Gambling and Indians....er...um...I mean Native Americans.

markjs

Banned
This year there is an initiative on our Ballot about legalizing electronic scratch tickets (slot machines) and it would give people other than Indians (ahem Native Americans) the right to own and operate slot machines. The Indians (and come on people I know Native americans that call themselves Indians), are raising a stink. The thing is they are pretending to come from the angle of being concerened parents who don't want gambling in the community but the fact simply is that they don't want to lose their monopoly. If legalized this would be a great source of tax revenues for the beaurocrats to waste on things like roads and schools.....Anyway I am wondering, do we eternally owe the Indians? If so then how come we white people are not collecting from the Italians (I know they are sort of white people too) but damn it Rome conquered us and they owe! And by god Black people should be able to own white people but only on tuesdays........

Seriously, when will the guilt debt be paid? Am I wrong to think that it's Bullshit that they get checks just for having Native American blood? Am I wrong to think it's wrong to let them hunt whales just because it was their tradition in times before they even recoded their own history? Maybe I am some kind of Bigot, but I sure get tired of this. :mad: :mad:
 
at least here in Canada, it's too recent to have been paid yet IMO.

My kids as half'n'halfs will get some big bonuses later in life to which I don't really think they're all that entitled, but there are those who are still directly living with the effects of what was perpetrated on them.
 
markjs said:
.....Anyway I am wondering, do we eternally owe the Indians? If so then how come we white people are not collecting from the Italians (I know they are sort of white people too) but damn it Rome conquered us and they owe!

You should be thinking of it in terms of the land part IMO.
Rome never conquered US soil.
I believe the resevations, and all Indians with atleast 25% bloodline in those
reservations, should be as close to a soren natione of their own, and left alone.
So, I'd say YES, unless you are Indian. The US will owe from now on.
 
Just wondering, but what do you really know about what we did to the Indian population in this country? It wasn't just taking their land.
 
:eek:

Holy shit Mark & I agree.

The first settlers of the Americas were shat upon. Indigenous/native is a misnomer. They were also immigrants. They just came here earlier.

As for smallpox/sypillus etc, that was hardly intentional. There was no CDC to assist in the prevention of spreading communicable diseases. Hell, if ya wanna get all pissy, let's ban movement within Asia. That is where the influenza strains begin, yearly, and they are still major killers.

As far as slavery goes...that was limited & is no more.

When you talk about reservations...let them have them. Just quit subsidizing them. If they can live off the land & whale blubber...cool, if not-get a haircut & get a job.
 
Gonz, wouldn't it just fuck you up totally, if they took your constitution and went to court, and had all you non-natives deported for trespassing? :rofl:
 
Hardly. Canadians weren't foolish enough to write up a document that would eventually give natives the power to evict anyone.

But, that said, don't forget that I'm still new on this side of the pond. It wouldn't need anything like an act of parliment to send me packing. As of right now, a DWI is enough to send my ass back overseas. I'm still a UK passport holder.
 
For Native Americans, the century following the independence of the United States brought even greater changes than the previous century of war. No Native American, European, or U.S. leader could have predicted that in the century following independence, the United States would control its own empire from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. The United States was founded as a land of liberty, where individuals had inherent rights and could participate in a democracy. Such rights, however, did not extend to all of the nation’s peoples, including Native Americans, who were not viewed by the U.S. government as citizens, and often not even as human beings.

Early leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson, generally saw Native Americans in two contrasting ways. Native Americans could either assimilate and choose to live within the United States like “civilized” Americans or the government would remove them to the recently established Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. There was essentially no option for Native Americans to continue to live in their homelands as distinct peoples. As the United States expanded, the opportunities for Native Americans to live autonomous and independent lives declined ever further.


Indian removal became a death knell for both native and nonnative peoples committed to peaceful coexistence. In regions such as the Ohio River Valley and Great Lakes where Native Americans and Europeans had lived together for generations, U.S. policies now called for Indian families to leave their homelands. When nations such as the Sac (Sauk) under Black Hawk resisted in the 1830s, the U.S. Army fought them to defeat.

