Why is the federal gov't responsible for improving life on Native American reserves?

[stormbv]

The wealth of this nation and all the world's nations was originally the Earth's resources and nations of innocent, weak people. Ever heard of Manifest Destiny? Slavery? Rome? Jesus? Socrates? Love?

I look at history on the grandest scale...our history is Time itself, with humanity as pure evil, viruses who infect it's host and suck it dry. Now we're looking at other planets to colonize, but we'll still be taking the same infection with us that has nearly ruined Earth. We put faith in innovation to save us when we ignore the original problem, which is Hate. You're not even looking past your own young life, which is just one of God's many wet farts. I'm a huge, nasty-ass turd of a human being, though, so don't worry, the rest of you don't stink too bad.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: gopunk
ah whatever don't feel like arguing anymore

yeah, it is late... sheesh.

 

[stormbv]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: gopunk
ah whatever don't feel like arguing anymore

yeah, it is late... sheesh.

It's late and I'm sick of the Hate, come back at me with heavy weight ya little bugs and I'll come back at ya with lyrical floetry Love.

:heart:

 

[gopunk]

my dad came here b/c he wanted to break away from the family. he could have done that anywhere. and, truth be told, my relatives in India live better off than we live here -- and we live better than 99.999999% of the American population.

well since you replied...

so how did your dad choose america? did he just pick it randomly? i find that somewhat hard to believe, there must have been something that led him to come here over some other country.

and even if he did, i would argue that the world has gained things from the extermination. america is responsible for much of the technological advances in the past century... certainly some of it probably would have occured anyways with the european nations, but i doubt we would have the level of comfort we enjoy today. not to mention the whole political landscape would be different... what with WWII and diplomatic pressure on britain to move away from being an empire...

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: xmellyx
Because the gov't stole their land and so whatever the Natives need, the Natives get?

A. No natives or very few alive today ever had their land stolen.

B. No white man today stole the native's land.

C. There is still PLENTY of land to go around. Why does a relatively small group of people need all of the U.S. and Canada to live??

If some guy in the 1800s stole my great great grandfather's land I don't think that it would be very practical of me to do anything about it or demand reparations.

Right on! I'm 1/8 Native American and I feel NO NEED for the government to give me or my family any sort of special compensation for the Trail of Tears or any other past atrocities. They're in the past and we should not do ourselves the DISSERVICE of endlessly harping on them; they only give us an excuse to blame others for our problems.

In my opinion, if we truly want a colorblind society, we must act like it! We can't give people special treatment based on their race. Native American reservations are an absurdity on the level of Affirmative Action.

Whooo, that were some politically-charged statements... *equips fire extinguisher*

 

[prvteye2003]

Originally posted by: xmellyx

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: xmellyx
Because the gov't stole their land and so whatever the Natives need, the Natives get?

A. No natives or very few alive today ever had their land stolen.

B. No white man today stole the native's land.

C. There is still PLENTY of land to go around. Why does a relatively small group of people need all of the U.S. and Canada to live??

If some guy in the 1800s stole my great great grandfather's land I don't think that it would be very practical of me to do anything about it or demand reparations.

Obviously were not talking about today, wtf? This does date back to a few hundred years ago, but surprise surprise they have offspring, and therefore have entitlements to the land.

Bullsh!t!!! I'd like to see the deeds they have for the land. Guess what? I bet you a million dollars they have absolutely no proof.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: prvteye2003

Originally posted by: xmellyx

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: xmellyx
Because the gov't stole their land and so whatever the Natives need, the Natives get?

A. No natives or very few alive today ever had their land stolen.

B. No white man today stole the native's land.

C. There is still PLENTY of land to go around. Why does a relatively small group of people need all of the U.S. and Canada to live??

If some guy in the 1800s stole my great great grandfather's land I don't think that it would be very practical of me to do anything about it or demand reparations.

Obviously were not talking about today, wtf? This does date back to a few hundred years ago, but surprise surprise they have offspring, and therefore have entitlements to the land.

