Govenment may, or may not fully hold up its end of the bargain, but we have such little voice in washington, the only senators that i have seen take a stand have been Daschle, McCain, and Mrs. Casselbaum (of kansas). I admit that what the orignal poster said is impossible.

As for moving on, as the vanquished to move on we are doing a fantastic job of doing that now. We got indians who wear OU Sooner hats, we got Indians who wear and support the Dallas Cowboys, who wear their clothes like little gangsters, we got Indians who stab one another in the back to get personal gain, we got Tribal Councils who steal funds, etc etc...I say, we have done a pretty good job of taking on the Victors Theology. :) But we cannot forget the past, we cannot forget where we came from, it will always be with us, I agree its bad to sit and point fingers, but we cannot forget what the US government has done, and continues to do, if we forget the past, we are doomed to repeat it.

Hoping for handouts? What do you mean by this? I'm not sittign around looking for handouts, and neither are my wifes side, nor my side of the family ( I married into the Keetowah Band of Cherokee). So, what do you mean by handouts?

Also, you make it sound like these actions, that the US Govt did were ancient history. My grandmother, who is 80, went to Sheldon Jackson Boarding school in Sitka, Alaska, where she was forced, beaten to forget her haida culture...this isn't something that happend eons ago, it happened damn, in my grandmothers life time.

But again, you are entitled to your own opinion, and i doubt i changed one bit of it, but nice talking to you.

ultimately in this twisted world, 'might makes right'...

as to the handouts comment- this thread is all about whether the current landowners(myself included) should give handouts to native americans.

ultimately, the indiginous peoples of the Americas LOST. bottom line.

the past is past, and that won't change. the war for north america is over, and the white europeans won.

but I do believe your talking points are outdated. By about a century or two.

So any group has the right to subjugate, attack and injure an entire people solely because they can? Are you serious? Are you insane? There is NEVER any rationalization for atrocities and wrongdoing. There is everything to be said for a slight amount of dignity and recognition of any vague thought of respect and truth.

The past has led to the present. The present gives us the opportunity to right wrong.

You might as well start saying the Nazis had a right to do what they did, or Pol Pot, or Interhamwe, or LRA, or Torquemada, or Urban IV, or...

The "bottom line" is that THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR INJUSTICE. EVER. THERE IS ALSO NO EXCUSE FOR PERPETUATING INJUSTICE. Get that through your head, or try getting a conscience, or a shred of decency.

I think "Ignorant Colonialist Underground" is the site you are looking for.

the injustice happened quite awhile back, and isn't going to be changed by inflicting an injustice on the current landowners.

the past is just that- the past.
time to move forward.

and your mindset fits right in there with the people who gave Native Americans blankets with smallpox on them.

Congrats.

The present is the present. Time to do the right thing.

who should pay how much of what to whom? or is it something else entirely, this 'right thing' of what you speak?

do you also advocate righting the wrongs done to the losers of all the various wars & conflicts throughout history? and if not- why not?

and what precisely in my "mindset"(which you know virtually nothing about) fits in with the smallpox blanket people?

is to help Native American communities get on their feet. Go look at Native American reservations, it is disgusting and we must do something about it. Furthermore, the right thing is to respect the treaties signed with Native American nations, treaties that were unfairly broken. It is the definition of injustice to break a treaty and violate a people's trust and rights.

I advocate righting the wrongs done to those still suffering from injustice. If the direct effects of wrong policies and actions are causing further injury to a people, that situation must be righted. The exact same government which threw people off their land is still here today, and it must answer to what it has done. If Britain asked Sweden to compensate for the Viking raids, that would be ridiculous, not only because the government of Britain is a different one, not only because the entire demographic landscape of the British Isles has changed, but also because the wounds caused by that aggression have long since healed. Meanwhile, the aggressor in the case we are speaking of has benefited, while the victim has continued to suffer. That must be changed.

That comment was pretty much saying your "might makes right" mindset (your words) is virtually identical to the colonialist mindsets which oppressed and exploited entire peoples and destroyed entire cultures.

and the reason you ignored the phrase "in this twisted world" (my words)that immediately preceded "might makes right" in my post was because...? taking things out of context can really change the meaning.

and you didn't really answer my question- so i'll rephrase it a little, and try again- what EXACTLY would you do to "help Native American communities get on their feet"?

they already get to open casinoes and sell cigarettes tax-free...what more could they possibly want...? :sarcasm:

having casino's and sell cigarette's tax free is a fair trade off then? hahahahahaha...you are so funny!...:)

you might want to check out the word "sarcasm" too.

but once more, i'm still waiting for a response to the same question, and this time, i'll type real slow, so that you can understand it- What exactly would you have us do to "help Native American communities get on their feet"?

Have you not read this entire thread lately?....or are you so caught up with this little arguement? What i would have US do, is have the federal government hold up its obligations through treaties. To fully fund IHS to fully fund American Indian education, and higher education to start off with...tax money, is all ready being used to pay for American Indian issues, most people in Indian country want it to be fully funded, and get away from the funny language around them... Thats what I would EXACTLY have us do...To get American Indian communities up off their feet, education is KEY and the programs to ensure American Indian Education is severly underfunded...so, what about this dont' you understand?

And I dont'need a dictionary Mr. Nazi...what you need is a dose of reality, that you don't know SQUAT about American Indian Issues...:) Take care, give Hitler my regards...:)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

didn't mean, to...:) well, i did...i knew better, but again...life is learning from mistakes...:)

you sooo lazy dude.

it's what is OWED.

i didn't perform genocide on anyone, and i didn't steal anyone's land- i purchased my property.

but since you seem to think that it's "owed", what is the total dollar figure that's "owed", and to whom is it owed, precisely why is it owed? and what's my share, in your opinion?

At least the way we seem to think of them...It's a MYTH.

They came to North / South America MUCH earlier that White Europeans, but they were still NOT NATIVE to North / South America...


Europeans were (and still are) geographically / genetically / technologically superior to "Native Americans." If you want a better understanding of what I mean, read "Guns, Germs and Steel," by Jared Diamond.


Still - another TAX? Perhaps, more easily, municipal land taxes that we ALREADY pay could be divided more equitably - with some going to Status Bands with land claims in dispute...

it matter if they weren't here when Pangaea broke apart. They got here first and we mistreated them terribly once we arrived. What is so hard to understand about that?

One of the main points of the book V.I. mentioned is that if you went back 10,000 years and scrambled around everybody's ancestors, it's very likely the same plants and animal would be domesticated, in the same parts of the world, and even certain political formations and economic developments are more likely in some places than others due to geography, geology, etc.

The Americas were genetically "inferior" in that in just about every category of domesticable plants and animals, they only had a few available candidates, whereas the Eurasian landmass had many more. E. g., for a staple crop, the Americas had maize while Eurasia had wheat, rice, oats, barley, rye, etc., and the maize required more work for smaller yields.

Or domesicable animals: the Americas' native megafauna were died off/were killed off when the earliest humans came to these continents. Thus, no heavy draft animals on par with oxen, no horses (until the Spanish reintroduced them), no camels, etc. Pretty much just dogs and llamas -- relatively small animals, and llamas can be tricky.

That's what "genetically" superior meant in this context, though yes, that's a bad (and very loaded) way of saying it. "Genetic resources" or better still "plant and animal resources" would have been better.

what I had supposed was being made.

so obviously god hates North American 'native' peoples.

And who are we to question god, really?

survival of the fittest than ID. not saying that I agree with Diamond on everything, but he makes some interesting points about the sheer luck of resource allocation two thousand years ago.

I wouldn't use his book as the final word on the subject.

What the hell do you mean by that, if you start opining Manifest Destiny as your next talking point, i might be offended...

see JHB's post #19 for a clarification on what VillageIdiot is trying to say- it's bad paraphrasing of the book he cited.

when i first read the post, i thought he was trying to address the issue of immunity to diseases- that the europeans for the most part had developed "stronger" immune systems, due to exposure to contagious illnesses that the lineage of the Native Americans had never encountered.

after i all ready posted this....didn't remember to put a response back to it, but another poster all ready did a decent response, so i left the subject alone...:)

n/t

Europeans are NOT superior in any way to any other culture or race or group. If you don't believe me, watch this:

Geographically - The Fertile Crescent, the Nile Valley and other areas are far better in many aspects than most of Europe. It is no surprise that civilization itself started there.

Genetically - I have no idea where to start. Europeans are surely not superior to other races when it comes to athleticism. If you want to talk about brains, history would disagree with you, as well as the fact that China, India, Korea and other countries are surpassing us in science and mathematical achievement.

Technology - Wrong again. Guess who invented gunpowder. The bows and arrows of the Native Americans were much more effective in combat than anything the Europeans used for quite some time.

Try getting a clue. Thanks.

