I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?
Whether or not they stole the land from someone else, the burden of proof is not on them to prove that they didn't. If another group wants to claim that this was originally their land, the burden of proof will be on them. But no one is even making that claim, so this doesn't seem like a very valid point at all. And regardless of orginal ownership, one thing everyone knows for sure is that the people who currently (until now) have the land are not its rightful owners and need to give it back to the people they took it from.
seems I remember hearing that the Indians always said nobody owns the land, and how could that above post not be a valid point, stealing is stealing right ? you keep talking about who was here first so are you only going back as far as certain tribes ?
I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?
Whether or not they stole the land from someone else, the burden of proof is not on them to prove that they didn't. If another group wants to claim that this was originally their land, the burden of proof will be on them. But no one is even making that claim, so this doesn't seem like a very valid point at all. And regardless of orginal ownership, one thing everyone knows for sure is that the people who currently (until now) have the land are not its rightful owners and need to give it back to the people they took it from.
seems I remember hearing that the Indians always said nobody owns the land, and how could that above post not be a valid point, stealing is stealing right ? you keep talking about who was here first so are you only going back as far as certain tribes ?
Godfather.
No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.
I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.
Whether or not they stole the land from someone else, the burden of proof is not on them to prove that they didn't. If another group wants to claim that this was originally their land, the burden of proof will be on them. But no one is even making that claim, so this doesn't seem like a very valid point at all. And regardless of orginal ownership, one thing everyone knows for sure is that the people who currently (until now) have the land are not its rightful owners and need to give it back to the people they took it from.
seems I remember hearing that the Indians always said nobody owns the land, and how could that above post not be a valid point, stealing is stealing right ? you keep talking about who was here first so are you only going back as far as certain tribes ?
Godfather.
No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.
I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.
Just a hypothetical but what if they wiped out the people who lived there before them? And it should totally be up to them to prove it was theirs and not someone elses, the same way when I recenly bought a house it was up to me to make sure the person I was buying it from was the actual owner.
And just another point about the whole idea of giving back land. If the US decided to give back all the lands they "stole" from the natives by means of violence, would they have to give back the rest of the land (at least in the original colonies) to the UK, since that land was taken from the British by means of violence.
I saw this posted on another message board where someone brought up a very valid point. Is there a way the Shinnecock can prove they always lived on those lands and they didn't steal it from some other native group?
Even if they took the land from someone else the that doesn't give right to the next "settler" to steal the land from them, as far as we know they were the first, they don't have to prove anything. So if they stole the land from someone else I'm pretty sure the new settlers are not going to start the search for the previous owner to give return the stolen land.
It's about the law. I presume they have legal documents & treaties that give them a lawful claim to the land.
Just as the Israeli's have no rightful claim to the land of Palestine based on a debatable 2000 year old claim, but is instead based on the law as laid down since 1947 by the U.N.
I'm not sure we should give America to the Indians. :thumbdown: I mean, they haven't even been back to the Series since '48. How can we trust them to turn America around when the can't even put together a consistent starting five-man rotation.
No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.
I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.
Just a hypothetical but what if they wiped out the people who lived there before them? And it should totally be up to them to prove it was theirs and not someone elses, the same way when I recenly bought a house it was up to me to make sure the person I was buying it from was the actual owner.
And just another point about the whole idea of giving back land. If the US decided to give back all the lands they "stole" from the natives by means of violence, would they have to give back the rest of the land (at least in the original colonies) to the UK, since that land was taken from the British by means of violence.
I don't think it matters whose land it was before if there's no one left to claim it as theirs. I don't get what you're suggesting. Should those who stole it from this tribe be allowed to keep it just because the tribe can't prove they didn't take it from another extinct peoples? And how do you prove that anyway? If the house you bought had been taken illegally from someone who was no longer alive and had no heirs, then what? And how did you really prove that it wasn't taken from someone several owners back?
As far as the colonies go, it's historical fact that the British stole the land from the Natives, so just as soon as we gave the land back to the British they'd have to give it back to the Natives.
No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.
I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.
Just a hypothetical but what if they wiped out the people who lived there before them? And it should totally be up to them to prove it was theirs and not someone elses, the same way when I recenly bought a house it was up to me to make sure the person I was buying it from was the actual owner.
