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

[Brezel]

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.

It is hardly nonsense that the indigenous peoples as "peoples" are nowadays recognized to be subjects of self-determination. Land rights are actual not only because of the historical background and regardless who one thinks should have the current title to the land under domestic law. Native culture is often linked to certain land and its utilization in traditional ways. It is in order to protect the  development of these cultures that such rights should be recognized. Property rights can be a tool to this. The remedy ought to be a context-specific. I understand the monetary compensation offered in case of Black Hills is contentious, especially as these lands are fairly recently taken and
the amount awarded remains to be claimed.

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?

This argument has some weight, no doubt. Often it is the native cultures that nowadays are under threat and have faced greater burden.

[jimmy olsen]

By the way, are you new Brezel?

[Tonitrus]

He has posts that are three years old.

[Brezel]

By the way, are you new Brezel?

No I have been around since the discussion moved here from paradox forums in what 2006, I still lurk on weekly basis.

[The Brain]

Always nice to meet a fan.

[PDH]

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

But often the land is theirs through treaty rights.  Nothing magical about it.  The size of this land was (often unilaterally) reduced - as the case of the Black Hills - and the courts have often recognized that this was illegal.  Following this recognition of prior legal basis to the land that was taken (and neither compensated nor returned), at least some involvement is allowed with sacred sites.

It is all within the legal systems of the last 150 years, it was just later recognized as not entirely constitutional in the case of the American Indian tribes.

[Viking]

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

But often the land is theirs through treaty rights.  Nothing magical about it.  The size of this land was (often unilaterally) reduced - as the case of the Black Hills - and the courts have often recognized that this was illegal.  Following this recognition of prior legal basis to the land that was taken (and neither compensated nor returned), at least some involvement is allowed with sacred sites.

It is all within the legal systems of the last 150 years, it was just later recognized as not entirely constitutional in the case of the American Indian tribes.

And that is fine. If the US government breaks the treaty bully to the tribe to get their pound of flesh. Just as it is unfair for the government to usurp powers the same applies to the tribe.

[The Brain]

Just order some more blankets. FFS.

[Berkut]

I think the Gordian knot needs to be cut.

IMO, we should give up trying to even pretend that American Indian have some kind of distinctively valuable culture that can be protected. It cannot. It is gone, destroyed by history.

It does no favors to anyone to continue to pretend this is not the case, and great harm to many to leave them on "reservations" that amount to no more than irrelevant patches of land full of poverty and segregation.

I think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.

But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".

[Jacob]

But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".

I'm sure most non-Native Americans in the US would agree. Not sure about how Native Americans will feel about it, however.

[PDH]

Oddly enough, Berk, that is about the language behind the Dawes Act supporters.

[CountDeMoney]

I think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.

But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".

Ooooh, I don't know about that...

[Tonitrus]

But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".

Why do you hate organized crime?   

[Barrister]

I think the Gordian knot needs to be cut.

IMO, we should give up trying to even pretend that American Indian have some kind of distinctively valuable culture that can be protected. It cannot. It is gone, destroyed by history.

It does no favors to anyone to continue to pretend this is not the case, and great harm to many to leave them on "reservations" that amount to no more than irrelevant patches of land full of poverty and segregation.

I think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.

But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".

The thing is - that would of course be the most convenient thing for everyone who isn't an Indian.

Strange the Indians themselves think differently.

[Berkut]

I think the Gordian knot needs to be cut.

IMO, we should give up trying to even pretend that American Indian have some kind of distinctively valuable culture that can be protected. It cannot. It is gone, destroyed by history.

It does no favors to anyone to continue to pretend this is not the case, and great harm to many to leave them on "reservations" that amount to no more than irrelevant patches of land full of poverty and segregation.

I think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.

But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".

The thing is - that would of course be the most convenient thing for everyone who isn't an Indian.

Strange the Indians themselves think differently.

Actually, the reason *I* think that way is 100% because I think the current system screws the current Indians as individuals.

Indians living on reservations are consistently poorer, less well educated, and with a lower standard of living than the average American.

They are not better off because their "leaders" want them to pretend to preserve a culture that no longer exists.