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

[Berkut]

And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?

Beeb: Man, these people have probably never seen an Indian, they don't understand them like I do! What a bunch of ignorant dumbasses!

Berkut: Dude, I grew up in an areas with lots and lots of Native Americans around. As I stated before, I've employed them, I've had friends who were Native Americans, both on and off reservation.

Malthus: Actually, I know quite a few of them, and even work with them professionally. I am personal friends with someone who is a Native American band chief.

Beeb: YEAH BUT HAVE YOU TOLD THEM WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT RESERVATIONS ZOMG!

It would be better to just say "Oh, I guess I was wrong...sorry, maybe you aren't a bunch of ignorant fucks after all..."

[Malthus]

So no, the problems are not just "theirs". They are "ours" - native and non-native alike - because they are sustained by "our" government under "our" legislation that "we" drafted. The whole attempt to divide the population into "us" and "them" is suspect, and I rather think the root of the problem.

The distinction you refer to one is not just a simple artifact of categorical Canadian federal legislation; it is inherent in the recognition of the tribes as having some kind of independent sovereign status.  Which means any "fix" involves not just removing what you see as offensive categorical distinctions in Canadian domestic legislation, but also exterminating whatever remains of the the sovereign status of the tribes.  Seems to me very problematic to do that against the wishes of the nation whose quasi-sovereign rights are to be extirpated on the grounds that it is for their own good.

Obviously there would be enormous problems attempting to dismantle a centuries-old system with all sorts of deeply vested interests at stake. Doing so would be neither painless nor without pilitical costs, which is exactly why I predict nothing whatsoever is going to be done - other than perhaps the sort of goodwill-tinkering-at-the-edges that is proposed.

The fact that the problem is deep, intractible and potentially unsolvable - because the misery it is causing challenges no vested interests and is more or less politically invisible - is one issue; an accurate and objective analysis as to *what the problem in fact is*, is another.

The sovereignty of native tribes is an artifact of history - it recognizes a reality that, in fact, no longer exists. It has become an excuse for creating (again with the very best will in the world) a system of third-world-like bantustans within first-world countries. Of course natives who have "status" do not want to give it up - who wants to give up a bunch of entitlements?

[Barrister]

And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?

Beeb: Man, these people have probably never seen an Indian, they don't understand them like I do! What a bunch of ignorant dumbasses!

Berkut: Dude, I grew up in an areas with lots and lots of Native Americans around. As I stated before, I've employed them, I've had friends who were Native Americans, both on and off reservation.

Malthus: Actually, I know quite a few of them, and even work with them professionally. I am personal friends with someone who is a Native American band chief.

Beeb: YEAH BUT HAVE YOU TOLD THEM WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT RESERVATIONS ZOMG!

It would be better to just say "Oh, I guess I was wrong...sorry, maybe you aren't a bunch of ignorant fucks after all..."

Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly.  I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not.

[Malthus]

And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?

As a point of fact, no.

He is by no means living the stereotype of the despondent Native American living on the government dole - he's more of an entrepreneur.

He's willing to work any angle that gets him, or his band, some advantage, and he's very good at it. 

To give an anecdotal example - last year we were discussing the park project. He wanted a greater role on one of the committees set up to outline the ambit of the park's rules. My dad mentioned that he had a slide of my grandfather taken in the 1950s, looking at a trail sign in what would now be the park - and it was written in three languages: English, French and Algonkian.

Chief Harry got my dad to send him a print, which he then used to prove to the Quebec officals that the government had, by tradition, included native language (and thus taken into consideration native presence) in its deliberations over land-use policies -- more in the 1950s than now! Today, no signs at all have Algonkian on them! So, naturally, Chief Harry should have a role on the committee, to redress this lack.

The kicker is this. When we went to Chief Harry's office, we asked him if he could read the Algonkian on the sign. He answered with a bit of a laugh "No, nobody at all reads that now - maybe some really elderly person might, but here, it has almost totally died out. But the government doesn't have to know that".


