Sorry for exploiting your land and letting you live in poverty. Here's a $1000.

[rubecube]

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/30/166185...tlement-checks

Federal officials are working to send out $1,000 checks in the next few weeks to hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. The money stems from a settlement of the Cobell case, a landmark $3.4 billion settlement over mismanagement of federal lands held in trust for Native American people.

The case was brought by Elouise Cobell, a member of Montana's Blackfeet Tribe, and four other Native Americans in 1996.

On South Dakota's Native American reservations, reactions are mixed. The checks will help Native Americans deal with the challenges of intense poverty during the cold winter months, but some say the government is still shortchanging those who were cheated out of royalties for decades.

I have a lot of issues with the reserve system in Canada, and some of the treaty rights that have extended long past their best before dates, but Native Americans in the United States have been getting the shaft for about 500 years now. This is another slap in the face, IMO.

[Komskies]

Assimilate or gtfo.

[St. Pats]

No kidding. If you have a time machine then go back and complain. I didn't massacre you or anyone else and NO you can't have my money. There is the ability for everyone to get an education and make something out of their lives. Quit asking for those of us around who aren't in some minority to give you our hard earned cash.

I'm so sick of these people. Just screw off.

[saskflames69]

We cool.

[GP_Matt]

Did anyone actually read the story? I admit I didn't read your link, but have been following the case a bit.

The US government has been holding the land in trust for the Natives. It is their land and the government was leasing it out and selling mineral rights without compensating the landowners (Natives). This has nothing to do with long past massacres, handouts or anything else.
This settlement didn't even include an accounting of how much money was collected by the government. The government decided it was better to pay out 3.4 billion than to calculate how much money they had stolen.

[GP_Matt]

This case is rooted in the fact that land owned by tribal residents isn't theirs alone — Native American lands are held in trust by the federal government. So any royalties — from, say, an oil well, gold mine or even livestock grazing — are managed by the government. But for more than a century, Washington wasn't paying Native Americans the money they were owed.

From the story posted.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

The US government has been holding the land in trust for the Natives. It is their land and the government was leasing it out and selling mineral rights without compensating the landowners (Natives). This has nothing to do with long past massacres, handouts or anything else.

Precisely. This is actually a compensation issue for lost profits not some big reparations payment.

[puckluck2]

This is pretty pathetic on America's part, which isn't surprising. They not only condone the theft of land overseas, they also steal it themselves in their own country and treat the rightful land owners like crap.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Did anyone actually read the story? I admit I didn't read your link, but have been following the case a bit.

The US government has been holding the land in trust for the Natives. It is their land and the government was leasing it out and selling mineral rights without compensating the landowners (Natives). This has nothing to do with long past massacres, handouts or anything else.
This settlement didn't even include an accounting of how much money was collected by the government. The government decided it was better to pay out 3.4 billion than to calculate how much money they had stolen.

Agreed, it's not directly related, but is this going to be a precdent? How much land was "appropriated" from natives and exploited by those who did commit mass atrocities?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Agreed, it's not directly related, but is this going to be a precdent? How much land was "appropriated" from natives and exploited by those who did commit mass atrocities?

How would it be a precedent? It's about land that was being held in trust and the proper functioning of the trustee in that situation, not about whether natives have a right to reparations for land claims in general.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Komskies

Assimilate or gtfo.

This is such an ignorant statement, I almost didn't want to touch it, but here goes.

If we are proponents of social contract theory and inheritance, then we don't get to pick and choose which parts we want to inherit. Your country either has a social contract, wherein everyone is equal or (in the American/Lockeian tradition) provided with equal opportunity. Native Americans, as a people have been denied any sort of equal opportunity and, in fact, have been disproportianately disadvantaged for 500 years, and they're now expected to seemlessly integrate with the rest of society?

Also, how do you address assimilation in a society that puts a high priority on nationalism? This is a worldwide pheonemon.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

How would it be a precedent? It's about land that was being held in trust and the proper functioning of the trustee in that situation, not about whether natives have a right to reparations for land claims in general.

I was speaking more on the idea of a moral precedent as opposed to a legal one.

[Coys1882]

They didn't 'steal' the land - they did what EVERY civilization has done before it by taking it. The only thing they did different is pretend they hadn't. It's US land - they won it - quit pretending otherwise.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I was speaking more on the idea of a moral precedent as opposed to a legal one.

In terms of altering the viewpoint of people or shifting the general moral compass on the issue I wouldn't expect to see an impact. There is a relatively insignificant event in that conversation.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

In terms of altering the viewpoint of people or shifting the general moral compass on the issue I wouldn't expect to see an impact. There is a relatively insignificant event in that conversation.

Which is sort of my point I guess. There was an opportunity to make a larger statement here. I get that legally, that opens up a larger can of worms, but it just seems that this is as much of a half-hearted moral gesture as it is about natural resources.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

They didn't 'steal' the land - they did what EVERY civilization has done before it by taking it. The only thing they did different is pretend they hadn't. It's US land - they won it - quit pretending otherwise.

So does this line of thinking extend to an individual level or just internationally?

Also, you're framing the argument in a sense that anyone with the proper amount of force has the right to appropriate any land at will.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Which is sort of my point I guess. There was an opportunity to make a larger statement here. I get that legally, that opens up a larger can of worms, but it just seems that this is as much of a half-hearted moral gesture as it is about natural resources.

What opportunity was there? The court couldn't make a statement without engaging in massive, and completely out of line, judicial activism. This was a case about a trustee not functioning as required by its standing as such. That's it. The world history that may surround the parties plays no role.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So does this line of thinking extend to an individual level or just internationally?

Also, you're framing the argument in a sense that anyone with the proper amount of force has the right to appropriate any land at will.

Well let's take your reasoning down the path as well then, why does x tribe get to claim it? Did they purchase it from the previous inhabitants or did they take it by driving out competitors who sought to utilize the desired resources? You can't vilify a taking by force at one point in time while ignoring the fact that the previous claim was almost certainly established in the exact same manner.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Komskies

Assimilate or gtfo.

Where tf are they supposed to go?

[Tinordi]

The history of native peoples is a sad, unjust and depressing tale that is still writing itself.