Regarding reperations, why are Native Americans seemingly ignored?

[ProudGerman]

Not to belittle any other ethnic groups, but as NeoProgressiveNC quote me in another thread, "Native Americans have suffered the most successful attempt at genocide the world has ever seen."

Land has been stolen from them. New land was given to them only to be stolen again. Some states had laws that stated that if there were more than five Natives in a group, it was classified as a raiding party and it was ok to shoot them, no questions asked. Since the Industrial revolution, the populations of the different races have grown exponentially, the Native American population has decreased.

Is it because the Native Americans progress post white man has been so horrific that no one wants to deal with it? Are there no Native American representatives calling for reperations? People assuredly don't think of the Native Americans of our past as savages not worthy of our grief and guilt.... do they?

I'm not saying that the suffering of others is less that it was. I'm just speaking to what is to me as a glaring omission when the subject of reperations comes up.

[Catholic Sensation]

1. Hear Hear

post he was referring to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1023104#1023832

[wtmusic]

2. Some feel giving them casinos is enough

Not me...

[DS1]

3. One possible answer is that

in order for reparations to be made to "Native" Americans, the colonials "Us" has to admit that we are really guests in their country, if you want to define ownership as getting their first, which I doubt the Native Americans do anyway, shrugging off that logic and believing that land belongs to all of us.

That last part being completly incompatible with capitalism.

[Cursive_Knives512]

4. Since I have some Native American blood in my veins...

I tend to view issues around them differently than most of my peers at my suburban school. Many people don't know any history or background about what some Europeans did... they tend to be resentful of the money that Native American communities recieve now, and their tax breaks and such.

My thoughts on this are:

1. These confederacies are pretty much a different country, so they shouldn't have to pay taxes to the U.S.
2. And kinda like DS1 said, since we took their land, we really owe them not just reparations, but some type of "rent."

This is a big issue in the towns around me. Here's an interesting story about one of those towns who put up an Iroquois Confederacy flag at their public school, since many of the students who go there are Iroquois:
http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=448&DID=32552

[RoyGBiv]

5. Different Circumstances

It could be argued that Native Americans are given far more attention by the Federal Government than any other group that has been historically oppressed. And, it could also be argued that at least some groups of Native Americans are currently the recipients of reparations of a sort, although technically speaking these "reparations" are simply the fulfillment of treaty obligations. But that in itself shows a striking different between the case of N-A's and other groups such as the descendants of African slaves. There is a Bureau of Indian Affairs, and it does have as one of its responsibilities dispersing payments to certain Indian nations that are due by the terms of treaties.

That said, it is certainly true that the United States was dishonest in its dealings with Natives to the point of being criminal, and it is also true that during a particular moment in the US' history, effective genocide, while not actually a directly stated goal of the central government, was the de facto policy of military leaders charged with dealing with the problem. Phil Sheridan, for example, is notable for this.

Native American policy is a very complex subject, and the history of the relationship between the federal government and various tribes or nations is similarly complex. It's not "one" problem in how this nation dealt with "the" Indians. It is a multitude of problems as varied in their specifics as the nations were themselves. A good book on this complex relationship is:

Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law by David E. Wilkins and K Tsianina Lomawaima.

One particular note:

Some states had laws that stated that if there were more than five Natives in a group, it was classified as a raiding party and it was ok to shoot them, no questions asked.

To my knowledge, this was never a state or federal policy of any sort. The language you describe above came down in General Order (I forget the number and specifics, but I could look it up for you if you want) from General Sherman in the Dakotas. It was a horrible policy, but it stemmed from a very bizarre treaty negotiation in which tribal leaders were tricked into agreeing to these terms. I mention this because I think it is important not to engage in hyperbole on the subject.

[Catholic Sensation]

7. The circumstances surrounding the Jews reparations and reparations

asked for by families of slaves are different too, that's not the point here. If anything, the circumstances surrounding the Jewish reparations and the ones we believe the Native Americans should be getting are very similar. Massive amounts of people murdered out of rapacious bigotry, people being moved from their land to places so horrible disease runs rampant. And guess what? IT'S STILL GOING ON! The casinos aren't even fair to the tribes because the people making the most off of them are a 73 year old white poker player and some Malaysian billionaire.

Please give me an example of how we've repaid the Native Americans for what we've done to them for four to five hundred years. Giving them their own little bureau of native american affairs isn't reparation, it's doing what we agreed to do when we signed the treaty. Doing what you're contractually obligated to is NOT, I repeat, NOT a reparation. If we STOPPED doing what the contract states, we can legally be removed from this land.

