Author Topic: House Votes To Sell Apache Land To Foreign Corporation, The Tribe Is Furious  (Read 225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11196
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
The US screwing over Native Americans. Not new, and most likely nothing will be done about it.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Frankly, that pisses me off rather severely.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Another entry in the long, sad, ugly history of exploiting Native Americans. Not to mention another blatant show of how some of our political "representatives" see themselves as above the law of the land.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10570
  • Darwins +192/-8
  • Gender: Male
This sad excuse for a spending bill has many things in it that the GOP would never be able to get passed on their own.  They are pushing ahead and damn anyone who gets in their way.   We learned nothing from 2010 when we let them in.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2285
  • Darwins +97/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
when cliven bundy finds out about this he gonna get his posse together and defend this land for the native Americans to the last man, he is bound by his principles already demonstrated to do so........
Signature goes here...

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
when cliven bundy finds out about this he gonna get his posse together and defend this land for the native Americans to the last man, he is bound by his principles already demonstrated to do so........

You're thinking of Al Bundy.

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2285
  • Darwins +97/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
an Al is better than a Ted and Ted's ded.
Signature goes here...

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/09/ndaa-apache/

Found on TTA.
This is most strange. Whose is the land? How did the Apache come to be there? What are their rights to the land?

As a matter of law, if, in the UK, your land is found to contain strategic materials[1], it used to be the case that (a) you did not necessarily own the deposits and the government could claim it (with due recompense.) However, since the Human Rights Act 2000, it is debatable as to whether this is still possible: as far as I am aware, there has not been a case so far and most cases took place in the 19th and early 20th century.

The other thing that strikes me is the plurality of the US as opposed to the homogeneity. I have seen this before in Americans who call themselves “Swedish/Jewish/Black/Cuban/Asian, etc. Americans.” Are you not all “Americans”?

I say this as the Native Americans (and every other group) seem to see themselves as ‘different’. Why?

Is it the case that, say, Cuban or Asian Americans are not particularly bothered what happens to Native or Swedish Americans?

I suppose that 1500 years ago or so, in Britain, there were many groups who identified with their tribe, but those tribes had kings and really were separate entities. This died out with the creation of the kingdom of England.

Is it not time that narrow historical differences are put aside?
 1. oil, gold, coal, and some others
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Angry little bastard, John McCain has a big hand in this:

Quote
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as part of the Senate Armed Services Committee was instrumental in pushing to get the provision language included.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/10/1350793/-John-McCain-and-Congress-helping-mining-company-steal-Apache-land


Remember when that little prick was a presidential contender and considered a decent human being? 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/09/ndaa-apache/

Found on TTA.
This is most strange. Whose is the land? How did the Apache come to be there? What are their rights to the land?

The Feds, after killing as many indigenous people as they could, set aside land for them, which is supposed to be autonomous.

Quote
The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

Quote
I say this as the Native Americans (and every other group) seem to see themselves as ‘different’. Why?

Native Americans are seen differently because they are treated differently. Reservations are nearly sovereign, independent nations, but still use US currency. I don't believe they are taxed, and the local police, and even the FBI, don't have jurisdiction, if memory serves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States 

Quote
Is it the case that, say, Cuban or Asian Americans are not particularly bothered what happens to Native or Swedish Americans?

No one is particularly bothered by what happens to native Americans. They rarely are on the national radar, as a people.

Quote
Is it not time that narrow historical differences are put aside?

It's not as narrow as you might think.

I hope 12Monkeys sees this thread, as I'm guessing he has a much more personal perspective he could share.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I realize you're looking at this from an outside perspective, Graybeard, but in this case you really should learn something about how Native Americans/American Indians have been treated in this country - and not even all that long ago.

First point is that the native tribes - which, by the way, are legally separate entities; each and every one of them is referred to as a nation, such as Cherokee Nation, Comanchee Nation, Apache Nation, etc - of this country have been treated execrably by the federal government, which has never been shy about breaking treaties it signed with them, singly or as a group.  If the federal government had broken treaties with foreign countries the way that it broke them with the Indian Nations as a group, the United States would be the most despised and least trusted country in the world, far above and beyond how certain recent presidents have managed to damage our image.  To put it bluntly, there likely wouldn't have been an image to damage.

There are plenty of other things that the federal government did which I won't go into detail on just now, but a couple things you can look up on your own time are the forced relocations and the Trail of Tears.  But one thing that is relevant is the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, which permitted the federal government to parcel off land owned by the various Indian Nations, held in trust by the United States, as individual homesteads.  Much of the 'surplus' land was sold off to outside interests, and the money was used to found schools...which their children were forced to go to, and where they were made over in the image of ideal Americans, even to the point of trying to strip as much of their cultural heritage from them as possible.  Graybeard, imagine if the English government decided to take your children away from you, put them in boarding schools, and raised them to be ideal Christians.