Bullsh!t!!! I'd like to see the deeds they have for the land. Guess what? I bet you a million dollars they have absolutely no proof.

Oh...I somehow think burial grounds and other evidence dating back a couple thousand years might be proof enough.

DEEDS?

 

[Kanalua]

The way I see it is simple:

The Native Americans were here long before Europenas came.
The Native Americans used to fight each other over land issues, the winner taking the spoils.
A new "tribe" arrives and things are generally peaceful.
A fight breaks out over land issues, and the Natives lose.
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native AMericans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The way I see it is simple:

The Native Americans were here long before Europenas came.
The Native Americans used to fight each other over land issues, the winner taking the spoils.
A new "tribe" arrives and things are generally peaceful.
A fight breaks out over land issues, and the Natives lose.
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native AMericans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

Many of the peoples were peaceful and non-warring.

 

[Rogue]

Man! I really hope that the children of the Nazis that my grandfather killed in WWII don't ever come seek me out for reparations. That would suck!

Yes, I lose because I brought up the Nazis.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The way I see it is simple:

The Native Americans were here long before Europenas came.
The Native Americans used to fight each other over land issues, the winner taking the spoils.
A new "tribe" arrives and things are generally peaceful.
A fight breaks out over land issues, and the Natives lose.
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native AMericans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

Many of the peoples were peaceful and non-warring.

Who? Which peoples? THe Amish? If you studied NAtive American History, and your teacher was honest, you would learn that Natives constantly fought with neighboring tribes for hosts of reasons, most importantly land. Ask any Navajo what happen to the Anasazi? Even Navajo historians believe their ancestors killed off the Anasazi and forced them to leave what is now Navajo land. The remnants of the Anasazi are now the Hopi. Are the Navajo going to give up their lands to give back to the original owners the Anasazi? No! Why should America do the same? They LOST...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native Americans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

That was pretty much my thought pattern as well. To the victor goes the spoils, that has been the reality of the world for centuries.

For the sake of keeping things civil today the reserves they've got are fine, but asking the government to build city-level urban housing for you seems counterpoint to living on a reserve. However I did think about it a little overnight, and I figure that paying for city structures on the reserve will probably only cost each of us a hundredth of a cent. It's still a hundredth of a cent I don't really agree with paying, but the greater good and all that.

 

[Nitemare]

Why not just reverse the land grab and move the palefaces out?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: xmellyx
Because the gov't stole their land and so whatever the Natives need, the Natives get?

A. No natives or very few alive today ever had their land stolen.

B. No white man today stole the native's land.

C. There is still PLENTY of land to go around. Why does a relatively small group of people need all of the U.S. and Canada to live??

If some guy in the 1800s stole my great great grandfather's land I don't think that it would be very practical of me to do anything about it or demand reparations.

That just isn't true. The United States signed treaties with tribes, not individual people, so as long as the USA continues to violate those treaties the current citizens of the USA are just as liable as the earlier citizens. I don't know about the Canadian situation, so I won't comment on that.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The way I see it is simple:

The Native Americans were here long before Europenas came.
The Native Americans used to fight each other over land issues, the winner taking the spoils.
A new "tribe" arrives and things are generally peaceful.
A fight breaks out over land issues, and the Natives lose.
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native AMericans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

Many of the peoples were peaceful and non-warring.

Actually Conjur there was an anthropology study done to see if the natives on this continent were any more peaceful with each other or if they got more violent after the Europeans arrived. What they found is that the natives were just as brutal as the Europeans before the anyone thought of colonizing this continent. I'd give you a link but I watched it on Discovery: Civilizations.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: xmellyx

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: xmellyx
Because the gov't stole their land and so whatever the Natives need, the Natives get?

A. No natives or very few alive today ever had their land stolen.

B. No white man today stole the native's land.

C. There is still PLENTY of land to go around. Why does a relatively small group of people need all of the U.S. and Canada to live??

If some guy in the 1800s stole my great great grandfather's land I don't think that it would be very practical of me to do anything about it or demand reparations.

