Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes

Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes

Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.

I would agree that almost any other business would have been better, but my point is really that the casinos have done far more than the government "stewardship" for the tribes.

In most cases other businesses were/are too difficult to develop on reservation lands. It is a VERY mixed bag, as is the native allocations/impact of the Boldt (Bolt??/) decision, etc. I actually lived next to and went to school with "res kids" --- though we did not call them that or even really think of them in that way (they were more grouped, as was I with other "not well off" kids). Anyway, the casino there is providing nice houses, college educations and a good deal of local employment. When I was a kid, my brother's friend lived in an adobe hut with no running water, only well sources. (not a truly traditional home, just a cheap one) Today, everyone has full utilities and even a tract of rentals -- nice enough that some of the local (single) teachers rent.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes

Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.

I would agree that almost any other business would have been better, but my point is really that the casinos have done far more than the government "stewardship" for the tribes.

No, I think you misunderstand. In most cases (not all, certainly), the casinos do not benefit the majority of the Native Americans in any way at all and, in fact, provide precisely the wrong view of how to conduct oneself to reach success.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anyway, the casino there is providing nice houses, college educations and a good deal of local employment.

Casino employment is better than no job, but it is truly akin to working at any other minimum-wage job. In other words, it is NOT going to drag anyone into a good life.

keiths31 wrote:This part is very true. The reserve system that was negotiated back in the 1800s worked for the Native Canadians/Americans of the day because they still lived a 'traditional' lifestyle Today not so much. Remote fly-in reserves don't promote the 'traditional' way of life as so much they keep the citizens locked in a vicious cycle of poverty and abuse. Since they don't rely on trapping and hunting anymore, but are supported by the government, there is no sense of self worth in many communities. There is no reason for their community to actually be, except for their history.

No fucking way is this BS true. ALL indigenous people on every continent were screwed by the "civilized" cultures that "discovered" and claimed their lands as their own. The northeastern USA was occupied by hundreds of tribes when the English, French and Dutch began settlements and the southern USA was not much different. Creating Indian Reserves never once took into consideration the lifestyles of the displaced people they were intended to contain and in America few treaties were worth the paper they were written on.

Plains/Prairie native tribes didn't claim --or believe in-- ownership of "the land" at all and migrated with the seasons. If you investigate the Cherokees who lived in Kentucky, Alabama & Georgia you will discover they were actually a Sovereign Nation with well educated leaders. President Andrew Jackson defied a United States Supreme Court ruling recognizing this fact --that The Cherokee Nation was indeed a legitimate sovereign entity with it's own government and territorial borders-- and initiated the land grab, occupation and eviction of all indians from the region. Part of this history is the Trail of Tears where they were rounded up and marched off to Oklahoma.

Most American Indians died from European diseases, so there's that to consider.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:That said, the current system of "Reservations" or Native American "Nations" that exist within this nation (i.e. the USA), is untenable. The system DOES NOT SERVE people of native american descent. The system perpetuates poverty and a system of "second-class-citizen" for those who live within it.
It's time to end the system and for people of native american descent to integrate.

I grew up on a reservation in Nebraska (but within a town that had very few American Indians, interestingly enough). I agree with everything you've said here. Unfortunately, the greatest outcry against this will be from those Native Americans, I believe.

True, though ironically enough, casinos have now changed the dynamics quite a bit, as did some of the land sales, transfer of property to native corporations in Alaska.

Casinos may be a modern form of reparations.... but not really.

Some of the money may filter down to the people, but the majority is kept by the corporate partners and the head-honchos of the Tribe. The average Native American has to kiss butt or "play ball" to get a job or get any help.

It's more like Tammany Hall than anything else.

Ray Rider wrote:The history of the Eurpoean expansion into Native lands and their subsequent treatment of the Native peoples was brutal and shameful. Rez life ain't easy and there is much that requires change; I was born and lived on a reserve so I know first hand. But anyone who would claim a similarity between current rez life and slave labor camps, mass shootings, and wholesale extermination of millions in gas chambers is staggeringly ignorant.

I agree with the first part of your statement.

I don't disagree with the second part.

I don't compare modern rez life to slave labor and extermination.
I do compare it to a second-class citizenship and a perpetuation of poverty.

I believe modern people of native american heritage would better serve themselves and their children if the integrated and we did away with this ridiculous system. Just accept the FACT that this is the USA and you life here, and embrace that.

I'm not saying we should forget the past. I am saying we can't change history... so it's time to move on.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:We hear a lot about Israel's claim to the lands they occupy now,a position that is maintained chiefly because of US backing.Is this claim any more legitimate or not than the claims Native Americans have to the lands that were taken from them by the US?
Does Israel have more claim to their present borders than the Apache does to parts of Texas,or does it boil down to might is right?

Throughout history, the winner gets the spoils. The losers of wars and battles do not, and I doubt that will ever change.

Israel has more claim based on ability to uphold and maintain alone.

BULL.

Israel did not survive on its own. If the US and much of Europe had not supported and sustained Israel, it would not have done anywhere near as well. If Europe and the United States had not felt guilt, and if the impacted people had not been "brown people in robes", then its highly unlikely Israeli actions would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected.

