Have any of you heard about this? Will it help in the long run? Is it a bold and good first step towards reclaiming heritage and pride and well-being? Or will it cause further distress? Sounds like the legal folks will be busy, if nothing else, ironing out property rights. The statistics outlining the suffering of these people is sobering and shameful.
quote: Some excerpts from the press release:
WASHINGTON, DC - December 20 - Lakota Sioux Indian representatives declared sovereign nation status today in Washington D.C. following Monday's withdrawal from all previously signed treaties with the United States Government. The withdrawal, hand delivered to Daniel Turner, Deputy Director of Public Liaison at the State Department, immediately and irrevocably ends all agreements between the Lakota Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States Government outlined in the 1851 and 1868 Treaties at Fort Laramie Wyoming.
The Lakota reservations are among the most impoverished areas in North America, a shameful legacy of broken treaties and apartheid policies. Lakota has the highest death rate in the United States and Lakota men have the lowest life expectancy of any nation on earth, excluding AIDS, at approximately 44 years. Lakota infant mortality rate is five times the United States average and teen suicide rates 150% more than national average. 97% of Lakota people live below the poverty line and unemployment hovers near 85%.
I fail to see how this will help them at all. Last time I checked they could move anywhere, working doing anything, and weren't forced to do anything in particular.
How is this going to help them?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Their land has been illegally occupied for quite a few years, according to some treaties that are referenced. IIRC, there was a case a few years ago where the Lakota or some other tribe in the Dakotaa or Montana was demanding to be paid several billion dollars for land rents that had been promised them in treaties back in the early 1900s.
The government has more lawyers. Who do you think will win? I think we already know.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Precedent is not with them on this one, but maybe it'll get them enough attention that the government will have to make more of an effort. It's not like they could make less of an effort to help them.
Although I have to agree with Kwea to some degree. If you hate where you live, why not go elsewhere? The fact that it used to be a great place or meaningful doesn't offset the need to raise your kids somewhere safe.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I just don't see it helping them in the long run.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Russell Means is a nutball and this will end up having as much legitimacy as if I'd declared Colorado independent.
The only positive thing that could come out of this is more attention paid to tribal sovereignty and fulfillment of treaty and contract but a number of bad things may also happen.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Who do these guys actually represent? It says that they're a "delegation" and lists several organizations, but I couldn't see for sure whether they actually had any authority whatsoever.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
If you click on the "Lakota Freedom -- Why" link, it has this to say. I imagine there is much more . . . it is an interesting website.
"Emerging from the Wounded Knee Occupation in 1973, the International Indian Treaty Council drew together more than 5000 delegates representing 98 Indian tribes and Nations from North and South America. This manifesto, representing the wisdom of thousands of people, their Ancestors, and the Great Mystery explicity supports the rights of Indigenous Nations to live free and to take whatever actions necessary for sovereignty."
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I think this very well might help the Lakota people in the long wrong, since many of their tribal government leaders in the past have scratched backs with the U.S. government to help each other, not the people.
"Go live somewhere else" is easy to say when you have been raised in a culture that puts no value other than monetary on the land. The Black Hills and surrounding lands are not just where the Lakota live, it is who they are. Or at least, who they were. Their holy places are there, their ancestors lived there, their entire culture is enveloped and intertwined with the landscape. The U.S. government was defeated in battle by the Lakota and Cheyenne enough that they relented and signed a treaty promising that the land would not be compromised again, that it could not be sold unless 75% of the (male members) of the tribe agreed, so long as the grass grew, etc. This was quickly broken once gold and other resources were found in the area. Then the Dawes Act further complicated issues, splitting the land between individual families-- something completely foreign to the Lakota people. According the Sen. Dawes, "they knew no selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization," and that hopefully this would teach them the value of personal property and accruing material possessions. Before this, there was not poverty among the Lakota.
The killing of the buffalo, their main source of food, was instituted by the government as means of starving out a fearsome enemy that was too hard to beat through traditional means of battle. The entire people was made to be dependent on the government for survival, as their traditional way of life was outlawed.
I don't think Russell Means is a nutball. I have a lot of respect for a lot of the work he has done in his lifetime as a member of AIM to try and restore the culture and rights of a people whose exploitation has been a part of the the American institution since before America even was.
I would like to suggest some reading for those that are not familiar with the story of the Lakota people. The Dull Knifes of Pine Ridge is a fabulous book that follows four generations of the Dull Knife family, who are Northern Cheyenne and Oglala Sioux. It begins with Chief Dull Knife, who signed the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty (which was broken in full by 1874). He also lead his band along with their other chief, Little Wolf, out of the Darlington Agency in what is now Oklahoma back to their home in Montana. They were promised they could return after a year if they did not like Darlington, but even that was revoked and they had to flee in secret. They were hunted by the U.S. calvary the entire way. Most did not survive. Chief Dull Knife's son, George Dull Knife, travelled with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. His son, Guy Dull Knife, fought in World War I, and his son, Guy Dull Knife Jr. fought in Vietnam.
It is a fabulous book, I can't recommend it enough. It helps put a personal face on the history of a severely tried people.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Other reading suggestions for anyone curious about Native American History and issues beyond what you were taught in grammar school: In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, by Peter Matthiesen which is focused around the 1975 Pine Ridge Shoot out between AIM members and the FBI. Contemporary issues.
American Holocaust by Joe Stannard (?)is more a wide scope look, with lots of specific anecdotes pertaining to particular peoples. It examines the destruction of these millions of cultures on a whole, and attempts to identify some causes in the second half.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, if someone withdraws from a treaty that ended a war, is that the same as re-declaring the war? Possibly not a good idea.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm all for keeping cultures alive and respecting different peoples and their histories, but I honestly don't get the American Indian and Inuit people who seem to want to live in the past. It isn't that I necessarily have a problem with it, I just absolutely don't understand why a group of people would intentionally refuse to progress socially, economically, spiritually, technically, and so forth.
I mean, when your life expectancy is 44 years versus 80+ for your neighbors in the next county, is your way of life really worth embracing that forcefully?
If it were me, I'd have some parades and a museum and get on board with the quality health care and education.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:So, if someone withdraws from a treaty that ended a war, is that the same as re-declaring the war? Possibly not a good idea.
I don't know about that. I doubt that the American public in this day and age would be on board with fighting a war against Native Americans...
quote:I just absolutely don't understand why a group of people would intentionally refuse to progress socially, economically, spiritually, technically, and so forth.
I mean, when your life expectancy is 44 years versus 80+ for your neighbors in the next county, is your way of life really worth embracing that forcefully?
If it were me, I'd have some parades and a museum and get on board with the quality health care and education.
First of all, they drive cars. They take insulin and other medications and monitor blood sugar for diabetes and such like (at least most of them will, when the medicine is available.) Many work modern jobs (when they're available) and are very willing to embrace most technological advancements-- the ones that can go hand in hand with traditional beliefs. They're not Amish, they just have a different belief system. The problem is that many services and opportunities aren't provided equally, or on terms they can accept. And leaving the land that is holy in their tradition would be like... losing their soul, basically. I know that's dramatic but I can't think of a better way to put it. I think the problem is not to make them lose everything of value to them in order to increase their life expectancies-- it's how to help integrate those services and opportunities and meet those needs while at the same time allowing them to preserve their beliefs-- and respecting their rights.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
It isn't wanting to live in the past, it is wanting at least a portion of your lands and right to rule yourselves restored. How is that different from India wanting independence from Britain? I was definitely for that.
