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

[JRKH]

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.

Yes. I understand this and is a large part of the reason that I said in my first post that the idea would not likely be workable - each tribe would wish to purchase property in different parts of the country.

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.

So - I don’t understand. Is it your idea that the parks be turned over to the Indians as tribal lands to be used as they see fit, or that the lands be turned over to the Indians for the purpose of the Indians maintaining them as national parks?

Peace
James

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes. I understand this and is a large part of the reason that I said in my first post that the idea would not likely be workable - each tribe would wish to purchase property in different parts of the country.

So - I don’t understand. Is it your idea that the parks be turned over to the Indians as tribal lands to be used as they see fit, or that the lands be turned over to the Indians for the purpose of the Indians maintaining them as national parks?

Peace
James

Turn the national park lands over to the Native Americans to do with as they see fit.

 

[Jerusha]

The epidemics may have reduced the Native population by as much as 90%. Heavily populated areas were probably hit hardest. The very first Spanish explorers in what became the United States noted that the South, and the Mississippi river valley were heavily populated. Of course, they were unaware that they carried diseases which would kill off many, many more than they killed directly. The City of Cahokia was probably mostly abandoned by this time. They had probably exhausted the natural resources in the area, and were thus vulnerable to drought. They could only exist as a trade center. Highly developed industrialization was, of course, not an option.

With the population reduction as a result of the epidemics, refugees from the East filled those areas quickly. Later, as more refugees fled West, tribes would naturally have conflicts with each other.

The Great Plains also were not heavily populated until they developed horsemanship skills to be able to hunt the buffalo better. By the time the white man came, he had a simple solution for the Native population-- kill off the buffalo and starve the Natives.

I suspect some participants on this thread are totally overstating the proposed solution and presenting bizarre roadblocks to a modest solution simply because of hard-core racism. Perhaps they might want to take a look at the link in my signature.

 

[He_Man]

The news article we are discussing is about the US, so it seems reasonable that our discussion focuses on the US. Is there a similar situation in another country which you want to talk about?

Just all of the ones where people came from one plot of land and took another, in the last million years or so.

 

[He_Man]

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.

I dont’ disagree, and I have often said Native Americans have been tearted worse than any other demographic in our country’s history. I was just responding to the poster who claimed we stolle something, but followed up with them not owning it to begin with.

I wonder why the US is singled out when this has gone on throughout history almost everywhere? I don’t disagree with the sympathy, but it needs to be directed at every country that had one group take land that was being used by another, ever.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wonder why the US is singled out when this has gone on throughout history almost everywhere? I don’t disagree with the sympathy, but it needs to be directed at every country that had one group take land that was being used by another, ever.

Yep, there were the Dorians and the Mycenean Greeks, the Arabs and the Greeks, Hamitic Egyptians, Moors, etc. There were the Slavs into Poland, the French into Alsace-Lorraine, Lombards into Italy, Celts into Ireland, Han Chinese into Tibet and the Uigyur areas, Russians into the Russian Far East, the Spanish all over the place, on and on.

But think about the positive side of this. Does it mean the UN has to vacate and leave New York City? Possibly it should be the first to leave as an example to the rest of us?

 

[He_Man]

Yep, there were the Dorians and the Mycenean Greeks, the Arabs and the Greeks, Hamitic Egyptians, Moors, etc. There were the Slavs into Poland, the French into Alsace-Lorraine, Lombards into Italy, Celts into Ireland, Han Chinese into Tibet and the Uigyur areas, Russians into the Russian Far East, the Spanish all over the place, on and on.

But think about the positive side of this. Does it mean the UN has to vacate and leave New York City? Possibly it should be the first to leave as an example to the rest of us?

That’s my point. You listed a handful off the cuff. A comprehensive list would remapt the entire world. Fine by me, as long as everyone participates. Somehow, I doubt the UN cares much though.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

History has long demonstrated that power conquers until another power conquers them. The “natives” in North America never were the noble creatures that some would say they were…at least in the Eastern US.

They would establish villages…exhaust the local flora and fauna…and then move on. These same tribes/nations, were far behind the Bronze Age inhabitants of the British Isles in the same time frame.

Unfortunately, these people were ripe for conquest…which is exactly what happened.

BTW, before anyone assails me on this, consider that the Erie Indians are long gone at the hands of the Seneca Nation…and, I have actually explored their sites as an archaeologist/historian.

You can’t return what was never owned.

John

I’m back folks…been catching up on the comments.

I tend to agree with you. I myself said (as heartless as it might seem, and "politically incorrect) that maybe God intended the outcome of the Indian vs. White man struggle to come out the way it did.

And yes------they were mostly nomads-they used the lands themselves and then moved on. They also conwuered their own peoples and destroyed tribes—even after the white man came. They also committed just as many unneccessary cruelties and injustices as the white man did.

Sorry------

But that is the truth.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

That is exactly the point: how far back does one go for justice? Perhaps the Israelis should have to give their land back to the Canaanites in order for justice to be ultimately served.

