|
| Thread: American-Roman Connection |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted November 09, 2003 07:55 PM |
|
|
Hey Wolf -- get my IM's????
Thing is when a land is truly unoccupied, as it was when the human population began spreading out in all directions back then, then they are not taking land from somebody who is already there. Therefore I cannot see any argument for calling it illegal, and cannot see any way in which this would be analgous to the European colonialization of the Americas.
(See my post in Take Back the Foos about the respective Euro-Indian population counts, which BTW is a hundred years off sorry about that but you still get the point).
I see a remoteness-in-time argument on the horizon, and just want to remind everybody that while all 397 of the treaties made between the US and the Indian Nations here have been abrogated in whole or in part, most of the treaties are still considered to be in effect. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus ONLY nullifies a treaty if the changes were made by the non-moving party. In other words, you can't make a treaty, then change the whole basis for the treaty you entered and use it as an argument to justify its nullification, or else nobody would ever have to remain bound.
There are hundreds (probably thousands) of land, resource and jurisdictional battles in the federal court system as we speak. Federal Indian Law is a vibrant (though chaotic) area of law that is alive and well, as is the land-and- resource-grab that continues.
So this ain't over yet guys. We are still trying to recover enough jurisdictional control and resources to restructure our governments and economic systems to re-establish self-sufficieny. It's just real hard to do when the State and fed goverments have as much control over most or all of your lands and resources, refuse to return enough of that control to establish even a subsistence economy, and micromanage every aspect of your governments in ways that are completely incompatibel with your cultures.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 07:57 PM |
|
|
Bah, come on we all know god personally placed the Native Americans there after the tower of Babel incident 
Oh and PM, your dilema about part native american and Part European is simple, just chop off the bits of you that aren't native american and post them back to wherever they came from 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 08:06 PM |
|
|
LOL!!!! Thanks little brother!
Let's see now, where do I begin....
<OUCH>
<OOH>
<OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW!!!!>
Damn. I give up.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 08:14 PM |
|
|
Native American Rights Fund plug
By the way, anybody who wants to know more about American Indian rights struggles in the court system can find one of the most active organizations at www.narf.org. They're in Boulder and I used to work there during my years in law school.
<EDIT>
Sorry to have drug this thing so far off topic guys.
Signed,
PACEMAKER TOSSMAKER
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 09:01 PM |
|
|
First, let's get something out of the way -- the Native American population was wronged. Horribly. Genocide wronged and you don't get much worse than that. I am not denying this. What I'm not entirely clear on is how the current population that can claim Native American ancestry has a compelling claim of ownership.
There's not a single damn piece of land on earth that hasn't had blood spilled to steal it. I have Chinese ancestry. I demand compensation from the Mongols and the Japanese. I have German ancestry, I demand compensation from the Romans. (Luckily, my ancesters got out of there before the holocaust, so I figure that means I don't owe the holocaust victims anything). I have Russian ancestry, I demand the Bolsheviks return what was taken from me.
The people who crossed the bering strait didn't go "Oh my! What large continents we've found. Let's divide this up equally and then live in peace." There were many thousands of years of history between crossing the strait and Europeans arriving. And we all know that "history" is a euphemism for people acting like people, which is basically coming up with new and terrible things to do to each other. I guarantee you that any tribal land was obtained by force.
It's particularly not clear who compensation is owed to or from. (The "government" ancestor is just a way around saying "taxpayer.") Ancestry has become very mixed over the years and records are spotty so say the least. There are a whole lotta people in the US who have Native American blood, myself included. Who gets the land? If you have European and Native American blood are you the compensator or the compensated? What about a black guy who now runs 7-11 on former tribal land? Especially if his great grandpa was a buffalo soldier. Well let's see, it's somewhat unfair for him to be held accountable for actions of the American government in the 19th century since, let's face it, his ancestors didn't have a whole lotta say in the matter, but, on the other hand, he is on tribal land and you know, the buffalo soldier thing. If it is some sort of government payout, how do we handle that? I don't see how a recent immigrant has any responsibility to compensate for US actions 100 years before he showed up. So maybe we levy a tax based on how many European ancestor years you can trace yourself back through (Californian tribes will be compensated by the Mexican government who will presumably send a bill to Spain). That way somebody whos ancestors came in on the Mayflower will pay more than somebody who came through Ellis Island. Of course, the people whos ancestors landed at Jamestown and they haven't moved since probably don't owe as much as somebody whos ancestor cracked a whip at the trail of tears, so we'd have to work out something there. Well, I'm sure it can all be worked out in a fair and equitable manner.
