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

[Jerusha]

Maybe the lesson should be-- US, look at your own injustices, before you start attacking other countries on the basis of assumed injustice.

 

[He_Man]

Maybe the lesson should be-- US, look at your own injustices, before you start attacking other countries on the basis of assumed injustice.

Yes, I am sure the intent of the UN speaking was to impart a moral lesson…

Or are you saying that because it has been shown in this topic how insane the request was?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

We took those fair and square.

Seriously--------most Indian tribes were nomadic anyway. They did not have “towns” on those lands. They hunted and kived in them, but they did’n’t “own” them . And many of them stole THOSE lands from other tribes in the numerous pre-white and post white wars they engaged in which you never hear about in “politically correct” textbooks.
Theodore Roosevelt basically said the same thing over a hundred years ago.

And also remember---------as Louis L’Amour commented years ago in an interview----there was unnecessary cruelty and injustice on BOTH sides.

Just saying.

Yep.

It’s true.

Woodland tribes had established settlements. They grew crops and had a form of government. I would offer the Iroquois, (savages, who got what they deserved in the end) as an example.

netplaces.com/american-revolution/the-war-on-the-frontier/sullivans-expedition-against-the-iroquois.htm

It’s important to remember, this was about conquest. The Indians held sway, and waged war on their neighbors, for centuries. Until a stronger, more organised people, showed up. That’s the way of this world.

 

[wisecath]

Maybe the lesson should be-- US, look at your own injustices …

You write as if it’s 1812, when American Indians have for a long time = chances to succeed as all Americans & to repeat, the legal system is there to deal with injustices such as discrimination when it does happen. American Indians don’t have to live on reservations-they can live anywhere they want to, so the topic is long a moot point. Again, American Indians in history were proud winners with ‘might makes right’ & winner takes all attitude when they won land from other Indian tribes by wars but were sore losers when they lost to the Whites who just did a better job than what the American Indians. But that is history. If an American Indian today got discriminated against when it comes to getting job, etc., then yes, the legal system must resolve that. If an American Indian got more punishment than a White for committing the same crime, then that is wrong & must be resolved. But it’s useless to complain about what happened in the 1800s, right or wrong. Slavery was wrong, but that was abolished in the U.S. in 1865 & it’s useless to complain about that today because Blacks are no longer being enslaved. Once something is resolved & no longer happening, then it’s useless to complain about it as it’s past.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You write as if it’s 1812, when American Indians have for a long time = chances to succeed as all Americans & to repeat, the legal system is there to deal with injustices such as discrimination when it does happen. American Indians don’t have to live on reservations-they can live anywhere they want to, so the topic is long a moot point. Again, American Indians in history were proud winners with ‘might makes right’ & winner takes all attitude when they won land from other Indian tribes by wars but were sore losers when they lost to the Whites who just did a better job than what the American Indians. But that is history. If an American Indian today got discriminated against when it comes to getting job, etc., then yes, the legal system must resolve that. If an American Indian got more punishment than a White for committing the same crime, then that is wrong & must be resolved. But it’s useless to complain about what happened in the 1800s, right or wrong. Slavery was wrong, but that was abolished in the U.S. in 1865 & it’s useless to complain about that today because Blacks are no longer being enslaved. Once something is resolved & no longer happening, then it’s useless to complain about it as it’s past.

Go will still require you to suffer temporal punishment for sins you commit, even if you confess, do penance, and are absolved. Noone is above God’s justice.

 

[bearer]

In light of the fact that the US is a sovereign state, and that the Westphalian system still stands around the world, the UN’s opinion in this matter is irrelevant.

Further, the US won the wars against the Indians. We settled, they fought us, and we won. This matter was settled long ago, and as a result, both the US and American Indian tribes have their own sovereign lands.

Besides, if every nation in the world ‘gave back’ lands it had taken from others, there would be no countries. Anaya might as well live on Mars considering how far out there he is.

 

[Julia_Mae]

When they give away or return anything it will affect its currency and possibly cause an economic collapse. Just saying…

As opposed to the corrupt Wall Street system we have now causing economic collapse? Or the money we’ve lent out and never expect to get returned? Or the banks, who control the money supply (NOT the US government) taking 40% of the money out of circulation?

 

[TEPO]

Yes, I am sure the intent of the UN speaking was to impart a moral lesson…

Or are you saying that because it has been shown in this topic how insane the request was?

I disagree. The intent was to plant and fertilize a seed… Now let’s see if it can grow…

 

[Julia_Mae]

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.

