Reply With QuoteI've been screwed over before, (as I'm sure many of you have), but you don't see me making it my life's work to wallow in self pity or encouraging my descendants to do the same.
Okay, maybe I am niave however, I have a question,,,if the CRIT is the one causing all the problems, then why dont the Indians overthrow them. I don't understand why they are saying they are victims,,,I say if the Indians get together and work hard enough, they can pretty much banish the CRIT.....(Keep in mind, I did mention that I was niave on this subject)
I've been screwed over before, (as I'm sure many of you have), but you don't see me making it my life's work to wallow in self pity or encouraging my descendants to do the same.
Originally posted by Boatcop
I understand that people are upset with what CRIT is doing, and rightfully so. But some statements here are a little off the wall.
The Indian Nations are sovereign. But it is the PEOPLE that are sovereign, not the land they are on. I think all Tribes would be happy if they would be left alone, by us and the US Government, IF they were given back what was forcefully, or fraudulently taken and/or swindled from them.
How would you like it if the Government came onto your property, destroyed or seized all you had, and moved you to a barren wasteland and were told that this is now where you must live? Instead of speaking and learning english, your kids were taken away to a special school and forced to speak some other foreign tongue? How would you like it if the Government held all your property, money, assets, etc. in trust, only giving to you what they thought was best for you? And that you had to get permission from them before you could do ANYTHING!
That is what life is and was like for the American Indian people. And it's not so ancient History. The Cherokees were put on rolls from 1898 - 1906 as a way of giving them plots of land in Oklahoma in order to disband the Tribe, and ensure that they do not continue as an organized Nation. The Western Cherokee Nation didn't catch on and re-form into a "Tribe" until the 1930s. Membership in the Tribe is now based on direct lineage to a member on those "rolls". The very rolls that were used to try and destroy the Cherokees, are now used to shore up it's enrollment, and guarantee their future.
Now imagine the Government taking your land, moving you to that barren wasteland and then making you pay for it?
What CRIT is doing is downright wrong, immoral, and unethical. But persecuting all Indians for trying to stand up for THEIR rights is just as wrong, immoral and unethical. The corrupt leadership of those tribes, created by our own government is where the blame lies. The people themselves are just a product of that corruption and the nanny state that the US Government has given them.
Think about what they had to endure over the last 200 years, and in some cases continung today, with their only crime being that they were here first. They are the way they are because WE made them that way.
Alan,
Not a personal attack, but rather a historical perspective. As Busti eloquently pointed out, the expansion of every empire on earth has come at a cost of some misfortune for those that are living in the lands at the time of siezure by foreign interests.
In response to your questions about how I would feel, or what I would do if the government seized my land and assets, or kidnaped my children. The answer is very simple, a lot of people would have died trying to come through my door. It is the right of every person to protect their interests to whatever level they feel is needed, the person just has to be comfortable with the consequences of his/her actions.
Should we be asking for reparations from the UK because they killed family members during the revolutionary war? Most people would say no, but what happened between the United States, and the indigenous peoples of North America isn't much different than the colonists turning on the British and going to war to protect what they felt was their way of life. The Native American's rose up against our expansion but their efforts failed. Was it a slaughter? arguably. Was the handling of the situation something that the United States government look back on with pride? No. But does that mean that we should forever be indebted to those who stood up for their beliefs and failed? Absolutely not. Reparations were made to the Native American's whether they liked the end result or not, they were made. The perpetual hand outs and welfare to the Native American Tribes has been proven to do nothing for restoring the strength of their heritage.
Things could have been a lot worse for the American Indians. They could have been left to be assimilated into the American Culture on their own. No reservation for refuge, no governmental assistance (regardless of how good or bad it was) for their children.
It is interesting that the United States has never fully understood the basis of making reparations, and as such has always been exploited by those who we have defeated in open war. In pre-American history, reparations were paid to conquered peoples after war as a way to placate them because the invading army may not have had the resources to quell perpetual guerilla warfare after the end of the official conflict. The money was paid to buy the cooperation of local officials to establish peace with their people. Long story short is that reparations orriginated as a means of buying peace after an invasion. They were never itended to be some moral justification or repayment for an invading nation's actions. The United States however, has always used reparations as a way of saying, "we're sorry". Christ, we even paid HUGE reparations and reconstructive efforts in Japan after we handed them their ass. Did we have cause to fear an uprising from them.... NO, but we doled out just the same.
I've gotten way off topic, but basically, yes I'm not proud of our our country handled affairs with the Native American peoples. But in the grand scheme of things they have been treated much kinder than many other defeated nations throught the history of man. Wether we handled the situation well or not, the fact remains that they were a conquered people, and all of their claims to their former possesions ended when they were conquered.
Chris
Some good points but I think Seadog said it best:
Native Americans were NOT native to the land but came here via the strip of land between Asian and North American continents or so we were taught in school. Europeans came here via the east coast of the North America continent. At some point in history the groups met and fought and the "Native Americans" lost. So be it. If it would have been peaceful integration of cultures back then maybe the issues wouldn't be here today. But they weren't and they are, respectively. "To the victors go the spoils" is the saying and during those periods in history life was brutal. Did the Native Americans start the battles or did the white settlers? Who knows? I don't but let's end the special treatment for all groups and you'll see a more harmonious America.
Hell...the Vikings were probably here before anybody else. If they had left a settlement the Icelandic folk would want reparations.
Posting Permissions