Lakota Sioux pretend their independent

Kizzume · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject:

I've really had to hold back as well. I understand Technocrat is passionate about it, very passionate, but he really seems to have a serious lack of knowledge of other cultures outside academic study that primarily equates everything to "tribal living" if it isn't the way that WE live.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

One of the major arguments is that of the perma-welfare Native. There is apparently some issue taken with the fact that the United States Federal Government provides tax exemptions and the like to the Native American population.

My first response is... SO?!

I think that if we have permanently removed their sovereignty, and permanently took lands from them, then we should permanently compensate them for that. I would be fine if every Native of a certain 'purity' of blood decided to say screw it and sat their happy butt on the couch all day.

Some debts can NEVER be repaid, that doesn't mean you stop trying. Beyond that, there is an argument that the majority of Natives are on welfare without any supportive evidence. Simply because the Native populations have a different standard of living does not mean that they are all on 'welfare' or the connotations it entails. I know that I can go on reservation and get better medical treatment than in town. I know that I am safe on Native land. I cannot say the same for the 'average' white community.

And we have people complaining that the Indians are making money through the casino tax free. Don't blame the tribes, blame those who chose to gamble there. Just because I offer you a beer doesn't mean you have to drink it.,

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 219

And it is only a few tribes who even have casinos. But it sure is convenient to dismiss an entire group of people as cheating welfare bums because a minority of them are doing OK.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Ok Coyote. I will listen to you. What specifically do you think I am saying vs what you disagree with? I don't understand really what you actually think I am saying. I hope to clear up the misconception that you might think I think they are stupid, lazy, or the sole problem. I recognize that what White Man did in the 18th-19th centuries was wrong and that they deserved to be helped in establishing themselves.

My opinion is that they are being swindled by some of their leaders into putting the blame ahead of trying to fix the problem. What I think should be done is that they should be encouraged to leave, but with proper funding and education given to them so they can do it. It think they need to leave the source of the alcoholism and poverty: the reservation environment. Just as the urban ghetto is a bad influence on urban blacks. Welfare will keep them alive, but it should be geared toward moving them somewhere better. Reservations aren't exactly good places, nor do they have many resources that are useful (save perhaps Casinos).

I am not arguing about their culture. I am not saying they are inferior or that anything about Indian culture is bad. I would like to see them more like the Cabonaza or the Seminole, who are succeeding and wealthy and have used welfare and Indian services to better themselves. They do not have high unemployment, nor are they plagued with the problems the Lakota are. I think they should set up Indian cultural centres elsewhere in better environments with better opportunities.

That's what I am saying; I am not saying we ought to cart them off unwillingly to Carlisle Mk II.

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 219

Fair enough Techno. We got through our little bitchfest a little quicker this time, didn't we? Maybe in a few months we'll be able to have a whole week's worth of arguments in one post apiece. Laughing

Would you mind if I took a couple days to settle down and think it through some more? You have valid points that deserve further exploration. I want to be able to discuss them without a knee-jerk reaction like I know I'm sometimes wont to do. I know we're in deep cleansing, but still. I'm seriously in a fighting mood tonight so rational discussion is probably not likely.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Forgot:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chiefs/rez.html

Some reservations do have abundant resources, while others are barren wastes, but even some of the tribes who were lucky to inherent reservations that weren't worthless...they still live in poverty! It's mind-boggling. I think that the reservation authorities as well as the government are bungling the management of the reservations and their resources in some of these cases.

On this one reservation, the government placed two separate enemy/rival tribes on the same reservation, which screwed up tribal government from day one for almost 100 years.

"low incomes, high unemployment and high poverty rates are a chronic problem. An in-depth census of households was conducted on the reservation in 1987 and again in 1998 to analyze the area's poverty.

Survey findings include:

* Job opportunities have not increased to employ rising numbers of Indians with increasing levels of education. For example, more than 20 percent of families with a head of household who has at least four years of college remain below the poverty line.

* The 1998 WINDS-2 study found that among 18-54 year old Indians living on the reservation, 54 percent were unemployed. Of these, 94 percent wanted to work. Of the 46 percent of employed Indian adults living on Wind River, more than half were working for the government.

* American Indian couples earn $71 for every $100 earned by all U.S. married couples."

Kizzume · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject:

Wow, Technocrat. You've really given me something to think about. Both those posts, but particularly the one that starts off with "Ok Coyote" were really well said. I had never really thought about things that way before. I didn't understand AT ALL when you worded it the way you did previously--AT ALL.

I'm going to have to stew about this to really have a decent response.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Far be it from me to argue with PBS, but it's a bit unfair to use this as an example of Native American failure.

Wind River is actually one of the best examples to show the failure of the United States Federal Government and it's inability to keep it's word.

1) The Government made a deal with the Shoshone for 44 million acres.
2) Five years later the Government sliced the land down to 2.8 million acres. That is a loss of 41.2 million acres of land!
3) Less than ten years after the Government took over 90% of the Shoshone land, the Government forced the Shoshone to accept the Northern Arapaho, traditional enemies of the Shoshone, onto the same limited 2.8 million acres.
4) For the first 65 years or so, the Government expected the two tribes to play nice while limiting their ability to hunt off reservation, and limiting the investment that the Government made in the reservation.
5) Prejudice between the two tribes remains, not to mention the prejudice against the tribes by potential outside investors. Why do we expect the Shoshone and Arapaho to get along when the 'modernized' branches of Islam cannot get along in Iraq, a land of much more resources?
6) The tribes basically didn't have full rights over their lands until damn near 1940. They weren't able to use the minerals and such to produce revenue for themselves.
7) The Wind River is yet another horrible example because it is a land that is split. The Arapaho and the Shoshone maintain separate identities, cultures, and tribal governments yet are expected to come together in the decision making about their limited resources. Bull.

When we look at Wind River, we see one of the worst examples of how the American government screwed over the native tribes. Some advocate that we shouldn't take responsibility for our actions, that somehow there is an end date for repayment of this permanent scar, this permanent debt. I find the argument to be lacking. Let's be realistic about the concept of 'fair' or 'justice'. The United States is comprised predominately of lands acquired from the Native American populations. If the Government were to examine the fair market value for ALL of the land taken from the Native populations and provide compensation to the Native populations at fair market value, that would only be a start. The Government would also need to repay the population for the minerals exploited from these lands that did not benefit the Native populations. I'm not talking about punitive compensation, just fair market value.

To use the analysis of the Wind River reservation as representative example is flawed. Let's look at a reservation that is a bit more representative. The Mescelaro Apache Reservation is successful and a prime example of how through tribal leadership the tribe progresses.

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:19 am Post subject:

Wow--more food for thought.

Thanks Debateman for that background on that.

It's going to be a little bit before I can really add something very significant to this. I could say my direct opinion RIGHT NOW, but I don't think it would be very accurate, nor would it probably be something that I feel the same way about in a couple days either...

Great posts y'all! Man I've got a lot to think about on this subject now....