An excellent overview, James. I have no idea what the issues are with Eastern tribes, but coming from the West, it isn’t lands lost in wars that the Native Americans want returned, it is lands the US Government granted them by treaty. That is, we just ignored our legal contracts because we had the power to do so. They want the Government (in the cases I am familiar with) to just uphold their own law.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

An excellent overview, James. I have no idea what the issues are with Eastern tribes, but coming from the West, it isn’t lands lost in wars that the Native Americans want returned, it is lands the US Government granted them by treaty. That is, we just ignored our legal contracts because we had the power to do so. They want the Government (in the cases I am familiar with) to just uphold their own law.

Yes. The Treaty of Fort Laramie has been violated numerous times, generally, whenever anyone trespassed on reservation lands and found something of value. If the federal government cannot resect its own laws and contracts, how can it expect us to? Oh, that’s right, they have the big guns and we don’t. And people still have the gumpshun to call this the land of the free.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Aside from which, wildfires are the forest management practice of their ancestors…

No. The practice among tribes in forested regions of North America was to set fires in a controlled way every year. The dead wood and sn mall trees burned off, this fed the forests which were populated by giant and ancient trees which had incredibly think (fire-resistant) bark as a result of being exposed to the repeated burns. It was parklike. The aboriginal people planted “crops” in the forest, in areas where they knew the sun reached the section, small plots of beans and corn (combined complete proteins that dry and store over the winter.)

The Europeans showed up, took one look at the wood and cleared the land ($>virtue) and planted crops in rows. This is the Eastern forest initially.

I can tell the whole story moving west.

If you find parks nicer, (they are kept by tax dollars) and “reservations” are ugly (in poverty) you simply describe the continuing shame of America.

The horrendous fires we see in the West, and from Colorado I know rather a lot about them, never happened in these ancient forests. Our forests are choked with deadwood and spindly new growth. Our forest management policies have been tourist-driven, (read $-driven), “modern” and ignorant.

 

[gilliam]

No. The practice among tribes in forested regions of North America was to set fires in a controlled way every year. The dead wood and sn mall trees burned off, this fed the forests which were populated by giant and ancient trees which had incredibly think (fire-resistant) bark as a result of being exposed to the repeated burns. It was parklike. The aboriginal people planted “crops” in the forest, in areas where they knew the sun reached the section, small plots of beans and corn (combined complete proteins that dry and store over the winter.)

There were very few “control burns” in ages prior to the invention of earth moving equipment. The Native Americans caused a lot of destruction by using fire as a method to scare animals into canyons and other places so they could hunt them. And the attempt to burn down forests to provide more cultivated land to grow maze, etc. Yes, they tried to avoid catastrophic fires, and there is evidence they avoided areas that may yield to catastrophic fires, however there is plenty of evidence of wide spread destruction of forested areas.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire

 

[AthenaC]

I’m a bit late to this thread, but I did read it. I noticed something - everyone is talking about native populations specific to the lower 48. No one has yet brought up Alaska.

So that’s why I’m here. Google “Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.”

Basically, the federal government cherrypicked the land they wanted as national parks and wildlife refuges first. The remaining land they divided according to socio-economic groups, deemed them to be corporations, and gave them some cash to kick off their operations. For the land that each corporation was granted, they have rights to harvest (or contract with others to harvest) surface and subsurface natural resources. There are some provisions about sharing revenue with sister corporations, but the overall operating philosophy is basically to use the money they earn for the care and betterment of the native populations, who are the shareholders of these corporations. In my experience (and observation of the inner workings), these corporations actually do seem to keep the best interests of their shareholders (and Alaska natives as a whole) as their first priority. Villagers from the Alaska bush are board members; contrast that to the typical personalities of corporate board members.

These entities are locally known as “Native corporations.” Now, it’s worth pointing out that there is a LOT of state and federal money currently subsidizing life in the villages through various social programs, and the Native corps have minority preference when they bid for government contracts. And because of a culture clash between the Alaska natives and Western accounting / reporting values, some of the financial and business judgment is … questionable … from our standards. But, overall, I think this scenario is FAR closer to what could be considered “social justice” as far as the native populations are concerned than anything I have seen in the 48.

P.S. Oh! One other thing - because the Native corps all set aside money for college scholarships for shareholders, you meet a lot of Native villagers if you go to college in Alaska, particularly Fairbanks. When I was in college it was absolutely eye-opening to meet people from literally all over the state and really see their culture and child-raising methods up close.

 

[Gift_from_God]

It’s just one investigator saying this, and he’s advocating some land be given back

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

What does this have to do with secularism?

Don’t forget the UN brought us the UDHR, it’s a pretty relevant document

 

[Jerry_Miah]

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.

The truth?

Can anyone say genocide?

It’s not “political correctness”, it’s respecting basic human dignity. Let’s try your statement out with some other moments in history:

*I myself said (as heartless as it might seem, and "politically incorrect) that maybe God intended the outcome of the Holocaust to come out the way it did.

or

"I myself said (as heartless as it might seem, and “politically incorrect) that maybe God intended the outcome of the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11 to come out the way it did.”*

Still hold to this way of thinking? Or is it only Native Americans that God “intended” to let die?

