UN wants the US to return Native American lands

posted at 2:01 pm on May 6, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

I can’t imagine how this plan could possibly produce anything but a stunning success, can you?

A United Nations investigator probing discrimination against Native Americans has called on the US government to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward combatting continuing and systemic racial discrimination.

James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.

The report goes on for paragraph after paragraph about proposed plans based on the concept of systemic racism against indigenous people, but it does also manage to touch on one issue which is very real.

Anaya visited an Oglala Sioux reservation where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national average, and life expectancy is about 50 years.

The two Sioux reservations in South Dakota – Rosebud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country’s poorest living conditions, including mass unemployment and the highest suicide rate in the western hemisphere with an epidemic of teenagers killing themselves.

“You can see they’re in a somewhat precarious situation in terms of their basic existence and the stability of their communities given that precarious land tenure situation. It’s not like they have large fisheries as a resource base to sustain them. In basic economic terms it’s a very difficult situation. You have upwards of 70% unemployment on the reservation and all kinds of social ills accompanying that. Very tough conditions,” he said.

Conditions on many of the reservations are indeed horrible. There are some exceptions, of course, among some in the Northwest with ocean access and others with casinos, but many of the tribal lands are simply desolate pools of poverty. If there is anything to the questions being raised by the UN, though, it is likely to be found less in some sort of nebulous cure for any sort of endemic racism than in the technicalities of a court of law.

The United States has indeed made many treaties with Native Americans spanning three centuries. Some were honored, (at least in part) but many were either ignored or crafted in patently unfair ways. There are numerous examples, but one case in New York is fairly typical. A series of treaties between both the state of NY and the federal government with the tribes of the Iroquois Nation were repeatedly violated even though the federal courts weighed in on the side of the natives on more than one occasion. One of them assured the Oneida Indians possession of the lands west of the Hudson and north of the Mohawk rivers for “as long as the sun shall shine and the rivers shall flow.” If that’s the case, it’s pretty dark and dry in the Empire State these days.

Obviously we can’t have a serious conversation about giving all of the lands (i.e. most of the country) back and I doubt anyone is seriously fielding such an idea. But there may be cases where a valid legal case could result in some return of lands or other compensation which might provide some new opportunities and a chance for prosperity to people who are admittedly living in crushing poverty.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Since no similar request has been made of Canada, Mexico, Central or South America, tell them you are not Israel and to go fuk themselves.

BL@KBIRD on May 6, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Why aren’t these kinds of ideas met with jeering, derision and laughter?

ss396 on May 6, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Obviously we can’t have a serious conversation about giving all of the lands (i.e. most of the country) back and I doubt anyone is seriously fielding such an idea. But there may be cases where a valid legal case could result in some return of lands or other compensation which might provide some new opportunities and a chance for prosperity to people who are admittedly living in crushing poverty.

Or we could return none of it, and tell them that they can either make a life for themselves by integrating with the United States of America, or continue to live on the reservation.

Stoic Patriot on May 6, 2012 at 7:37 PM

James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.

I bet if Elizabeth Warren were in the Senate she would meet with him. No doubt she would want to do what is right for “her people”.

ButterflyDragon on May 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Isn’t the UN built on former Native American lands?

Hey, why stop at the US. Lets have all the nations of all the word return all the land they ever stole. Let me see, we could start with Russia, China, Spain, France, the UK, Greece, Italy, Mexico,… everyone. Then, lets have reparations for everyone of every skin color who ever had any ancestors who were slaves from any country ever. That would include Russia, China, Spain, France, the UK, Greece, Italy, Mexico, and just about everybody else.

JellyToast on May 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Will we be seeking the return of Egypt to those who worship Ra?

Wait… Does this mean that Turkey will be returned to the Assyrian Empire? and that the ancient Israeli boundaries will be recognized by the UN?

Will Russia be returned to the Mongolians under a new Kahn?

Will France and Gaul be given to the Romans?