Kidnapping someone from their land to do forced work is a horrible, despicable act, but I can't imagine anyone believing that's worse than trespassing on someone's land, stealing the land, forcing the natives into areas so disgusting and agriculturally useless they can barely live off of it, and SLAUGHTERING OVER 20 MILLION of them.

I totally forgot the economical argument for Indian Reparations:

The average Native American has an income in the high four digits to the very low five digits. They're more undereducated, and the projects of New York and LA are NOTHING compared to the land these people have to live on.

Just because I know SOMEONE is going to take this as racism, though I have no idea how but some people are stupid like that, this isn't to say that African Americans aren't suffering mightily. They are. This thread, and my vehement support of Native American reparations is meant to give some perspective on this issue.

[RoyGBiv]

15. First Things First

I detect, possibly incorrectly, a note of hostility to my comments. I can understand that because all issues surround the peoples that were murdered, cheated, or otherwise oppressed throughout this nation's history are volatile topics given to heated emotions. But coming up with reasonable solutions that actually help rectify these injustices are not served well by such rhetoric.

You raise a lot of varied issues in your post that cannot be addressed adequately in a single reply. But I must point out at least one of your fundamental claims is not based on supportable historical evidence. In particular I refer to the notion that over 20 million Native Americans in what became the United States were slaughtered. (You didn't say the part I highlighted, but it is implied by the context.) I do not deny that contact with Europeans is, by an large, what has resulted in the massive reduction of the Native American population and culture in this hemisphere, but a word like "slaughtered" heavily implies wholesale, intentional murder, especially in your context of comparing the near extinction of Native Americans to the planned genocide of Jews in Europe. Did such murders take place? Without a doubt, and in some cases on a massive scale, but there was never the organized, conscious effort to eradicate the entire population of natives except with regard to a few, specific nations in certain situations.

The "genocide" of Native American populations in this hemisphere was effectively accomplished before the United States was even a glimmer in a young Thomas Jefferson's eye. Very little of it was intentional, much less planned, although it is of course correct to say that none of the European conquerers bemoaned the fact of literally millions of deaths. The problem with the theory of N-A genocide of an intentional sort, especially one analogous to what happened to Jews during WWII, is that the Europeans had no idea of the extent to which their presence was killing these people.

Disease was the primary killer of Native American tribes. By 1650, roughly 89% of the original population that had been present in the hemisphere in 1492 was gone. It was not conquered by horse and steel and powder, but by little bugs that the natives' system had no ability to fight. Several books exist that are comparative histories of the African and North American continents and an exploration of why and how European peoples came to so thoroughly dominate one continent through and through but could not conquer the other to the same level except along the coasts. These studies are illustrative of this point. A helpful survey of North American natives is First Peoples by Colin Calloway.

I do not mean to ignore your larger points, but I feel the need to set the record straight on this because it's important. The foundation of how Europeans and natives interacted was heavily influenced by the numerous plagues that destroyed most of the indigenous population.

One other brief comment on your challenge:

Please give me an example of how we've repaid the Native Americans for what we've done to them for four to five hundred years.

Re: Contracts and Treaties

I am not going to be drawn into position of in any way defending any of the criminal actions taken against native populations. Neither am I going to claim that a great number of the treaties negotiated with the various tribes were not in themselves unfairly acquired. But let's be perfectly clear on this point. The vast majority of Native American tribes -- that is, their official governments -- seek only to have the terms of their various treaties honored. That in itself is a large part of the problem with determining how best to compensate natives for what the Europeans took. By honoring these treaties in their strictest terms, a situation is created whereby a nation or tribe can live or die by own its own devices. There is in fact a cultural war within several tribes concerning how their societies should or should not adapt to the modern world, and unfortunately, those with the most conservative outlook, that is adhering to ancient traditions to the extent they are known and can practically be followed, are the ones that are failing. Other nations, like the Chickasaws, Cherokee, etc. are thriving because they adapted to practical modern realities.

I don't know if that is right or wrong. I only know it is a vexing problem for which there are no clear, short and fast answers. There are those among us who see the issue in simple black and white terms and merely want their payment and to be left alone. Others want to integrate themselves into American society under the auspices of effective tribal sovereignty. For some, this works. For others, it does not. As I said originally, it's not one problem, but many, varied problems. Cutting a check and calling it done or evicting the tenants, as you somewhat sarcastically suggest is a possibility, is a fantasy. There are avenues to real solutions, but engaging these fantasies will not help us arrive at them.