And just another point about the whole idea of giving back land. If the US decided to give back all the lands they "stole" from the natives by means of violence, would they have to give back the rest of the land (at least in the original colonies) to the UK, since that land was taken from the British by means of violence.
I don't think it matters whose land it was before if there's no one left to claim it as theirs. I don't get what you're suggesting. Should those who stole it from this tribe be allowed to keep it just because the tribe can't prove they didn't take it from another extinct peoples? And how do you prove that anyway? If the house you bought had been taken illegally from someone who was no longer alive and had no heirs, then what? And how did you really prove that it wasn't taken from someone several owners back?
As far as the colonies go, it's historical fact that the British stole the land from the Natives, so just as soon as we gave the land back to the British they'd have to give it back to the Natives.
I just think the whole idea of giving back land to people because people that may have been related to them had it taken from them is stupid. I mean it is not like the people who live there now were involved in the taking. And considering how multicultural the US is, it is entirely possible that the people living there weren’t even related to the people who took the land from the tribe. I mean what if there is a Japanese family for example living on a house in that land, are you going to take their land, that they actually own to give it to someone else. Plus I think that the whole idea of giving back land is stupid, if you go back far enough pretty much everyone’s ancestors were conquered by someone at one point. Like I said, if you give land to native tribes in north America, are you going to give the rest of the US, where they didn’t live back to the british? Are you going to give Normandy back to the British? How about the parts of Newfoundland that didn’t have native tribes living on them, maybe those should be given back to Norway since the Vikings lived there for awhile. Humans evolved in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, so if I want some of Tanzania can I make a claim to have it? Hell natives in North America came over on a land bridge from Asia, so why can't they make some land claims in Asia, or why can't people from Asia make land claims to North America?
If they take our land back, then we (people of European descent) are taking our horses back off of them. They can go back to walking
and our metals,before the settlers arived they used all stone and bone tools.
this is just a goofy idea, should the people of other countries give back their land also ?or just the Americans.
anybody seen any cromagnim or neiandertal people at the casino lately ? they might be here to reclaim their rightful lands from the Indians...so ez a caveman can do it.
please forgive my primitive spelling.
Godfather.
i wonder if white people would be willing to give up a lot of the food and agricultural processes they got from the natives? :problem:
it just occurred to me - the french fry box used by mcdonalds and other places is taken from a native american design, where would americans be without their supersized box of fries??? :shock:
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I just think the whole idea of giving back land to people because people that may have been related to them had it taken from them is stupid. I mean it is not like the people who live there now were involved in the taking. And considering how multicultural the US is, it is entirely possible that the people living there weren’t even related to the people who took the land from the tribe. I mean what if there is a Japanese family for example living on a house in that land, are you going to take their land, that they actually own to give it to someone else. Plus I think that the whole idea of giving back land is stupid, if you go back far enough pretty much everyone’s ancestors were conquered by someone at one point. Like I said, if you give land to native tribes in north America, are you going to give the rest of the US, where they didn’t live back to the british? Are you going to give Normandy back to the British? How about the parts of Newfoundland that didn’t have native tribes living on them, maybe those should be given back to Norway since the Vikings lived there for awhile. Humans evolved in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, so if I want some of Tanzania can I make a claim to have it? Hell natives in North America came over on a land bridge from Asia, so why can't they make some land claims in Asia, or why can't people from Asia make land claims to North America?
But I think people miss the point that this is a modern-day tribe that still exists as a distinct peoples displaced from their land. We're not talking about long-lost cave men ancestors or something with people who never knew them trying to claim land just because they have a tiny bit of shared DNA. We're talking about someone stole the land of your mother or grandmother, who personally told you about it, and your tribe still exists as a cultural unit and is still displaced from your land. These are relatively modern-day atrocities. I think people forget that.
I just think the whole idea of giving back land to people because people that may have been related to them had it taken from them is stupid. I mean it is not like the people who live there now were involved in the taking. And considering how multicultural the US is, it is entirely possible that the people living there weren’t even related to the people who took the land from the tribe. I mean what if there is a Japanese family for example living on a house in that land, are you going to take their land, that they actually own to give it to someone else. Plus I think that the whole idea of giving back land is stupid, if you go back far enough pretty much everyone’s ancestors were conquered by someone at one point. Like I said, if you give land to native tribes in north America, are you going to give the rest of the US, where they didn’t live back to the british? Are you going to give Normandy back to the British? How about the parts of Newfoundland that didn’t have native tribes living on them, maybe those should be given back to Norway since the Vikings lived there for awhile. Humans evolved in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, so if I want some of Tanzania can I make a claim to have it? Hell natives in North America came over on a land bridge from Asia, so why can't they make some land claims in Asia, or why can't people from Asia make land claims to North America?