I’m approx 50% Polish, 4x%Irish, and (<x)% Spaniard. Where would I be allowed to live?

Since my family moved to the US subsequent to treaty violations, does my family's status of good faith create a break in causality and therefore potential culpability?

Isn't the statutes of limitations of all laws other than murder designed to prevent people from raising grudges in perpetuity?

Jones Zemkophill on May 6, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Will the socialists, athiests and Muslims give Europe and the Middle East back to us Judeo-Christian white guys.

ironked on May 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Why not just give back that part that is currently occupied by the UN buildings?

GWB on May 6, 2012 at 7:52 PM

WWEWD?

BocaJuniors on May 6, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Why don’t we just agree to say we are all at least 1/32 Native American and have done with it?

The burden of proof should be on the people claiming we are not. Warren got credit without proof. Do only the elites get that kind of treatment?

We’re all 1/32 black, too. Prove I’m not. Prove it.

fadetogray on May 6, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Let’s use Turtle Bay and Upper Manhattan as a test case.

sDs61678 on May 6, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Hey, United Nazions.

Bite me.

S. D. on May 6, 2012 at 8:21 PM

They must have been running old ‘F Troop’ episodes at the U.N. last week and gotten a little confused. Apparently, the Hekawi Indians deserved better. Speaking of which … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on May 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

I don’t know if somebody already mentioned this but the UN itself sits on ripped off lands in NYC. So they probably know exactly what it’s all about.

First thing we do is kill all the lawyers. Second thing we do is order all the elites off the island.

platypus on May 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I’ve got a better idea. Everyone make their own life better.

Limerick on May 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM

As I understand it, the Indian reservations are sovereign nations. If they are unable to sustain their citizens then perhaps they should dissolve the reservation and become full American citizens. Seems to me the problem is of their own making.

woodNfish on May 6, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I read this and my first thought was, “one more reason to kick the UN farce out of the United States.”

The UN is a dismal failure and must be disbanded. The building should be torn down and the space applied to some useful endeavor.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2012 at 3:19 PM

After we throw the UN out lets give it to the Native Americans, why they could put a casino there .
Then:
NY could tax the bejeezus out of it , give the money to education like our lottery does..hahahaha

ok Id be happy with just the first part.

MrMoe on May 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

I don’t know if somebody already mentioned this but the UN itself sits on ripped off lands in NYC. So they probably know exactly what it’s all about. platypus on May 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Tear down the UN! It’s built on sacred Indian burial grounds, so sacred that the only thing allowed to be built on it is a casino.

Akzed on May 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

It’s a shame we can’t get the UN to give back the prime real estate on the East River and go the hell where people care what they think!

Russ in OR on May 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Native Americans are free to choose where they live.
I spend a lot of time in the McLaughlin SD area, on the Rez.
Their misery is of their own making NOW.

Can’t take everything back or do everything over.
It’s just not possible.
Besides, Native Americans weren’t angels to each other, either.
They were wiping each other out just like Europeans did.
They are no different than any other human being when it comes to power.

And it’s Natural Selection in its purest form.
Survival of the Fittest.
However you can get it done.
I know many indians who are successful bcs they WANT to be.
And I know many who are drunks, bcs they WANT to be.
It’s a choice.

Badger40 on May 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Two in a row… Now I want to know WTH “rapporteur” means.

LtGenRob on May 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM

The US wants the UN to return to their “native lands.” There, fixed.

Decoski on May 6, 2012 at 8:58 PM

The Indian Wars and the Mexican war of 1847 were wars of conquest.

The rallying cry for those favoring westward expansion was ‘Manifest Destiny’; the belief that Americans were destined by God’s favor to possess the entire continent
‘From Sea to Shining Sea.’ This became one of the moral and economic justifications for conquest regardless of legal or social consequences for indigenous people or foreign governments laying claim to the land.