And what is your definition of progress? I do not call forcing a self sufficient people into dependence and poverty progress. Life expectancy in most native americans is down because many were forcefully relocated to foreign climates, and forced into depending on rations of flour, coffee, sugar, and beef. Doesn't sound very healthy, does it? They were also initially forced to stay on specific reservations that never received adequate funding, and then the funding received was often misappropriated by sheisty agents.
Holy crap. Refuse to progress SPIRITUALLY? Are you farking serious? I don't even know if i can stand to stay in this thread. There is obviously an intense level of prejudice, ethnocentrism, and ignorance about Native American histories, cultures, and political issues on this board that, quite frankly, I find both shocking and appalling. Mighty Cow, your entire post just proves your entire lack of education on the matter. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is indeed just ignorance, and not hatred, that fueled your response.
I think an autonomous group of people that were colonized have a right to try and gain back their independence. You'd think that is something a lot of Americans could recognize, but apparently not when it happens on their own soil.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Thank you, KQ. That was a very measured and open-minded response.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, if someone withdraws from a treaty that ended a war, is that the same as re-declaring the war? Possibly not a good idea.
Yeah, it wasn't a good idea when the U.S. Government did so in 1874, the turn of the century, or the seventies; and it isn't now, either.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(In re-reading my post, for the record, I have no problem with the Amish, either. And I think that it's bad and wrong when the government tries to make them live against their beliefs too-- for instance, trying to make their midwife-attended home births illegal. I was just pointing out that I've never heard of Native Americans who rejected technological advances for the sake of technological advances.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: There is obviously an intense level of prejudice, ethnocentrism, and ignorance about Native American histories, cultures, and political issues on this board that, quite frankly, I find both shocking and appalling. Mighty Cow, your entire post just proves your entire lack of education on the matter.
Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: Thank you, KQ. That was a very measured and open-minded response.
Also agreed. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I admitted that it's entirely due to ignorance of their position. I don't hold any ill will towards American Indians, and in fact wish them well. If you want to take offense, or presume prejudice or hatred on my part, honestly I think that says more about your point of view than it does of mine.
I spent some time in High School delivering medicine to a local reservation, and the entire place was in abject poverty. The whole reservation was a mess, with unkempt wild areas, run-down houses, fallen trees, rutted roads... it certainly didn't look like the land was sacred or revered. It was heartbreaking, but at the same time, they were surrounded by middle class homes of people of all races, religions, and jobs.
I felt bad for the people I was delivering medicine to, but I really didn't understand why they chose to live that way, when 10 miles away, living on the same "land" were people with family from Mexican, Portuguese, African, Northern European, Asian, Pacific Island, and I'm sure countless other backgrounds - all living in modern homes, going to modern schools, and living in any way they wanted to as far as remembering their history, following their religious beliefs, respecting their histories, and whatever else.
So yes, I am indeed ignorant of the modern people of Native American descent, and why so many choose to live on a reservation, in poverty, rather than live among the rest of the American population, while keeping their cultural and historical beliefs intact, but also taking advantage of the opportunities just down the street.
I don't think that they deserve their fate, or that they're bad people, or they're savages or anything of the like. I simply cannot fathom why I drove through that reservation every day for months watching children play on rusted cars, and entire families sitting out on their porch all day rather than going to school or a job.
I didn't see any people reveling in their cultural heritage or trying to live life as their ancestors. I just saw a lot of sick, poor, unfortunate people, and I honestly didn't understand what it was about the reservation that made them want to choose that life.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
And so I repeat: read a book. Perhaps one of the ones I suggested, or better yet, all three.
I think The Dull Knifes of Pine Ridge is a fast and easy read that gives an intimate look at a large problem. See what you learn, and if you feel the same after reading it. Maybe you will, but at least you will be informed. In fact, if you want I will even buy you (and anyone else on Hatrack) a copy and ship it to you.
I *do* take offense to your position, and I don't think that says anything negative about me. I just happen to be educated and informed about these issues. It frustrates me deeply that these peoples have been consistently marginalized. The quandary the majority have been forced into has been ignored, misunderstood, and flat out lied about for years. These issues are very important to me, and I am very passionate about them.
I think this is the first thread in over six years that has me fired up to the point of considering not participating simply because I'm so pissed. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It's not actually clear that they are seceding. Link Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
porcelain girl: I didn't realize you were so fired up about this. I'm not, so I'll just step out.
I'd hate to deny you the opportunity to be offended at anyone who doesn't understand something which most people don't understand and in which you're an expert. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
porcelain girl -- please continue to share what you know with us -- I think it's very important. Hatrack is a place of learning and growth -- and that happens with courage on all sides of the equation.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: porcelain girl: I didn't realize you were so fired up about this. I'm not, so I'll just step out.
I'd hate to deny you the opportunity to be offended at anyone who doesn't understand something which most people don't understand and in which you're an expert.
Ignorance itself isn't offensive. Making broad, definitive statements about that which you are ignorant is offensive.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Alabama tried succession once. We joined this union thingy in like 1819, and then 30 years later we reconsidered, because we weren't being fairly represented in the union's government, in any of the three branches. They were passing laws that would bankrupt our largest financial concerns, forcing them to sell at a lower than market price to the interests who had most control over that government. So our duly-elected government decided the union had been a bad idea and we wanted to withdraw. It was even legal to do so, according to the laws of said union.
But they invaded us, destroyed everything here, then exploited what was left and kept us in poverty for 100 years afterward. We're only just now emerging from that.
I say if they want to secede, more power to them. I wish them luck.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
As is belitting someone who disagrees with you about something, particularily if they have said they don't understand something.
I am fairly well-read regarding the subject, BTW.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: porcelain girl: I didn't realize you were so fired up about this. I'm not, so I'll just step out.
I'd hate to deny you the opportunity to be offended at anyone who doesn't understand something which most people don't understand and in which you're an expert.
Ignorance itself isn't offensive. Making broad, definitive statements about that which you are ignorant is offensive.
Seconded. I'm kinda interested in the book btw, KQ. The whole thing about Native Americans is something that has always seemed very obsure in any history course I've taken, even U.S. History. Yes, they tell us that they were massacred and all that stuff but I also wonder how some of them got from being dirt poor and having their cultures almost extinct to the ginourmous casinos that exist now. And what about those that didn't make casinos and all that other stuff. I'm interested.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I just absolutely don't understand why a group of people would intentionally refuse to progress socially, economically, spiritually, technically, and so forth.
Is that what you consider "admitting ignorance?" That was the statement that reeked of prejudice, racism, and ethnocentrism.
Just so you better understand my indignation. I'd hate to deny you the opportunity. Sincerely, not sarcastically.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Alabama tried succession once. We joined this union thingy in like 1819, and then 30 years later we reconsidered, because we weren't being fairly represented in the union's government, in any of the three branches. They were passing laws that would bankrupt our largest financial concerns, forcing them to sell at a lower than market price to the interests who had most control over that government. So our duly-elected government decided the union had been a bad idea and we wanted to withdraw. It was even legal to do so, according to the laws of said union.
But they invaded us, destroyed everything here, then exploited what was left and kept us in poverty for 100 years afterward. We're only just now emerging from that.
I say if they want to secede, more power to them. I wish them luck.
....