Furthermore, malign it for being a tax, but the tax of blood and tears that we have wrongly inflicted upon Native Americans is infinitely more than you or anyone else could ever amount any money for. It's justice, get used to it.

What the fuck does THAT mean? Is that because we've figured out a way to claim God gave it to us because it/God is invisible when the God of the Natives is not. Or that we deserve it because we know how to mess it up better. That statement is pathetic and disgusting.

and the first people came to North Anmerica about 30,000 years ago, then for 99 % of people's existence North America was empty of people.

We are all very much newcomers to North America.

But then there's Kennewick Man and his ilk.

Anyone studied up on him?

resources to build ''wealth''.

what first nations people need is resources that they can manipulate to their benefit.

they can educate themselves, build enterprizes, etc -- understanding that for some success will be different from what we understand as success.

my short answer is yes -- however the ''tax'' can be defined to suit different situations.

At what point in time do you consider ownership? And since Native Americans didn't "own" land, and boundaries were fluid, and they were constantly at war with each other, stealing each other's lands and people for slavery, etc.

Heck, the Hopis in Arizona would love to kick the Navajos off "their" land.

of your description of their status with the land.

you romantisize their version of ''ownership'' and use it for your own purposes.

we didn't obliterate them as a people -- we made treaties with them to compensate for resources we knew they would need -- and by right of might cheated them.

you owe whatever wealth you have today because of dishonest dealing by your forebears -- but by your forebears leaving the first nations people alive -- they didn't erase the burden of compensationg them for what is ''owed'' them.

i.e. the lakota have a legitimate right to the black hills -- that treaty was never voided.

"you owe whatever wealth you have today because of dishonest dealing by your forebears"

My forefathers were excluded from partaking in society, much less the land grab, until the laws were changed to accept us.

So why should I pay, if my great, great grandfather got off the boat, and immediately sent down to Virginia to fight in the war against the South, only to come back to "Irish need not apply" signs on all that "property"?

We all have our crosses to bear. Just because I'm of European descent doesn't mean that my forbears, and by extension me, am responsible for Manifest Destiny. Lumping all Europeans (white guys) in with British imperialists or Spanish Conquistadors is as racist as lumping all Native tribes together.

Multi-generational imprisonment, indentured servitude (which much of the Irish were subject to), and debt responsibility has been relegated to the dustbin of history. Any talk of bringing it back, even for this cause du jour, is regressive and draconian. No matter how you couch it in misdirected indignant liberal justice language, this is exactly what this "cause" is.

Who is really responsible for keeping the people (all of us) down, and continues to do so today? The Oligarchs, plutocrats, and new aristocracy? Or the great-great grandchildren of white guys?

even you.

my family were swedish peasants -- didn't get here until the 1900's -- but they owe the bad treatment of the sauk and fox nations for being able to farm.

i wasn't born until -- well never mind - and am completly aware that whatever i have in this world is in no small part due to stolen goods -- i get to reap the benefits of bad dealings by representatives of my government.

and this said government is also your government -- and the government should held accountable and told to pay up and make right it's former dealings with first nations people.

that is if you want to live here -- your welcome to make another country that can justify your notion of thievery and making that all right.

and your a fellow white guy ? -- cry me a river on the racist bullshit:nopity:
perhaps moving over will build a little character.

...and your non-sequitur that I'm a beneficiary of past wrongs has no bridge built for me to see. You failed to make your case. You may know this, but I can't see into your nightmares.

Telling me to move to another country? How very absolutist of you.:eyes:

Since your giving me a choice, I'll give you one. You pay the Sauk and Fox tribes, or you go to debtors prison for the debt your ancestors accrued, if you can't afford it.

And...I certainly need no lectures on character from a close minded absolutist such as you. You are indicting all people of European descent for the deeds of a few who were guilty. Calling it bullshit doesn't change the fact that your are blaming current European Americans, no matter how much access to the "American Dream" certain immigrants were allowed to have, for the crimes of the very singular wasps of 2 centuries ago.

EDIT: I also don't buy into your "First Nations" feeble attempt to frame the debate. They were here before us, but being here first is VERY debatable.

bullshit about the history of ''wealth'' and how it's been disseminated through the classes in this country -- i'm going to them right back at you.

and apparently you DO need a few lectures regarding what people of european decent have gained through no effort of their own.

and regarding the debatable of first nations people being here -- the were in north america in the millions.
had right of claim to this place -- were NOT defeated by might -- but by disease, reneging on treaties, starvation, etc

you might not like to accept that you personal standing in the world was improved by the bad behavior of your government -- but it's there in black and white for all the world to see.
except those too lazy to read.

Name one talking point I said, and cross reference it to a famous GOP bloviator. You are all knowing and anybody who questiuons that is a knuckledragging mouthbreather. I was right. Absolutist fits you to a tee.

Here's a liberal idea for you. How about those native Americans try and live with the rest of us, instead of stewing in isolation about the past crimes of our Government, and yes I know full and well what happened to the Native populations, and I am not making excuses for that. Getting along with diversity too much for them to handle?

Regarding aggression and Manifest Destiny. That is the fault of the US Government of the 19th Century. In regards to disease and starvation, Darwin's theory of Natural Selection comes into play. Repugs do not believe in Darwin.

The "right to claim" or property rights, and for that matter, monetary values are human constructs, not of the natural world.

Don't try to read into my thoughts. You're not very good at it. I am fully aware of my priveleges that my skin color automatically gives me.

But you tenaciously are avoiding the point I have made since we began this exchange, and you started to name call. so let me bring it up one more time. MULTI-GENERATIONAL DEBT/GUILT RESPONSIBILITY is the problem I have with this proposal. You know, a blacksmith goes into debt or kills an Arch-Duke, can't pay, goes to debtors prison/get's beheaded, dies there. Then his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren live and die in the same prison for his bad debts/acts, until his debt to society/or Gentry is paid off. This was abolished during the Enlightenment, and no matter how good your cause, you are opening a Pandora's box, when you suggest we bring it back on this one issue. You have no answer for this? Maybe because it's a good idea for the Grover Norquist crowd, and you've already cast the first stone of epithets on me.

I'll make you a deal. I will join you in this if all Britons pay back the Irish for 500 years of occupation, slavery, conscription, starvation, exploitation, and other atrocities commited by them when they invaded Erin. Likewise, you should pay me, because your ancestors, the Norse came to our shores, burnt our villages, killed millions of us, destroyed all references to our religions, and supplanted your silly Odin/Thor/Loki mythology on us in the 12th Century. You can also pay the Brits while your at it.

Here's a liberal idea for you. How about those native Americans try and live with the rest of us, instead of stewing in isolation about the past crimes of our Government, and yes I know full and well what happened to the Native populations, and I am not making excuses for that. Getting along with diversity too much for them to handle?

This statement is flawed, i'm sad to say. Native Americans have tried to live with the rest of "us", i am assuming you are refereing to the more broad society at large. We have tried to live with the rest of YOU for a very long time, but its damn near impossible, because the majority of YOU want us to forget the past, forget our culture, forget where we came from, etc etc, heres an idea for you, forget what your dad and mother taught you, and you will begin to see what SOCIETY pushes onto American Indians. We do not stew in isolation, we are put in ISOLATION, we are kept in certain areas of the country because if we leave, or move to another state, than we all of a sudden lose IHS and other pivotal needs that American Indians need. We are force fed FAILURE and POVERTY from day one, and a majority of American Indians see no FUTURE. Can you blame them?

You claim to "I know full and well what happened to the native populations, and i'm not making excuses for that. Getting along with diversity too much for them to handle?" If you know full well, what happened, you wouldn't be spouting off RW talking points. If you knew full well, you wouldn't be talking this way. I have discussed this issue at large with Repulican Clubs in SW Missouri, so has my wife, and my wife continues to talk to a predominately rw walmart home office, where she works. Most of your talking points mirror what they say, i'm sorry to say it

I'm not saying you are a Republican, but in this issue you are saying a lot of the rhetoric that i have heard from their clubs. I myself, have been pined a RW nut job because of my stance on gun control/gun issues, so i hope you don't take offense sir/ma'am, its just an observation.

As far as "getting along with diversity too much for them to handle?" No its not to much to handle, but it seems its hard to you to handle that our nation, our government made up of different white races, killed, murdered, took land from American Indians. Is that hard for you to live with? With my tribe, i have to live with the knowledge that my tribe was treated like little slaves, by the Tlingets, i'm not ashamed of it, it happens. I know you said you are not making excuses for it, but indians aren't making a huge excuse for how they were treated either. All (most of them anyways) want is a fair shake, and for the fed government to hold up what was promised, and signed for(treaties). But again, there are a few indians who want everything handed to them, and cry...I myself, and my wife are not one of them, we want our people/nation to have a future, is there any wrong in that?