 

[Berkut]

The sovereignty of native tribes is an artifact of history - it recognizes a reality that, in fact, no longer exists. It has become an excuse for creating (again with the very best will in the world) a system of third-world-like bantustans within first-world countries. Of course natives who have "status" do not want to give it up - who wants to give up a bunch of entitlements?

What is bizarre about this is when you look at Native Americans who live off of reservation.

I've sat around shooting the shit with friends in college whose parents bailed on the reservation long ago, and their kids are now going to college, and are pretty much just normal Americans. Some are more into their culture, others not so much.

And they would never, ever, EVER consider moving back onto the reservation - at least not the ones that I knew. They still have family there, still visit obviously, but simply cannot understand why anyone would choose to live in such conditions in return for some shitty stipend and food stamps.

For those living on reservation, there is almost this perverse pride in their plight sometimes - like they are the "true" Native Americans, because they aren't going to let poverty, despair, and misery stop them from living as their culture intended. At least, that is the impression I got at times.

The one young lady who worked for me who was talking about the bribe to marry another NA and stay on the reservation was very conflicted. She wanted to go to college and get the fuck out of there, but there was a lot of pressure from some members of her family to stay true to her heritage, which apparently meant marrying some guy who was willing to live on the reservation without a job but with a house, a truck, and a stipend. Of course, that isn't how it was presented to her, but that is certainly how she saw that option.

Are those kinds of pressures placed on others? Of course. Jewish moms want their boy to marry a nice Jewish girl, etc., etc.

But here is the difference:

1. It isn't the government placing those pressures, and providing financial incentive to do so in the case of Jewish mom.
2. Jewish mom isn't shafting their son really by trying to get him to marry a nice Jewish girl - at least not in a demographic/statistical sense. Presumably nice Jewish girls have the same or better chance of making nice Jewish boys happy and such as anyone else. To the extent that social pressures being palced on people to conform that result in a clear reduction in the standard of living and happiness of those who are pressured to conform, then I would find that objectionable as well. And when it is state sanctioned and supported, that objection would rise to the level of supporting actual legislative intervention to stop it.

[Malthus]

Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly.  I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not.

There are two ends to that stick. I'd say that the "fucking over" is going on right now, and ask how anyone with a heart could justify it.

Whether any proposed solution would "fuck over" people even more, is unknown.

[Berkut]

Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly.  I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Of course, the difference is that my opinion is 100% predicated on nothing more than the desire to NOT fuck over people who are in fact being fucked over right now by the system you so vehemently support.

So yeah - you make no sense Beeb. YOU are the one demanding that nothing really change, and we continue to leave this minority in poverty and despair, because to not do so is "ignorance". Is very nice!

[Barrister]

Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly.  I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Of course, the difference is that my opinion is 100% predicated on nothing more than the desire to NOT fuck over people who are in fact being fucked over right now by the system you so vehemently support.

So yeah - you make no sense Beeb. YOU are the one demanding that nothing really change, and we continue to leave this minority in poverty and despair, because to not do so is "ignorance". Is very nice!

Well, no.  I have some sympathy for the "abolish reservations" opinion. 

But the fact of the matter is that native people do not want to do so.

It is their system, and their rights.  It is their culture and their way of life.  If we are going to finally stop treating natives as children, and extend to them true "self-government" then it is up to them how they wish to organize their affairs.

So until and unless I hear native people say that reserves should be abolished, I won't support that position.

[Berkut]

Well, no.  I have some sympathy for the "abolish reservations" opinion. 

You do? Wow.

I don't. I think doing so would be a terrible idea.

But the fact of the matter is that native people do not want to do so.

Well, actually the fact of the matter is that some care about the reservations, and plenty do not. I don't know how many might be in favor of abolishing them though - I've never even heard it proposed seriously.