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I just absolutely don't understand why a group of people would intentionally refuse to progress socially, economically, spiritually, technically, and so forth.
Is that what you consider "admitting ignorance?" That was the statement that reeked of prejudice, racism, and ethnocentrism.
Just so you better understand my indignation. I'd hate to deny you the opportunity. Sincerely, not sarcastically.
I think that while it makes sense where she's coming from, albeit I don't agree with it, the part where "spiritually" is used is just wrong. If you can't figure out why, then read it again until you do.
Yup, joining the country that is the product of those that ruined the continent for you and your kind is definitely the way to grow spiritually. Hurray for Corporate America and Capitalism.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: As is belitting someone who disagrees with you about something, particularily if they have said they don't understand something.
I am fairly well-read regarding the subject, BTW.
If this is directed at me, I don't understand why. Mighty Cow was not belittled, but his position *was* called out as being ignorant, as a means of avoiding assuming that he was purely being racist.
I would hope that anyone on this board would feel well within the bounds of propriety to call me out if I claimed not to understand why the younger Jews in Nazi Germany didn't just renounce their cultural heritage and religion and join the HJ.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, if someone withdraws from a treaty that ended a war, is that the same as re-declaring the war? Possibly not a good idea.
Yeah, it wasn't a good idea when the U.S. Government did so in 1874, the turn of the century, or the seventies; and it isn't now, either.
From the point of view of Realpolitik, it was presumably a good deal for the US, or they wouldn't have done it. Without touching on intention, it's pretty clear that the Lakota have, at this point, zero ability to win any sort of armed conflict, although presumably they could make a reasonable terrorist movement if they tried.
Another point: From what I understand, the tribes sued the government back in the eighties, were accorded a settlement of roughly a hundred million dollars, and refused to take it. That money has since been sitting about accruing interest and is up to something over 800 million. I wonder how much land could be bought for that sum? We are presumably speaking of pretty thinly-settled areas, possibly owned mainly by the government. Of course, private or rather tribal ownership of the land under US law is not that same thing as national sovereignty over the land, but it could be made a reasonable approximation.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I'm kinda interested in the book btw, KQ.
Not me! porcelain girl.
quote:I also wonder how some of them got from being dirt poor and having their cultures almost extinct to the ginourmous casinos that exist now.
From what I understand, lawyers and investors.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I'm sorry if my passion and subsequent anger has been seen as arrogance or hurt anyone's feelings. Many of the responses in this thread have struck a chord with me.
It was sort of like growing up assuming everyone in my generation abhorred racism, only to overhear a girl on the bus I'd assumed was a friend whisper that our neighborhood would be so much better if there were no black people.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:I'm kinda interested in the book btw, KQ.
Not me! porcelain girl.
quote:I also wonder how some of them got from being dirt poor and having their cultures almost extinct to the ginourmous casinos that exist now.
From what I understand, lawyers and investors.
OH. Well...that's embarrasing. Porcelain girl, then? I'm interested in the book. n_n
Well, between all the legal crap and stuff, how did they rise to become so powerful? At least in the West Coast where I see Casino billboards all over the place.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Alabama tried succession once. We joined this union thingy in like 1819, and then 30 years later we reconsidered, because we weren't being fairly represented in the union's government, in any of the three branches. They were passing laws that would bankrupt our largest financial concerns, forcing them to sell at a lower than market price to the interests who had most control over that government. So our duly-elected government decided the union had been a bad idea and we wanted to withdraw. It was even legal to do so, according to the laws of said union.
But they invaded us, destroyed everything here, then exploited what was left and kept us in poverty for 100 years afterward. We're only just now emerging from that.
I say if they want to secede, more power to them. I wish them luck.
That is a highly debatable interpretation.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I'm sorry if my passion and subsequent anger has been seen as arrogance or hurt anyone's feelings. Many of the responses in this thread have struck a chord with me.
It was sort of like growing up assuming everyone in my generation abhorred racism, only to overhear a girl on the bus I'd assumed was a friend whisper that our neighborhood would be so much better if there were no black people.
ouch. I don't think that's exactly what she said. I mean, she didn't say that the world would be better if there were no Native Americans, amirite? I've seen ignorance in her posts, yes. But not racism of that sort.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
As per the casinos (as far as my understanding goes):
Only a few tribes run successful casinos. They are permitted to do so because tribes are under federal, not state, jurisdiction.
The motivation behind starting casinos was because the tribe was not receiving enough funding from the government to fulfill their basic needs, so they figured they would set up another means of revenue. The revenue from the casinos goes to helping the respective tribe at large. Very few of the casinos accrue what could be considered wealth for the tribes, and the majority of the successful ones are indeed in California. There is one in the East Coast, I think run by the Pequot?
I don't think they are a fabulous idea, but that is as far as my information goes without further research.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
A LOT (as in over 90%) of the money to build those casino's came from investors from outside the US, and a ton of the profits (in some cases 80% or more) go back to those investors.
Tribal politics have been very ugly in some cases.
Without Reservation is another great book about a basically non-existant tribe....the Mashnantucket Pequot tribe....which was never really a tribe at all.
They own the most profitable Indian casino in the US, and the largest single casino in the world.
Foxwoods.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't know about the specific conditions of the Lakota Sioux reservation system, but most of the reservations I've seen don't seem like they would fare well as independent nations. There's too much of a lack of infrastructure, and too many absent services; while those things are often underprovided as part of the United States, one worries that as a sovereign nation, they might more or less cease.
It's true that without the exploitation of reservation resources there might be the possibility of improvement, but I'd wonder if that future possibility would be worth such a drastic course. Are the problems lakotafreedom describes likely to improve without significant exterior assistance?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I'm sorry if my passion and subsequent anger has been seen as arrogance or hurt anyone's feelings. Many of the responses in this thread have struck a chord with me.
It was sort of like growing up assuming everyone in my generation abhorred racism, only to overhear a girl on the bus I'd assumed was a friend whisper that our neighborhood would be so much better if there were no black people.
ouch. I don't think that's exactly what she said. I mean, she didn't say that the world would be better if there were no Native Americans, amirite? I've seen ignorance in her posts, yes. But not racism of that sort.
I didn't mean to infer that her statement was the same as my peer, just that the feelings of sad revelation were the same for me. I consider most of the initials posts on this thread to be terribly uniformed, uncomfortably imperialistic, and prejudiced. It was very unexpected, and forced a paradigm shift. It didn't feel good.
I don't expect everyone to have the same gut reaction, nor do I think that if someone disagrees with me that they are immediately ignorant or racist. I was reacting to specific phrases, and said so. I have never (that I can remember, I have been around for eight years or so) participated in flaming or belittling anyone. I feel that I tend to be fair-minded and polite. I think my points thus far have been founded and appropriate.
I am personally invested in the welfare of the American Indian, and truth-telling in general. I would never belittle anyone for wanting more information or knowledge. But apparently I am being offensive by being offended. I am not offended for my own sake, but for the sake of most people that aren't given their proper due.
Alt, if you would like a copy of The Dull Knifes please email me at sweetrevengeellis at yahoo dot com. I will gladly send you one within the next few months, so long as you pass it on to someone else when you are done. And I welcome your thoughts on it if you read it Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It was sort of like growing up assuming everyone in my generation abhorred racism, only to overhear a girl on the bus I'd assumed was a friend whisper that our neighborhood would be so much better if there were no black people.
