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

[jimmy olsen]

Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain.  And then what?  Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).

I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.

[grumbler]

I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.

Some people find it hard to think in terms of individuals when there is a handy "Native nation" tag to lump them under.  The problem is a difficult one, though, and probably the best we can do is solve it on a small scale repeatedly, rather than as one big problem with one big solution.

[11B4V]

I've went to Little Creek Casino a couple of time for chow. Great food. Problem is, I havent seen one worker that even looks native american. There white folk and colored folk. And no I'm not talking dressed in a Indian getup.

[CountDeMoney]

After the last episode of The Killing, I'm considering withdrawing my support of Injuns. 

[Malthus]

Indeed I did mean something else. My "solution" was never to make natives to discard their culture. 

Now that you have been disabused of that, perhaps we can move forward.

Well, you've been pretty obtuse in stating that so far

Considering I never said I wanted them to discard their culture in the first place, and have instead repeatedly stated the opposite, exactly who is being "obtuse" here? 

[Malthus]

The problem is partly that "sovereignty" in this case is a sham, lacking any of the usual indicia of "sovereignty" in the national sense, and partly that it is not in fact serving the best interests of those who are subject to it - for systemic reasons.

Sovereignty often fails to serve the best interests who are subject to it - in fact that historically and even presently is more typically the case then not, and for systemic reasons as well.

As for the "sham" argument - I am less familiar with the Canadian set up but in the US, Tribal sovereignty, although limited in certain respects, is quite real and not a sham.  The tribal jurisdictions may not have many classical incidents of sovereignty, like an independent foreign policy or currency, but they do have extensive powers of self-government and broad immunities against the implementation of laws of competing jurisdictions.  It doesn't seem clear to me that tribal sovereignty is any more a sham that the sovereignty of Monaco, Andorra, or the Channel Islands.

It's a sham. The natives don't control even the most basic indicia of sovereignty - namely, who is a member of the "sovereign" group.

This (in Canada) is decided on racial lines by federal legislation. As I've pointed out before in educating BB on the subject, the federal plan appears to be to gradually restrict native "sovereignty" by makinfg the children of those who intermarry not part of the "sovereign" group.

I cannot immediately think of any truly "sovereign" group identified on racial lines whose membership is controlled by another, which attempts to gradually eliminate it. 

Is that the proposal to offer to pay people a big lump sum to give up their claims to sovereignty?
I agree that gives a choice, but what happens if some refuse the offer?  Then the problem as you see it still remains, only the state is out a bunch of cash for their trouble.

The "problem" has been reduced by the number who accept the offer, which would be ongoing,  because the incentives have been reallocated. There would no longer remain a purely *financial* incentive to remain dependent on a raft of entitlements. If people valued the sense of community they get from living on reservations, they may have that - if they wish. If they do not, they are compensated for giving up their rights to it.

It is surely more humane and less offensive that the present situation, in which our federal gov't apparently seeks to reduce the "problem" by cutting-off entitlements on racial lines. 

[Malthus]

Malthus, re: your plan to end any special Indian status in exchange for a one-time cash payment:

You know in university I thought something like that was the way to go.

But I don't think you'd get universal acceptance.  Native culture is (yes still!) funny when it comes to money.

Have you heard of a reserve called Hobbema?  It's a reserve (actually several reserves) in Alberta that sit on some very rich oil wealth.  Until fairly recently they dispersed that oil wealth by giving each citizen a very large cheque (approx $100k) when they turned 18.  Sounds great, right?  Maybe they'll turn into dickhead trustafarians, but they should be able to set themselves up in life.

Unfortunately what typically would happen is the 18 year old would buy themselves a brand new pickup, but then send the rest on parties and gifts for family and friends, and typically the money is gone in a couple of years.

The sense of community, of sharing, which to me seems like a bad idea when taken to that level, is central to native culture.

Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain.  And then what?  Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).

I don't get your position. On the one hand, you are against paternalism for natives - "go in a sibling, not a parent" - yet in your very next post, you are telling us that natives can't be trusted with having their own money, for "cultural" reasons.

Somehow I was the one taking all the heat for having the temerity to mention culture, and people are calling my position "paternalistic", and my arguments "obtuse". Yet my position all along was to give natives the choice, and to trust them with making it.

As for the objection that not all will take the choice the same way - I say, that's not a flaw, that's a feature. Some natives may well value the sense of native community above becomming part of the larger community. As you point out, some native communities are actually good places. Those will remain as such, because people have the *choice* to stay there. Just as they will have the *choice* to leave the shitholes.

How is that not a good thing?

[Berkut]

Colonialist!

I bet you support Newt's plan to place a colony on the moon, don't you?!

[Oexmelin]

Colonialist!

Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.

Have fun.

[garbon]

I bet you support Newt's plan to place a colony on the moon, don't you?!

I do!

[garbon]

Colonialist!

Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.

Have fun.

It is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.

[The Brain]

Did he stomp off?

[The Minsky Moment]

It's a sham. The natives don't control even the most basic indicia of sovereignty - namely, who is a member of the "sovereign" group.

This (in Canada) is decided on racial lines by federal legislation. As I've pointed out before in educating BB on the subject, the federal plan appears to be to gradually restrict native "sovereignty" by makinfg the children of those who intermarry not part of the "sovereign" group.

As I stated, I can't speak to how things work in Canada; I'll leave that to BB or Oex.  I had some vague understanding that at least Nunavut had a more advanced sovereign status then what you are saying, but I really don't know.

In the US, matters are quite different.  The legal status of the tribes from the POV of the US government is that the tribes are sovereigns and their governmental relations with the US are conducted on a sovereign to sovereign basis.  US tribes do hold the power to determine their own membership; they have expansive civil, criminal and regulatory jurisdiction, and their own tribal organizations and police forces to carry out their laws and enforce their immunities.

The main exceptions are as I mentioned: war powers, independent foreign policy outside of the US, and currency.  But there are other sovereigns who de jure and/or de facto lack those powers as well.

[Malthus]

It's a sham. The natives don't control even the most basic indicia of sovereignty - namely, who is a member of the "sovereign" group.

This (in Canada) is decided on racial lines by federal legislation. As I've pointed out before in educating BB on the subject, the federal plan appears to be to gradually restrict native "sovereignty" by makinfg the children of those who intermarry not part of the "sovereign" group.

As I stated, I can't speak to how things work in Canada; I'll leave that to BB or Oex.  I had some vague understanding that at least Nunavut had a more advanced sovereign status then what you are saying, but I really don't know.

In the US, matters are quite different.  The legal status of the tribes from the POV of the US government is that the tribes are sovereigns and their governmental relations with the US are conducted on a sovereign to sovereign basis.  US tribes do hold the power to determine their own membership; they have expansive civil, criminal and regulatory jurisdiction, and their own tribal organizations and police forces to carry out their laws and enforce their immunities.

The main exceptions are as I mentioned: war powers, independent foreign policy outside of the US, and currency.  But there are other sovereigns who de jure and/or de facto lack those powers as well.

Nunavut is a territory of Canada, which is analogous to (if having lesser powers than) a provence. The issue of Indian "status" is quite seperate. You can be a resident of Nunavut without being a native.

In Canada, as I've said, "status" is not determined by the natives themselves (though in some cases, band membership may be). It is determined by federal law. This isn't a controversial point - I've posted a link to the statute in question.

[Tonitrus]

I've went to Little Creek Casino a couple of time for chow. Great food. Problem is, I havent seen one worker that even looks native american. There white folk and colored folk. And no I'm not talking dressed in a Indian getup.

Maybe the casino does well enough that they don't have to work?