Your issue with Multi Generational Debt/Guilt Responsibility. I agree with you on this, as i have through most of this thread, the orignal posters idea, thought is flawed, you are right it will open a pandora's box, you are right, i agree with you. What i'm arguing for primarily, in this thread is that people learn about the treaties and intitatives that both the fed govt and the soverign indian nations signed. In my honest opinion if the fed govt upheld what was promised, I wouldn't have much to gripe/complain about with indian/white issues...there is all ready a huge handful of indian/indian priorities/issues that would keep my wife and I busy for a very long time...:)

By the way, some of the touch and go issues within Indian Country, are Blood Quantums, corrupt tribal councils, IHS issues, and high level education, to name a few...oh, and the never ending haunt of Mascots... good arguements, some i have heard before, many times...but at least you are willing to sit, and argue/debate, which is the NUMBER ONE thing i love about DU. :)

One who is of a catholic heritage. Yeah. Lecture me about not having a clue about assimilation and conformity. In realizing that, and you are correct, that there's a very large population of assimilationists out there that want everybody to conform, but not me, and not millions of the rest of us who do value diversity and cultural heritage in life.

I am all for the US to honor those treaties that were never fulfilled. I'm all for federal help for "enterprise zones" on indian land, school funding, infrastructure construction, etc. All that are enjoyed by US owned land. If the nation in question wishes to remain sovereign, then that should be honored as well.

What I do object to is that I am responsible for the sins of white men who took land, and died more than a century ago without giving me any of it, just because I share their skin color, but not hair color. My people weren't given a chance to take your land, because we were given rifles and sent down to fight the Southerners as soon as we got off the boat.

You can't browbeat or shame people into agreement with you. I don't object to the arguments made, as much as the tone that I am the devil because my ancestors came from Europe.

BTW: Sorry about that mascot thing. For what it's worth, I never bought any Village People albums.;)

Sorry, its kind of a ...in short, my wife works for walmarts diversity department, and they have resource groups like she is in charge of American Indians, and there are other groups African Americans, GLBT, Asian American Group, Hispanics, and Women....its funny cause the only other group that is cohesive at all is the GLBT group, meaning the indian/glbt support one another. Its also funny, that all the people my wife see as even having a grasp or sane, are the gay men she talks with at work, i don't know, its just, a coincidence.

Fun fact for you, by the findings in 2003, the GLBT spent the most money, as a whole/group than any other groups, at walmart...yet, walmart finds it very hard to accept them, or even be comfortable in saying the word gay, yet glbt is their highest paying customer bloc. Just a fact/finding the GLBT group shared with my wife.

Assimilation, everyone has had it to one degree or another, i didn't know i was lecturing you about it, and if i was, i guess i was preaching to the choir. You are not the devil, no nation is pure, especially the indians by any measure. But you are to a degree responsible for it, if you are for the fed govt upholding treaties, than its YOU, the tax payer who is going to have a small % of your taxes taken, to fulfill those, so in a sense you are all ready paying for it, including myself, and my wife, and any other american indian who has a paying job. As for the First responding person, to the OP, who stated that everyone should give the lands back, that is NEVER going to happen, i don't want it to happen.

As far as the land tax, in short, your tax dollars are all ready going for indian issues, so the issue of the OP is almost a mute point. What the OP should have said is "Do you think we should increase our tax dollars spent on American Indian issues", and if they stated that, i hope, at least a majority would say "yes".

I didn't mean to brow beat, and if i was "read" that way i apologize for most debate/discussion i honestly prefer to do it in person, online its so black/white and many things can be misunderstood, plus i don't get to see body language, or laughter...) You must understand i'm up against a brick wall 90% of the time when dealing with indian issues, so take my apolgizes, i didn't mean to paint you in that fashion.

As far as assimilation goes, no one is innocent of it, i'm assimiltaed cause i use a computer, i am assimilated in a lot of matierial things, but in spirtual and how i treat others, i don't and wont accept the notion, of this NO holds barred mentality to succeed in life, no matter whom you crush to get there. I am not assimilated in the fact I know traditional haida dance, art work, and carving. I try my best, but we as a people have to assimilate to succeed in the white mans world, its a true fact. But we have to keep what little was left "us" and we fight tooth and nail to keep that. But anways...:)

On the mascot issue, I see it as an issue, but not an highly IMPORTANT one. A few prominent indian leaders take it upon themselves to tote the mascot issue, when people are dying on the reservation from drug addiction, starvation etc, to me it seems the priorites are not in the right order. Its like GWB promoting gun rights, when we are in war, health care is horrible, and all the other issues...if gwb pushed gun control as his main effort of the election last year, he would have lost votes. The mascot issue is an issue, but shouldnt' be on the top 5 list.

Well, i must confess...i do have a few village people songs...but hey, man wasn't there an indian in that group???...:)

Since you are a gay man, would you be offended by say, a white straight man, who proclaimed to know the plight, hatred, and outright bigotry that the GLBT have gone through?....would you take offense to that? And on top of that, that white straight man, telling GLBT people how to think, act, and how they should accept what has happened to them?

yes I know full and well what happened to the Native populations, and I am not making excuses for that. Getting along with diversity too much for them to handle?

When you said the above line, i was thinking along those lines, of my first paragraph, but not totally per se, but there was the little line that caught me, the "I know full and well what happened to the Native Populations.". I wouldn't ever, proclaim to know or to Say "Yes, I know full and well what happened to the GLBT popoulations." I can't even say I know that about Native populations either(because i dont' fully now/understand), cause history/fact/fiction are hard to get through, do you know what i mean? Can you see why people catch flak on racial/ethnic/gender issues? I wouldn't say that about GLBT or whites, blacks, hipsanics, or women....cause i'm not GLBT or white or a woman etc, plus knowing that history/fact/fiction/bias are very hard to get through, so absolute fact/truth is a rare find...

I don't know, i am probably just beating a dead horse with a 32 inch Griffey bat...but, thats some of the things I was thinking, during our discussion...:)

the signed the treaties that make us all multi generational inheritors of ''guilt''.

first nations people MUST have ''reservations'' for two very good reasons and one is not more important than the other.

first nations people must have their own land -- because they are autonomous nations.

those areas where they live are not u.s. territory. supposedly.

next those areas are of absolute importance for genetic survival.
''living'' with the rest of us would mean their extermination.

and while i most definitely believe britain owes ireland HUGE reparations and land -- that is for another thread -- and it won't surprise you that i support that as well.
but that is for the irish and brits to work out this is an american and first nations problem.

and i'll end with a point i've made before -- we sit on their resources a ''tax'' would a substitute for them to exploit in lieu for those resources.
there is a price to be paid -- our government made the deals -- and at some point the piper has to be paid.

it's not about your heritage -- your ''money'' or anything else.

Do you want a return to the dark ages when generations of families were indebted and imprisoned for the crimes of men long since dead, merely by familial relations? Are you for debtors prisons?

I have mentioned a few times, that every working, tax paying stiff in the USA is paying reperations to the indians, for past signed treaties and inequaties(IHS, higher education, boarding schools etc)...its happening right now. So, in an answer to your question, I guess we are all ready back in the dark ages, but hey man, the dark ages weren't that bad where they?..:) being sarcastic, yes....:) Our govnerment lives in the dark ages...waging war for propertly/matierial gain, and this manifest destiny jargon, oh yeah...and for freedom...yeah, freedom, and to stop the evil doers...and for WMDS...wait, there was no wmds....:) yes, im' trying to bring a sense of humor/sarcasm into this discussion...:P

...as it was he, not you, who were mostly brow beating me on this.:D Strikes me as a typical bitchy, pushy, unreasonable queen. Never could stand to date them. We could never agree on dinner, if my favorite steakhouse wasn't free range. Besides, those umbrella/cherry cocktails get expensive! Have a beer sometime.:eyes: True story. The most romantic date I ever had took me to Sonic, and we sat in the car and ate tater tots and chili dogs. Give me one of those over any $100 a plate impresser any day.

And hey, if it will build hospitals, schools, parks, and even theme parks for tourism, then I would gut half of the military budget for you. We'd have to take another 25% of it for my "socialized medicine" plan though. Hows that for a "Libertarian/GOP" talking point?:P

I have been jumping up and down ths whole thread for two days, i kind of lose track of who's saying what, and to whom...:) I guess people can tell i kinda take indian issues seriously...:) Well, mostly, i always try to keep my sense of humor usually...

Socialized medicine...make sure the money used, is money well spent, becauase IHS is a form of socialized medicine. Any Indian with a CDIB card (Certiferacate Degree of Indian Blood) can usually get into any IHS facility. The main issue is, is that there are hardly any around. Because right now, i'm in SW missouri, i have to drive two hours to claremore oklahoma to see a doctor, and its covered (mostly, there is hidden ground here pertaining to prescription drugs, and certain medical procedures, like fertility, IHS does not cover fertility). So, in short, if i want medical coverage, i have to live near an IHS. Which makes no sense to me, cause my indian copr, Ketchikan Indian Corp still gets a certain $ amount for hwo many indians are on their roles, adn they get $ for me, even though they no longer help with diddly squat.