That kind of thing is VERY hard for me as well. Imagine it being your own brother. *sigh*
I grew up in a family where we did our best to understand all conflicts from both sides before making a decision about whose side we were going to come down on, and did not use derogatory words or words that a group has asked not be used for them, if we knew about it. I am horrified that my brother has decided to become a white supremacist. I was also not happy when I asked my brother-in-law not to call little people what he persisted in calling them (a word just about as offensive in my house, growing up, as the n-word) and he refused even after I explained why. *sigh*
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I would hope that anyone on this board would feel well within the bounds of propriety to call me out if I claimed not to understand why the younger Jews in Nazi Germany didn't just renounce their cultural heritage and religion and join the HJ.
...
It was sort of like growing up assuming everyone in my generation abhorred racism, only to overhear a girl on the bus I'd assumed was a friend whisper that our neighborhood would be so much better if there were no black people.
The fact that you use these two examples to characterize what I posted is exactly my point.
Neither of these are anywhere close to what I said, and neither are accurate representations of the situation in question as far as I'm able to see.
This shows me that you're reacting to the situation, and not actually listening to or responding to what I'm talking about. In fact, I think we all know what throwing down the Nazi card means.
I do wish you luck in your pursuit of knowledge and wish the various Native American peoples well in their hardships.
P.S. I'm a guy.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: A LOT (as in over 90%) of the money to build those casino's came from investors from outside the US, and a ton of the profits (in some cases 80% or more) go back to those investors.
Tribal politics have been very ugly in some cases.
Without Reservation is another great book about a basically non-existant tribe....the Mashnantucket Pequot tribe....which was never really a tribe at all.
They own the most profitable Indian casino in the US, and the largest single casino in the world.
Foxwoods.
Thank you for the recommendation. As aforementioned, Indian Gaming is not something I completely understand. Though I have always been invested due to cultural heritage, it was not until the past few years that I started vigorously pursuing the facts and history from all sides of the "Indian Problem." We are not taught even a fraction of the truth in American public schools.
I empathize, KQ. I still remember being six years old and having to learn that people were "different." The idea of race had to be taught to me, because I simply didn't classify people or make judgments about them based on skin color. And yet there are some things I have been admonished not to discuss with my grandfather or some of our older family friends, such as my dating someone "different."
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I would hope that anyone on this board would feel well within the bounds of propriety to call me out if I claimed not to understand why the younger Jews in Nazi Germany didn't just renounce their cultural heritage and religion and join the HJ.
...
It was sort of like growing up assuming everyone in my generation abhorred racism, only to overhear a girl on the bus I'd assumed was a friend whisper that our neighborhood would be so much better if there were no black people.
The fact that you use these two examples to characterize what I posted is exactly my point.
Neither of these are anywhere close to what I said, and neither are accurate representations of the situation in question as far as I'm able to see.
This shows me that you're reacting to the situation, and not actually listening to or responding to what I'm talking about. In fact, I think we all know what throwing down the Nazi card means.
I do wish you luck in your pursuit of knowledge and wish the various Native American peoples well in their hardships.
P.S. I'm a guy.
A: I thought Alt was referring to someone else; I know you're a dude. (I had thought Alt was referring to Kwea, but then I remembered Kwea is also of the dude variety, then figured the gender of my pronoun didn't matter as my point was not person-specific.)
I was responding EXACTLY to what you said. You inferred that Native American culture was spiritually, socially, technologically, and economically primitive.
The majority of Native American tribes in America have been victims of genocide due to their ethnic, religious, and cultural status. MAYBE if they chose to progress, as you put it, they would not have to suffer. The Nazi card was totally relevant. Why couldn't the Indians (Jews) just wake up and see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board?
As to my relaying the anecdote about the girl on my bus, I was referring to the feeling it gave me, and how that was analogous to what reading your and previous posts gave me. It hurt, because it was uniformed AND definitive.
I was giving you the opportunity to explain your stance before declaring YOU personally to be prejudiced and ethnocentric ( as opposed to your stance). You did so, and though I disagree with it still, at least you provided reasons for making assumptions, and admitted ignorance when I took offense to your initial statement.
(Edited to de-emphasize gender.)
[ December 23, 2007, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Could she pass it to me? I want to learn more about Native Americans and their plights. I cannot blame them for seceding. Things like slavery or having your land systematically taken from you doesn't just go away. Take how members of my family are still affected by slavery even though it happened centuries ago. The pain of it takes so long to recover from and racism is a thing that is practically engrained in our society. It isn't any wonder that so many pockets of people in this country live in poverty. Sometimes it becomes part of a mindset, limiting people for generations. It doesn't help that native culture is often mocked in our society.
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I'm sorry if my passion and subsequent anger has been seen as arrogance or hurt anyone's feelings. Many of the responses in this thread have struck a chord with me.
It was sort of like growing up assuming everyone in my generation abhorred racism, only to overhear a girl on the bus I'd assumed was a friend whisper that our neighborhood would be so much better if there were no black people.
ouch. I don't think that's exactly what she said. I mean, she didn't say that the world would be better if there were no Native Americans, amirite? I've seen ignorance in her posts, yes. But not racism of that sort.
I didn't mean to infer that her statement was the same as my peer, just that the feelings of sad revelation were the same for me. I consider most of the initials posts on this thread to be terribly uniformed, uncomfortably imperialistic, and prejudiced. It was very unexpected, and forced a paradigm shift. It didn't feel good.
I don't expect everyone to have the same gut reaction, nor do I think that if someone disagrees with me that they are immediately ignorant or racist. I was reacting to specific phrases, and said so. I have never (that I can remember, I have been around for eight years or so) participated in flaming or belittling anyone. I feel that I tend to be fair-minded and polite. I think my points thus far have been founded and appropriate.
I am personally invested in the welfare of the American Indian, and truth-telling in general. I would never belittle anyone for wanting more information or knowledge. But apparently I am being offensive by being offended. I am not offended for my own sake, but for the sake of most people that aren't given their proper due.
Alt, if you would like a copy of The Dull Knifes please email me at sweetrevengeellis at yahoo dot com. I will gladly send you one within the next few months, so long as you pass it on to someone else when you are done. And I welcome your thoughts on it if you read it
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Back to the actual topic....
I imagine that declaring them apart from the US government is the first step of many, many lawsuits.
I doubt this will help them at all, for the same reasons that the casinos haven't helped many either.
I know that my sister worked at Foxwoods, and while it was a decent job, the difference between the way NA workers and non-NA workers were treated shows that racism is alive and well on the reservation as well. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*nods* My best friend growing up was half Navajo. Her father had left the reservation when he was just a boy; his mother chose to leave for many reasons, but their life was almost as hard after leaving as it was before they left. And, well, he was not welcome any more among his family and people because he left the reservation and married a white woman and lived a "white" life. It was sad to hear him talk about it.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
I know that my sister worked at Foxwoods, and while it was a decent job, the difference between the way NA workers and non-NA workers were treated shows that racism is alive and well on the reservation as well.
My first assumption is that this stems from the conflict between "traditionals" and "assimilated" Indians that has been around since Europeans had political power in the Americas. Do you think that is the case?
It is that intra-tribal conflict that perpetuated a lot of the problems on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the seventies. AIM members were invited to the reservation because traditionals on the reservation received no aid, acknowledgment from the government. Assimilated Indians were given cushy jobs by the Tribal Council Chair, Dick Wilson. There's a guy who lived up to his name. Both sides of the tribe were pitted against each other over the scarce resources available on the reservation, especially in way of employment.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What I took from MC's comments...and I know he will correct me if I am wrong...is that a lot of different nationalities seem to honor their own heritage without leaving modern advances out of their lives.