I don't see how what I said has anything to do with getting help/not getting help

BigBallinStalin wrote:Most American Indians died from European diseases, so there's that to consider.

over 90%, wasn't it?

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Most American Indians died from European diseases, so there's that to consider.

over 90%, wasn't it?

That's unclear.

I've read a lot on this, and there is MUCH debate.

It appears that the percentage is very high, maybe 80-90% when you are talking about those points of first contact... like in Central America, and along the Eastern Coast of the US. It's unclear if this percentage remains that high as time went by and European migrated West. It's likely that the population was reduce, but these tribes had time to develop immunities and "rebuild" their populations.

oVo wrote:

keiths31 wrote:This part is very true. The reserve system that was negotiated back in the 1800s worked for the Native Canadians/Americans of the day because they still lived a 'traditional' lifestyle Today not so much. Remote fly-in reserves don't promote the 'traditional' way of life as so much they keep the citizens locked in a vicious cycle of poverty and abuse. Since they don't rely on trapping and hunting anymore, but are supported by the government, there is no sense of self worth in many communities. There is no reason for their community to actually be, except for their history.

No fucking way is this BS true. ALL indigenous people on every continent were screwed by the "civilized" cultures that "discovered" and claimed their lands as their own. The northeastern USA was occupied by hundreds of tribes when the English, French and Dutch began settlements and the southern USA was not much different. Creating Indian Reserves never once took into consideration the lifestyles of the displaced people they were intended to contain and in America few treaties were worth the paper they were written on.

Plains/Prairie native tribes didn't claim --or believe in-- ownership of "the land" at all and migrated with the seasons. If you investigate the Cherokees who lived in Kentucky, Alabama & Georgia you will discover they were actually a Sovereign Nation with well educated leaders. President Andrew Jackson defied a United States Supreme Court ruling recognizing this fact --that The Cherokee Nation was indeed a legitimate sovereign entity with it's own government and territorial borders-- and initiated the land grab, occupation and eviction of all indians from the region. Part of this history is the Trail of Tears where they were rounded up and marched off to Oklahoma.

I honestly don't know much about American History, not being American and all. Speaking from a Canadian point of view here. I do know that First Nations in Canada (my part anyway) have 'traditional' lands they claim as their own. Lands that they have been connected to for hundreds and hundreds of years. Lands they wish to occupy and create communities. No where in my post did I defend anything that 'civilized' cultures did to the Native population. I am very respectful of Native Canadian culture. My children's mother is Native Canadian and I encourage my children to be very proud of their First Nations roots.

That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?

Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?

It's about legitimacy. With land, there are legitimate title transfers (voluntary exchange), and there are illegitimate title transfers (those involving fraud and/or coercion--involuntary exchange).

BBS, you left out violence, lawlessness and brute force.

Euro-diseases did not wipe out 80-90% of Native Americans,
unless you are referencing lead poisoning. Small Pox was
introduced to tribes in the Dakotas with the worst of intent
and had devastating results.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?

It's about legitimacy. With land, there are legitimate title transfers (voluntary exchange), and there are illegitimate title transfers (those involving fraud and/or coercion--involuntary exchange).

on a national scale? Cuz it sounds like you are describing property in real estate terms. Like, what would a good example be for the Acheans vs. the Trojans? Like, what about before the time when language was invented to be even able to record or recognize a transfer of any kind

oVo wrote:BBS, you left out violence, lawlessness and brute force.

You can file those under:

"illegitimate title transfers" (Since violence and brute force involve coercion.)

Not sure if lawlessness matters with my argument. The rule of legitimate v. illegitimate title transfer is pretty clear.
(Of course, between a government and some governing group (tribe) the law doesn't matter too much if one can simply kill the other with no repercussions from some 3rd party.) I'm talking about 1v1 or group v. group transfers on property.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?

It's about legitimacy. With land, there are legitimate title transfers (voluntary exchange), and there are illegitimate title transfers (those involving fraud and/or coercion--involuntary exchange).

on a national scale? Cuz it sounds like you are describing property in real estate terms. Like, what would a good example be for the Acheans vs. the Trojans? Like, what about before the time when language was invented to be even able to record or recognize a transfer of any kind

If a tribe lays claim to X-amount of land, and some other organization (whether it's a national government, the IDF, the Hagunah, whatever) comes in and takes that land, then clearly that's an illegitimate title transfer. It's a violation of property rights. Pretty hard to refute that.

"or the Acheans vs. the Trojans?"

Well, ask yourself, "who owned what?" and "was the exchange voluntary or involuntary?" and go from there.

"language before time"

lolwut. There's property rights of persons, which hardly ever involved legitimate title transfers of ownership cuz it was slavery (which is an illegitimate title transfer).

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes

Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.

I would agree that almost any other business would have been better, but my point is really that the casinos have done far more than the government "stewardship" for the tribes.