The whole idea that somebody is owed something because of who their parents or grandparents are is so Republican. That whole repeal the inheritance tax thing. My parents have stipulated that their estate goes to charity when the time comes. It took me awhile to be okay with this, but it makes sense. What the hell did I ever do earn that house or money? It's not that I have a particular problem with the idea that people with Native American blood are owed land or money or whatever because of who their ancestors were, it's that I have a problem with anybody thinking that they are owed anything because of what their parents or grandparents did.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 09:30 PM |
|
|
Absolutely excellent post, bort.
Thank you for these questions. Let me see if I can clarify this a bit.
First, we're not talking about person-to-person compensation here. We're talking primarily about jurisdictional disputes of control of land and resources -- government-to-government disputes. Most of all tribal lands, while still being considered tribal lands (reservations), have through a series of congressional acts become subject to federal, state and local controls (depending on the legal topic at hand.) So what we're trying to do here is not get "compensation" per se, but to regain access and control to lands and resources that are still technically our own. The United States Supreme Court, to this day, continues to recognize our sovereign rights (albeit as "domestic dependent nations") which a concept the Chief Justice simply made up in Worchester v. Georgia just before the removal ten million years ago, which is the main reason we are in such a jurisdictional nightmare now.
Second, while many of the treaties guaranteed certain stipends be paid either to individual Indians or to Tribes/Nations in the collective sense (for things like say access to underground oil, coal or other mining goodies) the BIA's records have become so hopelessly chaotic that every individual appointed the Secretary of the Interior now regularly gets held in contempt of court in a gesture of futility as a matter of course. This list has now come to include my old friend/boss, Gale Norton. I applaud her for stepping into that mess, knowing as much as she did about it beforehand.
Personally I think handing a few dollars out here and there is just about as worthless (maybe even damaging) as the loss of our landbases and economies to begin with anyway. Kinda reminds me of sending $600 back to every taxpayer in the US so that, instead of truly stimulating the economy and lowering taxes in a meaningful way, people can feel good about squandering a few hundred dollars at the end of the year. But then that's just me.
So, since government payouts to individuals and/or Tribes is in somewhat of a deadlock, this returns us to trying to re-establish control over landbases and resources that are still technically our own.
This is not a matter of getting something from the government. It is a matter of getting control over our own lands, resources, and economic realities so that we can break our poverty cycles on our own.
Granted, much of these treaty lands have been encroached upon and settled. Take the Black Hills situation for instance, (see, The United States v. the Great Sioux Nation (U.S. 1980???)) in which Justice O'Connor aggravatingly pointed out that no matter how unfair that situation is, the bell cannot be unrung and the houses and businesses there cannot be unbuilt.
But not ALL tribal lands under dispute are settled by intruders like this. We are really talking about a tangled jurisdictional mess that started with Worchester et al and continued with Congress passing one more intrusive act after another to get control over lands they still call ours. Much of these disputes can be settled by a relinquishment of control by the US entities back to the Tribes, where the control rightfully belongs and has all along.
There is much more to this than I am pointing out. It is truly and by far the most complex set of legal issues I have ever come across in twelve years of practice, and a lifetime of living. But these are the basics.
Thanks to you bort, for asking these very important questions.
