Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
There are some dangerous words in your post. I think it is all a great idea in principle but dangerous none the less.
The argument has been made that the reserve land is for all band members including future members. If you allow ownership by individuals then you allow them the ability to sell it. If you allow it to be used as collateral then you open up the possibility that said collateral will be collected. It is possible that entire bands could be purchased by mining companies leaving the band spread out and essentially non-existent.
It was a long time ago, but at least one state had a policy to loan natives as much money as they asked for against the value of their property. Once they were sufficiently indebted they called in the loans and took the land.
|
I would argue that in most cases detaching natives from their land is probably neccersary for them to grow, the migration from rural to urban has been a neccersary reality for the rest of us for 400 years.
I would argue that on some level you have to trust natives to do whatever they want with their land anyway, I can screw up my kids inheritance if I want, why should we either assume that natives will screw up or deny them the ability to. I would also argue ownership is the only way non natives will be persuaded to invest in native areas.
Personally I think treaty rights should be made individual and portable so natives can persue their dreams and aspirations anywhere in the country, not be finacially chained to some crap hole in the middle of nowhere