Some IHS have contract health. In my hometown in alaska, if i got sick and went to the hospital, IHS covered it, as long as i contacted them within 2 days of going in about what happened. But they have pretty much gotten rid of that cause my hometown IHS and General Hospital share their doctors/nurses. but anyways, my wife just got home, gotta exercise, talk to you all laters...:)

these are arguments between existing entities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Native_American_case_law

these cases may give some idea what comes under dispute.

like the case, in salamanca, new york, massachusets, the black hills, the nez perse, these are all alive and well -- and land or compensation is going to come due.

most tribes have been cheated out of land by the government that deserve compensation or were swindled and restitution needs to be made.

it's our duty and obligation to make right on these --

Not talking about the tribes. I'm talking about General Custer, and his contempraries. Are you going to say they're still alive? Try again.

I'm all for honoring treaties, capital investment in infrastructure & public assistance, because it's just the right thing to do, but I do object to your characterization that it's all my fault they suffer from actions I had no control over, since I was born more than a century later. I certainly don't think we should do it out of guilt, just because you, the self appointed Torquemada of restitution, say we should.

Your snotty, smarmy browbeating is cringe inducing... and Wikipedia is not so reliable, since it can be edited by any swinging dick with a tale of folklore, or an axe to grind.

you're interested in being stupid -- and that's it.

and i find stupid -- like you've displayed here -- funny.
:rofl:

Projection is not attractive, Pal.

n/t

The original tree huggers! Have a Guinness!:toast:

But the good old US Government sure tried there best didn't they, and hitler tried his best to kill of jews, and the US is currently trying to push it views on IRAQ now....:)

No, there are still native americans around, but as to say, we didn't obliterate them? damn, us government sure did a damn good job of killing us off. I think open Genocide is an apporpriate term....

I liked your post, just that one line caught my eye, sorry....

My "forebears" lived and died in Eastern Europe. My mom and dad came to the US when they were 9 and 2 respectively...by what "dishonest dealings" do I owe what "wealth" I have?

Thanks.

As one of the other posters stated, if the US Government even upheld half the treatys to the differing indian tribes, most would think that those would be suffiecient, but of course the US government doesn't do anything. The IHS system is flawed, extremely flawed. IHS keeps indians in certain areas, cause if you leave your home state it seems, you are no longer indian, so most indians stay where there is an IHS (Indian Health Services). Case in point, i was going to college in Kansas, i'm from Alaska...during summer break i went to california to visit friends, and i got two blood clots and had to go to the hospital, and my IHS clinic back home and Indian Corp, (KIC, i'm haida) tried NOT to pay for the hosptial stay, saying i was out of state, and what not, and i was like YES i am out of state, but i'm still a damn citizen of alaska, and i had to send them numerous amounts of paperwork from my college that i was a full time student, and enrolled in fall classes, and even paid my tuition and all those fee's ahead of time....and i was like, why are they trying to hard to fight this, its like, if i move out of alaska, its like, well, i'm no longer HAIDA anymore.

Which is the case most of the time. My wifes aunt needed an operation done on her wrist, but becasue she lived in missouri and not in Oklahoma the clinic refused, FLAT out REFUSED to help her, now she has messed up wrists....figure that out.

But like you said, most indians didn't own lands, they used the lands and lived there, unless forced to move, or even forced to stay...:) Land Ownership is a white word, and didnt pertain to the native american vocab back in the days...now days, native americans are so assimilated, its sad....but anyways.

I don't think there should be any payments, but definetly a rehaul of priorites for indian services, like IHS, help in college, and scholarships, and a wide range of issues...the native american culture nowdays is in circluar motion, riddled with poverty, addiction, and self pity....but anyways.

They didn't consider land something that should be owned. However, they lived on it and did "own" the land, but looked at it in a different way.

Follow this hypothetical if you will: since no one claims the sun as "their own", is another civilization that does welcome to take it? Of course not. It is robbery and injustice.

By the way, Native American "slavery" was not slavery. The individual was inducted into the tribe and had rights just like any other person. It is much like the thought on land, they did not consider the person "theirs", but there was an undeniable relationship.

off the land? The Comanchees chased the Apachees out of much of Texas. Many other tribes kicked other tribes around. How far back to you go?

The Europeans that live in Europe now kicked some tribes out of there too. Do you go back that far?

Yakimas because their forbears routinely raped the women of the Wenatchees, Spokanes, Umatillas, and Tacomas. Yeah, let's go back to paying penance for the sins of your fathers.

and damn the Tlingets for killing my fellow tribesmen!! and damn them to burn!!...get my sarcasm?..:) I think, if memory serves, that Yakima's, or was it Snohomish, actually went up north to raid my tribe and take wives and what not also...one of them, did, can't remember which one though....:) I'm haida, from SE Alaska...:)

That established the internationally-agreed law that made aggressive war and any kind of land-grabs illegal.

Ethically? You go back as far as you need to, and can. A hundred years, maybe--there are people alive today who were alive then. It's not ancient history to them.

And maybe you do real reparations--the kind that mean something--for the case where rewinding isn't in fact practical.

One slot pull at a time! That's just their way of getting even with the white man. I'm on a tribal roll but, unfortunately, my tribe was a poor one.

At least on the east coast, some of the problem was manipulation of the Europeans for Indian polics. Same in Texas, too.

Then there's the problem of what to do with lands that the Spanish (and, later, the Mexicans) essentially appropriated, or denied land claims to their then-current inhabitants.

And what to do about land that was conquered by one tribe a hundred or two hundred years before "white man" got there? Or earlier? Do we reinstate the "original" owners (i.e., the latest owners we can identify ... if they're still in existence as a tribe)?

Ah, imposing current standards and laws onto eras where they didn't, and couldn't, be imposed.

This is politically untenable even if morally desirable. Good luck getting the votes to support that one. True its a history we must deal with, part of that history effects everyone even "pale faced" white men. Shall every businessman who was ever bilked somewhere along the supply chain, which is designed to accumulate all forms of a capital (land, money, and labor), be paid a tax for being beaten by an economic system based on the same kind of competitive violence that led to colonial spread across the continent? "Manifest Destiny" was just one of a litiny of "ethics" legitimating the spirit of an exploitative economic system.

This solution is merely a bandaid placed over a mortal wound.

on a continual basis. Children who are born to those who don't have stellar reputations, or inside influence, or excessive wealth, or who abuse and neglect them, pay the price of the actions of their parents all the time.
Sometimes the crimes of their parents seem to be benefits- but i sincerely believe that in the long run, they will end up paying a higher price than those who appear to suffer the 'sins of the fathers' visibly, and tangibly. The days of everyone having an 'equal opportunity' to make something of themselves in America are long over- if they ever really did exist.
Why do you think * is in the white house? Because he actually merits it? or because of his aristocracy?

There is much to be learned from the Native Americans who believed that no one 'owns' the earth, we borrow it from our children. They didn't over-fish out of greed, storing up with repulsive gluttony wanting more and more, but used gill-nets to catch the fish they needed to carry their people through the winter- and when the 'europeans' took over they fished the rivers nearly to extinction of many fish. The notion of working in harmony with the earth and its bounty is seen as 'flaky' or 'hippie pipe dreams' but there is a lesson we all are about to learn very soon i believe. And that lesson is if you treat your environment as if it is yours to plunder at will, eventually you will reap a harvest of scarcity and sorrow. We as a society are really good at 'taking'- not so good with the concept of 'enough'- we never seem to have 'enough'- as we bury ourselves with 'things' and rape the earth in our lust for MORE.

no fair just mailing in your "donation"

:-)

in all seriousness, all land was stolen from somebody, if we don't let bygones be bygones, then we will forever be at war

i v. much respect the native nations who make an effort to move forward into the future rather than running around & blowing up things, as some groups of ppl in other contested areas in the world in similar situations would do, they are forward-looking not backward-looking

is to simply have the USA honor the treaties with Native Amertican Nations. Do that, and the problems expressed here -- including those with good intentions but without a real understanding of the issues -- disappear.

I don't think we need to go into the realm of the ridiculous to discuss Native American issues. The land grab was disgusting, and much of American history is--look at how we built the railroads on the backs of the Chinese using racist laws. But Native treaties laws that are enforceable, giving status to Native bands currently ignored, among them the Duwamish here in the Northwest--the first band to greet the white immigrants in this area--no status. Lots of positive, forward thinking work to do right along side with Native activists if anyone is so inclined. "Giving back the land" or "taxing landowners" Short of a huge natural disaster isn't going to happen, but there are plenty of inequities that can be addressed. I hate when this issue is trivialized.