<EDIT>
Just as a footnote. As with any constituency of any nation, being part or fullblood Indian does not in itself guarantee anybody's rights to anything. As with all governments, one must be a citizen to reap any benefits from the government. Again this is a sovereignty issue. Tribal members are the only ones who ever had even a theoretical right to stipends promised in treaties, and Tribal membership is determined by the Tribe. Each tribe has its own requirements for membership and its own enrollment processes. They are similar to those of other governments. Most people with Indian blood born on reservation are considered citizenry and simply have to fill out the paperwork (similarly to us filling out social security paperwork etc here in the US). Those who are descendents of the Tribe but born off the reservations may still establish membership by enrolling even if they do not move back. This allowance is primarily due to the mass relocation/urbanization movements by the US government that have taken place.
So, your question about being owed compensation by the Mongols and the Japanese because of your Chinese blood -- First, are you a Chinese Citizen??? Second, have those governments actually worked out any compensatory arrangements with the Chinese government? Are there lands in possession of the Mongols and/or Japanese currently under dispute in the legal system? Does the Chinese government have a legitimate claim to those disputed lands and do they have any hope of winning the legal dispute?
You see bort, it is both more complicated, and simpler, than that my friend. We are talking about two completely divergent cultures here, and if you believe that people have a right to cultural divergence -- to continue existing as Tribes, as distinct Nations -- then you probably also recognize that we must have control over our own governments, lands and subsistence activities, lest we will become fully assimilated and simply dissappear off the face of the earth altogether.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 10:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So, your question about being owed compensation by the Mongols and the Japanese because of your Chinese blood -- First, are you a Chinese Citizen??? Second, have those governments actually worked out any compensatory arrangements with the Chinese government? Are there lands in possession of the Mongols and/or Japanese currently under dispute in the legal system? Does the Chinese government have a legitimate claim to those disputed lands and do they have any hope of winning the legal dispute?
If somebody's grandfather was killed as Auschwitz and they converted to, say, Buddhism, have they waived their right to, say, their grandfather's tooth fillings? If their grandfather's tooth fillings are given to a synagogue in Israel, when they live in Brooklyn, has justice been done? If a Nazi SS commander ended up in Argentina with Argentinian citizenship is he no longer responsible for his actions when he was still a German citizen? I fail to see how there being Chinese people on Chinese land would have any bearing on my right to my great^23 grandfather's hut that was burned by the Mongols, if I indeed had such a right.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 11:09 PM |
|
|
(?)
(stupid look)
Now you lost me.
Are you suggesting we (Indian nations) do not have a right to pursue land rights claims under existing relevant legislation and standing treaties???
If you are, boy have I misread you.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 11:50 PM |
|
|
You stated that whether or not somebody is owed something because of their ancestry is dependent on what their citizenship currently is. I am stating that if somebody is owed something, what country their passport is from is a moot point and if somebody isn't owed something, what country their passport is from is also a moot point. That was all I was saying. I was not denying a right to pursue land rights. I was responding to your statement that, if I had any right to land that was taken from my ancestors by the mongols (a claim which, by the way, I am not making) than I would have waived that right by not being a Chinese citizen or that if the current Mongol government paid the current Chinese government than I would no longer have the right to that land.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 16, 2003 01:39 AM |
|
|
"Sins of the father..."
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 04:26 AM |
|
|
If I get your point then bort, we are talking about two different things. My primary point is land rights.
However, don't you have to be a member of the United States to be entitled to Social Security benefits? So yes, in many cases whether or not an individual is owed something is still a matter of citizenship.
For instance, royalty dollars that were supposed to be paid to the Chotcaw Nation for oil drilling can only go to members of the Nation. An individual's status as a mamber is determined by the Nation's standards of membership. Here in the U.S. where there has been such a blurring of the lines of membership, this is a particularly important consideration, since enormous numbers of non-Indians have moved into Tribal lands, Indians have moved off Tribal lands, and intermarriage has led to huge numbers of descendants who have ever tinier amunt of Indian blood. (All of which goes to your point about who is the compensator and who is the compensated.) The compensated is the Tribal government. (In most cases, the compensatory is the United States government. It is then responsible for the administration of those funds as a soverign issue in the manner it sees fit, just like the United States goverment would be.