Americans consider wars of conquest distasteful, so we would rather not talk about them, much less teach them in history class. Perhaps this is a reflection of John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon, ‘A Model of Christian Charity’, which gave rise to folklore that the United States is God’s country and a ‘Shining City on a Hill.’ This sense of American exceptionalism, or moral superiority, it at odds with a war of conquest.

Ralph Waldo Emerson rejected war as a means of achieving America’s destiny, although he accepted that ‘most of the great results of history are brought about by discreditable means.’

So just move along. We are keeping everything west of the Nueces.

Jocundus on May 6, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Aaaaand the case for throwing the UN the Fluck outta here rests. I’m sure it’s been mentioned >once already; seriously: what more will it take..?

affenhauer on May 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Or, stated alternatively: US wants UN to suck it’s collective…

affenhauer on May 6, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Let’s start by giving back all the Dunkin Donuts and 7-11s!

~Joe Biden

Christien on May 6, 2012 at 9:24 PM

I remember watching some news segment years back. This Indian chief guy was sitting on his couch wearing normal clothes in a beautiful modern living room, hardwood floor, all the modern conveniences- TV, stereo, electric lights… it looked like a really nice place… and he’s sitting there complaining about how the white man stole his heritage. There was just something strange about that picture.

I read this book… “Son of the Morning Star.” It’s all about Custer and the plains Indians, life on the prairies and life in cavalry. Just an incredible well researched book. Lots of documentation in it. Dirty little truth that book revealed.. how the Indians weren’t just fighting the white man.. they had been fighting each other too. Taking and stealing from each other. Hollywood and the left like to portray how it was like all these Indians were like one big family.. all living in unity. Really not how it was.
Oh.. and it sorta exploded the myth that the Indians were wonderful at protecting the environment. I think it was the Blackfoot Indians.. their squaws would never climb the trees to pick fruit. They always chopped the trees down and picked the fruit up off the ground. Every year one of the tribes would always set the prairies on fire too, destroying miles of grass and killing everything in it. They did it because the Indians hated the prairie grass. It would grow so high that they couldn’t see anything while riding their ponies through it. There was one tribe, I can’t remember which, all the other tribes hated. They were more a farming tribe. Didn’t hunt a lot and did like to plant things, but the other tribes that hated to plant and only hunted continuously attacked that tribe. And the only reason the author could determine was that those Indians were into planting.

Even here in PA, in our capital museum, they have displays on the Susquehannocks. Those Indians would live in a certain area of the forest, use up all the resources, cut down trees, kill all the game, etc, then just get up and move to another area and do the same again.

JellyToast on May 6, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I’d have no problem giving back Manhattan.

Hummer53 on May 6, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Two in a row… Now I want to know WTH “rapporteur” means.

LtGenRob on May 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM

It’s a person that prepares reports and then presents them before the committee that employs him.

RickB on May 6, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Just for fun, how would they go about ceding land back to tribes? Would the state that must cede the land need to agree to it or is it just done by federal treaty? If they could cede sovereign state land to a tribe against the state’s will, then I guess a lot of interesting things are possible.

Buddahpundit on May 6, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Give the land back? F that.

Indian reservations are bullsh*t. They’ve done nothing but create a couple of generations of entitled losers. They should have paid out lump sum guilt cheques to all aboriginals in Canada, created no reservations at all, and then said get the f on with your lives – you’re citizens of THIS country and you will be treated as such and nothing more or less.

Dave Rywall on May 6, 2012 at 10:10 PM

If you buy reservation land from the indians, do you get to keep it sovereign? I think we could make every native american rich if that’s the case.

Buddahpundit on May 6, 2012 at 10:13 PM

What would happen if they sold their lands to Russia? Or Iran?

faraway on May 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Even here in PA, in our capital museum, they have displays on the Susquehannocks. Those Indians would live in a certain area of the forest, use up all the resources, cut down trees, kill all the game, etc, then just get up and move to another area and do the same again.