And then there’s the issue with who does one give their land back to? Do they accomplish genetic testing? I’m part aboriginal (Cherokee). Do they slice off my right leg and leave it here and then forcibly relocate the remainder of my body? But then to where? (Send a hand to Africa…send my small intestines to Germany, but my spleen belongs to France? And my right ear to Ireland?) And then who is dispossessed in my old countries so that my rightful property rights are restored there?

It gets to the point of being silly after a while.

So true.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Mind stating why? As you probably read there are a lot of reasons why returning land would just cause more division among the nation and other problems.

As for me, “To the victor goes the spoils” it’s unfortunate that native american tribes were geographically handicapped compared to the Old World civilizations, but nevertheless they were conquered by the United States and had little power to resist the US’s desire for their lands.

Next you’ll know they’ll be shouting that Mexico deserves to get the land they lost in the Mexican-American War, heck why stop there the USA should return to being a colony of the UK how dare we steal the land the British colonized!

We might as well have the Church give back the land and property that was “stolen” from the Knights Templar.

And YES, descendants of Templar families HAVE sued in court for restoration of lands and property “taken” by the Church in 1307 (?) from the Templars.

Now that The Da Vinci Code revived instrest in the Templars, there has been a renewal of interest in the “innocence” of, and “injustice” towards, the Templars.

The descendants say that, since they have have waited for centuries for the Templar names to be “cleared,” then they are willing to wait centuries more for financial and propertial justice and restitution.

Who knows.

 

[gus]

Parts of Arizona?

LOL.

LOL.

Half of Arizona is already reservation
You can tell by the casinos

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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?

Heck, even Native Americans are originally not from here. They came over on the “land bridge” connecting Asia and North America thousands of years ago.

Technically, they are not really “Native.”

Beats me.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

Good post.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

Question-----I asked this before----

What about Great Tribe Nations in the Northeast which had their own type of “proto-government” years before we had?

Did they have “land rights?”

Just thought you would probably know.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

Exactly-------
Also--------what about the black slaves that were owned by Native Americans for decades and decades?

Do we track down the descendants of all those slaves and give THEM soem reparation?

Something you don’t read about in textbooks today, BTW.

 

[Armyvet007]

Dear UN,

Get China out of Tibet, then we’ll talk.

 

[wisecath]

But for the most part, land was not taken from American Indians. Most of the land was uninhabited except for the plants & animals who lived there. But this topic is complex & complicated. For 1 thing, American Indians for the most part lived like street gangs. Each tribe had their own land. When an American Indian tribe wanted land, they took it from another Indian tribe by wars-using tomahaws, bows & arrows, flints & obsidian knives. When this happened, American Indians were proud winners with the view of winner take all. Spaniards treated Amerindians better to @ worst no differently than the way the Amerindians treated eachother. Difference between the Amerindians & the Europeans is that the Europeans did a better job than the American Indians when it came to ‘might makes right.’

American Indians were proud winners when they used ‘might makes right’ in winning wars to get land from other American Indian tribes, but became ‘sore losers’ when they lost the wars in the Americas. Simply put, Tribe A wages wars against Tribes B, C & D, kills them or drives them out for their own land. Indian Tribe A becomes proud & says ‘winner takes all’ for the land they won from B, C, etc. Later Tribe A loses war to Whites & then becomes sore loser by saying ‘land grab’ & how land was stolen from them, though most of the land they had was won from their wars with other tribes.

What’s history is history. American Indians for a long time have the same rights as every1 else has to succeed. If an American Indian today is discriminated against when it comes to jobs such as if an American Indian who has the mind to become an engineer is disriminated against when it comes to getting this job, then that is wrong & must be resolved. If an American Indian is a crime victim or commits a crime & they’re unfairly treated by legal system, then that is wrong & must be resolved. But right or wrong, it’s useless to complain about what happened so long ago. American Indians can live anywhere they want to in America, including in places where they were evicted. They today have the same chance as other Americans to succeed & if discrimination happens, the legal system is there to right that. But they need to stop complaining about what happened to long ago, esp. when again, they had no problem with ‘might makes right’ when they won land wars against other American Indian tribes, but complained when they lost the land wars when the fact is that the Whites (this poster is non-White) did the same thing the American Indians did in fighting for land only that the Whites did a better job. Here’s a writing by John T. Reed who is part Cherokee & who says American Indians have no right to complain. There is a profanity in the link but what he says is educational johntreed.com/headline/2010/11/24/did-whites-steal-natve-american-land/

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I don’t understand this thread.

No matter what the UN suggests, the United States isn’t going to return land to the Indians, and it seems to me to be an utter waste of one’s time to even engage in speculation about the possibility. It ain’t gonna happen, sorry.

 

[gamewell45]

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.

Plain and simple its not going to happen. Its part of the truth of our existence and its inconceivable that any American would take that request seriously.

 

[SamH]

Plain and simple its not going to happen. Its part of the truth of our existence and its inconceivable that any American would take that request seriously.

Agreed.

The fact that the UN would even make the request shows their disconnect from reality. The fact that the US belongs to such a body shows how foolish it is.