I have been to some of those reservations out west, and they are pitiful. I know some of the responsibility lies with how they have been treated in the past, but a lot of it isn't as well. There are a lot of things that could be done within their own community, but a lot fo the time it seems they are turning their back on their options.
I see this as just another example of this in action.
Keep in mind that my own ancestors felt Ireland was very special, and they had a very deep spiritual connection too the land their forefathers had worked for generations, but they still chose to leave to make things better for themselves and their families. NA's aren't the only people who have had to adapt their lifestyles in the modern world.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
I know that my sister worked at Foxwoods, and while it was a decent job, the difference between the way NA workers and non-NA workers were treated shows that racism is alive and well on the reservation as well.
My first assumption is that this stems from the conflict between "traditionals" and "assimilated" Indians that has been around since Europeans had political power in the Americas. Do you think that is the case?
It is that intra-tribal conflict that perpetuated a lot of the problems on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the seventies. AIM members were invited to the reservation because traditionals on the reservation received no aid, acknowledgment from the government. Assimilated Indians were given cushy jobs by the Tribal Council Chair, Dick Wilson. There's a guy who lived up to his name. Both sides of the tribe were pitted against each other over the scarce resources available on the reservation, especially in way of employment.
They fear change, plain and simple. Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them.
I am talking about institutional racism here as well. It wasn't a nod and a wink....Indians were promised a job with a huge salary, even if they just chose to clean the bathrooms. Huge being a relative measure, of course. They didn't even show for work most of the time, but they still got paid, while my sister got hurt lifting change bags and they screwed her hardcore because they aren't bound by any labor laws.
She had spotless reviews, and was the #1 non-Indian employee up for promotion, but she was never promoted. Go figure. She was employee of the month 3 times, too, so it's not like this was all sour grapes.....
They are their own nation, within the borders of the US.
At least that's how the lawyer explained it to my sister when explaining that her lifetime 10% disability wouldn't get her shit from them, despite the fact they admitted it happened on the job. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Many of the plains tribes adopted the use of horses and firearms. I don't think there is a resistance to technology in general, but to technology that exploits the land and it's resources. It was AIM's publicly declared stance against these practices that had them named one of the nation's my dangerous groups.
That may not be true for ALL tribes or current reservations, but it was definitely a large for the Lakota. (The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne being the two tribes I know the most about both historically and concerning contemporary issues.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thank you Kwea, that's my point exactly. (In response to the post where you outlined what you understood me to be saying).
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: The Nazi card was totally relevant. Why couldn't the Indians (Jews) just wake up and see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board?
I may not know a lot about modren American Indian culture, but I know enough about WWII that I'll hand this one off to any Jewish people who might want to point out some relevant inconsistencies in the comparison.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The only valid point of comparison...and to be honest it is a point that makes a lot of modern people uncomfortable...it that some parts of modern society DID try to completely wipe all Indians off the face of the Earth.
We used disease, slash and burn tactics, and trickery at times to win our "manifest destiny".
That being said, we won. It is our land, not just theirs....and they weren't all noble savages either. They took it (the land) from others, often times in bloody wars, and practiced slavery with war captives as well.
What matters is where we go from here. I don't buy into a sense of entitlement that some Indians seem to have, nor will I take the blame for their current living conditions. It hardly seems fair to paint us, and our modern way of life, as abusing them and evil....and then turn around and insist we give them all our advantages of that same way of life.
There has to be SOME level of personal responsibility, somewhere, or things will never get any better for them.
IMO, of course.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Thank you Kwea, that's my point exactly. (In response to the post where you outlined what you understood me to be saying).
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: The Nazi card was totally relevant. Why couldn't the Indians (Jews) just wake up and see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board?
I may not know a lot about modren American Indian culture, but I know enough about WWII that I'll hand this one off to any Jewish people who might want to point out some relevant inconsistencies in the comparison.
Your point exactly? You have yet to clarify how you feel Indians should progress socially and spiritually.
And I stand by my analogy thus far. Genocide is genocide. The suffering and oppression of the Indians doesn't decrease or de-validate the suffering of the Jews and vice versa.
If Rivka or Tante or Lisa or anyone else on the board wants to inform me or help me understand as to why they might hold a different opinion or find my analogy to be unfounded I will listen and might even change my mind. I earnestly and humbly welcome being corrected. I have no problem admitting where I am wrong or could stand to learn something new. I enjoy learning. I've done it in this thread several times already.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um, the problem was they didn't want to reform or assimilate the Jews, they wanted to exterminate them (and all other "undesirable" groups.)
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That being said, we won. It is our land, not just theirs....and they weren't all noble savages either. They took it (the land) from others, often times in bloody wars, and practiced slavery with war captives as well.
What matters is where we go from here. I don't buy into a sense of entitlement that some Indians seem to have, nor will I take the blame for their current living conditions. It hardly seems fair to paint us, and our modern way of life, as abusing them and evil....and then turn around and insist we give them all our advantages of that same way of life.
There has to be SOME level of personal responsibility, somewhere, or things will never get any better for them.
IMO, of course.
I agree with some of these points. However, "we" didn't win, someone's ancestors won. Many of us, like myself, probably have ancestors on both sides.
It is also important that we acknowledge that this is not one large group of people. The American continents were populated with thousands if not millions of distinct cultures. And the decimation of the majority of those people and their cultures was absolutely systematic and deliberate. The Spaniards wanted the gold, the English wanted the land.
I do believe we need to move forward from where we are now, giving a fair voice to all sides involved. But I also think it is important to know where we have come from, and what mistakes have been made, on both sides. Hell, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act wasn't passed until 1978.
And as has been mentioned, the Oglala Sioux have refused to accept the millions offered to them as a means of settling the consequences of the Fort Laramie Treaty being broken. But they don't want the money. They want their land. We need to think about that, and try to understand why.
Not all traditional Indian people are against change in general, as you noted. Many of the tradionals of the Oglala were working with AIM members to set up their own businesses and were shut down by the BIA and FBI at the behest of Dick Wilson and his goons.
I think you might be take interest in American Holocaust by Stannard. It isn't moderate by any means, but is illuminating as to what was done to those who experienced First Contact. The death that was caused by disease is often emphasized to draw attention away from death caused by being fed to dogs.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Um, the problem was they didn't want to reform or assimilate the Jews, they wanted to exterminate them (and all other "undesirable" groups.)
this was often the case with Native Americans. Wish I could find that Reagan quote about how humoring their primitive ways was a mistake, and how we should have wiped them out completely instead, so we wouldn't be left with all these people to deal with. Gonna go look for that.
Indians, in order to assimilate into mainstream American society, were asked to stop being Indians. It is only pretty recently that things are changing. Sometimes I take for granted that I grew up in an environment where diverse cultures and traditions are celebrated rather than feared.
I am not saying that the Jewish Holocaust and the American Holocaust are the same, but that there are similarities. Then again I guess all genocides have similarities. Ugh.
Unforunately there were Jewish individuals that had to revoke and hide their heritage in order to survive the horrors of WWII. It is deeply upsetting that they had to go to that extreme in order to survive. It is that loss of identity and persecution of belief that I am equating. I see where it is coming off wrong. I'll drop it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My problems come from comparing the modern situation of Native Americans with the situation of the Jews in Germany. Nobody is exterminating the American Indians now (which is who I've been talking about, the modern American Indians and their modern problems).