 

[wisecath]

Yes. The Treaty of Fort Laramie has been violated numerous times, generally, whenever anyone trespassed on reservation lands and found something of value. If the federal government cannot resect its own laws and contracts, how can it expect us to? Oh, that’s right, they have the big guns and we don’t. And people still have the gumpshun to call this the land of the free.

& the American Indians such as Aztecs, Incas & Mayans had human sacrifices. American Indians had slavery, scalpings, killing eachother with tomahawks, kidnapping women to make their wives & when they to repeat wanted land, took it from another tribe by wars. Doesn’t seem that you or other posters sympathetic to American Indians have a problem when American Indians did this Fact again is that most land in the Americas was uninhabited, so most land was not taken from any1 other than the plants & animals who lived there. American Indians were not noble savages. They to repeat were proud winners with winner takes all attitude when they won the wars from other tribes but became sore losers when they lost the wars to the Whites (poster is not White). It seems that the posters sympathetic to American Indians have the sore loser attitude.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

& the American Indians such as Aztecs, Incas & Mayans had human sacrifices. American Indians had slavery, scalpings, killing eachother with tomahawks, kidnapping women to make their wives & when they to repeat wanted land, took it from another tribe by wars. Doesn’t seem that you or other posters sympathetic to American Indians have a problem when American Indians did this Fact again is that most land in the Americas was uninhabited, so most land was not taken from any1 other than the plants & animals who lived there. American Indians were not noble savages. They to repeat were proud winners with winner takes all attitude when they won the wars from other tribes but became sore losers when they lost the wars to the Whites (poster is not White). It seems that the posters sympathetic to American Indians have the sore loser attitude.

As opposed to the morally superior European Christians who drove the heathen pagans off their traditional lands, killed them if they resisted, and force converted the rest.

Oh, and THEN began importing their own slaves from Africa, Ireland, and Scotland.

 

[wisecath]

As opposed to the morally superior European Christians who drove the heathen pagans off their traditional lands, killed them if they resisted, and force converted the rest. Oh, and THEN began importing their own slaves from Africa, Ireland, and Scotland.

With the last paragraph, slavery was wrong but @ that time it was worldwide. Africans enslaved other Africans & sold them to Whites. Chinese had slavery. American Indians had slavery. Not right, but that was worldwide back then. This poster again is not European, but pointing out that the Europeans did not do anything different as it relates to slavery.

With 1st paragraph, American Indians are better off & have more chances because of the Catholics. But if you care so much about taken land, then move out & give your house to the American Indians (assuming you’re not 100% American Indian), otherwise stop complaining, because your complaint is contradiction in that you have no problem with land grabbing when the American Indians did it to eachother… Don’t defend all the Catholics did but what the Catholics did to the American Indians was the lesser of 2 bads. Better the results turned out the way they did or else human sacrifices the Aztecs, Incas & Mayans had would’ve continued for much longer. Maybe you think human sacrifice, scalpings & killing eachother for land as the American Indians did is acceptable conduct, but not most of us. Maybe you think the American Indians who are Catholics are sellouts but those American Indians understand that American Indians are not the noble savages they’re sold out to be. How much of the land was their traditional land is debatable because which tribe had the land first It’s as Ridgerunner said, an eg. would be 1 Indian tribe has land, they get killed or driven out by the Apaches & then the Apaches get killed or driven out by the Comanches, after which Comanches lose land in war to Europeans & then the Comanches complain about how ‘traditional land was taken’ when the that land was taken from the Apaches by force who before then took it from another tribe by force.

 

[Holly3278]

Sometimes I think the UN is just plain crazy. No, we never should have stolen their land to begin with. Instead, we should have bought or traded for it. However, it has already happened and giving them all of their land back would cause more problems than it would solve.

 

[wisecath]

True but it’s relevant to the American Indian topic in debunking the Noble Savage myth people such as Scott LaFrance keeps promoting.

Sometimes I think the UN is just plain crazy. No, we never should have stolen their land to begin with. Instead, we should have bought or traded for it. However, it has already happened and giving them all of their land back would cause more problems than it would solve.

But again, most of the land was not stolen as it was uninhabited except for animals & plants who lived there. This is repeat, but it’s long a moot point as the American Indians can already live in those lands & more. To repeat, when American Indians wanted land, they took it from another Indian tribe by wars & proudly said ‘winner takes all’ but when the American Indians lost the war, then they complained about ‘stolen land’ when to repeat, the American Indians often stole land from other tribes. American Indians are being sore losers when they complain about stolen land because they had no problem with taking land from others as long as they won.