But I think people miss the point that this is a modern-day tribe that still exists as a distinct peoples displaced from their land. We're not talking about long-lost cave men ancestors or something with people who never knew them trying to claim land just because they have a tiny bit of shared DNA. We're talking about someone stole the land of your mother or grandmother, who personally told you about it, and your tribe still exists as a cultural unit and is still displaced from your land. These are relatively modern-day atrocities. I think people forget that.
Right, good points.... I would add that in Canada, it's STILL going on....a lot of land (particularly in the west – most of BC) is unceded aboriginal land. There are no treaties or agreements in place to make the land officially part of Canada’s territory. Yet it is treated as crown land, sold or leased by our government as if it was their own, as seen on the coast with infrastructure and venue construction for the Olympics.
Not sure what your (Kel) argument would be there…..we own the rest of the country, and it falls within the borders we chose, so it’s ours? Or are you ok with these nations in BC taking and maintaining control of the land that the government illegally developed? http://www.firstnations.de/indian_land.htm
The only way to make right to the Indians is to help Doc Brown finish the flux capacitor and send a DeLorean back in time. Bad things happened . . . no debating that. My ancestors were forced from their homes during the world wars and they ended up moving to a different continent. My parents literally spent their younger years with dirt floors and sewed their own clothes. I guess all you can do is move on and make the best of it for yourself. The worst thing you can do is rely on others to fix it for you.
In regards to Cleveland Indians:
Congrats on your 63rd straight year with pro sports most racist (and oddly lovable) mascot, Chief Wahoo.
The only way to make right to the Indians is to help Doc Brown finish the flux capacitor and send a DeLorean back in time. Bad things happened . . . no debating that. My ancestors were forced from their homes during the world wars and they ended up moving to a different continent. My parents literally spent their younger years with dirt floors and sewed their own clothes. I guess all you can do is move on and make the best of it for yourself. The worst thing you can do is rely on others to fix it for you.
In regards to Cleveland Indians:
Congrats on your 63rd straight year with pro sports most racist (and oddly lovable) mascot, Chief Wahoo.
With these tribes, though, it's ENTIRE NATIONS of people who were displaced and scattered from each other, which threatens their entire culture and way of life as a people. They will essentially not be able to maintain their culture and way of life if they're not able to regroup as a sovereign nation. Their languages and traditions will eventually be wiped from the planet - but this hasn't happened yet and it's not too late to stop it. It's not just a matter of saying your grandma should move on. It's about the ongoing decimation of entire peoples/cultures/nations. And how is actively working within the legal system for decades to reclaim your land relying on others to fix it for you?? Would you prefer that they take up arms against the people in the Hamptons?
The only way to make right to the Indians is to help Doc Brown finish the flux capacitor and send a DeLorean back in time. Bad things happened . . . no debating that. My ancestors were forced from their homes during the world wars and they ended up moving to a different continent. My parents literally spent their younger years with dirt floors and sewed their own clothes. I guess all you can do is move on and make the best of it for yourself. The worst thing you can do is rely on others to fix it for you.
In regards to Cleveland Indians:
Congrats on your 63rd straight year with pro sports most racist (and oddly lovable) mascot, Chief Wahoo.
With these tribes, though, it's ENTIRE NATIONS of people who were displaced and scattered from each other, which threatens their entire culture and way of life as a people. They will essentially not be able to maintain their culture and way of life if they're not able to regroup as a sovereign nation. Their languages and traditions will eventually be wiped from the planet - but this hasn't happened yet and it's not too late to stop it. It's not just a matter of saying your grandma should move on. It's about the ongoing decimation of entire peoples/cultures/nations. And how is actively working within the legal system for decades to reclaim your land relying on others to fix it for you?? Would you prefer that they take up arms against the people in the Hamptons?