President Jackson even went so far as to ignore Marshall’s rulings, in direct violation of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court can override presidential and congressional power. He refused to use federal power to prevent states from removing Native Americans from their lands. The federal government then used the army to remove thousands of Cherokee, who were marched at gunpoint about 1,285 km (about 800 mi) from Georgia to the Indian Territory during 1838 and 1839 along what became known as the Trail of Tears. Thousands died along the way due to malnutrition, disease, and violence.

Since Native Americans were unwilling to leave their homelands, the government developed new policies for resolving conflicts between white settlers and Native Americans. Whereas early 19th-century treaties aimed primarily at removing Native Americans from their lands in the East, in the West Army officials negotiated so-called peace treaties that attempted to ensure peaceful relations between Native Americans and whites by creating bounded Native American territories called reservations from which white settlers were prohibited. As in the first part of the century, however, the government repeatedly dishonored and violated these agreements. From Minnesota to Arizona, Native Americans committed to treaties they believed would ensure their survival and protection. When whites violated these agreements, Native Americans retaliated.

In 1890 U.S. Cavalry forces exacted revenge for Custer’s defeat at Wounded Knee, killing more than 300 Sioux men, women, and children, the great majority of whom were unarmed bystanders.

For many Native Americans, such cultural attacks were as painful and difficult as the previous generations of war. Native American communities lost their children, who were sent to U.S. boarding schools and Canadian residential schools where families were prohibited from visiting and children were punished for speaking their languages.

Recognizing its failure, the U.S. government slowly abandoned its assimilation policies and granted universal citizenship to Native Americans in 1924. It also instituted dramatic political reforms in the 1930s under BIA Commissioner John Collier. Known as the Indian New Deal, these reforms included several landmark policies, particularly the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934.

Such attention and concerted effort brought dramatic results. Beginning in the 1970s, the U.S. government rescinded termination and passed a series of reforms, including the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975). This act embraced the notion of Native American self-government and created mechanisms for returning political autonomy to tribal governments. The government also passed similar reforms allowing more Native American control in Indian education and health services, among other areas.

That same year, Mohawk activists seized control of the roads and bridges into their two reserves outside of Montréal during the dramatic Oka Crisis. The Mohawk were protesting the construction of a golf course on land that they claimed. Thousands of Canadian soldiers were deployed against the Mohawk for nearly three months. Such actions generated increased national resolve for settling indigenous land claims disputes. Throughout the 1990s indigenous groups won important land settlements, including the establishment of new reserves and even a northern Inuit territory, Nunavut, which was created in 1999.

Despite their resiliency, however, Native Americans faced serious economic, health, and educational problems at the beginning of the 21st century. Many U.S. and Canadian indigenous peoples lived in poverty. Unemployment and school dropout rates were high, and rates of alcoholism and suicide for Native Americans were far above those for the general population in both countries. But as a testament to the cultural and economic renewal taking place, many indigenous peoples were leaving cities and returning to their homelands. They went back for jobs, to attend tribal colleges, or to participate in long-dormant ceremonies.
Now, notice those dates towards the end. This is not something that happened hundreds of years ago. The widespread killing of Indians was in the late 1800's, 120 years ago. The practice of treating them as animals went well into the 1900's. Do we owe them? Yes. Will we ever be able to repay what we owe them? Not unless we're all willing to leave.
 
Gonz said:
I'm missing your point.

That's hardly suprising.


Having not read your entire constitution/bill of right/declaration of incontinence I'd hardly know the statute. That's a lawyer's job, to find it and abuse it to it's maximum. But in a country where two people managed to sue for millions because the were served hot coffee ..... I'm sure a good lawyer (johnny cockroach, perhaps?) could find something.
 
The willingness to give millions to idiots & to allow losing policians to sue to get into office is hardly the fault of a long lived & long respected basis of government. It leans far more to the slow slide towards socialism that has permeated my, and your, country.

