UN official: US must return control of sacred lands to Native Americans

[Viking]

His arguments are basically because of a history of oppression, imperialism, racism etc.etc. and them getting access to their special priveleges is disrupted by oppresive laws and regulations. I just don't think that problems caused by segregation from society will be solved by creating more segregation.

The argument is that the history of oppression should lead to a remedy in the world today. The special privileges they claim are therefore grounded in rights that pre-existed the "western" civilizations.

Yes, a post-modern blood-feud based on a principle of original sin is almost certainly the best way to create a well adjusted society and individual.

The thing is that constant harping about ancient insults has never produced peace and harmony in a society. Ignoring historical oppression is a universal in all cases of reconciliation in world history.

[Valmy]

The argument is that the history of oppression should lead to a remedy in the world today. The special privileges they claim are therefore grounded in rights that pre-existed the "western" civilizations.

While I am certainly up for respecting any current arrangements with current existing native American tribes and trying to be as reasonable to them as we can this smells a bit like nationaist nonsense to me.

[Oexmelin]

While I am certainly up for respecting any current arrangements with current existing native American tribes and trying to be as reasonable to them as we can this smells a bit like nationaist nonsense to me.

Is American nationalism nonsense?

[Valmy]

And who is the BLM?

Bureau of Land Management.

So the government ignored its own regulations?  Was there corruption going on here?

[Valmy]

Is American nationalism nonsense?

Are you really asking me this?  Of course it is.  The principles we are supposed to be embracing are universal.  But our nationalists think they only apply to Americans.

[Razgovory]

I have a question:  Why is one group of people more "native" or "indigenous" then another?  I mean, I was born in this country, as was my father and his father before him.

Martinez Cobo is the author of the unofficial definition that is said to have great practical meaning when indigenous peoples are defined. You can see more here

http://www.humanrights.is/the-human-rights-project/humanrightscasesandmaterials/humanrightsconceptsideasandfora/Undirflokkur/indigenouspeoples/

It is the link to pre-colonization era, non-dominance in relation to other populations and distinct culture and the will to maintain the way of life that are relevant factors.

This definition has some problems.  The natives usually took the land they were living on from someone else.  Take for example the Indians who lived where I live now, the Osage.  They didn't always live where here in Missouri.  They used to live further East, but migrated West into Missouri and Kansas displacing the people who used to live here.  I think this should count as an "Invasion" and "Colonization".  Or the Inuit living in Southern Greenland.  They moved into the area after the Europeans did and may have played a part in the destruction of the European settlements there.  Later on Europeans recolonized this land.  Who are the natives?  The Europeans or the Inuit?

[PDH]

So the government ignored its own regulations?  Was there corruption going on here?

Yes, the administration said sorry.  Whoops.

[KRonn]

Just three Native American reservations in Massacusetts. I think all are pretty small, one being just a few acres. One on Cape Cod and two in central Mass.

In 1675 there was a pretty brutal war in Massachusetts Colony, King Phillip's War it was called after the English name for a main Native Chief. Some Mass towns were detroyed, economy was ravaged, taking a long time to recover. The Natives were thoroughly defeated, though never to be a threat again. But it was a very nasty war, doing a lot of damage to the Massachusetts Colony.

[jimmy olsen]

Just three Native American reservations in Massacusetts. I think all are pretty small, one being just a few acres. One on Cape Cod and two in central Mass.

In 1675 there was a pretty brutal war in Massachusetts Colony, King Phillip's War it was called after the English name for a main Native Chief. Some Mass towns were detroyed, economy was ravaged, taking a long time to recover. The Natives were thoroughly defeated, though never to be a threat again. But it was a very nasty war, doing a lot of damage to the Massachusetts Colony.

There was a lot of fighting in Connecticut and Rhode Island as well.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Just three Native American reservations in Massacusetts. I think all are pretty small, one being just a few acres. One on Cape Cod and two in central Mass.

In 1675 there was a pretty brutal war in Massachusetts Colony, King Phillip's War it was called after the English name for a main Native Chief. Some Mass towns were detroyed, economy was ravaged, taking a long time to recover. The Natives were thoroughly defeated, though never to be a threat again. But it was a very nasty war, doing a lot of damage to the Massachusetts Colony.

Yeah, one of those tribes here in Mass has a lot of members, most of whom have no Indian blood.  But because the laws say the tribe can decide how much of a connection their members need to qualify anybody with a great-great-great-grandparent who was half Native American can claim membership in a tribe and try to get a piece of the casino pie. Or use it to get Affirmative Action help in the job hunt like Liz Warren.

[KRonn]

Darth, I'm not sure but I think that's the tibes of the Mashpee reservation on the Cape that has all the members. They've been trying to open a casino too. Not sure if they'll be able to, once the State govt decides whether to allow casinos or not.

[jimmy olsen]

A sacred white buffalo of the Lakota Sioux was mutilated 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/06/11560167-white-buffalo-sacred-to-lakota-sioux-found-mutilated?lite

[Syt]

Also: It's a bison, not a buffalo.

[Barrister]

His arguments are basically because of a history of oppression, imperialism, racism etc.etc. and them getting access to their special priveleges is disrupted by oppresive laws and regulations. I just don't think that problems caused by segregation from society will be solved by creating more segregation.

The argument is that the history of oppression should lead to a remedy in the world today. The special privileges they claim are therefore grounded in rights that pre-existed the "western" civilizations.

Yes, a post-modern blood-feud based on a principle of original sin is almost certainly the best way to create a well adjusted society and individual.

The thing is that constant harping about ancient insults has never produced peace and harmony in a society. Ignoring historical oppression is a universal in all cases of reconciliation in world history.

The trouble is we're not talking about ancient history.  Aboriginal land theft has occurred within the last hundred years.  What PDH describes is within the last 30 years.

I'm not first nations.  I understand the frustration that certain oil and gas / mining companies have dealing with very unclear first nations title to the land.  Their frustration is not without some merit.

However - simply saying that first nations should just "suck it up" and dismiss it as "ancient history" is just not right either.

[Viking]

The trouble is we're not talking about ancient history.  Aboriginal land theft has occurred within the last hundred years.  What PDH describes is within the last 30 years.

Yes, and that can be dealt with by the law without giving indian tribes magical rights to real estate that is not their property.

I'm not first nations.  I understand the frustration that certain oil and gas / mining companies have dealing with very unclear first nations title to the land.  Their frustration is not without some merit.

It is unclear because of the magical claim to spiritual rights (yes rights not rites) over land. These are rights claimed by heredity, that is just wrong imho.

However - simply saying that first nations should just "suck it up" and dismiss it as "ancient history" is just not right either.

I think they should suck it up behave as citizens and sue on the merits of their case; not claim that becuase great great granddaddy was at little big horn I get a say in what farmer bob does with his land.