More importantly, the idea that the Jews had any option to "see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board." Are you still sure you want to say that's a realistic analysis of the situation?
Further, I've been talking about the modern American Indians all along, to whom there is no genocide going on. I'm talking about the American Indians who I saw languishing in their reservation when I drove through several times a month. Nobody was revering the land (which I'm to believe is their soul). This was prime farm land in the central valley of California, where not 20 miles away there are countless ranches, farms, and orchards.
Why aren't the people on the reservation making something of themselves, now, today? I certainly can't blame what happened to their distant relatives 200 years ago, when so many other people - including other American Indians - have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and made something of themselves.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:this was often the case with Native Americans.
Right. But as Mighty Cow said, you seemed to be making a comparison between the Holocaust and the suggestion that the Native Americans should be assimilated.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Not that I agree with MightyCow on most of what he says-- my understanding of the cultural and social and economic and health problems they face are totally different than his, and I have a completely different view of what he calls "languishing" and of the land issues than he does.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That THEY weren't beaten and almost destroyed. Their ancestors were, which brings us all up to date.
BTW, the land they want is far more valuable than the settlement offered, which DOES need to be considered. As recent tribal politics show, in regard to casino's at least, greed isn't just a white thing either.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm trying to think of a comparison and I think that Black/African-Americans, especially a few decades ago, is the best comparison I can come up with.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: My problems come from comparing the modern situation of Native Americans with the situation of the Jews in Germany. Nobody is exterminating the American Indians now (which is who I've been talking about, the modern American Indians and their modern problems).
Actually, genocide of indigenous peoples is still occurring in South and Central America. It is not cool to admit that you're Indian down there.
quote:More importantly, the idea that the Jews had any option to "see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board." Are you still sure you want to say that's a realistic analysis of the situation?
It is not a realistic analysis of the modern North American situation.
What I didn't appreciate, Mighty Cow, was your lumping an entire ethnic group stubbornly primitive under the brush of your experience driving into one reservation.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Actually, genocide of indigenous peoples is still occurring in South and Central America. It is not cool to admit that you're Indian down there.
I almost brought that up but I think he means "In the USA", not all American peoples.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:this was often the case with Native Americans.
Right. But as Mighty Cow said, you seemed to be making a comparison between the Holocaust and the suggestion that the Native Americans should be assimilated.
I agree with you, and see where I was inaccurate, however, I want to point out that it wasn't really that long ago that the choice was assimilate or be obliterated by our army. Or, settle where we tell you to, or we will assume you are hostile and blast the bejebus out of you. And even the word assimilate carries a different connotation for us than it did for relatives even just thirty years ago.
And the Nazi card was pulled in the first place because even the fact that it was genocide and a holocaust is largely ignored, especially in American public education curriculum.
And I am still waiting to be enlightened as to how MC thinks Native Americans should progress spiritually. Maybe I will find myself corrected about that, too.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm talking about very specific people here, those American Indians who are currently having trouble in reservations and living in poverty, experiencing high mortality rates, short life expectancy, and so forth. I think I was quite clear about that.
I would appreciate it if you would not try to argue against me by saying that I'm neglecting to include all Native peoples in all the Americas from the beginning of European colonization. I think it's clear that those are very different conversations, and I'm not sure how you're reading so much into mine.
I think I've reached the end of my ability to engage in a productive conversation on this topic, so I'll bow out again. It doesn't seem that we're really discussing the same things at all anyway.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
As I have already said, I don't think assimilation should or can be the goal, and I do agree that we may think of more benign ways of "assimilating" than was considered proper in the very close past. (My sister had a boyfriend once who was a Canadian Native who had been forcefully taken from his parents and adopted by a white couple on the grounds that they were unfit to raise him-- because they were Canadian Natives. Similar programs ran in our country in living memory. One of my own, fairly recent, ancestors was affected by "Indian Schools.") But anyway, I do think it's improper to imply that the government is actively bent on destroying the Natives here through hostility. Neglect and prejudice exist, yes. Unequal treatment, definitely. But I don't think there's a current campaign on to commit genocide.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As I have already said, I don't think assimilation should or can be the goal, and I do agree that we may think of more benign ways of "assimilating" than was considered proper in the very close past. (My sister had a boyfriend once who was a Canadian Native who had been forcefully taken from his parents and adopted by a white couple on the grounds that they were unfit to raise him-- because they were Canadian Natives. Similar programs ran in our country in living memory. One of my own, fairly recent, ancestors was affected by "Indian Schools.") But anyway, I do think it's improper to imply that the government is actively bent on destroying the Natives here through hostility. Neglect and prejudice exist, yes. Unequal treatment, definitely. But I don't think there's a current campaign on to commit genocide.
I completely agree. On all points. I didn't there was a current campaign, just as I do not think there is a campaign to exterminate Jews (I know, different, but I really am getting to a point), but that neither respective group would be hot on tag teaming with the people nor institutions that oppressed their relatives. Does that makes sense? I can accept if it doesn't. Twasn't my main point anyway, but a historical analogy with modern influence.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm talking about very specific people here, those American Indians who are currently having trouble in reservations and living in poverty, experiencing high mortality rates, short life expectancy, and so forth. I think I was quite clear about that.
I would appreciate it if you would not try to argue against me by saying that I'm neglecting to include all Native peoples in all the Americas from the beginning of European colonization. I think it's clear that those are very different conversations, and I'm not sure how you're reading so much into mine.
I think I've reached the end of my ability to engage in a productive conversation on this topic, so I'll bow out again. It doesn't seem that we're really discussing the same things at all anyway.
But originally we were. I took complete offense as to your opening statement as pertaining to modern American Indians refusing to progress socially, economically, spiritually, etc, and how that was the problem. The other analogies came up later.
Then you got really sarcastic and called me an expert. Which did not help me see your point at all.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As I have already said, I don't think assimilation should or can be the goal, and I do agree that we may think of more benign ways of "assimilating" than was considered proper in the very close past. (My sister had a boyfriend once who was a Canadian Native who had been forcefully taken from his parents and adopted by a white couple on the grounds that they were unfit to raise him-- because they were Canadian Natives. Similar programs ran in our country in living memory. One of my own, fairly recent, ancestors was affected by "Indian Schools.") But anyway, I do think it's improper to imply that the government is actively bent on destroying the Natives here through hostility. Neglect and prejudice exist, yes. Unequal treatment, definitely. But I don't think there's a current campaign on to commit genocide.
I completely agree. On all points. I didn't there was a current campaign, just as I do not think there is a campaign to exterminate Jews (I know, different, but I really am getting to a point), but that neither respective group would be hot on tag teaming with the people nor institutions that oppressed their relatives. Does that makes sense? I can accept if it doesn't. Twasn't my main point anyway, but a historical analogy with modern influence.
THAT point makes a lot more sense to me.
Of course, the Nazis are not currently in power in Germany-- in fact, they're outlawed, so...
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
And not many of those Jews survived. Pretty much sucks 360-- I'm sure most of us can agree racism, genocide, and imperialism all suck.
