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

[dps]

While I have to agree that the reservation system is mostly dysfunctional, I don't think that the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among young people there is useful evidence, given that it's either 2nd or 3rd among young people in the US as a whole (motor vechicle accidents are still #1).

It is certainly useful in the context of a lot of other evidence.

Hell, the fact that it is first instead of second compared to the norm is pretty useful evidence.

Well, my guess (which might well be wrong) was that kids on the reservations have less access to motor vechicles, which kept that out of the number one spot for them.

Could be...on the other hand, the rampant alcoholism and drug use would tend to drive up vehicular death rates as well, since that is what often drives youth vehicular fatality rates.

In any case, if your contention is accurate, then we would see that the suicide fatality rate amongst reservation youths is actually not higher than the norm, it is just that vehicular fatality rates are lower. Lets check, shall we?

First result from a google search on native american suicide rates:

http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2010/11/21/a-tribal-tragedy-state%E2%80%99s-native-peoples-have-alarmingly-high-suicide-rates/

Despite 40 years of insight and ongoing prevention efforts, many native communities still struggle with keeping members from taking their own lives. Between 1999 and 2008, at least 86 Native Americans in Wisconsin have died by suicide — a figure that is likely lower than the actual toll, given that experts believe suicides are sometimes mislabeled as accidental overdoses, shootings and car crashes.

An analysis of Wisconsin suicide data from 1999 to 2008 by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism found:

    The overall suicide rate among Native Americans was 16 deaths per 100,000 people — at least 25 percent higher than Wisconsin’s overall rate of about 12 deaths per 100,000.
    The suicide rate among native people was significantly higher than rates for the other ethnic and racial groups — including about 12 per 100,000 for whites, 9 for Asians, 7 for blacks, and 6 for Hispanics.
    Menominee County, dominated by the Menominee Indian Reservation with a majority Native American population, had the highest suicide rate of any Wisconsin county with nearly 30 deaths per 100,000 — two times higher than the national rate for non-Hispanic Native Americans.

Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that suicide death rates among non-Hispanic Native Americans, such as those living in Wisconsin, have remained consistently higher than the general population over the past two decades.

Bah, you're right.  I was just pointing out that the teen suicide rate, in and of itself, isn't really that much of an indicator, given how common it is among all American teens, since many of the teens who kill them selves (I'm talking about in society as a whole, not on the reservation) actually seem to have it pretty good.

[Malthus]

Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.

I can think of a lot of societies, social groups and families who put financial pressure by way of both penalties and rewards to marry the right kind of person.

What we are dealing with is BB's incredulity (complete with  ) that the government legally, with the use of incentives (in this case, "status" for one's kids) discourages intermarriage.

I take it that the cites I have provided at least establish that this is happening and that BB is incorrect?

This is not really comparable to families encouraging their kids to marry within the faith.

[Barrister]

Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership.  There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.

Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.

[crazy canuck]

NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.

YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.

[garbon]

NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.

YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.

Are the native bands not sovereign governments?

[Berkut]

NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.

YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.

Uhhh, I thought the band was in fact a sovereign government on the reservation. Wasn't that the entire point of the discussion, was that they were in fact sovereign?

The leadership of the band IS the government.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

[Malthus]

Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership.  There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.

Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.

Status and band membership are two different things.

I've posted the links demonstrating the concern about kids losing status through intermarriage.

The problem is this, in a nutshell: Canada was embarrassed into removing the provision of the Indian Act that stripped indian women of status if they intermarried. This happened in 1985 (incredibly late, IMO).

The gov't then said, "okay, everyone who intermarries gets status, but their kids can no longer intermarry and have status - and this applies to everyone, too. No more gender discrimination!".

So it is perfectly possible to know someone who is 1/4 indian and has status - if they were born before 1985.

The problem of course remains that having unequal legal status based on race creates inherent injustices - the government's method of limiting the otherwise-potentially-infinite spread of "status" throughout the population demonstrates this.

Without anyone wanting to, it creates financial incentives not to intermarry - thus, a legal system that creates government-imposed barriers based on race. These "barriers" are of course not prohibitions. Anyone can marry anyone. But if you marry the wrong person, your children are stripped of rights.

Edit: this is caused by the application of ss. 6(2) of the Indian Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/page-3.html#h-6

[crazy canuck]

NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.

YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.

Are the native bands not sovereign governments?

No, that is the point isnt it.

[dps]

Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership.  There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.

Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.

I have no idea about Canada, but in the States, individual tribes do have some discretion about membership.  According to Wikipedia, "The tribal government, in the absence of some legal obligation which stipulates otherwise, has final jurisdiction over who is a member of the tribe."

[Berkut]

That can't be right dps, CC assures us that the tribes have no governments, only "bands".

[crazy canuck]

That can't be right dps, CC assures us that the tribes have no governments, only "bands".

For someone who cries when their point is misrepresented I find this highly ironic coming form you.

[Malthus]

Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership.  There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.

Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.

I have no idea about Canada, but in the States, individual tribes do have some discretion about membership.  According to Wikipedia, "The tribal government, in the absence of some legal obligation which stipulates otherwise, has final jurisdiction over who is a member of the tribe."

This is true in Canada as well.

S. 10 of the Indian Act:

10. (1) A band may assume control of its own membership if it establishes membership rules for itself in writing in accordance with this section and if, after the band has given appropriate notice of its intention to assume control of its own membership, a majority of the electors of the band gives its consent to the band's control of its own membership.

[Barrister]

Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership.  There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.

Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.

Status and band membership are two different things.

I've posted the links demonstrating the concern about kids losing status through intermarriage.

The problem is this, in a nutshell: Canada was embarrassed into removing the provision of the Indian Act that stripped indian women of status if they intermarried. This happened in 1985 (incredibly late, IMO).

The gov't then said, "okay, everyone who intermarries gets status, but their kids can no longer intermarry and have status - and this applies to everyone, too. No more gender discrimination!".

So it is perfectly possible to know someone who is 1/4 indian and has status - if they were born before 1985.

The problem of course remains that having unequal legal status based on race creates inherent injustices - the government's method of limiting the otherwise-potentially-infinite spread of "status" throughout the population demonstrates this.

Without anyone wanting to, it creates financial incentives not to intermarry - thus, a legal system that creates government-imposed barriers based on race. These "barriers" are of course not prohibitions. Anyone can marry anyone. But if you marry the wrong person, your children are stripped of rights.

Edit: this is caused by the application of ss. 6(2) of the Indian Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/page-3.html#h-6

Nope - I can think of a few kids who are definitely mixed heritage who have status.

I think you are mistaken.

[Malthus]

Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership.  There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.

Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.

Status and band membership are two different things.

I've posted the links demonstrating the concern about kids losing status through intermarriage.

The problem is this, in a nutshell: Canada was embarrassed into removing the provision of the Indian Act that stripped indian women of status if they intermarried. This happened in 1985 (incredibly late, IMO).

The gov't then said, "okay, everyone who intermarries gets status, but their kids can no longer intermarry and have status - and this applies to everyone, too. No more gender discrimination!".

So it is perfectly possible to know someone who is 1/4 indian and has status - if they were born before 1985.

The problem of course remains that having unequal legal status based on race creates inherent injustices - the government's method of limiting the otherwise-potentially-infinite spread of "status" throughout the population demonstrates this.

Without anyone wanting to, it creates financial incentives not to intermarry - thus, a legal system that creates government-imposed barriers based on race. These "barriers" are of course not prohibitions. Anyone can marry anyone. But if you marry the wrong person, your children are stripped of rights.

Edit: this is caused by the application of ss. 6(2) of the Indian Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/page-3.html#h-6

Nope - I can think of a few kids who are definitely mixed heritage who have status.

I think you are mistaken.

Your anecdote trumps my quoting the relevant statutory law directly on point? 

I mean, just read the thing. A s. 6(2) indian cannot confer status if he or she marries a non-indian.

[Jacob]

So what you are objecting to is not the analysis of the reality, but the form of words used to describe it.

No, I object to your analysis. Primarily, I don't think you have enough exposure to the facts to conclude that Native culture is broken. I'm not claiming that I have better exposure to the facts, which is why I limit myself to acknowledging specific individual problems with the caveat that I don't have a thorough understanding.

How does one attempt to artificially prevent assimilation?

By creating a system of laws and policies (with the best will in the world no doubt) that creates a legal distinction based on "race", and provides financial incentives for those of the favoured "race" to remain on isolated reservations and not to intermarry with those who are not?

I don't see how that's "artificial".

Well of course, we are back to your form of words again.

Yes, if you put it like that, no-one on earth is going to say "my culture is disfunctional". Given a chance, they, being human beings, are going to see that as insulting and patronizing - particularly comming from the majority culture, right?

Your mistake is mixing up an objective analysis of the problem with the impossibility of imposing a solution from outside. It may surprise you to know I quite agree that imposing solutions from outside is not going to work ... but of course, what we have now is not working, either.

I'm not surprised that you believe that imposing outside solutions will not work based on what I know of you, you're decent and intelligent fellow. What I am surprised about is that given that you don't believe imposing outside solutions will work, you revert to proposing solutions which, in your own words, are based on an insulting and patronizing premise and which are imposed from the outside.

In other words, do more of what we are already doing, only do it better and with greater goodwill.

Yes, I think the BC treaty negotiation process - as exemplified by the Musquam and Nisga'a treaty processes - is the way forward. More of that will certainly help, and more goodwill will certainly help.

I'm not proposing any particular solution - I'm merely pointing out the problem: creating a two-tier system for natives has proved a dismal failure and indeed a disgrace. Proposing more of the same seems to me a simple inability to learn from failure.

This is the first time you've mentioned any two-tiered system. Previously your assertion was that Native culture is broken and assimilation was the solution.