[Another Bill C.]

6. Minnesota Republicans carry on the tradition

of sticking it to the American Indian nations.

When the Dakota territory was thought to be a wasteland, the U.S. gave it to the Lakotah and it was to be theirs forever. The government even sent an Army unit to keep settlers out.

Then gold was discovered in the Black Hills. There was an influx of prospectors and the Indians lost their sacred hills.

Then it was discovered that the Dakotas had lots of good wheat land and the Indians were bilked of most of their territory.

Lately, some of the tribes in Minnesota were allowed, under "permanent" treaty, to open casinos as a way of raising funds for tribal needs. When they seemed to be operating profitably, the state Republicans began floating ideas to divert some of that action into the state coffers where they could use it to reduce taxes for the rich or finance a few pork projects.

The Republicans are working hard to build public sentiment for reneging on those treaty provisions that give the Minnesota tribes that little corner of the economy.

[Catholic Sensation]

8. kick: b/c I think this is more important than a stupid dog on a skateboard

kick

[Madrone]

9. The reason I didn't address native americans in my thread -

(and believe me, I was definitely thinking about them in relation to this issue) is because my direct question was a result of something I read on a cd by a political rap group. It was a statement written by black people - and I was seeking perspective on that.

Because I didn't include native americans doesn't mean they don't matter, or are less victimized. I wasn't intending to omit them, I was just seeking an answer from a group of people about a specific issue.

[Catholic Sensation]

10. Well we were talking about reparation discussions as a whole

they always seem to leave out the group that suffered the most

[Madrone]

11. My thread was specific and only mentioned slavery -

But I TOTALLY agree with you that this is a discussion that should also be had about native americans.

I would prefer not to get into a "which minority suffered the MOST" pissing contest, however. As far as I'm concerned, the actions taken against both groups of people (and the many others I'm not mentioning) are reprehensible, period. There is no less or more oppressed - fact is, to the person being oppressed their situation is the worst. I think we can acknowledge the crimes committed against both heritages and pay them equal due.

Whether or not that came out in an understandable way - I'm not sure.

[Catholic Sensation]

12. made sense to me

but I consider myself smarter than everyone else, so maybe some people don't get it :P

(because I know people will take this statement as anything but sarcasm, I'M BEING SARCASTIC)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. I think this is an issue...

that is LONG overdue for attention from our government and our party.

I think it's not talked about much because, as someone else mentioned, it brings up some very serious issues of land, resources and money owed to tribes.

This is a sin our country has never faced, I think even moreso than slavery.

And it's a sin that continues today, with the BIA screwing around with possibly billions of dollars owed for resources, the loss of fresh water from wells set just off tribal land that dry rez water tables, the stopping of electrical serves at a rez's edge as punishment for voting for the Dem candidate last time.

For too many tribes casinos are the new problem. A job is nice, but there's a big problem when the majority of the money goes off the rez and away from the tribe.

I hope that this is something that I will see progress on in my lifetime.

[Madrone]

14. Regarding reparations for native americans...

I'd probably say the same thing I said in the slavery reparations thread. I don't think cutting a check for $12.50 (or whatever) to every native american in the US and saying "there, you're paid, sorry for your troubles" is the answer.

What IS the answer? Fuck if I know.

I wish I could wake up tomorrow morning and find the entire country had had a shift in consciousness overnight. I'm really tired of bigots and racism.

Where I live now, it's about Mexicans. I hear constant bitching about "those people" - Although there are not many in the small town I live in (and the ones that ARE here are "ok Mexicans" because they have the most bitchin restaurant in town) there are quite a few in surrounding areas. I live one hour from Yakima WA (speaking of indians, there's a reservation there - in the scrub land) where there are a lot of Mexicans. From the first day I arrived in WA I heard over and over again from the "good white people" that they DON'T go or don't like to go to Yakima because of "all those mexicans". Or spics - or whatever bullshit term they find it appropriate to use.

I don't know, guys. I don't have an answer, but I don't think cutting checks is it. If anything, I feel cutting a check is trivializing what these people have gone through. It's like if someone raped your daughter but paid you 1,000 bucks to make it 'ok'. I find the money thing unrealistic and distasteful.

[southerngirlwriter]

16. They're a smaller voting bloc. That's why no one cares.

nt