Obviously were not talking about today, wtf? This does date back to a few hundred years ago, but surprise surprise they have offspring, and therefore have entitlements to the land.

Relatively small though? There was a HUGE number of natives. European disease killed 80-90% of them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The way I see it is simple:

The Native Americans were here long before Europenas came.
The Native Americans used to fight each other over land issues, the winner taking the spoils.
A new "tribe" arrives and things are generally peaceful.
A fight breaks out over land issues, and the Natives lose.
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native AMericans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

Many of the peoples were peaceful and non-warring.

Actually Conjur there was an anthropology study done to see if the natives on this continent were any more peaceful with each other or if they got more violent after the Europeans arrived. What they found is that the natives were just as brutal as the Europeans before the anyone thought of colonizing this continent. I'd give you a link but I watched it on Discovery: Civilizations.

Take, for example, the Cherokee. Studies have shown that they resembled the Greek city-states. Sometimes they would support each other against other tribes, sometimes they'd stay to themselves, sometimes they'd battle each other. However, they were not out to totally destroy other tribes, as was done by the U.S. Government.

 

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native Americans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

That was pretty much my thought pattern as well. To the victor goes the spoils, that has been the reality of the world for centuries.

For the sake of keeping things civil today the reserves they've got are fine, but asking the government to build city-level urban housing for you seems counterpoint to living on a reserve. However I did think about it a little overnight, and I figure that paying for city structures on the reserve will probably only cost each of us a hundredth of a cent. It's still a hundredth of a cent I don't really agree with paying, but the greater good and all that.

They didn't want to go to war. They were perfectly content with sharing it. But, we, the "better" race, had to go and take it all.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The way I see it is simple:

The Native Americans were here long before Europenas came.
The Native Americans used to fight each other over land issues, the winner taking the spoils.
A new "tribe" arrives and things are generally peaceful.
A fight breaks out over land issues, and the Natives lose.
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native AMericans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

Many of the peoples were peaceful and non-warring.

Who? Which peoples? THe Amish? If you studied NAtive American History, and your teacher was honest, you would learn that Natives constantly fought with neighboring tribes for hosts of reasons, most importantly land. Ask any Navajo what happen to the Anasazi? Even Navajo historians believe their ancestors killed off the Anasazi and forced them to leave what is now Navajo land. The remnants of the Anasazi are now the Hopi. Are the Navajo going to give up their lands to give back to the original owners the Anasazi? No! Why should America do the same? They LOST...

They were banding together to form a government. Hell, the Iroquois nation even had a ConstitutionConstitution of the Iroquois Nations which preceded our own by about 200 years.

My people: link
"Political pressure was exerted by President Andrew Jackson to confiscate Indian lands and remove the Cherokees to the West. Numerous injustices against the Cherokee Nation culminated in the signing of the Treaty of New Echota. Those who signed the treaty did not have the authority to represent the entire Cherokee Nation. Nevertheless, the treaty stood. The Cherokees were taken from their homes, held in stockades, and forced to move to Oklahoma and Arkansas. Almost 14,000 Cherokees began the trek westward in October of 1838. More than 4,000 died from cold, hunger, and disease during the six-month journey that came to be known as the "Trail of Tears."


The Southwestern Indians were for the most part barbaric, but the Eastern Native Americans were for the most part an agrarian society that lived in peace and even helped the colonists when they first arrived. It was not until the Europeans greed and land seizing through illegal means did they go to war.

Summary:
The US basically signed a treaty with Cherokee's albeit non-authorized council members for land that did not belong to them to sell and purchased that land from France which was not theirs to sell either. Bpttomline is they screwed over the Native Americans royally and their guilt is eating at them.

 

[thomsbrain]

well the government is responsible for ruining their civilizations. i think that makes them responsible for improving things again.

edit: this is for the USA, i don't know about canada.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The way I see it is simple:

The Native Americans were here long before Europenas came.
The Native Americans used to fight each other over land issues, the winner taking the spoils.
A new "tribe" arrives and things are generally peaceful.
A fight breaks out over land issues, and the Natives lose.
The winner takes the spoils, and the loser does what he has to to survive (think Thucydides).

