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

[Tonitrus]

Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.

[Berkut]

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.

Two things:

1. I get your point - but so what? I am sure if I asked most any group if they would like "special" privileges, the majority would say "Sure, that would be great!". That doesn't make it a good idea though.

2. The US political ideal is based on equality, and specifically NOT on the establishment of privileged minorities, no matter what the justification for that privilege. I get that Native Americans feel a special claim on land, and recognize the historical validity of those claims. But that is the thing - the validity is completely historical, and means very little in the current context of modern society.

3. Finally, I argue that in fact the practical result of these special arrangement have had a significant net harmful effect on the people they are supposed to help, and that is not primarily the result of not giving them enough special privileges, it is because by creating a separate society within the context of the overall US society, it has created a second class citizen in many Native Americans. We are not doing them any favors.

I think the primary motivation at this point is mostly about pride - the demand that they continue to be recognized as "special". That is understandable, but overall harmful, and in a directly measurable manner.

Native American culture is gone. It cannot be preserved. There is no American outback where they can go and pretend like they are living in a pre-industrialzied society, nor would they want to if there was - so what is the point of these "sovereign nations"? What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?

None of this will happen of course, at least not anymore so than it has already (and is continuing on the individual level as those with ambition simply leave the reservation system and integrate themselves), because our own culture has this persistent myth that we can somehow feel less guilty about our historical sins if we try to pay off the descendants of those our descendants wronged.

[grumbler]

Some native American cultures are gone, some are not.  The Navajo, Zuni, and Hopi cultures are alive and well, though numerous members of those tribes have moved away and integrated into general American culture.  Not sure about others.

Having said that, your idea could still be implemented, in a modified form:  the reservations could, indeed, be divided, and those who want to donate their land to a "homeland" and essentially join a commune of sorts could do so.  Others would take their land and live as individuals.  In any case, the commune would exist as any other commune, with no special political or legal powers.

There would have to be some transition funding to pay for the transaction costs, and these would still be impoverished communities, but at least you'd get the fucking tribal politics out of the way.

[dps]

What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?

They are getting some local self-government out of it.  Of course, they could have that without having special privileges that let them do things that other local governments can't do.

[sbr]

What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?

They are getting some local self-government out of it.  Of course, they could have that without having special privileges that let them do things that other local governments can't do.

And lots and lots of casino money.

[Admiral Yi]

It would be interesting to know if casino money had any impact on drunkenness.

[Berkut]

Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.

I would not agree with that at all - Amish culture works. Does Native American culture?

The Amish have a perfectly viable and working social, poltiical, and economic system that functions quite well within the overall US culture. How is that comparable to Native American culture, which is clearly NOT functional in any meaningful sense?

The Amish farm, produce goods, engage in commerce, vote, raise families, work, are productive, etc., etc.

The Native Americans who live on reservations do not engage in activities that are culturally meaningful in the sense that it is preserving some distinct culture that is actually functional separate from the overall culture they exist in, or even as a subset of that culture.

I don't think the US should pass any laws taking away reservations or anything like that, but I do think it the right direction is to convince as many Native Americans as possible that their best option is to integrate into US society as a distinct cultural and ethnic group that functions as a part of the whole, like any other ethnic group in America.

[Razgovory]

Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.

This is an interesting comparison.  I never thought about it.  Of course the Amish don't live on lousy land.

[DGuller]

These days, having sovereign Indian lands in US is like having sovereign Babylonian lands in Iraq.

[Berkut]

Some native American cultures are gone, some are not.  The Navajo, Zuni, and Hopi cultures are alive and well, though numerous members of those tribes have moved away and integrated into general American culture.  Not sure about others.

I think this is true to the extent that there is a Jewish American culture, or a Hispanic culture within America, or whatever. They are certainly their, have great value, but they don't pretend to exist independent of the more generic US culture - rather they are a unique part of the whole. Even the Amish, as someone else mentioned, while being very distinct, make no pretensions to being culturally independent.

What I mean by a dead culture that they are simply pretending to perpetuate is this idea that Native American culture exists within the geographical and political bounds of the US, but is somehow not actually a part of US culture, but rather is independent of it - like if only the US would do right by the Native Americans, they could go back to hunting buffalo and living their pre-colonization culture, or some facimile thereof that is independent of the US political/economic/social/cultural system.

[Neil]

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.

Sometimes nationalism causes people to make bad decisions.

[PDH]

Not all reservations are Pine Ridge.

[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.

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.

Indians are well aware of this.

Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.



Look - I do not want to pretend I have all the answers.  I most certainly do not.

Yet, having spent a decade dealing with first nations I can tell you that saying "well the answer to the Indian problem is we should turn them into non-Indians" is the same, failed, answer that we as white Europeans have been saying for literally centuries.  And it didn't work for all those centuries, and completely ignores what Indian themselves want.

The answer of "we should treat them honestly, listen to their asperations, and try to live up to our promises to them" is a pretty novel one, having only been tried for the last 30 years or so.  And clearly it doesn't have all the answers either, given the continuing problems in Indian communities.  But al least it doesn't have the guaranteed track record of futility that assimilation does.

[Barrister]

Native American culture is gone. It cannot be preserved. There is no American outback where they can go and pretend like they are living in a pre-industrialzied society, nor would they want to if there was - so what is the point of these "sovereign nations"? What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?

None of this will happen of course, at least not anymore so than it has already (and is continuing on the individual level as those with ambition simply leave the reservation system and integrate themselves), because our own culture has this persistent myth that we can somehow feel less guilty about our historical sins if we try to pay off the descendants of those our descendants wronged.

In what way is Native American culture "gone"?  I'll give you that there are certain reservations, particularily on the east coast, where you'd have a hard time finding any difference between the on-reserve and off-reserve populations.

But in Alberta, Manitoba and Yukon (the places I've lived) I can tell you that even when you have side-by-side aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities, the culture is completely different between them.  To be a Cree-Canadian is substantially different than being a Ukrainian-Canadian.

No Native wants to live their life as if trapped in some cultural amber - never changing.  They want to adapt their culture to change with the times.  Much as it has changed in what it means to be English, or Swedish, or Japanese has changed over the centuries while still maintaining an ongoing cultural identity, they want to feel the same.

[Barrister]

Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.

I would not agree with that at all - Amish culture works. Does Native American culture?

Is there some mutually recognizable definition on what a "working" culture means?