The age of self-determination has become the age of the ego driven grandiose self.

From "...ask not what your country can do for you..." to "what can I do for me & what will you do for me"?
 
PT said:
Just wondering, but what do you really know about what we did to the Indian population in this country? It wasn't just taking their land.
Was this directed at me?
I was just referencing the land portion. I know of most all the other atrocities,
that were committed due to,....
History in school, and more over from my great grandmother before she died.
She was 1/2 indian.
It's my understanding though that the indians on the east coast, maybe
with the exception of the Mohican's, negotiated better, and were slaughter a little less.
(e.g. the Cherokees')
 
Gonz said:
The willingness to give millions to idiots & to allow losing policians to sue to get into office is hardly the fault of a long lived & long respected basis of government. It leans far more to the slow slide towards socialism that has permeated my, and your, country.

The age of self-determination has become the age of the ego driven grandiose self.

From "...ask not what your country can do for you..." to "what can I do for me & what will you do for me"?

A long slide commenced by one statement. "All men are created equal". An obviously flawed statement made by obviously flawed people. The writers of that never meant for blacks, indians, muslims, or women to be included. That they have is because of the constant modernisation of the term "Men". The simple fact is that peasants were never meant to rule. Look today at american politics, and you're a damn liar if you don't admit to having your own princes, and lords. The only difference between yours and mine, are that mine we based on land, and yours are based on money. New princes can come to the fore through skill, intelligence, or even chance. As it always has been. But expecting people who's greatest day to day challenge is trying to parallel park the SUV they bought because it makes them feel powerful .... that's expecting the pigs to milk the cows.
 
catocom said:
Was this directed at me?
I was just referencing the land portion. I know of most all the other atrocities,
that were committed due to,....
History in school, and more over from my great grandmother before she died.
She was 1/2 indian.
It's my understanding though that the indians on the east coast, maybe
with the exception of the Mohican's, negotiated better, and were slaughter a little less.
(e.g. the Cherokees')
No Cat, sorry. More at Mark
 
Gonz said:
:eek:

When you talk about reservations...let them have them. Just quit subsidizing them. If they can live off the land & whale blubber...cool, if not-get a haircut & get a job.

That'd be nice if anyone would hire them. Why are they restricted to reservations? And...why the hell are there reservations in the first place?

PT laid out a chunk of it but here's the short of it. Natives had this country until it was stolen from them, until they were slaughtered by the thousands, until they were effectivly jailed within ever-shrinking concentration camps called 'reservations', cut off from 'modern folx', cut off from their own religion, their own language, had their children taken from them and 'Christianized', had their names 'Christianized' , had their ceremonies bastardized and demonized...beaten down at every turn and every opportunity.

Even today...politicians chop away at their rights and their lands. Then throw their hands up and ask "Why aren't the indians happy? Look..we gave them a tax cut and everything!"
 
You're right, Prof.

The difference between the Monarchy of your homeland & the idealised Constitutional govenment of mine is, we can kick the Prince out on his ass. I have never voted for an incumbent (or so seldomly I can't recall) for the very reason you mention. I don't want a ruling class. Unfortunately,people are lazy & emotionally attached. Once they begin finding ways to vote themselves into the money grab, they system is in turmoil. That turmoil is aided by those I disagree with politically. We're not all sheep...just most of us. :sad:
 
Gonz said:
You're right, Prof.

The difference between the Monarchy of your homeland & the idealised Constitutional govenment of mine is, we can kick the Prince out on his ass.


We just kill them in their sleep. That way, they can't write a tell-whatever(coz it sure ain't all) book about their time in power.
 
MrBishop said:
That'd be nice if anyone would hire them. Why are they restricted to reservations? And...why the hell are there reservations in the first place?

They aren't restricted. That is their choosing. I've know several who lived in "our" world. Not enough and truthfully not a single one east of the Mississippi. Why wouldn't anyone hire them? Willing to work & able to do the job should suffice.
 
Back
Top