Why do Native complain when they lost the war for their lands? Why should the victor give back what they fought for? No other country does this or ever did it? Native AMericans lost to another "tribe", get over it...

Many of the peoples were peaceful and non-warring.

Who? Which peoples? THe Amish? If you studied NAtive American History, and your teacher was honest, you would learn that Natives constantly fought with neighboring tribes for hosts of reasons, most importantly land. Ask any Navajo what happen to the Anasazi? Even Navajo historians believe their ancestors killed off the Anasazi and forced them to leave what is now Navajo land. The remnants of the Anasazi are now the Hopi. Are the Navajo going to give up their lands to give back to the original owners the Anasazi? No! Why should America do the same? They LOST...

They were banding together to form a government. Hell, the Iroquois nation even had a ConstitutionConstitution of the Iroquois Nations which preceded our own by about 200 years.

My people: link
"Political pressure was exerted by President Andrew Jackson to confiscate Indian lands and remove the Cherokees to the West. Numerous injustices against the Cherokee Nation culminated in the signing of the Treaty of New Echota. Those who signed the treaty did not have the authority to represent the entire Cherokee Nation. Nevertheless, the treaty stood. The Cherokees were taken from their homes, held in stockades, and forced to move to Oklahoma and Arkansas. Almost 14,000 Cherokees began the trek westward in October of 1838. More than 4,000 died from cold, hunger, and disease during the six-month journey that came to be known as the "Trail of Tears."


The Southwestern Indians were for the most part barbaric, but the Eastern Native Americans were for the most part an agrarian society that lived in peace and even helped the colonists when they first arrived. It was not until the Europeans greed and land seizing through illegal means did they go to war.

Summary:
The US basically signed a treaty with Cherokee's albeit non-authorized council members for land that did not belong to them to sell and purchased that land from France which was not theirs to sell either. Bpttomline is they screwed over the Native Americans royally and their guilt is eating at them.

Your reply proves my point. The Cherokee made treaties with America because they had to, once again read/think Thucydides. They had to do what they must because they were teh weaker entity. When that treaty no longer was useful to teh more powerful entity, it was dissolved to the advantage of the powerful. This is what has happened through out history, the Cherokee did it, the Iriquois did it, then along came a nation more powerful then they, and they had to do what they must to survive. Even to this day, their inability to adapt to the invading nations culture and practices forces them into exile within their former lands.
If you studied political history you would know that the United States is unique in that we weren't as influenced by the native peoples when we invaded and colonized, as were many other colonizing nations. It doesn't matter if they had sophisticated societies, Native American societies fought with each other, fought for land and fought to get their land at one point or the other...like I said before another civilized tribe came in, defeated the Native people, and now inherit the land, yes inherit the land. By your same argument we should give mexico back all the lands we took in our wars with them. Mexico owned it before we did... There are many other examples, but I think you get my drift.

By the way, I'm Hawaiian, and the Federal Government just setup a Federal Office of Hawaiian Affairs preceeding the federal recognition of Native HAwaiians. Gonna rival the BIA in authority, hopefully not in corruption. Just thought I'd put that out for no particular reason.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I've noticed that Canadians in general are slightly negative towards Native Americans. Are they more 'visible' in Canada?

 

[conjur]

Ah...so it's ok to beat up the weak with no repercussions?

I see.

My bad.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah...so it's ok to beat up the weak with no repercussions?

I see.

My bad.

think Thucydides

There are always repercussions...as long as you let the native peoples survive. The colonizers that didn't, and eliminated the natvie didn't have too many problems with their crap afterwards. I say we should just be happy that the people that colonized our native lands DIDN'T KILL US ALL!!!!! Other than that they don't owe us anything!!!

 

[conjur]

Ah ok...because the U.S. Gov't didn't kill EVERYONE, it's ok.

Damn, man, you sure fight hard to defend the atrocities.

<Warning...warning...Godwin's Law about to be invoked>


I suppose Hitler was an ok dude because he didn't kill ALL of the Jews.