Most American Indian lands were taken by other tribes before them, and before them. Land ownership isn't an Indian concept, just whomever holds the land in question by force of occupation can keep that land until forced off by another.

Unless the tribe is already extinct, this would give people an incentive to wipe out any remaining members so there won't be anyone to pay taxes to.

Americans for what we did to them. I suppose setting aside a part of property taxes for this purpose could be a way of doing it.

As for me i choose to pay nothing. I bought this place legitimately, and i owe no one, except the bank, a damn thing.

I was born in 1963. I have lived a normal life so far and try to treat everybody the same and to be honest in all my business dealings.

What is it I did that I owe restitution again?

and i agree that you should't have to pay restitution, but you are right now. Money taken for IHS, to run indian schools like Haskell, Sipi, and other colleges in Arizona/new mexico are being paid for by taxes, that every working man/woman pay. So, in a way, you are all ready doing that...:)

I didnt' see my mistake in this one, soon enough....first sentence, restitution, should be replaced with Reperations, that the orignal poster sited, by paying a certain "land tax" or some sort.

We all, as in tax payers, a small portion of that goes to IHS, eductation, and higher education for native americans(which is a reperation I do AGREE with). Most tribes have casino's, lumber, or something else to net them money for their tribes, but the money earned in soem cases isn't enough, so indians go on welfare, just like blacks, white, hispanics and other races do...most of the corruption in indian country is tribal councils who steal money for their own gain, does that remind you of anyone?...:)

as a citizen of that nation, the burden does lie on our collective shoulders. Our nation killed most of the buffalo to lay the railroad lines to the west to get the gold and silver being mined there on land we took from the Native American and for white farmers to move in and start growing crops. It's true Native Americans do not own land but they used the fruits of the land to survive and our nation took that from them. The workers of those businesses brought from other countries gave them our diseases.

There was an article written some time ago about making the corporations that had enriched themselves in our country's history through exploitation of Native Americans and African Americans pay reparation for these injustices. The money of course shouldn't go to individuals but to institutions that serve these people, like colleges, hospitals and other institutions serving the welfare of those people.

And the casino idea sounds good. I don't think the Indian Casinos should pay taxes as long as they use their profits to improve the lot of their people. This way no one resents the payment.

And I don't want anything for it. No one took anything from ME, nor did anyone I know take anything from anyone. You can't make people today pay for the sins of people who have been dead for generations. It might make you feel good to be in favor of it and you might think it buys you points with some people but frankly it's condescending. Just buy a billboard, put your face on it, and make up a slogan about how sensitive you are. That's all this amounts to.

Paying reparations is a reminder not to do those things again. It's a reminder that there will be repercussions. If you don't start paying back what you took even in previous generations, you have jerks, like BushCo, who still think in terms of perpetual war, invading other countries for their resources and killing the natives just like we are doing in Iraq right now because they know they can get away with it without repercussions.

Back in the good old days of rape and pillage, when you stole Helen of Troy and the treasury of Sparta, her pissed of husband and all his war chiefs came after you and made you pay for it. It's always been this way with war cultures. So the Indians and African Americans can't really launch raids anymore to pay for what was done to them, but as a "civilized" society we need to recognize what we owe to balance out our debt.

I don't believe we should reimburse individuals with a sudden windfall, but we should build the institutions that will help their children and grandchildren, and pull them out of the poverty the majority of them have been reduced too. As a quarter Cherokee, I don't think you are living on a reservation nor know how dire things are still on many of them in spite of the Casino earnings many are getting now.

"reminder not to do those things again"
"repercussions"
"paying back what you took"

Guess what? NO ONE ALIVE TODAY did any of those things to Indians. Yes, I use that term and so do most of the ones I know, myself (even 1/4) included.

I am not owed one cent. Neither was my mother (1/2) Cherokee, and neither was my grandmother (100% Cherokee, but never had anything done directly to her by the government).

I know at LEAST 20 people (yes this is just a first-hand account) who are share my heritage of 1/4 Indian or more and none of them want anything but to live their lives as normally as possible. I can speak for myself and those I know in saying, please take the sensitivity program elsewhere. It is condescending and a pure insult.

individually, our nation did. Now, I have said individuals should not pay for it, nor receive it. But there are those corporations that still exist today that benefitted from slave labor and the genocide of the Native Americans, like the railroads and many financial and shipping companies.

They should pay and make reparation to institutions that will help better the lives and futures of those disenfranchised peoples. We as a nation have a duty to make sure that they do this and this is where our individual responsibility comes in to make sure our elected representatives pass the laws that will enable this and that we elect the representatives who will do this.

"I have said individuals should not pay for it, nor receive it."

Huh? Individuals ultimately pay for everything. Whether it is taxes, individual or corporate. Or are you suggesting the government require a company to pay directly to some group?

And even if you don't give the reparations directly to an individual isn't it individuals who would benefit from it in the end?

How would you square any of this with current tax law and/or the Constitution?

And this quote...

"duty to make sure that they do this and this is where our individual responsibility comes in to make sure our elected representatives pass the laws that will enable this and that we elect the representatives who will do this."

Honestly that's bunch of words. Are you sure this isn't something you've jumped on the bandwagon without thinking it through?

And not to be glib, but would you support the government (individuals, ultimately) taking action to "pay back" every single group of people that were discriminated against? This would include:
all women, the Irish (I'm part Irish too), any and all ethnic and political exiles, refugees who were turned away but later allowed into the country...shall we go on?

they think it's going to come out of their pockets and many have the idea that they are going to get a check in the mail. I wouldn't think this is the right way to do it. However, think about it, exactly how often do you use the railroad or other institutions that would have to set aside a part of thier profits for this?

Also, in a so-called free market society, it's the competition that sets the price of what you are going to pay for anything, so even if they try to pass the expense on to the consumer they still have to compete with their competition.

I think what we did to the Native Americans and slaves was beyond the discrimination you mention. Speaking of the Irish, I would think the British owe them too for what they did to them in the potato famine.

Now, how do you do this? You set up a trust that will eventually becoming self income producing. So the capital would come from the companies that pay the restitution, but the rest would come from the interest generated from the capital, so even those companies would feel an initial pinch, over a certain period of time, but once their debt was paid, they can go on their way.

Also, remember whom the guys are that will be paying the biggest restitution to slaves, the tobacco companies.

Thank goodness. It shouldn't.

My great-great-grandfather was Cherokee and from what I've heard he would've thrown the money right back at anyone who tried to give it to him. I guess I'm something like 1/12th Cherokee? I don't know, it doesn't matter to me. Knowing some of the people in my family who stick to that heritage one thing they are is proud. I think the other poster is right in that this is kind of treating them like they are helpless and you are the savior and kind white person who will come along to rescue them. I don't know your motives, whether it's complete altruism or selfish sloganeering, but you should consider their pride before your own "feel good" actions, imho.

This is to bring justice to people who have had very little of it in the past. I have a little Native American blood in me too through my Hispanic side of the family.

Who would get the reparations? How would you decide that? Would there be means-testing?

I think it a bit odd to take money from people who, first of all, didn't do anything, and give it to people who weren't harmed directly. You know...the whole 'due process' thing.

And isn't it conceivable that you would be taking money out of the hands of some people who might not be making as much as the people to whom you are transferring the wealth?

I know this will never happen, so the discussion is academic, and one of the reasons why it will never happen is that there is no fair way to do it. Not that I expect there to be a fair way to punish people who didn't do anything wrong.

EDIT: How much money have you given to these people of your own accord?

into programs to help them improve their lot like educational programs to help those of these people who have been left behind. Hospitals are badly needed in minority neighborhoods and on reservations as well as access to the health care. Housing is need in many place. Food is needed in many places. A lot of the poor Native Americans are starving on the reservation. These are people who have needs today even though it was their ancestors who were disenfranchised by our ancestors.

Didn't you see the mess in New Orleans with the poor blacks? These people needed social programs before the hurricane to help them up the economic ladder and look how they were left behind because they couldn't afford the fare or gas to get out of harm's way.

Here's where you can donate:

http://www.nrcprograms.org/

It's a good organization, one I'm familiar with. I'm sure they'd be delighted to receive your support.

They do lots of good things, on top of the federal government's aid, some of which you can read about here: http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html

This isn't a part-time issue for me. I follow it pretty closely. I wish more people would educate themselves on what is actually being done already, and what THEY can do on an individual basis. That would go a lot further than bumper-sticker politics...

By the way, I really am interested in those questions I asked. Who would get the reparations? How would you decide that? Would there be means-testing? What would you do about someone who is poor but is forced to give to someone who makes more than they do? (Certainly not all Indians are poor.) Would you care to answer these questions? I'd like to know how far you have thought this out from a practical standpoint.

The big problem I have with charities is that the people who should be making reparations aren't. The Republicans believe that people who are left behind will be benefitted by charities, and many of them are, but it doesn't absolve those who should be contributing but don't.