No, I think you misunderstand. In most cases (not all, certainly), the casinos do not benefit the majority of the Native Americans in any way at all and, in fact, provide precisely the wrong view of how to conduct oneself to reach success.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anyway, the casino there is providing nice houses, college educations and a good deal of local employment.

Casino employment is better than no job, but it is truly akin to working at any other minimum-wage job. In other words, it is NOT going to drag anyone into a good life.

I don't disagree, my statement is more a reflection of how poorly some tribes have been treated in the past than a true endorsement of casinos. That said, when it has moved people forward, its not so much through direct employment as from a sharing of proceeds, but not all tribes have done that well or at all equally, and certainly not with other tribes.

Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?

It is quite complicated in all honesty. First Nations land claims are far from settled in Canada. For the most part treaties were signed with the First Nation communities that occupied the lands when they were negotiated.

Give the beach back to the lungfish.

jimboston wrote:That said, the current system of "Reservations" or Native American "Nations" that exist within this nation (i.e. the USA), is untenable. The system DOES NOT SERVE people of native american descent. The system perpetuates poverty and a system of "second-class-citizen" for those who live within it.

Interesting, and without knowing all that much I agree.

It's time to end the system and for people of native american descent to integrate.

Hah, that same little attitude was exactly what caused the aforementioned genocide.

The most morally/ethically correct solution, from my point of view, is to work with the Native American culture and treat them as they want to be treated (as according to their culture). Now obviously this is easier said than done as the leaders are not always accurate representatives of either the culture or the wider population so you need to invest a lot of time, money and effort if you want to get a morally superior outcome - naturally this is usually politically untenable, especially compared to the ease of simple forced integration...

Bear in mind I am speaking from a country that, while has terrible history and relations with the indigenous population, does have one of the better track records compared to other countries. Maori culture is very prominant in our society and we largely embrace it (not to say we dont have our fair share of racism etc.).

jonesthecurl wrote:Give the beach back to the lungfish.

That's just crazy talk.

Lootifer wrote: .

The most morally/ethically correct solution, from my point of view, is to work with the Native American culture and treat them as they want to be treated (as according to their culture). Now obviously this is easier said than done as the leaders are not always accurate representatives of either the culture or the wider population so you need to invest a lot of time, money and effort if you want to get a morally superior outcome - naturally this is usually politically untenable, especially compared to the ease of simple forced integration...

I fully agree, but therein lies the crux of just one problem. See, Native Americans are hardly unified on what constitutes the best moves.

Some have endorsed casinos, as an example. In many cases that has wound up a very bitter pill, bringing wealth to a few and making a travesty of any real cultural movements. Many want nothing more than to just "have what everyone else has", but more and more on many reservations see merely "becoming white" as more than just destroying their culture and turning their backs on their elders, but as giving up something extremely valuable that our current society needs. Although only a few truly want to go back and "live like the elders", a good many want to regain at least some of the major values, which are not necessarily at all the same as so-called "western" values.

On the other side, a lot of non Native American people who want to "be Indian" [fill in whatever tribe or just say Native American], falsely ideoloze and romanticize the lifestyle and values. NO culture stays the same, ever.

When you talk about the Native Americans (or natives of other areas, I am sure), you refer to a number of very diverse and not at all compatible ideas, values and beliefs. Many cultures are, of course already just gone.. with no members left, and perhaps not even real archeological evidence.

In other words, the problem is not even just what the political powers that be might want, its also even defining what each tribe, what each section of tribe, might want. And while I am a believer in the idea that all cultures bring some good, I am not sure even that all Native American cultures really should be equally endorsed. Its a complex mix. On the one hand, everyone has the right to their culture, but do we really want and need (just as an example) some of the more antagonistic values perpetuated more? I don't feel fit to judge, think that is something each society must judge. Yet, ignoring that is part of what I mean by folks who romanticize the Native American lifestyles.

And, then we have issues of resource allocation. In many cases, it is less culture and more about resources that cause the conflict.

Lootifer wrote:

jimboston wrote:That said, the current system of "Reservations" or Native American "Nations" that exist within this nation (i.e. the USA), is untenable. The system DOES NOT SERVE people of native american descent. The system perpetuates poverty and a system of "second-class-citizen" for those who live within it.

Interesting, and without knowing all that much I agree.

It's time to end the system and for people of native american descent to integrate.

Hah, that same little attitude was exactly what caused the aforementioned genocide.

The most morally/ethically correct solution, from my point of view, is to work with the Native American culture and treat them as they want to be treated (as according to their culture). Now obviously this is easier said than done as the leaders are not always accurate representatives of either the culture or the wider population so you need to invest a lot of time, money and effort if you want to get a morally superior outcome - naturally this is usually politically untenable, especially compared to the ease of simple forced integration...

Bear in mind I am speaking from a country that, while has terrible history and relations with the indigenous population, does have one of the better track records compared to other countries. Maori culture is very prominant in our society and we largely embrace it (not to say we dont have our fair share of racism etc.).

They can keep their culture... just like ever other ethnicity that integrates.

The continuation of the Reservation System is what needs to stop.

Haha, yes, because American culture is widely known for its ability to play well with others...