By the way, part of the reason for this state of affairs is because around the time the US was founded, it defined the various Indian Nations as "domestic dependent nations", but changed this definition in the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871; instead of making treaties with them, Congress could now interact with them by statute.  In addition, the land they lived on was managed by Congress, and thus the various land grabs were legal...at least after the fact.  It is a supreme irony that as badly as the federal government treated them, it was often used as a way to try to protect them from the even more abhorrent treatment of the states and individuals citizens.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/09/ndaa-apache/

Found on TTA.
This is most strange. Whose is the land? How did the Apache come to be there? What are their rights to the land?

As a matter of law, if, in the UK, your land is found to contain strategic materials[1], it used to be the case that (a) you did not necessarily own the deposits and the government could claim it (with due recompense.) However, since the Human Rights Act 2000, it is debatable as to whether this is still possible: as far as I am aware, there has not been a case so far and most cases took place in the 19th and early 20th century.

The other thing that strikes me is the plurality of the US as opposed to the homogeneity. I have seen this before in Americans who call themselves “Swedish/Jewish/Black/Cuban/Asian, etc. Americans.” Are you not all “Americans”?

I say this as the Native Americans (and every other group) seem to see themselves as ‘different’. Why?

Is it the case that, say, Cuban or Asian Americans are not particularly bothered what happens to Native or Swedish Americans?

I suppose that 1500 years ago or so, in Britain, there were many groups who identified with their tribe, but those tribes had kings and really were separate entities. This died out with the creation of the kingdom of England.

Is it not time that narrow historical differences are put aside?

 1. oil, gold, coal, and some others

We don't live in the UK. If it's on reservation land then it is like the Vatican City -- a country within a country. However, if it's not usually the federal gov can do as they please of course a lot of people are angry over this and not just Native Americans.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Angry little bastard, John McCain has a big hand in this:

Quote
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as part of the Senate Armed Services Committee was instrumental in pushing to get the provision language included.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/10/1350793/-John-McCain-and-Congress-helping-mining-company-steal-Apache-land


Remember when that little prick was a presidential contender and considered a decent human being? 

Jon Stewart said nice things about him last night, I guess that'll change.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Native Americans are seen differently because they are treated differently. Reservations are nearly sovereign, independent nations, but still use US currency. I don't believe they are taxed, and the local police, and even the FBI, don't have jurisdiction, if memory serves.
If they are not taxed, do they get a vote: “No representation without taxation.”

I realize you're looking at this from an outside perspective, Graybeard, but in this case you really should learn something about how Native Americans/American Indians have been treated in this country - and not even all that long ago.
I am quite aware of this. Brits are not as insular as you might think. I was looking for the legal basis upon which the Native Americans hold their land.

Quote
one thing that is relevant is the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, which permitted the federal government to parcel off land owned by the various Indian Nations, held in trust by the United States, as individual homesteads. 
This is useful information. Usually, if something is “held in trust” it should be held “for the benefit of the subject.”
Quote
Graybeard, imagine if the English government decided to take your children away from you, put them in boarding schools, and raised them to be ideal Christians.
Up until the late 1950s this was done. Children were sent to Australia as indentured labour. Until about the same time, the Poor Law removed the rights of certain parents over their children.

I do not see this discussion as part of a “Look how bad they had it”, for every ill that you can quote, I can quote a British one.

Quote
By the way, part of the reason for this state of affairs is because around the time the US was founded, it defined the various Indian Nations as "domestic dependent nations", but changed this definition in the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871; instead of making treaties with them, Congress could now interact with them by statute.  In addition, the land they lived on was managed by Congress, and thus the various land grabs were legal...at least after the fact.
So, the selling off of lands by the government is legal, although the morality is questionable?

I think that the thing that amazed me was the ability of the government to sell land from under the feet of those on reservations. I had assumed that the reservations were the property of the Native Americans. You have informed me that they are not.

The next thing that bothered me is that the land is described as “sacred” – personally, that is about as impressive as saying, “it’s made of soil and rocks.” i.e. a non-argument.

We don't live in the UK.
I am aware. However, the impression the rest of the world has is that the American has more autonomy and more protection from government. From what I now learn, this is not so.
Quote
However, if it's not usually the federal gov can do as they please of course a lot of people are angry over this and not just Native Americans.
I think there are a couple of typos there, and I cannot understand what you mean.

What happened to "all men being created equal."? Sounds like a load of cheap words.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2014, 02:49:19 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Graybeard, the difference between what the U.S. government did in taking Native American children from their parents and sending them to special boarding schools and what the British government did is that the British government presumably did this to its own subjects - those who were legally subject to its authority.  The U.S. government did it to non-citizens, since up until 1924, Native Americans were not considered citizens as a group.  In other words, it was done to people who were under the authority of what amounts to a separate government, who were not in any way represented in the federal government, and who were supposed to be protected by treaties between the federal government and the various Indian Nations, which kept getting unilaterally changed by the federal government.

I am not fully conversant with all the details just yet.  The 'relationship' between the Indian Nations and the federal government is long and sordid, and while I'm more or less familiar with the details that children learn in school, there is much that I do not yet know.  One thing I just read about is the "Indian termination policy", which lasted from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s, where Congress decided that it would be better if Native Americans were individually assimilated as Americans[1] and terminated the government's recognition of Indian Nation sovereignty, the trusteeship of Indian reservations, and the exclusion of Indians from state laws.  As a result, they were then subject to state and federal taxation as well as laws.