I understand that tribes still exist and try to maintain a culture but I still think it is too late to remedy the situation in terms of restitution. They can take up arms, but they will be crushed. They can try to take on the legal system, but we know how fast that process works. An uphill battle will always be faced.
So I guess the question is, how do you maintain culture without handicapping the younger generations of your tribe? Because the general public will always have an advantage of resources and opportunities that can't be found on a reservation. Especially if that reservation doesn't have oil or casino dividends. I'm interested to hear your opinion because it looks like a giant Catch 22 to me.
I understand that tribes still exist and try to maintain a culture but I still think it is too late to remedy the situation in terms of restitution. They can take up arms, but they will be crushed. They can try to take on the legal system, but we know how fast that process works. An uphill battle will always be faced.
So I guess the question is, how do you maintain culture without handicapping the younger generations of your tribe? Because the general public will always have an advantage of resources and opportunities that can't be found on a reservation. Especially if that reservation doesn't have oil or casino dividends. I'm interested to hear your opinion because it looks like a giant Catch 22 to me.
It kind of is a giant Catch 22 - or at least it's very complicated - but that doesn't mean it's impossible to navigate life with one foot in each world. You can maintain your culture and ties to your people and reservation without having to confine yourself to the rez. Many people are able to take the best of both worlds. They learn their language and traditions, keep close ties with their land, pass their culture on to their children, etc. while still going away to college, etc. Some people have careers off the rez and some return home to try to bring their newfound knowledge and skills back for the betterment of their people. Many go back and forth.
But if there's no place to go home to, nowhere to go where your nation is sovereign and your people are governed by tribal law, no community of people with whom to speak your language and practice your culture, no schools that teach it, etc., that's when it becomes impossible to maintain a distinct cultural identity. That's why the land is so important. It doesn't mean they have to take back the whole continent - just that they need some place to call their own.
It kind of is a giant Catch 22 - or at least it's very complicated - but that doesn't mean it's impossible to navigate life with one foot in each world. You can maintain your culture and ties to your people and reservation without having to confine yourself to the rez. Many people are able to take the best of both worlds. They learn their language and traditions, keep close ties with their land, pass their culture on to their children, etc. while still going away to college, etc. Some people have careers off the rez and some return home to try to bring their newfound knowledge and skills back for the betterment of their people. Many go back and forth.
But if there's no place to go home to, nowhere to go where your nation is sovereign and your people are governed by tribal law, no community of people with whom to speak your language and practice your culture, no schools that teach it, etc., that's when it becomes impossible to maintain a distinct cultural identity. That's why the land is so important. It doesn't mean they have to take back the whole continent - just that they need some place to call their own.
I agree that it is a messy conflict of issues. I'm glad I'm not the one deciding these issues. However, I would like to turn back to the original story in a separate post.
In regards to this particular article, this is clearly a money issue and not a land and culture issue. The Shinnecock tribe already has land, so they were just looking gain Federal recognition. That way they can apply for funds to build schools, hospitals and of course, a casino.
I imagine the casino will be the biggest priority as it will have a much bigger impact then the school and hospital. I say this because this community of population 504 (note: tribe membership is 1,066) must be using the state schools and hospitals already. I also think it would be a misappropriation of federal funds to build a school and hospital for a town of population 504 if there are already nearby resources.
Now, here is the interesting thing. It appears that their 30 year battle with the federal government to be recognized gained steam in 2006 when California Rep. Richard Pombo introduced a bill to congress to speed up the recognition process of tribes. Of course, Pombo received significant fundraiser contributions prior to introducing this bill from Mike Illitch (Owner of Gateway Casinos Resorts). And Gateway Casinos just happens to be partners with the Shinnecock Tribe. The Shinnecock’s other partner, MJM Enterprises, have also paid $1,140,000 to D.C lobbyists since 2004.
Twenty-five years, nothing happens. In come some rich white guys and history is made in less then five years. The other interesting part of this story is that the casino will not be built anywhere near the Shinnecock tribe. Current plans are focusing on New York City or the Long Island suburbs over 100 miles away.
The way I see it, you will have a several groups once again taking advantage of the Indians, although this time they get more then beads and trinkets. I’m sure the tribe will make money, but I bet over 50% of the profits go to Gateway Casinos and MJM Enterprises.