Edited to add: I went back and read the initial posts that spawned bringing up Nazi Germany and it was relevant. It had to do with choosing to renounce your identity as a means of survival. Though it was MC's need to be sarcastic about me being upset and shocked over general statements of prejudice that got me started in the first place. GEEz. My dad was right. Indian-loving liberal, indeed.
[ December 24, 2007, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He was talking about specific points in specific locations he personally had seen and experienced. While it may not make him an expert, it does mean that it is possible you were NOT talking about the same things, which is why you got offended and he got sarcastic.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Mm, no, he added that later. I was not the only one to be offended, but I was the only one to be attacked. His first comment was very general and flippant. If you agree with his initial post I don't mind disagreeing with you, as well.
And if that (the lack of merit in the intial post and that he merely attacked me instead of explaining his stance) can't be acknowledged there's really no point in me discussing anything else I find to be unjust, as it seems I will continue to be discredited as being uppity at the least and a bizatch at the worst. No thanks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My best friends are uppity bizatches.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I have ancestors on both sides of this, as someone said, but I'm admittedly ignorant about Indian culture. One non-Holocaust-related quibble:
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: As per the casinos (as far as my understanding goes):
Only a few tribes run successful casinos. They are permitted to do so because tribes are under federal, not state, jurisdiction.
The motivation behind starting casinos was because ...[etc]
Federally recognized tribes (and federal recognition is a whole 'nother topic) are permitted to run casinos only in states where casinos are allowed to others. If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.) Basically, if anyone in the state is allowed to run a type of gambling operation, then tribes are allowed to also, by federal law. This allows some state control of the gambling in their borders, and seems to me like a fair compromise between competing state, federal and tribal interests. This is one reason why there are not more Indian casinos in every state.
Kwea pointed out that many Indians casinos have foreign investments. I lived in Connecticut when Foxwoods was being planned and built, and according to the local papers the tribe repeatedly tried and failed to get domestic financing. It was considered too risky. So the tribe went to an Asian gambling syndicate for initial financing.
[ December 24, 2007, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.)
Morbo, that seems to be inconsistent with my understanding of how Indian casinos work in California.
I thought it was negotiated on a state-by-state basis.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hi Rivka! There are some negotiations between the states and the tribes, I'm hazy on the details. I know my home state Georgia and many other states deny casinos legality, and therefore tribes cannot have casinos in those states either (unless they have some special negotiations for it, I've never heard that though. Though come to think of it, are casinos generally legal in California?) Though they can still play bingo or whatever's legal.
quote:Before a Tribe may lawfully conduct class III gaming [basically, casino-type games--Morbo], the following conditions must be met: (1) The Particular form of class III gaming that the Tribe wants to conduct must be permitted in the state in which the tribe is located; (2) The Tribe and the state must have negotiated a compact that has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary must have approved regulatory procedures; and (3) The Tribe must have adopted a Tribal gaming ordinance that has been approved by the Chairman of the Commission.
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Though come to think of it, are casinos generally legal in California?
Nope. And it was a big deal when the Indian casinos were ok'd.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
well then condition (1) above is not universal. Wikipedia has betrayed me!! I feel so used.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If it helps, it took a special proposition -- which changed the state constitution.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ahhh, I didn't know that, especially interesting is the impact the Indian casino money had on CA politics.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I took complete offense as to your opening statement as pertaining to modern American Indians refusing to progress socially, economically, spiritually, etc, and how that was the problem. The other analogies came up later. ... Edited to add: I went back and read the initial posts that spawned bringing up Nazi Germany and it was relevant. It had to do with choosing to renounce your identity as a means of survival.
Something has been bothering me a bit about this thread and it took me a while to figure out exactly what.
From my POV, MC using the terms "progress spiritually or socially" are unfortunate and highly debatable in general if not in specific. The idea that a particular society can be undebatably superior to another "socially" overall rather than "socially" in specific areas is a bit obnoxious but not well, worthy of the vitriol or rhetoric that it seemed to provoke.
The response despite defending the natives annoyed me in quite a different way, more interesting anyways. The closest way I can describe is that it almost seems condescending. Adaptation to the modern world, technologically or economically is conflated with assimilation.
If I can personalize this, some of us are also living in cultures where the Western world, as with the natives, also busted in and did attempt to demonstrate what they thought was a superior way of life in each of those various ways. However, our cultures did adapt and examine the Western world "economically, spiritually, socially, technologically" and then absorbed those ideas that *were* found to be superior.
No, the path was not the best way and there could certainly have been better ways to get to this point. But to those of us in these cultures, we may not appreciate the notion that we may have sold out, been assimilated, or are "renouncing our identity."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.)
Morbo, that seems to be inconsistent with my understanding of how Indian casinos work in California.
I thought it was negotiated on a state-by-state basis.
That may be true now, but IIRC it wasn't always. Now it is state by state, but at first it wasn't, because it is considered Federal Land, and they are not bound by a lot of laws the states are because of their status.
Foxwoods changed the way a lot of things are run, both because of the way they declared themselves a tribe and "reclaimed" the land and because they proved how successful such ventures could be. The Department of the Interior changed a lot of the rules specifically because of the way things were handled in CT.
One cool fact.....the town Foxwoods is in had to play hardball with them, because they would have received no revenue from Foxwoods at all. It was a small town, with single lane roads, and the infrastructure was not made to deal with any sort of traffic. They approched the Pequots and were told to go punt.
So they simply waited for the casino to be half done, and announced plans to close every single road that lead to the reservation.
They still lose money every year, because the settlement didn't take into consideration how popular Foxwoods would be, because no one expected it to explode the way it did, but at least they get something to help maintain the roads.
BTW, for the first 7 years, starting 11 days after opening, Foxwoods was under construction, building more gaming space. THAT'S how popular it is, and how large.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I will never understand the popularity of casinos. Ever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Me either, Tom. However, to the degree that they help Indian tribes be self-supporting and reclaim their land and identity, I am for them.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I don't know about the specific conditions of the Lakota Sioux reservation system, but most of the reservations I've seen don't seem like they would fare well as independent nations. There's too much of a lack of infrastructure, and too many absent services; while those things are often underprovided as part of the United States, one worries that as a sovereign nation, they might more or less cease.
It's true that without the exploitation of reservation resources there might be the possibility of improvement, but I'd wonder if that future possibility would be worth such a drastic course. Are the problems lakotafreedom describes likely to improve without significant exterior assistance?
Well, I'm not an expert, either, but my historical understanding suggests that by the mid 1850's, disease (cholera, small pox) and overhunting of buffalo (European) and the gradual push westward for land pretty well destroyed the social systems of clan and kinship care that were in place at the time that would in most cases prevent abject poverty.
I'm not a betting woman, but I'd perhaps speculate that some of the goals or dreams *shrugs* might be to gain enough land back to go back to a lifestyle that supported small family groups within the tribal structure to live off of the land in the patterns their ancestors did . . . and I could be all washed up.
I do believe that there is a difference between "federally recognized" tribes and "sovereign nations." I'm wondering if that what is going on? As the Cherokee are a sovereign nation within the USA, are the Lakota pulling together multiple tribes into one umbrella nation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd perhaps speculate that some of the goals or dreams *shrugs* might be to gain enough land back to go back to a lifestyle that supported small family groups within the tribal structure to live off of the land in the patterns their ancestors did . . .
Which, sadly, won't ever happen.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
No, I think you're right, Tom. It won't. But sometimes, a dream is all we have to hold onto -- that keeps us going. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Me either, Tom. However, to the degree that they help Indian tribes be self-supporting and reclaim their land and identity, I am for them.