The thing that most people still largely don't understand is that remunerations sought by Indians are sought by the Tribal governments, not individuals. Again, this is a government-to-government issue, not individual-to-individual.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 04:37 AM |
|
|
I know personally, I would not want to pay blacks in this country for their ancestors being slaves or Natives seeking payment for how the US treated them in the 1800's. My ancestors didn't come to the US until the late 1800's, all of them, I did research. So it wouldn't be fair for the government to take tax dollars to pay these people. Plus, a lot of the black people or their ancestors didn't come to the US until slavery was abolished. It wasn't fair for them to be persecuted against/enslaved, but you can't ask people who had nothing to do with it to pay you for something you never experianced. Any way you slice it, it just ain't fair.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 04:58 AM |
|
|
Wolfman, these two things are entirely different.
Once again, we are not talking about you paying some individual Indian for his or her ancestor being "wronged" a hundred years ago. We are talking about things like millions of dollars that the United States government still owes Nations under standing contracts that have never been paid, or the relinquishment of control over lands that are still tribal lands in the eyes of the court, but that the United States continues to exercise jurisdictional control over.
I understand you not wanting to pay for some ancestral mistake. These are current, legal, legitimate and outstanding debts we are talking about here. Natural resources have been pilfered off Indian lands, grazing rights were agreed long ago and continue to be exercised, all for a cut, my man. They are our resources. They're on our lands. In most cases we are talking about terribly minute royalty figures like 10 cents a ton for coal in Navajo and they still haven't been paid. We agreed to allow the exploration for a cut. Are you saying we don't have a right to a cut of the profits for our own natural resources????????????? (I know you didn't mean that, my friend! But you see my point, you young capitalist you.)
You may recall me referencing it becoming a regular routine to slap a contempt order on every new Secretary of the Interior who has the guts to take that position. The reason for it is because the Bureau of Indian Affairs (under the Department of the Interior) is considered to be in standing contempt for hundreds of millions of dollars that are currently owed the Indian nations. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky wish-list guilt trip we're trying to hold over anybody's head in order to extort dough from the Great White Father here.
There is primarily a jurisdictional battle going on. The Nations are vying for the right to take charge of the lands that are alreaady theirs, and getting control over royalties is only one objective among a mutitude that this achievement would serve. The reason for trying to get our landbases back under our control is not to "make somebdy pay for wronging us." It is to restore enough landbase and soverign control so that we can become more self-sufficient and get off the government tit.
And this is happening where the battles are being won, in case you think I'm just blowing smoke about this.
Wolfman, you are one of the most informed people I know. What does it tell you -- about your culture, your educational system, your government -- that you apparently know nothing of any of this???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 03:27 PM |
|
|
Im sorry to say that the law is just a way to keep those with less power under control. Sometimes (random flukes) it hits the other way, but only temporarily and its very rare.
The indians cant use laws to get what they should get, because its the laws of their suppressors. They have no real power, and will get no real resoursces. Sorry :/
Best is probably to join what you cant beat, or to carry out the treasured old traditions on a tent somwhere, being really poor because you valued the traditions higher than material wealth.
I dunno. Im not an indian.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 03:58 PM |
|
|
How right you are bjorn, about the law being part of a larger trajectory that runs against us -- at least in the beginning.
But in the last fifty years an Indian "Intelligentsia" (if you will) has risen that has among its ranks some of the most astute lawyers I've ever had the honor of coming across. Many, many legal battles are being won in the court system. There is a whole purview of law referred to as "Federal Indian Law" referencing an entire body of precedents and relevant legislation, in which these land and resource disputes are regularly meritorious. I'll refer you once again to the cite www.narf.com for materials on what kinds of cases those are and how the court system is dispensing with them. The Native American Rights Fund is one of the largest (though certainly not the only) legal entity to have successfully used the laws of the land to retrieve and protect the sovereign rights of Indian people. You should look into it my friend.
