US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations

[Scott_Lafrance]

guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/04/us-stolen-land-indian-tribes-un

Oh, boy. More secular pipe dreams and attempts by the UN to dictate to the US what to do.

First impression:

“Will never happen. Never. No can do. Forget it.”

Nor should it.

Sorry if that statement offends some sensitive souls here.

Anyway-----discuss, please.

I actually agree. What we did as a country to the Native Americans is more despicable than what we did to the African slaves. The Trail of Tears is a sin this country has never atoned for, and we continue to violate the Treaty of Fort Laramie. Apparently Native Americans are a protected political class, unless they have something we want, in which case we just take it from them.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The Trail of Tears is a sin this country has never atoned for,

The Trail of Tears passed through Arkansas, and there are signposts on the roads in and around Little Rock that mark the actual trail those people had to suffer on.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Then how does one steal from someone who doesn’t own something?

And why is America being singled out in this discussion?

Most people in the world are living on lands that were not originally “theirs.” Unless everyone is forced to go back to their evolutionary point of origin, the discussion is a waste of time.

And IF we do that, how does anyone in favor propose doing it?

If you understand the legitimacy of “squatter’s rights” which most political cultures who have real property rights do, then the Native American’s did in fact “own” the land they resided on, even if they couldn’t produce a claim or deed for it.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

America, don’t give in to those radical left-wingers.

 

[vz71]

If you understand the legitimacy of “squatter’s rights” which most political cultures who have real property rights do, then the Native American’s did in fact “own” the land they resided on, even if they couldn’t produce a claim or deed for it.

If we attribute ownership of the land to the indians for ‘squatter’s rights’

Then wouldn’t it follow that the land now belongs to those that are there now for the same reason?
Specificly that we are there now and have been for the past couple hundred years?

 

[Mimi]

Take a look at our National Parks-- the US does not do well with them-- why not turn some of that land over.

It’s part of the fed-gov land grab which is part of Sustainable Development which is part of Agenda 21 (the PLAN to globalise everything & take control of every aspect of our lives).
This is no conspiracy theory. Check out these web sites:

clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/

freedomadvocates.org/research_center/

I have been researching this for about a year & our country is being sold out to the UN by govt regulations. Our liberty is being sold out little by little.

Behind all this is neo-paganism, Earth-worship. This is another reason why we must push to evangelize, pray, be the best Catholic we can, pray, and pray some more! There are some excellent brochures to download & print out to give to people at:
americanfreedomwatchradio.com/?page_id=327

Mimi

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If we attribute ownership of the land to the indians for ‘squatter’s rights’

Then wouldn’t it follow that the land now belongs to those that are there now for the same reason?
Specificly that we are there now and have been for the past couple hundred years?

The Native Americans were exploited expressly because they had no formal land ownership system. We blatantly stole the land from under them, put them in chains for having the audacity to protest it, and then marched them 1,000 miles away to a relocation center on land that was basically useless for anything.

 

[scipio337]

???

There are 562 federally recognized tribal governments in the US, and are pretty autonomous (only exclusion, like the states, are their ability to “make war”, engage in their own foreign relations, or coin money).

They have something like 55 million acres in tribal land, roughly the size of Austria.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

???

There are 562 federally recognized tribal governments in the US, and are pretty autonomous (only exclusion, like the states, are their ability to “make war”, engage in their own foreign relations, or coin money).

They have something like 55 million acres in tribal land, roughly the size of Austria.

Most of which is junk land that no-one else wants.

 

[Michael_C]

It’s part of the fed-gov land grab which is part of Sustainable Development which is part of Agenda 21 (the PLAN to globalise everything & take control of every aspect of our lives).
This is no conspiracy theory. Check out these web sites:

clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/

freedomadvocates.org/research_center/

I have been researching this for about a year & our country is being sold out to the UN by govt regulations. Our liberty is being sold out little by little.