I myself am rather poor and I do donate here and there when I can, but I keep those contributions to myself.

What about this part of my post? Who would get the reparations? How would you decide that? Would there be means-testing?

Interesting that you claim poverty when asked about your contributions. What would you do about someone who is poor but is forced to give to someone who makes more than they do? (Certainly not all Indians are poor, and of course some of the people who would be taxed for this are indeed low-income.)

Would you care to answer these questions? I'd like to know how far you have thought this out from a practical standpoint.

instead of having some dignity restored to them for what was taken away from them.

Too bad you had to resort to a straw-man argument. I guess that's the easy way to dodge a discussion.

If you ever feel like revealing your answers/thoughts on the questions I asked, let me know. Thanks.

By the way, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said it looked like a great organization; now you have demeaned their mission by saying, with no proof, that people have to beg them for help. Brilliant.

more instrospective post, but I got interrupted by a couple of phone calls and a need to watch the election in my state. I reduced it to what I posted to you and I don't care if you consider it a strawman argument because I know that charity is only a way for rich people to feel good about themselves.

well that must make you an expert then. And you are 1/4 Indian or more, and so are the "at least" 20 Indian people you know. Well then that must give you the right to speak as an authority figure and expert for all Indian people everywhere.

Stop throwing your blood quantum around like it makes you more of an expert. Your lack of concern for the people you claim to be a part of only shows that you are a walking, talking billboard for the effects of government education through assimilation. You say that your Grandmother never had anything done directly to her by the government. Did she speak her language? Does your mom speak her language? Do you speak your language? Did your grandmother attend stomp dances? Does your mother attend stomp dances? Do you attend stomp dances? Do you practice the ceremonies? If you answer no to anyone of these questions then you have had something done directly to you, it's called assimilation. Most do not even know the culture from which they came. And if you haven't experienced any aspect of assimilation then you must live on the moon, because I don't know one Indian person who hasn't had to endure at least one aspect of assimilation.

You say that the Indians around you want to live their lives as normally as possible. I guess normally must mean, "we'll ignore the fact that our culture has nearly been wiped out by a government that claimed to be trying to help them." But I guess that would only apply if they even knew enough to realize what has been lost.

I do have to agree with you one one thing, the sensitivity program can be condescending. Resolutions can only come from the people who have or currently have to live in the problem. Our people can save themselves. Why isn't anyone asking, "Who here is Indian?" and "What do you think should be done to help save your people from extinction?" This should be asked opposed to the same type of rhetoric Indian people have always heard, "We know what's best for you" and "Let us take care of things for you." Well you know what, we know what is best for us.

There's something about amends that makes people fully comprehend the extent of a harm done. This country still doesn't grasp the harm of "manifest destiny". If we did, we wouldn't be in Iraq. The same people who wanted to Christianize the Indians then are the ones who want to Christianize the Muslims now. This country just doesn't get it.

If our nation isn't made accountable for it's crimes, it would seem to get away with injustices and that only creates more injustices. We made the Germans accountable both in WWI and WWII so they wouldn't repeat their errors. Instead it seems we are the new Nazis on the block and that's because we haven't made right our own wrongs.

I meant to respond to that other guy. Did I get my post in the wrong spot?

Not only have we not accepted the truth of our past atrocities, but we don't even accept the truth about the contribution of minorities, particularly African-Americans. Great plantation families built the south??? Uh, I don't think so. Those were African Americans out in those fields and building those houses and towns. And it was northern African Americans who stepped in at the end of the civil war. There were Native American slaves as well. We have a very distorted history. Reparations won't fix it in any way, unless we take a long hard look at what we would be making amends for.

This country, in large doesn't grasp the harm of manifest destiney, and its truly sad. Its god will that indians got wiped out, its god will that this happened, and what nots...its not gods will, its the selfishness, and ignorance...their WILLS caused many deaths. And again, we see nightly/daily on the news in Iraq what manifest destiny is getting us right now, not much of anything, but deaths of our soldiers, in a dubious war.

you want another war...:) plus, if something like that come into existence people would target MORE of their grief towards Native Americans, by pining the usually RW Rhetoric that i hear "Its not fair, why should they get it, and not us"...you will have a lot of people arguing different angles on that....:)

I didn't kill Indians for the land I live on.

Should Australia pay the aboriginies?

Should Britain pay the Celts?

Should Iraq pay the Sumerians (yes, there's still a few living in certain areas of the Middle East)?

Should Egypt/Libya/Tunisia pay the Bedouins and other Barbar peoples?

Where does it end?

In many parts of the country, tribal land was "owned" in common with other tribes. Or land was forcibly taken from other tribes. Or one tribe moved on, while another tribe moved in. How to determine this accurately and fairly would be a logistical nightmare of proportions that couldn't be overcome.

Now if you are talking about dead people demanding taxes from other dead people, then I suggest you let them work it out amongst themselves.

Why must progressives continue in the notion that Native Americans were tribes of Gandhis living perfect spiritual lives until bespolied by the evil white men (who are somehoe geneticall presuppossed to murder)?

The Aztecs used to pull the hearts from living people in religious ceremonies and were actually invaders of Mexico. The Incas were a totalitarian regime who were only different from the Spanish because they lost. Europeans did not invent war or conquest.

Lets concentrate on treating people well are actually still with us, regardless of why they are impoverished and dispossesed.

If we are going to deal in repercussions then lets start with things that we are doing now and them move backwards. When all the present day problems of poverty and dismay are solved then we work on giving England back to the Celts.

My people didn't get here until 1913.

land previously inhabited by Native Americans? That land was forcibly and wrongly taken from them. You are standing upon the spoils of theft, just as I am.

they lost.
they were not as technologically advanced as the invading armies.
their bad.

most of the answers here would be reversed. not that i think this is a good idea...i don't. i think exisitng treaties should be honored, and of course the reason they haven't been honored is because they don't have to be honored because the majority population continues to make the rules.
white people always opposed reparations for slaves: that's why they weren't paid to living slaves, or their children, or grandchildren and that's why they won't ever be paid: white people didn't and don't want to pay.
if you need an example of this, look no further than tulsa, ok, where their are still survivors of a white terrorist action there that resulted in the loss of life, businesses and property. the city and the state just refuses to compensate these people, even though they did nothing to stop the violence, and nothing to make sure the rightful owners got their property back. the only unusual about the tulsa incident is that is was publicized...there were many similar incidents.
the government wants to put up statue...the people want their property back.
let bygones be bygones :eyes: that just doesn't cut it.

...All Britons pay all Irishmen reparations for starvation, exploitation, slavery, forced conscription, and occupation of Erin for over 5 centuries.

We can go further...
Mongolians pay China for the crimes of Ghengis Khan.
France paying all of Africa for the occupation of that continent.
Germany pay for the costs of World War I, plus interest, no matter how that might bankrupt the nation. Let's call it the Treaty of Versailles...OOPS! That already happened, and allowed Fascism, another GENOCIDE (see how alone and singularly suffered Native Americans are?) and WWII to come to the Earth.

Every action has a reaction. Here's a novel idea. Try living with those who are on this continent now. Influence us through interaction, and political actions. Nobody is going to give anything back. You might as well pick the pieces of your shattered life up, accept it and move on.

prove my point wrong...it's applies to the irish in america as well. and i am talking about america, and only america. white americans never did and never will pay for the crimes they continue to benefit from because they still make the rules, and they always made the rules. the japanese were paid reparations, and rightly so...what's the problem with doing that for other groups? it's simply the truth.
shattered life? what a stupid, smug, superior comment (so typical)...too bad we don't have the finger smiley anymore :eyes:

It's just this ONCE, you wish to apply your rules. If this "principled stand" of yours is taken to it's logical conclusion, then you would have to agree with me, and agree in the absurdity of the concept. All peoples who have been wronged must be righted, even the Neanderthals, who were victims of natural selection, just like American Natives, who died of diseases they had no immunity of. Otherwise, you are just being selective in your altruism. I'm not letting you talk about "Only America".

The Japanese and their imprisoners were still alive.

:shrug: no selective altruism at all. all those fucked over by american racism, including the irish, deserve comepensation. germany and england and everyplace else can take care of their own issues.
here's my simple reason: until there is pain, there is no real recognition of harm. and to americans and its government, nothing is more painful than opening that wallet.
indian treaties should be honored.
reparations should be paid, because they were due, and never paid.
the tulsa survivors should get their property back, as should others who lost land to state-sponsored white terrorism.
and the "they are alive" excuse is just that. the slaves were alive to get their 40 acres and a mule too...it's not their fault the majority population...the one with all the power...was too racist to pay them.
they and their children, and their children got another 100 years of apartheid, american atyle.
feel the pain, america...your atrocious history will never fade until you do.

The government owes them bigtime, for breaking every treaty they ever made with native americans.

