O
US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations
- Status
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Unfortunately there is no answer that does not include injustice to someone. And we always put $ in front of justice in these situations, anyway.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Artificially stacking the deck to favor any one group is wrong.
An injustice now will not fix an injustice done in the past.
The only thing I can see that could fix the past injustice is education and simply moving on.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Fair enough. Yep.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Wow.
I don’t know how much land we’re talking about but one thing to keep in mind. The U.S. government includes its assets (land, roads, gold, military strength, etc.) to back its currency, whether they admit to it or not. When they give away or return anything it will affect its currency and possibly cause an economic collapse. Just saying.
But as long as we’re talking about the United Nations here, maybe they should look into the U.K. returning land confiscated by Henry VIII back to the Catholic Church.
I don’t know how much land we’re talking about but one thing to keep in mind. The U.S. government includes its assets (land, roads, gold, military strength, etc.) to back its currency, whether they admit to it or not. When they give away or return anything it will affect its currency and possibly cause an economic collapse. Just saying.
But as long as we’re talking about the United Nations here, maybe they should look into the U.K. returning land confiscated by Henry VIII back to the Catholic Church.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
:yup:
:clapping:
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I DO wonder, though, why the Church has not pursued that option, though, Carnelian.
The Almighty knows Holy Mother Church has a legitimate “claim.”
Anyway------------------off the topic thread, ultimately.
:thumbsup:
The Almighty knows Holy Mother Church has a legitimate “claim.”
Anyway------------------off the topic thread, ultimately.
:thumbsup:
T
TC2
Guest
This is missing something.
Add Australia, Canada, and Africa (to name a few) along with the US and they might be getting the right idea. The US is not alone in this, and shouldn’t be held as such.
Add Australia, Canada, and Africa (to name a few) along with the US and they might be getting the right idea. The US is not alone in this, and shouldn’t be held as such.
J
JRKH
Guest
I wasn’t going to get involved in this discussion but based on some of the comments already I thought I’d jump in…
This matter is extremely complicated with many issues interrelated…some already addressed.
There is nothing that can be done about the distant past. It was normal and natural in those days, on BOTH sides of the Atlantic to make war on one’s neighbor. The American Indian Peoples (AIP) were at a disadvantage when the Europeans arrived for a number of reasons. Two biggies were - they had no “guns” and they were susceptible to some pretty horrific diseases. Of course Europe did not get off scot free on this matter - IIRC Europeans took a venereal disease back with them…Anyway - disease probably counted the most for apparently sparse populations as the English began arriving in the current US.
Once the Europeans were established ashore…something that seems to not have particularly alarmed the east coast natives at first…there followed the inevitable clash of cultures accompanied by the continuing influx of more “whites” which brought more clashes and conflicts…Again - this was just normal operating procedure in much of the world at that time. The AIP would fight among themselves, would ally with the British or the French or whatever else seemed to their particular advantage.
Long story short though…the AIP lost the various wars and were pushed off much of the land that had previously been theirs.
I’m not justifying - I just saying - that this is how is was. Trying to turn back the clock or “give back land” is, in most cases, not a viable option.
One Idea I had was that the AIP as a composite group, could pool monies that are coming in from the casinos and other reservation businesses and begin purchasing property and businesses in a given state. Little by little as properties become available they are purchased and American Indian peoples come in and live on, farm run businesses etc in these areas. Heck there are a lot of struggling small towns in rural areas that could be acquired nearly in toto. As the AIP population grows in that area, the greater political influence they have in that area as well as at the state level as well as influence in the election of the federal delegation.
Nobody “gives away” anything. Nobody is forced out of anywhere. New population centers and commerce are created. Win-win…
Probably wouldn’t work though…but it’s an idea…
Peace
James
This matter is extremely complicated with many issues interrelated…some already addressed.
There is nothing that can be done about the distant past. It was normal and natural in those days, on BOTH sides of the Atlantic to make war on one’s neighbor. The American Indian Peoples (AIP) were at a disadvantage when the Europeans arrived for a number of reasons. Two biggies were - they had no “guns” and they were susceptible to some pretty horrific diseases. Of course Europe did not get off scot free on this matter - IIRC Europeans took a venereal disease back with them…Anyway - disease probably counted the most for apparently sparse populations as the English began arriving in the current US.
Once the Europeans were established ashore…something that seems to not have particularly alarmed the east coast natives at first…there followed the inevitable clash of cultures accompanied by the continuing influx of more “whites” which brought more clashes and conflicts…Again - this was just normal operating procedure in much of the world at that time. The AIP would fight among themselves, would ally with the British or the French or whatever else seemed to their particular advantage.
Long story short though…the AIP lost the various wars and were pushed off much of the land that had previously been theirs.
I’m not justifying - I just saying - that this is how is was. Trying to turn back the clock or “give back land” is, in most cases, not a viable option.
One Idea I had was that the AIP as a composite group, could pool monies that are coming in from the casinos and other reservation businesses and begin purchasing property and businesses in a given state. Little by little as properties become available they are purchased and American Indian peoples come in and live on, farm run businesses etc in these areas. Heck there are a lot of struggling small towns in rural areas that could be acquired nearly in toto. As the AIP population grows in that area, the greater political influence they have in that area as well as at the state level as well as influence in the election of the federal delegation.
Nobody “gives away” anything. Nobody is forced out of anywhere. New population centers and commerce are created. Win-win…
Probably wouldn’t work though…but it’s an idea…
Peace
James
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
Agree with these…I did not take land from anyone, nor did my parents or my Grandparents. The deed was already done.
At the present time I am just as much a “Native American” as an American Indian is. Born and raised here.
Peace
James
Y
yellowantphil
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
You wouldn’t have to move unless you chose to.If that happens, I nominate Oklahoma. I guess that means I would have to move.
You know it’s funny you should say that because it was the State I thought of too…I even had it suggested in my post, but decided to take it out…
Any other states that seem like a good fit to be “bought out” by the American Indians?
Peace
James
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I graduated from Lawton High School in Lawton, OK, in 1989.If that happens, I nominate Oklahoma. I guess that means I would have to move.
Go Wolverines!!!
LOL.
Great memories of that town and state.
Indeed.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Well, that was what Oklahoma was meant for. 
Going further back, that was what the entire Louisiana purchase was meant for. 
promises promises.
What I do know is that people should not be made to suffer for the sins of their ancestors. All of our ancestors sinned, and all of them suffered. That is why I think the parklands idea is workable.
Going further back, that was what the entire Louisiana purchase was meant for. promises promises.What I do know is that people should not be made to suffer for the sins of their ancestors. All of our ancestors sinned, and all of them suffered. That is why I think the parklands idea is workable.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Fair enough.Well, that was what Oklahoma was meant for.
What I do know is that people should not be made to suffer for the sins of their ancestors. All of our ancestors sinned, and all of them suffered. That is why I think the parklands idea is workable.
J
JRKH
Guest
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.Well, that was what Oklahoma was meant for.
Amen to that.
How do you see this working?
Peace
James
B
Brendan
Guest
In which case, I’ll wait for the UN resolution that gives Egypt back to the Copts and Turkey back to the Greeks.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Right.
A family member of mine has a piece of property next to Glacier National Park. To get there you have to go through the park, or a reservation. The reservation is a mess. The national park, is beautiful.
Aside from which, wildfires are the forest management practice of their ancestors. They only present a threat to sedentary civilizations like our own. Except now the Indians are sedentary, so so much for that.
- Status