It is amazing to me how people here will lambast Americans for racism and how the esnlavement of Africans is still relevant to present day African Americans etc etc but someone mentions something about Native Americans and their mistreatment and the reaction is so different.
If this were an article about paying every African American $1000 as a reparation for the enslavement of their ancestors people would be falling over each other in an effort to be the next one to echo rube's 'slap in the face' comment.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
It is amazing to me how people here will lambast Americans for racism and how the esnlavement of Africans is still relevant to present day African Americans etc etc but someone mentions something about Native Americans and their mistreatment and the reaction is so different.
If this were an article about paying every African American $1000 as a reparation for the enslavement of their ancestors people would be falling over each other in an effort to be the next one to echo rube's 'slap in the face' comment.
Well if this matter had anything to do paying reparations that may be relevant, but it doesn't. It's a misleading thread title that has literally nothing to do with the article linked.
I'm not sure what the goal was, but so far all I've seen are comments pointing out that the story is not at all what it has attempted to be painted as and a couple of bigoted comments that would likely be the same regardless of color or creed.
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.
Didn't I pretty much already concede this? This didn't make it to a judicial decision anyways. My point is that the land shouldn't be held in trust by the federal government in the first place.
Whats happened to the FNs in Canada and the USA is exactly why they are in the position they are. They have been slaughtered, deculturlized, mistreated, slaved and the list goes on.
The cycle is so vicious that I can't even imagine what the remedy would be.
Didn't I pretty much already concede this? This didn't make it to a judicial decision anyways. My point is that the land shouldn't be held in trust by the federal government in the first place.
So what opportunity was missed then? To make a claim that the federal government shouldn't be holding the land in trust? If that's your argument then make it, don't hint at it by using an inflammatory title for a thread that links to a story that has little, if anything, to do with the history of natives in the US.
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.
The difference is we have historical documentation of these atrocities and land theft, committed by those who considered themselves "enlightened." I'm hardly one to promote the idea of the noble savage, but we just do not possess the necessary evidence to make any kind of contextual judgement beyond a certain period of history.
Besides which, the taking of land is only part of the problem. The mistreatment of Native Americans in the centuries since is absolutely deplorable.
Last edited by rubecube; 11-30-2012 at 12:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
So what opportunity was missed then? To make a claim that the federal government shouldn't be holding the land in trust? If that's your argument then make it, don't hint at it by using an inflammatory title for a thread that links to a story that has little, if anything, to do with the history of natives in the US.
Really? The federal government holding the land in trust has very little to do with the history of the natives in the U.S.?
EDIT: Would "Sorry for perpetuating a poverty-ridden lifestyle" had made for a better title?
Well if this matter had anything to do paying reparations that may be relevant, but it doesn't. It's a misleading thread title that has literally nothing to do with the article linked.
I'm not sure what the goal was, but so far all I've seen are comments pointing out that the story is not at all what it has attempted to be painted as and a couple of bigoted comments that would likely be the same regardless of color or creed.
I disagree with this based on past discussions on Native issues here.
I certainly wasn't referring to you questioning the relevance of the article as someone with a double standard.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The difference is we have historical documentation of these atrocities and land theft, committed by those who considered themselves "enlightened." I'm hardly one to promote the idea of the noble savage, but we just do not possess the necessary evidence to make any kind of contextual judgement beyond a certain period of history.
Besides which, the taking of the land is only part of the problem. The mistreatment of Native Americans in the centuries since is absolutely deplorable.
No argument from me on the highlighted portion.
As to the rest of it, I think that's a pretty convenient argument. The lack of a recorded history doesn't mean anything, things don't cease to exist because they weren't written down.
Really? The federal government holding the land in trust has very little to do with the history of the natives in the U.S.?
EDIT: Would "Sorry for perpetuating a poverty-ridden lifestyle" had made for a better title?
Yes really, because what you've done is attempt to frame a legal challenge over the role of a trustee as some sort of reparations case. If you want to have that conversation there are plenty of ways to have it, mischaracterizing this matter makes very little sense.
Yes really, because what you've done is attempt to frame a legal challenge over the role of a trustee as some sort of reparations case. If you want to have that conversation there are plenty of ways to have it, mischaracterizing this matter makes very little sense.
True, but regardless their ancestors were massacared so nothing changes.
What's lost here is exactly how many native(s) wouldn't be happy with the $1000 cheque? I would wager that 80% of the population, this has an effect on, know nothing about what their "rights" should be.
Living in Lethbridge outside the largest reserve in NA really changes your views on Native entitlements.
__________________
Thanks to Halifax Drunk for the sweet Avatar
What's lost here is exactly how many native's wouldn't be happy with the $1000 cheque? I would wager that 80% of the population, this has an effect on, know nothing about what their "rights" should be.
Living in Lethbridge outside the largest reserve in NA really changes your views on Native entitlements.
Them not knowing doesnt change what their rights are.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HELPNEEDED For This Useful Post:
True, but regardless their ancestors were massacared so nothing changes.
I just think it's a little ridiculous to frame this as some sort of reparations or an attempt to buy forgiveness for the manner in which lands were acquired when it is nothing of the sort.
As to the rest of it, I think that's a pretty convenient argument. The lack of a recorded history doesn't mean anything, things don't cease to exist because they weren't written down.
I don't disagree. But from a legal perspective, I know I don't have to tell you that a court shouldn't just throw out actual evidence due to speculation that there might or might not be more evidence.
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.
The racism and ignorance by some on this forum and by a great many Canadians is upsetting and disappointing.
For all of those people who believe that we as Canadians should have no part in treating First Nations (FN), Metis, etc. with dignity and respect and that we should take no responsibility for working towards a mutually beneficial solution to the numerous issues facing FN, Metis, etc., I suggest you educate yourselves and exercise some empathy.
The Indian residential schools of Canada were a network ... funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs, and adminstered by Christian churches, most notably the Catholic Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada. The system had origins in pre-Confederation times, but was primarily active following the passage of the Indian Act in 1876, until the mid-twentieth century. The last residential school was not closed until 1996.
There has long been signifigant historigraphical and popular controversy about the conditions experienced by students in the residential schools. However, a new consensus emerged in the early twentieth-first century that the schools did signifigant harm to Aboriginal children by removing them from their families, depriving them of their ancestral languages, and exposing many of them to physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their teachers and other students.
.
The oppression and abuse of the FN, Metis, etc. by the government, we as Canadians, and Canadian institutions didn't end hundreds of years ago like so many ignorant folks seem to believe; it was happening during the lifetime of the majority.