JellyToast on May 6, 2012 at 9:47 PM

That’s a dirty little secret that people don’t like to acknowledge. While a system may have equilibrium it’s usually a chaotic equilibrium. Predators grow strong hunting the game to near extinction till only the strongest and youngest are left, that the predators can’t catch, so then they starve. The balance is in the constantly changing advantage. It’s seldom ever as peaceful as they would like it portrayed.

DFCtomm on May 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Will the UN give back the lands and lives they’ve stolen?

Kini on May 6, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Where I come from the Indians couldn’t give a hoot about the land.

The scored the mineral rights in the original deal. The land? Pah – couldn’t care less.

CorporatePiggy on May 6, 2012 at 10:34 PM

The = They.

CorporatePiggy on May 6, 2012 at 10:34 PM

The cure for tribal reservation poverty is not more government largess or some legal settlement that would do nothing to solve the structural problems. The cure, to the extent one exists, is assimilation. Reservations are the last form of legal segregation in America. It has had the to-be expected results. End it, don’t try to mend it. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on May 6, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Gee if we could just find some Neanderthals to give the whole planet back to; I am sure this moron would advocate it.

KW64 on May 6, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Please start with that 17 acres of Manhattan occupied by the UN.

WestTexasBirdDog on May 6, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Why not just give back that part that is currently occupied by the UN buildings?
GWB on May 6, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Please start with that 17 acres of Manhattan occupied by the UN.
WestTexasBirdDog on May 6, 2012 at 10:55 PM

THESE

Marcola on May 6, 2012 at 10:59 PM

The cure for tribal reservation poverty is not more government largess or some legal settlement that would do nothing to solve the structural problems. The cure, to the extent one exists, is assimilation. Reservations are the last form of legal segregation in America. It has had the to-be expected results. End it, don’t try to mend it. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on May 6, 2012 at 10:38 PM

But it’s a segregation the Native Americans choose! That’s the bear of it…they insist we “follow the treaties” even to the continuing detriment of their own people.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Let ‘em have Detroit.

viking01 on May 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Hey Obama, the Nobel Committee called, they want their Peace Prize back.

preallocated on May 6, 2012 at 11:11 PM

QUESTION:

What was the Native American unemployment rate in 1491?

Also, if we decide to give it back, let’s start with Manhattan… more specifically, UN Headquarters.

Glenn Jericho on May 6, 2012 at 11:15 PM

I’m sorry, but I simply do not see how these lefties do not see the irony in wanting to return America to the NA’s, while at the same time trying to kick Israel out of their ancestral home.

Irony is lost on these people.

preallocated on May 6, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Here’s a novel idea: Move off the reservation.

For if you’re given a plot of land and you cannot manage it nor the people on it, leave. Seriously, if I lived there, I’d WALK my way out of it if I had to. As to the UN,they can leave too.

GeeWhiz on May 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Dear UN:

Pound sand.

Sincerely,

THE U.S.A

idalily on May 6, 2012 at 11:44 PM

The VERY first blue helmet to venture on to MY property will very quickly and severely regret ever joining the UN.

I’m not opposed to willing the land I own to the Native Americans of this area when I kick the bucket, but nobody is laying claim to it until my son’s and my ashes are spread across it.

We need to cancel our subscription to the UN and evict that sorry socialist pack of jackholes from New York.

Wolfmoon on May 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Actually, if we follow the logic of these leftist idiots, we need to have a worldwide jurassic park so the real owners of this planet can reclaim it.

Us? I guess we’d be on the menu, but the appetizer should be the contents of the UN complex of course.

Wolfmoon on May 6, 2012 at 11:51 PM

As I understand it, the Indian reservations are sovereign nations. If they are unable to sustain their citizens then perhaps they should dissolve the reservation and become full American citizens. Seems to me the problem is of their own making.

woodNfish on May 6, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Hmmm, Oddly enough, that is exactly the reason my maternal grandmother gave for moving off the reservation, she then went right out and married a man with an education and a job and never looked back other than to say that the majority of her tribe were… and I quote. “good for nothing lazy alcoholics” and “a bunch of damned drunken Indian’s”…

My grandmother was a full blooded Yakima Indian who had no use or time for anyone in her tribe that didn’t get a job and make their own way in life. Perhaps a bit harsh, but that is how she was.