The tribe members will go from working full-time for $28K a year to getting around at least $100K in residual payments for doing nothing (they had better get that much if there are only 1,000 members). The other issue is that the casino will not produce local jobs unless they can put up with a 200 mile daily commute. Will anyone continue their $28K local job if the mailman is dropping off checks every month?
Will they be able to preserve their culture when this drastic lifestyle change hits them?
I personally think they will be much better off then before. Although some say money corrupts . . .
Why the tribe who invented lacrosse can't play it here
A transatlantic visa row means this week's world championships in the UK may not feature one of the favourites.
By Jerome Taylor
When young warriors of the Native American Iroquois tribe gathered for lacrosse games hundreds of years ago, they faced a truly Herculean test of stamina. Long before it became an hour-long game for 20 players, lacrosse was a mammoth team sport with hundreds of participants battling it out on a pitch that could be anything up to a mile long, sometimes for three days straight. As a result the Iroquois, who along with the Huron helped invent lacrosse, know a thing or two about playing the long game.
Despite their reputation for astonishing endurance, the tribe's current crop of lacrosse players appear to have come up against two immovable objects: the bureaucratic might of the Home Office and the US State Department.
The Iroquois Nationals, ranked fourth in the world, had been due to fly to Manchester on Sunday to begin training for the World Lacrosse Championships where they are supposed to play Britain in the opening game tomorrow evening. The match was billed as a clash between the descendants of the original creators of the sport with the host nation.
The Nationals are made up of members from the six Native American nations that form the Iroquois Confederacy which is recognised by the Federation of International Lacrosse – the sport's governing body – as a full member nation like the other competitors in their group such as Britain, Canada and Japan.
Proud of their Native American heritage, the team have always travelled to tournaments on their own Iroquois passports and, until now, they never had a problem with those documents. But the British consulate in New York refused to issue travel visas unless the US State Department gave written assurances that players would be allowed back into America once the tournament was over. What began as a single piece of British red tape has since descended into an angry debate across the Atlantic over Native American citizenship after the US government refused to issue such a letter.
At first glance it might seem strange that a team would risk travelling on documents that even the State Department's own literature says are "not considered passports". But the Nationals have been successfully travelling on their Iroquois passports since 1977 and did not expect to encounter issues this time.
When they flew to the championships in Australia eight years ago, Canberra readily issued visas. The same went for recent trips to Japan and Canada. The team even used the Iroquois passports to fly to Britain in 1994, the last time the championships were held in Manchester, and were waved through immigration.
The US government has offered the team expedited American passports to allow them to travel to Manchester but the Iroquois have refused to accept any compromise which they say would deny their tribe sovereignty or recognition in the tournament that they are a separate entity from the American lacrosse team.
"It might seem like we're just fighting a point of principle but it's an important one," Ansley Jemison, the team's general manager, told The Independent yesterday. "We are recognised as a sovereign nation by the FIL [Federation of International Lacrosse] and have always travelled on our own passports. That's a line we don't want to cross."
Rather than acclimatise to the comparatively chilly confines of Manchester, the team's 23 players and staff have instead had to hole up in a Manhattan hotel while a storm of controversy envelops their tournament. "There's a lot of frustration but we're hanging on in there," Jemison said. "We're going to head down to the airport again later this afternoon and hopefully it will be good news."
Britain's refusal to grant the Nationals their visas has inadvertently thrown the Obama administration headlong into a conflict with Native Americans, a community that he has done more to represent and promote than any other recent president.
Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, has written to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton asking why the Nationals were unable to travel on a passport used for 30 years.
"As a governor of a state with a significant Native American population, I know many tribes and pueblos will watch carefully how these young competitors are treated by the administration," he wrote. "As a signator of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which includes the freedom to travel and return, I believe we have an obligation to assure these young men's rights are protected."
Organisers of the tournament have privately expressed their frustration that the British consulate refused to handle Iroquois travel documents.
"It may be the Americans who are holding things up at the moment but it was British officiousness that started it all," said one official. "The idea that the Americans would turn around at the end of the tournament and say, 'Sorry, we can't let you back into the country' is absurd."
Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a member of one of the Iroquois clans, was equally scathing. "It's just not going to happen that the indigenous people of North American are going to be blocked from returning to our own territory," she said.
The Home Office remains unmoved by the Iroquois' pleas. Last night a spokesperson reiterated that only those with a valid travel document will be granted entry to the UK. "The [Iroquois] passport is not internationally recognised as a valid air travel document," he added.