Just have the government fulfill what its suppose to fulfill, like Indian Health Services for one(fully funding it, and using contract health services, and cutting through the red tape nonsense thats befuddles IHS), Indian Universities and Boarding schools like Seqouyah in Tahlequah Oklahoma, like Haskell in Lawrence Kansas. To get our Indian Trust Fund money back...look up what Gale Norton and what the BIA have done...billion dollar(s) trust fund account, gone missing, misappropriated, what have you. The trust funds were royalties from mining, grazing, timber industry, harvesting and what have yous, that money was suppose to go to indian benefeciaries but that money has been lost...figures, probably funding this war in Iraq now. The land has been held in trust since 1887 by the department of the interior....but of course, getting that money back will be rough, but at least the indians/tribes are standing together on this one. But of course, some posters here would say, To bad so sad, move on, get over it...:) Court date i believe will start in early december....

and took nothing from from the first nations people -- that's a lie.

your people benefited from the land that was already ILLEGALLY appropriated -- your people -- no matter how bad off -- benefited from the wealth being created from stolen resources.

your ancestors and every one else's ancestors built a country on resources that weren't legitimately theirs.

taxation is a form of those resources coming back to the first nations peoples to exploit the same way a farmer, a miner or a grocery store owner exploits theirs.

i have no sympathy for how hard you or your forebears worked to get what they have -- we all ''have it'' because of resources that belonged to someone else -- someone not invisible -- someone very much there, alive and kicking.

take ''personal responsibility'' for your society -- for the justice that exists in it.

it was a military campaign of conquest and expansion. The US was the victorious party that laid claim to and has maintained control of the land.

and i'll differ with you in that as well -- military expansionism was not that successful against first natons people -- disease and starvation played as big if not a bigger role in deciding good deal of that history.

remember there were millions of first nations people here{north america} who simply died of rampant disease brought by europeans.

the u.s. has a responsibility to live up to it's treaties -- i.e. {simply because it illustrates so well} the black hills belong to the lakota -- give it back or tax those making a living or simply living on it rent free -- those are legitimate resources owned by the lakota.

Neanderthal?

85% of the town is built on land owned by the Seneca Nation. Since the town was founded in the 1850s, individual residents have leased the land their house sits on from the Nation - for a token amount. When the lease expired in the 1980s, the Town, the Nation, the County & the State all agreed that the leases should be re-negotiated to reflect the current market value of the land.

Basically, for the first time in history, the non-native residents would have to pay for what the land was worth. Many thought that it was unfair. After all, their families has been living there for over 100 years...

Something similar happened a decade or two before the American Revolution. The colony encouraged settlers by offering them long term leases free of any rent whatsoever. A few decades later the corporation (most colonies were corporate) decided it was time to start reaping the benefits and start collecting taxes (actually, rent, but for propaganda purposes the New Yawkers called it a tax). The people living there went ape with many parts of New York breaking off temporarily from the colony.

Except for the Vermont portion, of course. That broke off permanently. Of they broke off from New Hampshire who also claimed the region. Far as I know nobody ever settled that claim outside of the armed conflict between New York, New Hampshire and Vermont.

I do think we owe them something, but I'm not sure we can pay it if we want to. Same thing goes for the decendants of slavery here. I suppose an apology might be a good start, but then what? A number of our decendants we immigrants who did not participate directly in either slavery or the decimation of the American Indian, but we still benefit from a system that was built on their corpses while they enjoy second-class citizen status. What can we do now? Maybe honor our treaties?

and a small amount goes to Indian causes. It's just not enough. Again we are looking at priorities. I would prefer to help the Indians with our tax money than to wage war on a country that did nothing to us.

The best solution I know of is to honor those treaties we now have with them and yes, to use as much tax money as needed (certainly more than is spent now) to make sure they live in the way they would wish to live. Good land, education, health care, infrastructure, come to mind but I'm not Indian so I don't know but I feel we certainly do owe them something even if it wasn't us but our ancestors who took their land.

No, I don't think they should.

Most Americans aren't descended from Native Americans. Nearly all Mexicans, however, have very high percentages (up to 100% in many areas of southern Mexico) of Aztec/Mayan blood.

(P.S. I also don't think taxes should be payed for the land, I was just pointing out that the example you gave isn't comparable).

for its seizure of Andalusia?

No, of course they shouldn't pay. These events, including the taking of Indian land, happened too long ago to make right again.

Who can come back for certain and say we have the right to this land based on original possession. For all we know, the ones on the land when the Europeans got here may have killed and kicked others off the land also.

Besides, don't we have a legally signed peace of paper from their legal representative, the Chief, that said they sold the land in question. Every land abstract I have ever seen traces the ownership right back to some tribe or another and references some treaty or another transferring ownership of that land.

I suppose a case could be made that a treaty was broken, but wouldn't the original signers have to be the ones to complain? In some cases there are no descendent's of the tribe with the treaty. They are all gone. Or there could be cause to believe that somehow the original contract (treaty) changed, for example. Never underestimate the sneakiness of the white man.

This could be the next 'make work' subsidy for the legal eagles, now that smoking has been mostly worked out with a tax increase passed by a court. I wonder where in the constitution it says a court can levy a tax. Strange times we live in.

Besides all this, possession is 9/10 the law. Did you know that the Cherokee Nation had a legal judgment in their cause, right from the judge himself that said they had they rights to their land in Georgia, N/S Carolina? But the US government said 'so what'? The Cherokee's were still escorted by the calvary to Oklahoma. Their land (and gold) was taken. So much for the 'force' of the court.

I'd say, if it were me, take it to court. I'd much rather see the Native Americans running things that these guys in Washington. I'd get along OK I think with them running things. They make a pretty good smoke, ever buy their tobacco? Taste smooth at a reasonable price too.

Here is the deal. The lawyers thatb work for Title Insurance companies and Insurance companies in general, these guys eat normal tort lawyers for lunch. I would say the Native Americans have somewhere between zero and some negative number of winning in any court with these guys. And if the Native Americans did win, well the Insurance companies take it in the ear, not me. I get my money either way.

I disagree completely with this and I supposedly have Indian blood in my family line somewhere.

Which means some of our tax dollars, yes.

Here's a list of just one of those charities...

National Relief Charities would like to thank the corporations listed below for their gifts. Their donations help us accomplish our vision to see strong, self-sufficient American Indian communities develop.
3Com Corporation
Aetna Foundation
Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.
American Express
American International Group, Inc.
Amgen Foundation
AXA Foundation
Bank of America
Bestfoods Foundation
BP Amoco Foundation, Inc.
C N A Foundation
Certain Teed Corporation Foundation
Cilco Energy
Cintas
Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Compaq
Computer Associates
Energen Corporation
Fleet Boston Financial Foundation
Gartner
General Mills Foundation
Household International
Hub Distributing, Inc.
ING Foundation
John Hancock Financial Services, Inc.
Kemper Insurance Company
Longaberger
Master Card International
Microsoft
Mobil Foundation, Inc.
National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.
Pepsico Foundation
Pfizer Foundation
Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Pitney Bowes
Prudential Foundation
SBC
Six Continents Hotels
State Street Research & Management Co.
Sun Microsystems Foundation
The Ace USA Foundation
The Chase Manhattan Foundation
The Chubb Corporation
The J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation
The Prudential Foundation
The St. Paul Companies, Inc. Foundation
The Times Mirror Foundation
The Washington Post
The Zurich U.S. Foundation
TW Foundation
Tommy Hilfiger
Unilever U.S. Foundation, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Verizon
W.W. Granger, Inc.

http://www.nrcprograms.org/corporatedonors.htm

My wife works for Walmarts Home Offices in Bentonville, she works within the Diversity Relations Department, and is in charge of the Native American Resource Group...yeah, she's smart..:P She has been working on walmart for a while to start donating money to American Indian College Fund, and in donating money to Haskell Indian Nations University of Lawrence, KS(it use to be a boarding school). Its an uphill battle, mostly involving getting Walmart to realize, that it is in their own interests to donate to organizations like this.

search back far enough, and all land was taken by force from someone else.

John Locke had a reasonable theory of property rights: 1st: self-ownership, you own yourself. 2nd: You own the products of your labor. 3rd: When you combine your labor with unclaimed land, it becomes yours. 4th: You may trade this things with others, as long as they rightfully own what they trade.

While there are certainly a whole population of people who are vested in the 'ownership' of land, and, as Machiavelli noted, it's difficult to change the order of things, there are good philosophical, practical, economic, and social reasons to treat land differently than other property.

Folks who barely bat an eyelash at the thought of a paying 40% of your income in payroll and income taxes would go apeshit at the thought of paying a 40% tax on their land value. Looking back to Locke, though, and taxing someone's wages more deeply infringes on self-ownership than taxing the land value that they exclude others from.