SWalker on May 6, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Why don’t we just agree to say we are all at least 1/32 Native American and have done with it?

Not sure if my cheekbones qualify.

I’ll require a ruling.

98ZJUSMC on May 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

The article says “some” of the land, not all of it.

But there may be cases where a valid legal case could result in some return of lands or other compensation

I agree, but this is something the Indians themselves need to fight in the courts, just like everyone else. Perhaps they would get some rulings in their favor while they’d lose others.

I can’t see how living under some tribe’s authority would be any worse than what we have under these D and R crooks we have now, and in fact may actually be better.

At any rate, this nonsense of just throwing money at them via Indian welfare has been disastrous for most of them from what I can tell.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 7, 2012 at 12:25 AM

The American Indians were nomads and thus had no lands to steal. They lost the war against the United States and have no rights to any lands that currently make up the United States. Are we to give up what was so hard faught for in our nations wars? Are we to return America to England because we used war to claim independence from them in the first place?

Dollayo on May 7, 2012 at 12:29 AM

American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts are really all Native Siberians and they came over in three distinct waves with each one fighting the others like crazy and fighting within each wave in some of the most bloodthirsty ways one can imagine. I wonder if the 2nd and 3rd waves are viewed in the same “illegitimate” way that the European wave is – which brought development, advancement and bounty to the Americas? Not much, huh?

Typical leftist deceit and self-loathing.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2012 at 12:45 AM

These are the same people who thought that people should avoid going to the Sun city resort of Bophuthatswana South Africa because the Bophuthatswanans were getting rich, not being good impoverished victims of apartheid.

Slowburn on May 7, 2012 at 5:44 AM

It costs the UN nothing and makes them look all nice and inclusive…as long as you don’t pay attention to all the tyrants and dictators that make up the UN.

swinia sutki on May 7, 2012 at 6:01 AM

Sure. In fact, we should recognize the national sovereignty of the tribes and leave them to govern themselves entirely. Let them provide their own currency, roads, schools, water treatment, medical care, waste and all of the other services that nations are responsible to provide for their people. Let them provide welfare for their own people. Instead of being dependents of the US, let them proudly stand up and enjoy the fruits (and responsibilities) of nationhood.

MJBrutus on May 7, 2012 at 6:58 AM

Why aren’t these kinds of ideas met with jeering, derision and laughter?

ss396 on May 6, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Would you settle for indifference? I mean, when they can’t get even one race-baiting, camera-whoring, internationalist-loving Congresscritter to meet with them … they’ve been served notice they are pretty far up the wacky tree.

OneFreeMan on May 7, 2012 at 7:38 AM

I’m sorry, but I simply do not see how these lefties do not see the irony in wanting to return America to the NA’s, while at the same time trying to kick Israel out of their ancestral home.
Irony is lost on these people.
preallocated on May 6, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Irony is only a side-effect.
This is a stalking horse for the Palestinian “right of return” to their “ancestral lands” in Israel.
No one expects the Native Americans to get any land back, but the efforts might generate enough publicity to raise support for the real objective.

AesopFan on May 7, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Tell ya what, let’s start by returning Turtle Bay.

PJ Emeritus on May 7, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Speaking as a Native American, The U.N. is like an old man sitting on a park bench – it is highly opinionated about everything, especially regarding things that are none of it’s business. If it wants to do anything meaningful in the US, how about pay those millions of dollars in parking tickets and traffic violations it has racked up and simply ignore?! Much like Herpes, it flares up every so often – you can’t get rid of it, you can minimalize it and need to deal with it from time to time, but it’s never going to go away and never truly going to be a good thing.

easyt65 on May 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM

No, No, No. The UN solution of sharing and doing what is fair is the right approach. So….50% of the year the Indians can have it and 50% of the year the current residents can have it. Get ready to move!! As a global solution it might be complicated, but hey it is fair.