Other team members find it hard to understand why the US State Department has taken such a hard line. "This is our home and we would never endanger it," said Denise Waterman, a member of the team's board of directors. "If [only] we had a phone call from the State Department just to reaffirm, 'Yes, we're proud of them, we'll welcome them back.' It would be nice to know they'd be supportive of us."
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Comments
seems I remember hearing that the Indians always said nobody owns the land, and how could that above post not be a valid point, stealing is stealing right ? you keep talking about who was here first so are you only going back as far as certain tribes ?
Godfather.
No, I'm not only going back as far as certain tribes. As I said, if another tribe can prove it's their land then give it back to them - but no one else is claiming it's their land so it's a moot point.
I think the idea behind no one owning the land is more or less that people shouldn't be selfish and rape the land and keep others from using it. But we have created a nation where everything must be "owned" or it can be taken by someone else. So the only way to keep others from exploiting the land and kicking out the original inhabitants is to claim legal ownership. To own means to protect in this case. Maybe that's as far as they'll take the concept of ownership though. Who knows. It's not really our business anyway. But certainly the "If you don't believe in ownership then we can take your shit" mentality is not valid.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything just saying this is cool stuff.
http://www.goarchie.com/aashid/BeforeIndians.html
Godfather.
Just a hypothetical but what if they wiped out the people who lived there before them? And it should totally be up to them to prove it was theirs and not someone elses, the same way when I recenly bought a house it was up to me to make sure the person I was buying it from was the actual owner.
And just another point about the whole idea of giving back land. If the US decided to give back all the lands they "stole" from the natives by means of violence, would they have to give back the rest of the land (at least in the original colonies) to the UK, since that land was taken from the British by means of violence.
It's about the law. I presume they have legal documents & treaties that give them a lawful claim to the land.
Just as the Israeli's have no rightful claim to the land of Palestine based on a debatable 2000 year old claim, but is instead based on the law as laid down since 1947 by the U.N.
Though I bet they'd be good at polo :P
I don't think it matters whose land it was before if there's no one left to claim it as theirs. I don't get what you're suggesting. Should those who stole it from this tribe be allowed to keep it just because the tribe can't prove they didn't take it from another extinct peoples? And how do you prove that anyway? If the house you bought had been taken illegally from someone who was no longer alive and had no heirs, then what? And how did you really prove that it wasn't taken from someone several owners back?
As far as the colonies go, it's historical fact that the British stole the land from the Natives, so just as soon as we gave the land back to the British they'd have to give it back to the Natives.
Yes, that was interesting. Thanks.
a fact's a fact
it belongs to them
let's give it back
how can we dance when our earth is turning
how do we sleep while our beds are burning......
hail hail midnight oil.
I just think the whole idea of giving back land to people because people that may have been related to them had it taken from them is stupid. I mean it is not like the people who live there now were involved in the taking. And considering how multicultural the US is, it is entirely possible that the people living there weren’t even related to the people who took the land from the tribe. I mean what if there is a Japanese family for example living on a house in that land, are you going to take their land, that they actually own to give it to someone else. Plus I think that the whole idea of giving back land is stupid, if you go back far enough pretty much everyone’s ancestors were conquered by someone at one point. Like I said, if you give land to native tribes in north America, are you going to give the rest of the US, where they didn’t live back to the british? Are you going to give Normandy back to the British? How about the parts of Newfoundland that didn’t have native tribes living on them, maybe those should be given back to Norway since the Vikings lived there for awhile. Humans evolved in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, so if I want some of Tanzania can I make a claim to have it? Hell natives in North America came over on a land bridge from Asia, so why can't they make some land claims in Asia, or why can't people from Asia make land claims to North America?
it just occurred to me - the french fry box used by mcdonalds and other places is taken from a native american design, where would americans be without their supersized box of fries??? :shock:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
But I think people miss the point that this is a modern-day tribe that still exists as a distinct peoples displaced from their land. We're not talking about long-lost cave men ancestors or something with people who never knew them trying to claim land just because they have a tiny bit of shared DNA. We're talking about someone stole the land of your mother or grandmother, who personally told you about it, and your tribe still exists as a cultural unit and is still displaced from your land. These are relatively modern-day atrocities. I think people forget that.