Behind all this is neo-paganism, Earth-worship. This is another reason why we must push to evangelize, pray, be the best Catholic we can, pray, and pray some more! There are some excellent brochures to download & print out to give to people at:
americanfreedomwatchradio.com/?page_id=327

Mimi

Thank you for bringing this up. When I see posts like this I know there is hope. Legislation was actually passed in NJ opposing Agenda 21. The more people become educated the better chance of stomping this out.

 

[Jerusha]

Very true…That is why I kind of like the idea of rebuilding an “Indian State” within the regular laws of the US. I’m not saying that the AIP should give up the reservations (at least not yet) but that building a “composite” Indian presence in one general area with a good economic basis and growing political presence in that area could be very beneficial all the way around.

How do you see this working?

A composite Native state didn’t work with Oklahoma, what makes you think it would work now? You have to remember that tribal cultures vary, and a lot of the variation has to do with the climate and topography of the area where they traditionally lived. The ancestral land area of each tribe is sacred to that tribe. The cultural roots are deep in those areas. That is one reason why I moved to Wisconsin, and left an Apache friend behind in the SouthWest. The love for one’s homeland runs deep, deeper than relationships.

Many of the relocated Cherokee moved back home because of that homesickness. Other tribes did the same.

The transition would have to happen all within the Department of the Interior, which is the locus for both National Parks and BIA. Since many reservations are close to National Parks, it would not be that difficult. Job re-training would have to be a major focus, and that is already happening, with many Native young people going to college and choosing majors in ecology-related fields.

Russell Means has a reputation as being dysfunctional and not constructive. As someone posted, his health is too poor, for many reasons, for him to be active in anything like this. There are many young people who are eager to get involved in something like this.

 

[scipio337]

Most of which is junk land that no-one else wants.

For something like 2 million people? Do the math.

I’d take some in North Dakota or Utah, glady.

 

[SamH]

For something like 2 million people? Do the math.

I’d take some in North Dakota or Utah, glady.

Back when these reservations were established the Eastern power brokers that ran the government looked at the interior of the country as “junk” land (much as today’s coastal power brokers refer to it as "flyover country). I know the reservations in Kansas and Oklahoma are all “good” properties - especially the ones in Oklahoma - many are now producing oil. More recently the reservations in North Dakota have found themselves awash in oil money.

The Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana has 643 oil producing oil wells - and sits next to property being bought up by the likes of Bruce Willis and Ted Turner.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Back when these reservations were established the Eastern power brokers that ran the government looked at the interior of the country as “junk” land (much as today’s coastal power brokers refer to it as "flyover country). I know the reservations in Kansas and Oklahoma are all “good” properties - especially the ones in Oklahoma - many are now producing oil. More recently the reservations in North Dakota have found themselves awash in oil money.

The Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana has 643 oil producing oil wells - and sits next to property being bought up by the likes of Bruce Willis and Ted Turner.

If there is anything valuable on that land, the Native Americans should get ready for another fantastic treaty revision.

 

[vz71]

The Native Americans were exploited expressly because they had no formal land ownership system. We blatantly stole the land from under them, put them in chains for having the audacity to protest it, and then marched them 1,000 miles away to a relocation center on land that was basically useless for anything.

True, what was done was horrible.

Of course, making it right is another matter.
We cannot ask people generations removed from the events that had nothing to do with any of it to take responsibility.
Likewise we have to ask exactly who are we making reperations to?
Is there anyone still around that was actually forced of their land as you describe?

It is too late. It is not possible any longer to provide a restitution as described without causing another injustice.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I really don’t know who they would have us give the land back to. On the southern plains, the Comanches drove out the Apaches, who drove out somebody else previously. The whites were just the last in the chain.

Where I live, the last “dominant” tribe was the Osage, which moved south into the area, decimating tribes already there because the Osage (which didn’t really live here, for the most part) wanted this for their “hunting preserve”. I have read where the biggest part of Kentucky was also a “hunting preserve” for sedentary tribes in the Ohio Valley, and was kept largely depopulated.