Connecticut on May 7, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Next up slavery reparations.

bgibbs1000 on May 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM

And by the way, the UN should get a 2% moving tax.

Connecticut on May 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Obviously we can’t have a serious conversation about giving all of the lands (i.e. most of the country) back and I doubt anyone is seriously fielding such an idea. But there may be cases where a valid legal case could result in some return of lands

That’s very true. I say we start by giving back the land in the footprint of the former U.N. building. Tell them to get off our soil as they are a foreign invader, and cut all financial ties.

dominigan on May 7, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Hey, we stole it fair and square. American exceptionalism!

plewis on May 7, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Why has James Anaya brought this up so publically now during an election year? What is his agenda? Since anyone with half a functioning brain knows this “ain’t gonna happen”, what is he really trying to accomplish? What game is he playing and to who’s benefit?

oldernwiser on May 7, 2012 at 9:43 AM

This just goes to prove that most of the dingbats in the UN are smoking some good dope.

logicman_1998 on May 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM

return the land occupied by UN buildings in NYC…

anikol on May 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I’d like to know what the Obummer regime gets out of this rediculous proposal. Is it their vote?

madgrma on May 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Americans and (possibly more so) Europeans suffer from the Rousseauian “Noble Savage” neurosis. You can see its manifestations every day.

stillings on May 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Each Indian Reservation is en essence a sovereign State with their own law enforcement, legal code, etc. They have all the tools for prosperity, but unfortunately most Reservations are ruled by a corrupt and inept Tribal Councils that have heavily bought into “Social Justice” and cynically exploit the racial spoils system. Many Tribal Councils are run by nepotism, with a few families controlling all economic activity on the Reservation. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs only serves to keep the Reservation system dependent on handouts from the Federal Government — money is tied to behavior, and too many Native Americans have been turned into wards of the State. The BIA is a highly inefficient, some 85% of budget is spent on their own overhead. The Reservations also get their healthcare from the Federal Government through a system that delivers poor care, ineffectively. A preview of Obamacare. Those tribes that have rejected BIA funding and controls and have reformed their Tribal Council system (indeed, moving in many cases to a more Corporate structure for investments, decisions, etc.) are doing well. SO the lesson is to encourage Native Americans to be more self reliant, end the BIA and encourage reforms within the Reservation system…the opposite of MORE Statism as encouraged by the UN.

EasyEight on May 7, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I worked in South Dakota for several years. I helped give away millions of dollars to the American Indians. I recruited American Indians for High School and for College and for job training. We offered free education, housing, food, expenses and a stipend. Over a 4 year period we did not succeed with more than 3 students out of several hundred we recruited. Why? Most would say they didn’t need to work hard like white people did because they already got a little money every month from the Government.

The only ones that did succeed were those who moved away from the reservations and centers of American Indians and became immersed in the culture of America outside the American Indian Culture.

dahni on May 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM

But it’s a segregation the Native Americans choose! That’s the bear of it…they insist we “follow the treaties” even to the continuing detriment of their own people.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM

gryphon,

I don’t disagree with you. I agree that the plight of the tribes (I refuse to call them “Native Americans.” I am a native American — i.e. born in America — just as much as someone born into the tribes) is largely self-inflicted. My point was only to take issue with the notion that some legal settlement based on anicent wrongs would actually help. It would not. It would be a source of further corruption and waste piled on top of the corruption and waste that has spawned from the reservation model.

The solution is to dissolve the reservations and to intigrate the tribes into modern American society. Only that route provides a potential path to prosperity. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on May 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM

It has always seemed to me that much of the problem is that no one but designated tribes can own reservation land. The land belongs to that tribe forever.

Therefore, if a member of a tribe wants to open, say, a grocery store, he/she goes to a bank for a loan. The bank says, “Okay, but what can you put up as collateral?” “Well, I have some land…” “Great — hey, that’s reservation land! If you can’t pay back your loan, we can’t take any of your land. Sorry, no loan.”