Not sure what your (Kel) argument would be there…..we own the rest of the country, and it falls within the borders we chose, so it’s ours? Or are you ok with these nations in BC taking and maintaining control of the land that the government illegally developed?
http://www.firstnations.de/indian_land.htm
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The only way to make right to the Indians is to help Doc Brown finish the flux capacitor and send a DeLorean back in time. Bad things happened . . . no debating that. My ancestors were forced from their homes during the world wars and they ended up moving to a different continent. My parents literally spent their younger years with dirt floors and sewed their own clothes. I guess all you can do is move on and make the best of it for yourself. The worst thing you can do is rely on others to fix it for you.
In regards to Cleveland Indians:
Congrats on your 63rd straight year with pro sports most racist (and oddly lovable) mascot, Chief Wahoo.
With these tribes, though, it's ENTIRE NATIONS of people who were displaced and scattered from each other, which threatens their entire culture and way of life as a people. They will essentially not be able to maintain their culture and way of life if they're not able to regroup as a sovereign nation. Their languages and traditions will eventually be wiped from the planet - but this hasn't happened yet and it's not too late to stop it. It's not just a matter of saying your grandma should move on. It's about the ongoing decimation of entire peoples/cultures/nations. And how is actively working within the legal system for decades to reclaim your land relying on others to fix it for you?? Would you prefer that they take up arms against the people in the Hamptons?
So I guess the question is, how do you maintain culture without handicapping the younger generations of your tribe? Because the general public will always have an advantage of resources and opportunities that can't be found on a reservation. Especially if that reservation doesn't have oil or casino dividends. I'm interested to hear your opinion because it looks like a giant Catch 22 to me.
It kind of is a giant Catch 22 - or at least it's very complicated - but that doesn't mean it's impossible to navigate life with one foot in each world. You can maintain your culture and ties to your people and reservation without having to confine yourself to the rez. Many people are able to take the best of both worlds. They learn their language and traditions, keep close ties with their land, pass their culture on to their children, etc. while still going away to college, etc. Some people have careers off the rez and some return home to try to bring their newfound knowledge and skills back for the betterment of their people. Many go back and forth.
But if there's no place to go home to, nowhere to go where your nation is sovereign and your people are governed by tribal law, no community of people with whom to speak your language and practice your culture, no schools that teach it, etc., that's when it becomes impossible to maintain a distinct cultural identity. That's why the land is so important. It doesn't mean they have to take back the whole continent - just that they need some place to call their own.
I imagine the casino will be the biggest priority as it will have a much bigger impact then the school and hospital. I say this because this community of population 504 (note: tribe membership is 1,066) must be using the state schools and hospitals already. I also think it would be a misappropriation of federal funds to build a school and hospital for a town of population 504 if there are already nearby resources.
Now, here is the interesting thing. It appears that their 30 year battle with the federal government to be recognized gained steam in 2006 when California Rep. Richard Pombo introduced a bill to congress to speed up the recognition process of tribes. Of course, Pombo received significant fundraiser contributions prior to introducing this bill from Mike Illitch (Owner of Gateway Casinos Resorts). And Gateway Casinos just happens to be partners with the Shinnecock Tribe. The Shinnecock’s other partner, MJM Enterprises, have also paid $1,140,000 to D.C lobbyists since 2004.
Twenty-five years, nothing happens. In come some rich white guys and history is made in less then five years. The other interesting part of this story is that the casino will not be built anywhere near the Shinnecock tribe. Current plans are focusing on New York City or the Long Island suburbs over 100 miles away.
The way I see it, you will have a several groups once again taking advantage of the Indians, although this time they get more then beads and trinkets. I’m sure the tribe will make money, but I bet over 50% of the profits go to Gateway Casinos and MJM Enterprises.
The tribe members will go from working full-time for $28K a year to getting around at least $100K in residual payments for doing nothing (they had better get that much if there are only 1,000 members). The other issue is that the casino will not produce local jobs unless they can put up with a 200 mile daily commute. Will anyone continue their $28K local job if the mailman is dropping off checks every month?
Will they be able to preserve their culture when this drastic lifestyle change hits them?
I personally think they will be much better off then before. Although some say money corrupts . . .
Why the tribe who invented lacrosse can't play it here
A transatlantic visa row means this week's world championships in the UK may not feature one of the favourites.