The effects of this were so poorly received that by the time of Johnson's presidency, they stopped doing any more 'terminations'.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling to recognize the treaty rights that were lost by various tribes, and Reagan explicitly repudiated this policy.

But it's another example of how badly the United States has done by the Indian Nations.
 1. yet another 'protective' measure due to the Bureau of Indian Affairs apparently incompetent and corrupt mismanagement

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2285
  • Darwins +97/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
might is right, enuff said.
Signature goes here...

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
The U.S. government did it to non-citizens, since up until 1924, Native Americans were not considered citizens as a group.
Now I didn't know that. I assumed that "all men are born equal" applied not only to the afro-Americans.

Quote
I am not fully conversant with all the details just yet.  The 'relationship' between the Indian Nations and the federal government is long and sordid, and while I'm more or less familiar with the details that children learn in school, there is much that I do not yet know.  One thing I just read about is the "Indian termination policy", which lasted from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s, where Congress decided that it would be better if Native Americans were individually assimilated as Americans[1] and terminated the government's recognition of Indian Nation sovereignty, the trusteeship of Indian reservations, and the exclusion of Indians from state laws.  As a result, they were then subject to state and federal taxation as well as laws.

The effects of this were so poorly received that by the time of Johnson's presidency, they stopped doing any more 'terminations'.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling to recognize the treaty rights that were lost by various tribes, and Reagan explicitly repudiated this policy.

But it's another example of how badly the United States has done by the Indian Nations.
 1. yet another 'protective' measure due to the Bureau of Indian Affairs apparently incompetent and corrupt mismanagement
The colonialising nations have always been ambivalent about minority ingenious populations. They tend to walk a line between treating them as full citizens and giving them as much independence as they could bear.

This is the case, for example, in the tribal areas of India and Pakistan in which the writ of government does not run. There is usually a governor who does little other than inform the government if anything happens that might affect its power, and hands out any subsidies.

As a consequence of this or in return for this autonomy, those in the tribal areas cannot rely on government to do anything much.

The alternative would be compulsory integration of the tribal populations - something that they themselves resisted as their cultures were so different.

It is a form of voluntary apartheid for, if a tribal member moves to a part where the government writ does run, he then is enfranchised and the normal responsibilities of a citizen falls upon him.

On a broader matter, and I am trying to remove the baggage and emotion from the argument, I would be interested to know how referring to past injustices, now remedied, affects the present situation.

Let's say that a group of like-minded people are granted, at no cost, residency on a very large tract of government land on the understanding that the government may, at any time, end access to part of that land.

Does this group of like-minded people now have a case against the government if it decides to dispose of part of it to another group?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10570
  • Darwins +192/-8
  • Gender: Male
Indians should attack as the wagons come in to take their copper.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
The thing is, Graybeard, those past injustices are hardly remedied.  It's more like they've been swept under a rug, so it might look like everything's good, but they're still there, not far under the surface.

This isn't a matter of them being granted federal land free of charge.  This is a matter of that the federal government incorporated their land when those territories were purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States.  For example, consider the Louisiana Purchase, almost a million square miles of land claimed by the French government, without so much as mentioning it to the various native peoples who already lived there.  According to European law, that claim was fully legal, but for all practical purposes it was nothing but a blatant grab of land that was never theirs to claim in the first place.  So although the purchase was 'legal', it didn't amount to anything but buying up someone else's claim.

By the time a given Indian Nation came to the realization of how bad a situation they were in, it was one that they could not extricate themselves from.  Some of them chose to fight, but were eventually beaten and forced to submit if they were not simply killed off; some of them tried to adapt, but were still forced to submit; some of them tried to flee, but even they were chased down and forced to submit.  And at that point, they had no real choice but to go along with what they were forced to do and hope to survive as a people.

It's true that some of the injustices were rectified, but those are the exceptions.  As evidenced by this "land-swap", they're still ongoing.  When an Indian Nation refers to land as sacred, it means land they had actually used, land that by all rights was actually theirs and had been for generations, even if no one person truly 'owned' the land.  Imagine if an alien race came along and decided to lay claim to land on Earth - or the planet as a whole - because as far as they were concerned, our legal agreements regarding land usage were null and void.  Imagine that they had such a staggeringly huge military advantage that although we could win individual fights, we couldn't hope to actually stand up to them for any prolonged period of time.  Imagine that they promised, over and over again, to respect the agreements they made with us, but wouldn't police their own people, and therefore kept renouncing the agreements they made with us, forcing us to sign new ones.  And imagine that even if we tried to flee, to find a different planet where we could live without being dominated like that, they just chased us down and dragged us back.

This has happened to them so many times that they can't even feel outraged over it.  There's a reason why alcohol and drug dependency is at epidemic levels amongst Native Americans.  There's a reason they have to open casinos on the land that the federal government has so graciously deigned to let them keep having in order to provide a working income for the Indian Nation.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2285
  • Darwins +97/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
GB, do you acknowledge any potential loss of culture, science, language...etc that indigenous people can offer us that can benefit and enrich our own culture?
Signature goes here...