No loan, no way to open that store and start making a free-enterprise living.

I suppose there are various kinds of government loans available, but in general, it seems to me that not being able to use their land the way other Americans do — as collateral — is part of the problem.

It’s ironic: The U.S. Government, after breaking treaty upon treaty, tells the tribes that the land cannot belong to anyone else but the tribes. In cases where tribal members would like to use a few acres of land to secure a loan, they can’t do it, because that land is their tribe’s forever.

KyMouse on May 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Let ‘em have Detroit.

viking01 on May 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Or how about Dearborn? I think a muslim-indian war might be pretty entertaining.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Great point KyMouse! …I guess that’s another example of why collectivism is so terribly bad.

Also, I was always under the impression that most native americans had the ideology that, …”Hey, the land doesn’t BELONG to US!!!,…..WE belong to the LAND!!!”

I read somewhere that when the native americans were offered payment for the land,…they didn’t really buy into the notion of owning the land, and their reply was probably a big smile with ….”Sure,….would you like to buy the moon as well!!!”

W.KY-hillbilly on May 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Funny!

Bmore on May 7, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Ooops, sorry, correction.

Funny!

Bmore on May 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM

QUESTION:

What was the Native American unemployment rate in 1491?

Also, if we decide to give it back, let’s start with Manhattan… more specifically, UN Headquarters.

Glenn Jericho on May 6, 2012 at 11:15 PM

How ’bout the UN return the land they occupy in New York City FIRST???

Using Liberal-logic, the UN is not even qualified to discuss land give-backs unless they ARE a land give-backer!!!

landlines on May 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM

no.

rightConcept on May 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Wouldn’t we have to give the land UN Headquarters is on back to the Dutch so they could give it back to the Indians?

PersonFromPorlock on May 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Two in a row… Now I want to know WTH “rapporteur” means.

LtGenRob on May 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I think it was a Blondie song.

gregbert on May 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM

“…it’s the Gitchee Goomey Money Tunnel, and it’s whipping up a whirl-wind of SILVER DOLLARS!”
“What? Wait…OW! …”
“Well, cover your face with your ghost shirt, dummie!”
– Temporarily Humboldt County

mojo on May 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I bet if Elizabeth Warren were in the Senate she would meet with him. No doubt she would want to do what is right for “her people”.

ButterflyDragon on May 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM

maybe just 1/36 of her people… or maybe just 1/36 of her people in taxachussets…..

oh, it’s so confusing….

Dr. Demento on May 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

The solution is to dissolve the reservations and to intigrate the tribes into modern American society. Only that route provides a potential path to prosperity. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on May 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM

And I agree with you as well. Thing is, the tribes themselves don’t want that. They would rather live on handouts, given the chance. The history of America writ-large does not bode well for their future…

gryphon202 on May 7, 2012 at 6:10 PM

But there may be cases where a valid legal case could result in some return of lands or other compensation which might provide some new opportunities and a chance for prosperity to people who are admittedly living in crushing poverty.

Let me guess, that “return of lands” would be in one of the square states. How about we give back Long Island as a test case? Once that proves to be effective, we can continue to, let’s say, Kansas.

cptacek on May 7, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Perhaps we could start by giving back at least part of the Lower East Side of Manhattan (where that garish UN Building stands) to the Canarsie tribe since Peter Minuet swindled them out of the island (so long as the Dutch get the $24 back).

P Opus on May 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Scalps! Get you’re white man scalps here! Scalps!

Huh, what? So-called “native American’s” were not the first people to populate North America? Europeans did about 18000 years ago?!

Oops!

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news168.htm

http://www.vnnforum.com/archive/index.php/t-44123.html

insidiator on May 8, 2012 at 7:51 AM

I’m still waiting for the headline:

US demands UN give back donated land and go home.

BMF on May 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Maybe the UN should be relocated to Somalia or Uganda.

samazf on May 8, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3