By Jerome Taylor
When young warriors of the Native American Iroquois tribe gathered for lacrosse games hundreds of years ago, they faced a truly Herculean test of stamina. Long before it became an hour-long game for 20 players, lacrosse was a mammoth team sport with hundreds of participants battling it out on a pitch that could be anything up to a mile long, sometimes for three days straight. As a result the Iroquois, who along with the Huron helped invent lacrosse, know a thing or two about playing the long game.
Despite their reputation for astonishing endurance, the tribe's current crop of lacrosse players appear to have come up against two immovable objects: the bureaucratic might of the Home Office and the US State Department.
The Iroquois Nationals, ranked fourth in the world, had been due to fly to Manchester on Sunday to begin training for the World Lacrosse Championships where they are supposed to play Britain in the opening game tomorrow evening. The match was billed as a clash between the descendants of the original creators of the sport with the host nation.
The Nationals are made up of members from the six Native American nations that form the Iroquois Confederacy which is recognised by the Federation of International Lacrosse – the sport's governing body – as a full member nation like the other competitors in their group such as Britain, Canada and Japan.
Proud of their Native American heritage, the team have always travelled to tournaments on their own Iroquois passports and, until now, they never had a problem with those documents. But the British consulate in New York refused to issue travel visas unless the US State Department gave written assurances that players would be allowed back into America once the tournament was over. What began as a single piece of British red tape has since descended into an angry debate across the Atlantic over Native American citizenship after the US government refused to issue such a letter.
At first glance it might seem strange that a team would risk travelling on documents that even the State Department's own literature says are "not considered passports". But the Nationals have been successfully travelling on their Iroquois passports since 1977 and did not expect to encounter issues this time.
When they flew to the championships in Australia eight years ago, Canberra readily issued visas. The same went for recent trips to Japan and Canada. The team even used the Iroquois passports to fly to Britain in 1994, the last time the championships were held in Manchester, and were waved through immigration.
The US government has offered the team expedited American passports to allow them to travel to Manchester but the Iroquois have refused to accept any compromise which they say would deny their tribe sovereignty or recognition in the tournament that they are a separate entity from the American lacrosse team.
"It might seem like we're just fighting a point of principle but it's an important one," Ansley Jemison, the team's general manager, told The Independent yesterday. "We are recognised as a sovereign nation by the FIL [Federation of International Lacrosse] and have always travelled on our own passports. That's a line we don't want to cross."
Rather than acclimatise to the comparatively chilly confines of Manchester, the team's 23 players and staff have instead had to hole up in a Manhattan hotel while a storm of controversy envelops their tournament. "There's a lot of frustration but we're hanging on in there," Jemison said. "We're going to head down to the airport again later this afternoon and hopefully it will be good news."
Britain's refusal to grant the Nationals their visas has inadvertently thrown the Obama administration headlong into a conflict with Native Americans, a community that he has done more to represent and promote than any other recent president.
Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, has written to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton asking why the Nationals were unable to travel on a passport used for 30 years.
"As a governor of a state with a significant Native American population, I know many tribes and pueblos will watch carefully how these young competitors are treated by the administration," he wrote. "As a signator of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which includes the freedom to travel and return, I believe we have an obligation to assure these young men's rights are protected."
Organisers of the tournament have privately expressed their frustration that the British consulate refused to handle Iroquois travel documents.
"It may be the Americans who are holding things up at the moment but it was British officiousness that started it all," said one official. "The idea that the Americans would turn around at the end of the tournament and say, 'Sorry, we can't let you back into the country' is absurd."
Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a member of one of the Iroquois clans, was equally scathing. "It's just not going to happen that the indigenous people of North American are going to be blocked from returning to our own territory," she said.
The Home Office remains unmoved by the Iroquois' pleas. Last night a spokesperson reiterated that only those with a valid travel document will be granted entry to the UK. "The [Iroquois] passport is not internationally recognised as a valid air travel document," he added.
Other team members find it hard to understand why the US State Department has taken such a hard line. "This is our home and we would never endanger it," said Denise Waterman, a member of the team's board of directors. "If [only] we had a phone call from the State Department just to reaffirm, 'Yes, we're proud of them, we'll welcome them back.' It would be nice to know they'd be supportive of us."
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'