Enough have voted with their feet to make it clear that your apparent belief that all native Americans share this monolithic affection and passion for living in a ghetto in the middle of nowhere is somewhat, well, simplistic.

It is their system, and their rights.  It is their culture and their way of life.  If we are going to finally stop treating natives as children, and extend to them true "self-government" then it is up to them how they wish to organize their affairs.

Well, sort of. If you are serious about that as some kind of foundational principle, then do you also think they should be truly sovereign and independent? Should they get to vote in US elections? Should the US government support them financially in any way?

Here is the thing - when you say you want them to be "truly self-governing" you don't really mean it. You don't really mean they should be a completely separate political and cultural entity, because they cannot be - with a few particular exceptions, reservations are not economically self sufficient and likely never will be.

So while it is easy to say they should get to make their own decisions, the reality is that there is an interdependence that exists, and hence they cannot make their own decisions because they are not actually a separate nation or culture. So we have to make decisions as well, like how much we should support a failed economic structure, how much we should support keeping people in poverty and misery in order to make ourselves feel like we "understand" them.

So until and unless I hear native people say that reserves should be abolished, I won't support that position.

Wow, all this time you've been arguing with someone who wants to abolish reservations over the objections of Native Americans?

Who would that be? I have made no such proposal. I don't think anyone in this thread has.

[Malthus]

Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly.  I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Of course, the difference is that my opinion is 100% predicated on nothing more than the desire to NOT fuck over people who are in fact being fucked over right now by the system you so vehemently support.

So yeah - you make no sense Beeb. YOU are the one demanding that nothing really change, and we continue to leave this minority in poverty and despair, because to not do so is "ignorance". Is very nice!

Well, no.  I have some sympathy for the "abolish reservations" opinion. 

But the fact of the matter is that native people do not want to do so.

It is their system, and their rights.  It is their culture and their way of life.  If we are going to finally stop treating natives as children, and extend to them true "self-government" then it is up to them how they wish to organize their affairs.

So until and unless I hear native people say that reserves should be abolished, I won't support that position.

Then how about this for a "solution".

There must be billions of dollars in unresolved land claims out there. Resolve them all. Take that money, and add to it *all* the cash that is going to be handed over in various ways to keep the reservation system going, add current land values and rights held by native self-governments, make it into a big pool of cash, and offer each and every adult native person a *choice* - you can have your "share" (whatever pro-rata figure that may be) right now - but you have to give up "status". Or, you can have your "share" administered for you on your behalf, under the current set-up - by the government, and by your band chiefs and councils, on your reservations.

Obviously some formula for changing one's mind has to be worked out. Point is, this would offer people an actual choice. Naturally under the current system few would be willing to abandon the system - how many living in poverty want to give up entitlement to welfare?

[11B4V]

  They'll be lazier.

[Berkut]

how many living in poverty want to give up entitlement to welfare?

Bingo.

And it is even worse than that - you are dealing not just with poor people, but largely badly educated poor people.

The system keeps them poor, AND keeps them ignorant so they are susceptible to their leaders who are telling them that being poor, miserable, and uneducated is simply part of their culture and heritage, and rejecting the hand outs and screwed up system is tantamount to rejecting their "culture". To the extent that there is any problem, why, it is not a problem of the system, but a problem of the overall society that has screwed their people over in the past (true) and continues to screw them over today (mostly false), and if only that society would do the right things (which of course inevitably involves fighting poverty by increasing handouts...all of which must flow through the "sovereign government" of course) then those problems would go away.

But they won't. You cannot buy your way out of poverty. We could double the budget for the BIA, and it would not make high school dropouts employable in the middle of nowhere.

[Oexmelin]

The sovereignty of native tribes is an artifact of history - it recognizes a reality that, in fact, no longer exists. It has become an excuse for creating (again with the very best will in the world) a system of third-world-like bantustans within first-world countries. Of course natives who have "status" do not want to give it up - who wants to give up a bunch of entitlements?