Me too.
Man, we've thought the same stuff a lot lately. I'd say "are you sure we're not the same person?" except I borrow your stuff so I know we're not 'cause you have books and DVDs I don't.
Which reminds me that we need to see you some time and I'll give back your book. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Casinos: Think of it as evolution in action.
I do a lot of programming work for casinos (almost exclusively Indian ones). I wish I could make a living doing something with some added value to the world, but what are you going to do?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What is it with you people? Nighthawk makes his income by making spammers better. I was thinking about going back to freelancing, but I'm afraid I'd wind up writing Suicide Pill plug-ins for Firefox or something at the behest of organized crime.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Samprimary already pointed out the Russell Means connection on page 1. But I find it fascination how headline writers + non-local reporters so often leads to total overreaction and, frankly, coverage for stories that may not deserve it.
Which is not to say that discussion about the issues in this thread aren't important. In fact, I've found it all very interesting.
Edit: UBB code
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Which reminds me that we need to see you some time and I'll give back your book.
Indeed we do. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you for your posts, Porcelain Girl. I have been interested in this topic since I first heard about Leonard Peltier years ago. I did some research at the time (research = read lots of internet sites) but it was hard to get a grasp of all the facts or synthesize all the viewpoints. I appreciate the knowledge that you have gathered. I'd take you up on your book offer, but it would end up sitting in my to-be-read stack for ever, since I've got a ginormous backlog.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: A LOT (as in over 90%) of the money to build those casino's came from investors from outside the US, and a ton of the profits (in some cases 80% or more) go back to those investors.
My understanding--and it's hard to find documentation, so my understanding could certainly be full of it--is that both the Miccosukees of Florida and the Seminoles of Florida have made a ton of money for themselves with their casinos. Now, maybe that's dwarfed by what they've made for some foreign investors. I don't know. But I have been told that every member of the Miccosukee tribe is on the board of trustees or whatever for their casino, and draws a salary either of us would consider hefty from that. (I so wish I could document that bit of hearsay, so anyone with better Google Skillz than I, have at it.) As for the Seminoles, the parlayed their partnership with Hard Rock into being able to buy every Hard Rock casino outside of Vegas, and the entire chain of restaurants. As I understand it, they own it, not foreign investors. They seem to have done well with their gambling winnings.
(It may be that these two tribes didn't need all that outside money because they slowly, over the course of forty years, built up money with their massive Bingo operations. [And don't sneer at bingo if you've never been to the Miccosukee Bingo Hall, especially before they built their real casino. It was--is--an enormous operation, with jackpots in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They turned nothing at all besides a bingo hall into an eight-story casino.])
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.)
I believe that's the case in Florida. However, you can pretty much get around that with "slot machines." The slot machines at the Seminole Hard Rock, as I understand it, are basically bingo games, done at a pace of dozens per minute. You even have little bingo cards visible on your machine--if you squint. (Of course, doing it this way makes for terrible odds. It makes the gambling a "pari-mutuel" game, which has anexpected value set by the state at around $0.87. Compare that to slot odds in Atlantic City which can make it well into the $0.90 range.) And again, don't tell me that building bingo halls isn't worth it. The Seminoles played their bingo halls into owning the Hard Rock Cafe.
-o-
Ironically enough, as I was typing this post, Cor came in with today's mail, which included complimentary tickets to see Bill Cosby at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood Florida. Put that together with a $49 a night room offer, and I think we just found our anniversary plans!
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Thank you for your posts, Porcelain Girl. I have been interested in this topic since I first heard about Leonard Peltier years ago. I did some research at the time (research = read lots of internet sites) but it was hard to get a grasp of all the facts or synthesize all the viewpoints. I appreciate the knowledge that you have gathered. I'd take you up on your book offer, but it would end up sitting in my to-be-read stack for ever, since I've got a ginormous backlog.
I wrote a paper that sorta summarizes the whole ordeal at Pine Ridge if you ever want a refresher. My To Read shelf at GoodReads.com is definitely competing with my Read shelf.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I have a pretty good grasp on the facts both parties agree to. It's the disagreements that leave me at a loss as to who must be lying--other than the inescapable conclusion that the FBI is lying in at least some particulars. But does that lead to the conclusion that Peltier is an innocent man and that the FBI is lying about all things? Or was the FBI just trying to cut corners to bring about what they were convinced was justice?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ruby frickin' Ridge. Lon frickin' Horiuchi.
Don't get me started. Don't Even.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I'm curious about that, too, Icarus.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Read a little bit more about Ruby Ridge before you begin to rant.
He was lucky they didn't storm up there sooner....and if they had it may have been better for everyone involved. A single bullet would have been safer, and would have protected his family, at least compared to what happened.
And don't tell me it was all big gov fault...you don't get into a multi-day standoff, armed, without knowing what it is you are getting into.
I hate how it turned out, but there was plenty of fault on BOTH sides. I think that the people on the gov side were criminals as well, though.
Both sides were freaking crazy, IMO.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
As far as Peltier is concerned:
For me, the main problem is that two other defendants were acquitted of murder for the same incident based on the argument of self defense. The jurors and the judge decided that the FBI agents could have been killed by one of their guns, but that it didn't matter because they had plenty of cause to participate in the shooting in self defense.
Then in Peltier's trial the publicly bigoted judge disallowed ANY evidence or testimony from the previous trial, even if new testimony directly contradicted prior testimony. Then Peltier was convicted of murder on purely circumstantial evidence for the death that were already ruled to be the result of self defense!
I highly suggest In the Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter Matthiesen for an in depth study of the shooting, as well as prior events and the trials. Incident At Oglala is a good documentary by Michael Apted (who directed Thunderheart, a fictional story inspired by the problems at Pine Ridge) that details the actual shoot out. I studied both sides pretty extensively and at this point agree with the defense that it was a political, not legal, decision.
The whole case was an absolute mess. Even watching the documentary, you can barely keep it together. A huge mess on both sides.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Both sides were freaking crazy."
That's hard to disgree with. However, McVeigh said that Ruby Ridge and Waco were the reasons for the Oklahoma City bombing. Force is not always how you deal with ignorance, but it seems the FBI hasn't quite figured that out yet.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I added that part to my comment because I didn't want to have it seem that I was approving of the gov actions either.
I gotta say though.....what happened at Waco was horrible, but the agents there were not acting the same way the agents at RR did, IMO. That was all of the people in the compound, IMO, or at least mostly on them. They had military grade weapons, for heaven's sake, and wanted an excuse to use them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There was some government mistakenness at Waco, for sure-- but it was more on the level of two teams not communicating with each other or sharing intelligence more than just plain being crazy idiots.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't agree with how Waco was handled on either side.
The thing that bugs me about the FBI is that they have people with decades of experience in profiling and interrogation, and yet their solution to these problems largely involves violence. Every single agent should have enough training in profiling and interrogation so that they understand Randy Weaver/Tim McVeigh types as human beings. It's fairly counterproductive to dehumanize Americans citizens just because you hate their politics, and it's very nearly criminal to do so if you are a FBI agent with a gun. As far as I can tell, they are engaged in some pretty serious dehumanization of people like Weaver. This is not smart.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I was thinking about going back to freelancing, but I'm afraid I'd wind up writing Suicide Pill plug-ins for Firefox or something at the behest of organized crime.