There are also Tribal lawyers and legal departments on practically every reservation who take on these battles in the court system, and several other legal societies as well. This whole area is, however, still so unknown that intelligent people continue to misunderstand the basic premises afoot here, as this thread demonstrates.
Oh -- and, one more thing, Fighting some of these battles is, in some respects, in itself "joining what you can't beat," since the old cultural community lifestyles have become obsolete in many ways in the modern world. But if we are to compete in that modern world while still preserving any sovereign identity at all, then we must cultivate our own economic independence. Indian Tribes and individuals continue to change and grow and metamorphose in response to the political and social environments of the modern world, just like any other country or culture. So re-establishing territorial intergrity through the use of modern systems and tools has become very much incorporated into that process, as a matter of necessity.
That's what all this is really about. It's not a matter of just seeking wealth for its own sake. It's a matter os being able to surivive as independent governments, and in this world, that means economic independence.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Delfontes
Known Hero
Sorcerer Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 04:33 PM |
|
|
Have you thought about how they have lawyers?
The tribes in California at least, are RICH. They have the only legal gambling in the state, and have made Billions for themselves.
They spent millions on multiple campaigns recently to attempt to keep all their tax exemptions.
One hundred and fifty years ago they were wronged, but at this point they should darn well get over it. This isn't their country anymore, and I frankly don't care anymore how our "forfathers" got it, it is ours now. Their refusal to integrate into "society" is their problem at this point. They don't call California a melting pot for nothing.
Yes, my ancestors too came over more recently, in the 1920's mainly... though a few may have been around longer, I don't care much for history, and I certainly don't pay for the sins of my ancestors.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 05:17 PM |
|
|
Delfontes it is clear you "don't care much for history." Keep your eyes closed and you don't have to see the truth. Also, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's not all your country. There are still Tribal lands. If you're saying the land-grab of the majority of land up to this point somehow justifies the grab of the rest, well, I guess there's no talking to you then. That's what they call "Manifest Destiny" thinking my friend. Perhaps you should look into it. (Oops! Never mind. I guess that would require you to inform yourself as to the "history" of this subject.)
Also I don't know what is going on in California. I'm not familiar with those particular disputes. but I suggest that from what you've said, you probably shouldn't take them as exemplary of what's going on in the rest of the country.
BTW I worked at NARF for three years, but I sure as hell ain't rich, and nobody else up there is either. You take that work because you believe in it, not because it pays great or anything.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Delfontes
Known Hero
Sorcerer Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 05:51 PM |
|
|
Yes, yes, learn from history or else you'll repeat it.
Blah blah, too much happens in history over the course of a few hundred years to make ammends for everything your ancestors did. I agree that you should have some knowledge about what happened, but I simply think that is the extent of it.
Above it was written a lot better than I can, but where do you draw the line?
I am part native american, granted it is only like 1/16th or so (not sure how much my Grandma is native american). My wife is a bit more, and cares more about history, but why continue to dwell on the past?
Oh, by the way, everyone is selfish, human nature. If you volunteer for a job that saves people, it is only because of the feeling it gives "you".
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 06:02 PM |
|
|
Delfontes, your insistence (and that of the culture at large) that these issues are "of the past" just undersscores the universal social hypnosis in the U.S. (of which I have spoken many times) that these issues are in "the past," that Indians are "in the past," that Indian Nations no longer exist. I assure you they and the issues that surround them are alive and well and are in the present, just like I am, just like reservations are, just like continuing breaches of standing present agreements between the U.S. and Indian nations are.
Please be aware that I know you are not alone in this perception. It is very widespread, again as ths posts in this thread would indicate. But it is not accurate in the least.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Delfontes
Known Hero
Sorcerer Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 06:21 PM |
|
|
Independant nations do not use my tax dollars for welfare.
|
| |
|
|