Everything is potentially an artefact of history (hence why I evoked Rhode Island earlier): heck, the very notion of sovereignty might be treated this way (recognizing a reality which no longer exists (if it ever truly existed). The difference is on what we treat as "irrelevant" and what we treat as something to salvage / uphold. For some reason, the political autonomy of P.E.I. is maintained, and Native sovereignty should be dead?

I thought the point was obvious - but it seems it is not so I'll repeat it here: I don't think BB, PDH, Jake, JR, or I are making the point that we must change nothing, that the reservation system is the best thing since sliced bread, that definition of band membership is swell, and that we take perverse pleasure in seeing the worst examples of reservations in Canada. (Why you feel the need to imply these things is distasteful).

What all of us have been reacting against, however, is what we perceived as a tendency, in your proposed answers and solutions to "the Native problem" to do away with any form of institutional anchors to Native political and cultural identity,, coupled with what surely sounded like a belittling of both, reducing them to the clinging of entitlements by misguided fools, blind to their own self-interest or to enlightened conceptions of what proper citizenship, identity, culture should be, and should be expressed. PDH underlined that such discourse are modern echoes of much earlier 19th c. colonialist discourse. BB pointed to the fact that these discourses had been tried using varied methods and failed to stamp out Native identity. I tried to remind you (a point remade by Minsky) that your categories of analysis are unevenly applied. 

[Malthus]

Everything is potentially an artefact of history (hence why I evoked Rhode Island earlier): heck, the very notion of sovereignty might be treated this way (recognizing a reality which no longer exists (if it ever truly existed). The difference is on what we treat as "irrelevant" and what we treat as something to salvage / uphold. For some reason, the political autonomy of P.E.I. is maintained, and Native sovereignty should be dead?

I know you mean that as a rhetorical question - but the answer should, I think, be obvious: the "political autonomy" of PEI is not having the same inimical effects on the lives of inhabitants of PEI. Were it to have the same effects on those inhabitants as I (and not only I) see the current system of "sovereignty" having on natives, I'd say - abolish away. 

I thought the point was obvious - but it seems it is not so I'll repeat it here: I don't think BB, PDH, Jake, JR, or I are making the point that we must change nothing, that the reservation system is the best thing since sliced bread, that definition of band membership is swell, and that we take perverse pleasure in seeing the worst examples of reservations in Canada. (Why you feel the need to imply these things is distasteful).

How on earth can you take me to task for "implying" distasteful positions to you (surely a total straw-man - "perverse pleasure", really?), then in the very next paragraph you say ...

What all of us have been reacting against, however, is what we perceived as a tendency, in your proposed answers and solutions to "the Native problem" to do away with any form of institutional anchors to Native political and cultural identity,, coupled with what surely sounded like a belittling of both, reducing them to the clinging of entitlements by misguided fools, blind to their own self-interest or to enlightened conceptions of what proper citizenship, identity, culture should be, and should be expressed. PDH underlined that such discourse are modern echoes of much earlier 19th c. colonialist discourse. BB pointed to the fact that these discourses had been tried using varied methods and failed to stamp out Native identity. I tried to remind you (a point remade by Minsky) that your categories of analysis are unevenly applied.

[Emphasis added]

???

Hell, I don't think *anyone* in this thread is arguing in bad faith, and *everyone* wants what is best for native americans. Our positions differ on how to achieve that, but there is no need to get all huffy and butt-hurt about the fact that we don't agree. 

What we are mostly seeing from *your* side is stuff like BB's 'I'm not calling you racists, only ignorant - you don't actually know any', and the above 'you belittle native culture and think natives are all misguided fools', or earlier, Jacob's 'how can a nice guy like you hold such opinions?'. 

[The Brain]

At least land and territory is one area where Europeans treated everyone the same: black, white, yellow, brown, red... if you weren't strong enough to defend your territory it got taken from you. In Europe white peoples had to fight, fight and fight some more just to keep their neighbors from grabbing their land.