Importantly, taxing labor at 40% certainly reduces the amount of labor consumed in the job market. Cutting that tax (15% payroll, 20% federal, 5% state) would mean more labor would be used - more people would be employed. As more people are employed, wages must rise to attract good workers. This benefits the 80% of people who work rather than the 40% who own land. In fact, in most cases, it benefits those who work AND own land than it hurts them. The only people truly worthy and in need of protection would be those who are retired and own their homes - a problem that would dissappear in a few decades.

On the other side of the coin, taxing land at 40% doesn't reduce the production of land at all, only it's demand. It concentrates development around public infrastructure and lessens development pressure far from cities. It leaves fertile farms as farmland, rather than tract houses. My guess is that if we adopted such a form of taxation, we'd see 80% of the US population living in urban communities ranging in size from small, european style villages on up to NYC sized cities, on half the land we currently use for built up areas.

This sort of tax shift is central to the 'green tax shift', and if it occurs slowly, generally doesn't hurt anyone but those who buy land on the theory that someone else will eventually pay more for it. THose who buy land to use, even for their home, generally benefit more from the reduction in other taxes.

After all, they took my people's land in centuries past. :evilgrin:

Norwegian/German(19th c. in US)/Swiss, etc. ancestry here. Probably invaded someone sometime. Will await bill in mail. ;-)

I post it here as I believe it is public domain.

AUTHENTIC TEXT OF CHIEF SEATTLE'S TREATY ORATION 1854

Source: "Four Wagons West,"
by Roberta Frye Watt, Binsford & Mort, Portland Ore., 1934.
Originally published in the Seattle Sunday Star, Oct. 29 1887.
The text was produced by one "Dr." Smith, an early settler in Seattle, who took notes as Seattle spoke in the Suquamish dialect of central Puget sound Salish (Lushootseed), and created this text in English from those notes. Smith insisted that his version "contained none of the grace and elegance of the original" The last two sentences of the text here given have been considered for many years to have been part of the original, but are now known to have been added by an early 20th C. historian and ethnographic writer, A. C. Ballard.

There are many versions and excerpts from this text, including a wholly fraudulent version mentioning buffalo and the interconnectedness of all life which was written by a Hollywood screenwriter in the late 70's and which has gained wide currency. The bogus version has been quoted by individuals as prominent and diverse as former U.S. President Bush and Joseph Campbell.

At the time this speech was made it was commonly believed by whites and as well by many Indians that Native americas would inevitalby become extinct.


The "Alternate Statement" of Chief Seattle ...

Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon my people for centuries untold, and which to us appears changeless and eternal, may change. Today is fair. Tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds.
My words are like the stars that never change. Whatever Seattle says, the great chief at Washington can rely upon with as much certainty as he can upon the return of the sun or the seasons.

The white chief says that Big Chief at Washington sends us greetings of friendship and goodwill. This is kind of him for we know he has little need of our friendship in return. His people are many. They are like the grass that covers vast prairies. My people are few. They resemble the scattering trees of a storm-swept plain. The great, and I presume -- good, White Chief sends us word that he wishes to buy our land but is willing to allow us enough to live comfortably. This indeed appears just, even generous, for the Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect, and the offer may be wise, also, as we are no longer in need of an extensive country.

There was a time when our people covered the land as the waves of a wind- ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor, but that time long since passed away with the greatness of tribes that are now but a mournful memory. I will not dwell on, nor mourn over, our untimely decay, nor reproach my paleface brothers with hastening it, as we too may have been somewhat to blame.

Youth is impulsive. When our young men grow angry at some real or imaginary wrong, and disfigure their faces with black paint, it denotes that their hearts are black, and that they are often cruel and relentless, and our old men and old women are unable to restrain them. Thus it has ever been. Thus it was when the white man began to push our forefathers ever westward. But let us hope that the hostilities between us may never return. We would have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Revenge by young men is considered gain, even at the cost of their own lives, but old men who stay at home in times of war, and mothers who have sons to lose, know better.

Our good father in Washington--for I presume he is now our father as well as yours, since King George has moved his boundaries further north--our great and good father, I say, sends us word that if we do as he desires he will protect us. His brave warriors will be to us a bristling wall of strength, and his wonderful ships of war will fill our harbors, so that our ancient enemies far to the northward -- the Haidas and Tsimshians, will cease to frighten our women, children, and old men. He in reality he will be our father and we his children.

But can that ever be? Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine! He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the paleface and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son. But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His. Our God, the Great Spirit, seems also to have forsaken us. Your God makes your people wax stronger every day. Soon they will fill all the land.

Our people are ebbing away like a rapidly receding tide that will never return. The white man's God cannot love our people or He would protect them. They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for help. How then can we be brothers? How can your God become our God and renew our prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness? If we have a common Heavenly Father He must be partial, for He came to His paleface children.

We never saw Him. He gave you laws but had no word for His red children whose teeming multitudes once filled this vast continent as stars fill the firmament. No; we are two distinct races with separate origins and separate destinies. There is little in common between us.

To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is hallowed ground. You wander far from the graves of your ancestors and seemingly without regret. Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of your God so that you could not forget.

The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors -- the dreams of our old men, given them in solemn hours of the night by the Great Spirit; and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people.

Your dead cease to love you and the land of their nativity as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb and wander away beyond the stars. They are soon forgotten and never return.

Our dead never forget this beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its verdant valleys, its murmuring rivers, its magnificent mountains, sequestered vales and verdant lined lakes and bays, and ever yearn in tender fond affection over the lonely hearted living, and often return from the happy hunting ground to visit, guide, console, and comfort them.

Day and night cannot dwell together. The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning sun. However, your proposition seems fair and I think that my people will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them. Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense darkness.

It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days. They will not be many. The Indian's night promises to be dark. Not a single star of hope hovers above his horizon. Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance. Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail, and wherever he will hear the approaching footsteps of his fell destroyer and prepare stolidly to meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the hunter.

A few more moons, a few more winters, and not one of the descendants of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours.

But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature, and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see.

We will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know. But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished.

Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch. Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief season, will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet shadowy returning spirits.

And when the last Red Man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone.

Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless.
Dead, did I say? - There is no death, only a change of worlds.

I am currently working on cherokee/creek/choctaw treaties that were signed, that pushed the tribes further towards oklahoma, and believe me, reading it is a headache, all the law lingo and what not. I'm working on it for my wifey, she only has so much time at work, to do things. By the way, this 18th of Nov. At walmarts home offices my wife got George Wycliffe (chief of keetowah band cherokee) and Grey Davis (chief of the Osage Nation) to come to walmart to speak, during a brown bag special. She also got Kevin Costner to speak also (she did this, because most "whites" equate their indian knowledge with dances with wolves). Its really a damn miracle she got this to go through, but she is very persistant.

By the way, did any of you know that their were indian tribes effected by hurricane katrina? Fema or any orginazation for that matter tried to help any of them out, like the Houma nation for example. They didn't get any food, water, or anything for roughly, three weeks, and do you know what organization out reached their hand? Walmart, yes, walmart, the hate child of DU helped them out, and through strenous efforts from my wife, Diversity Relations Department and the american indian resource group, she got it accomplished, but you cannot imagine the god damn red tape she had to cut through, but she did it. See, people indians/whites can get along...mostly!...:)

I am sorry for not reading this one sooner, i have been busy further up in the thread, nice article...:)

Its Jim Grey(not Grey Davis) sorry about the confusion...:)

For one thing, I'm not sure you could find the boundaries for all the land previously owned (if you could call it that) by an American Indian tribe. I think the Dogue tribe was in the vicinity where my house is now, but did they actually reside or otherwise use the specific plot of land where my house is located?

What happens if the tribe the land was taken from no longer exists?

For another, should it matter that the land where my house is was taken by the British first, and then subsequently taken from the British by the US? Should the British be compensating the tribe, and we compensate the British?

And if a tribe took the land from another tribe before the colonists arrived, should they compensate that tribe, or should the US do it?

Should this apply to all land throughout the world gained at the expense of another civilization throughout history?

it just happened more recently in North America and Australiasia than elsewhere.

And while the tribe is at it, may I request asylum? I live out in the far West (CA) and have several groups of the Pomo tribe very nearby. Nice folks. Not my ancestry, but they were here before me.

It was the Europeans who did it. Well, mostly. Ok, so the U.S. did it too...but black people didn't do it very often. Plus, the U.S. took land from Mexico. Should everyone in California pay taxes to the Mexican government?

I think the concept of owning land is the dumbest thing ever. And while I haven't come up with a good solution to it yet, short of communist totalitarianism, which is not "good" but in fact "bad" I think it's a bad idea to pay a "someone else stole land, I'm playing along with the system 500 years later" tax.

I think that if people are going to own land, then the best solution is for everyone to own land. People who have land can grow healthy food for themselves, etc.

So, I favor redistribution of land. But I do not favor

a) the government owning all of the land, or
b) people having to feel guilty for owning land.