But the archaeological evidence also points to major depopulation of the area in which I live, long before the arrival of whites. Nobody knows how that happened, or why. So, when the Osage decided to make it their “hunting preserve” they would not have had to kill very many Indian residents who were already there.

Nobody knows who, exactly, the Osage dispossessed here. Ultimately, some Indians moved here from the east. Some were warlike, some not so much. Ultimately, the Osage moved to the western plains on their own, because of the in-migration of other tribes and whites.

There is scarcely a person in this part of the country who does not claim at least some Indian ancestery; usually Cherokee. A very small percentage of Cherokee ancestery will qualify one as a “tribal member”. I have known blonde, blue-eyed people who have their tribal cards.

So, who gets what?

But I guess the UN is determined to make its anti-western proposals, however preposterous they might be.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I really don’t know who they would have us give the land back to. On the southern plains, the Comanches drove out the Apaches, who drove out somebody else previously. The whites were just the last in the chain.

Where I live, the last “dominant” tribe was the Osage, which moved south into the area, decimating tribes already there because the Osage (which didn’t really live here, for the most part) wanted this for their “hunting preserve”. I have read where the biggest part of Kentucky was also a “hunting preserve” for sedentary tribes in the Ohio Valley, and was kept largely depopulated.

But the archaeological evidence also points to major depopulation of the area in which I live, long before the arrival of whites. Nobody knows how that happened, or why. So, when the Osage decided to make it their “hunting preserve” they would not have had to kill very many Indian residents who were already there.

Nobody knows who, exactly, the Osage dispossessed here. Ultimately, some Indians moved here from the east. Some were warlike, some not so much. Ultimately, the Osage moved to the western plains on their own, because of the in-migration of other tribes and whites.

There is scarcely a person in this part of the country who does not claim at least some Indian ancestery; usually Cherokee. A very small percentage of Cherokee ancestery will qualify one as a “tribal member”. I have known blonde, blue-eyed people who have their tribal cards.

So, who gets what?

But I guess the UN is determined to make its anti-western proposals, however preposterous they might be.

The tribes of the east coast, Cherokee, Choctaw, Muskogee, Chickesaaw, and Seminole, were generally considered settled into permanent residential areas of the country and were not nomadic like the Plains tribes and as such, generally weren’t prone to warring against each other for hunting land.

 

[vz71]

The tribes of the east coast, Cherokee, Choctaw, Muskogee, Chickesaaw, and Seminole, were generally considered settled into permanent residential areas of the country and were not nomadic like the Plains tribes and as such, generally weren’t prone to warring against each other for hunting land.

Perhaps, but there is also a problem with the borders.

How exactly do we determine what should be given back?

Do we sign over ‘areas’ where it was believed a tribe was?
What happens if a construction crew stumbles upon the remains of a tribal settlement after we have signed over land elsewhere? Do we sign that as well?

What exactly were the borders of any given tribe?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps, but there is also a problem with the borders.

How exactly do we determine what should be given back?

Do we sign over ‘areas’ where it was believed a tribe was?
What happens if a construction crew stumbles upon the remains of a tribal settlement after we have signed over land elsewhere? Do we sign that as well?

What exactly were the borders of any given tribe?

But if the Comanches are given the southern plains or money for them, do they have to give it to the Apaches from whom they stole the land?

And what of tribes that were completely wiped out, perhaps by disease, perhaps by crop failures. Cahokia comes to mind. The Cahokia settlements were completely abandoned when the first whites arrived there.

 

[vz71]

But if the Comanches are given the southern plains or money for them, do they have to give it to the Apaches from whom they stole the land?

And what do we do about all of the mixes that are possible.

If I am 1/4 Comanche, do I get a 1/4 the share in the winnings?

How about the double atrocity of the government coming and taking land again from an indian to give back to another tribe?

But the UN isn’t concerned with the logistics of an issue, only that they have spoken against the US.

I have a great idea…
Let’s give back the land the UN tower sits on.