US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations

page: 18
48
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlawlessLegend
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


its not about ourselves that we want the land. i want the future generations of my people to live with and beside nature. the land has always been apart of who we are. we are trying to reclaim our identity.

living in the present makes the future look like crap. but you wouldnt know. your too busy in box that is the now.


So if land was given back to your people you would go back to hunter gatherer? You will teach your children to live off the land again? As I said nobody is stopping you from going out and being with nature. You choose to sit on a computer and talk to me.




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman

Originally posted by Doodle19815
So who governs the land that we "give back"? Do they become their own nation? Where is the 56 million acres of land they are wanting to give back?

I agree the American Native lands were raped and they got a bum deal but come on. How would they thrive and prosper in this deal? And why are there so many unemployed Indians? Why can't they get jobs?


Why are there so many non Natives that are unemployed? Why can't they get jobs?

You know what is interesting? Russell Means said a couple of years back that the U.S. is turning into one big reservation, as we watch people losing their jobs, homes, and having no where to turn to but the.....govt. Sounds familiar!


And it's something we should be working on together instead of dividing each other based on race and history.

"The white man did this and that and this"

Who cares? Natives weren't exactly peaceful people when the white man landed. Black were sold into slavery by their own people. It's good to know history, but work on the here and now instead of living in the past.


Who divided up the lands and doled out the reservations to begin with? And please do not compare my history with black history and slavery. They are both two different things.

When the govt comes on the reservation to mine their uranium, who wants to listen or work with us then? No one. They do as they want to do, regardless of how hard we fight them.

Who wants to work with the Navajo when their lands are still being encroached on by the govt.

You need to educate yourself.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Let me try to understand this. Once the native americans lost their land they were and some still are living in poverty. So lets imagine if the lands are returned. After settlement and damage done by using up resources what will the land be worth to them. There is something going on here. Its a cover for something sinister. What will be done for jobs? Whats the land worth without any means of making a living?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlawlessLegend
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


its not about ourselves that we want the land. i want the future generations of my people to live with and beside nature. the land has always been apart of who we are. we are trying to reclaim our identity.

living in the present makes the future look like crap. but you wouldnt know. your too busy in box that is the now.


It won't do any good to try and be rational with some of these people, because in their minds, the indigenous are just drunken lazy people who don't deserve anything. ATS is full of racists against blacks, asians, natives, etc.

They think that the indigenous peoples are non existent and that we are just a dances with wolves fantasy from their dvd box set.

They don't understand that there are still a crap ton of issues we are still dealing with. The lands we were given are crap, but they still want to encroach on them and take and take more. They are uneducated about Native issues. There's nothing we can do about this but try to point them to some information but they don't wan to hear it, they just want to rattle off their hate and their skewed perceptions.

On this note, I'm out. I've got some goats need milking.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
It was a Democrat President who was responsible for the Indian Removal Act.


The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830 to authorize the removal of Indian tribes to federal territory west of the Mississippi River.
The Indian Removal Act is today highly controversial. While Native American removal was, in theory, supposed to be voluntary, in practice great pressure was put on Native American leaders to sign removal treaties.

[1][2]


In the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands.[8] Jackson, as was common before the Civil War, viewed the union as a federation of sovereign states. He opposed Washington’s policy of establishing treaties with Indian tribes as if they were foreign nations. Thus, the creation of Indian jurisdictions was a violation of state sovereignty under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. As Jackson saw it either Indians comprise sovereign states (which violated the constitution) or they are subject to the laws of existing states of the Union. Jackson urged Indians to assimilate and obey state laws. He believed he could only accommodate the desire for Indian self-rule in federal territory and that required re-settlement west of the Mississippi River on federal land.[9][10]


en.wikipedia.org...

Just food for thought, Democrat removal of Indians from their lands to federal territories(where they could control them) and removing their titleship to land, and now the returning of the land by decree of a Global governance initiative stemming likely from the UN Agenda 21.....

The Democrat Party today is as collectivist as ever. I would look at the fine print of any treaties.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by aztlan73
Let me try to understand this. Once the native americans lost their land they were and some still are living in poverty. So lets imagine if the lands are returned. After settlement and damage done by using up resources what will the land be worth to them. There is something going on here. Its a cover for something sinister. What will be done for jobs? Whats the land worth without any means of making a living?


Well, they could be given some sort of means to be productive on the land. My guess is that somehow it will be under some sort of UN Global initiative. I would hope not, but the record of the UN Sustainability program is that there is a global initiative for Global control of resources based on global governance(and who would be running things but TPTB).



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Meanwhile, in other countries (and so many that I can't even begin to make a list), the UN doesn't give a # about, land has been stolen from people back and forth for eons. Do they tell Israel to give back the land to Palestine? Do they tell North Korea that they don't own the islands they bombed a few years ago? The UN has been a joke for a few decades. It's usefulness has long expired.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


It didn't end with Jackson. And not to take the thread off topic, the Homestead Act of 1862 was intended to give people land, but it ended up putting even more pressure on the Indian Nations and didn't help would-be small farmers, either, as it was promoted to do.


www.enotes.com... the federal government in the nineteenth century lacked the personnel to adequately run the land offices. Enforcement officials were over-whelmed. This of course gave rise to cheating. Speculators, monopolists, and others used the land laws to create giant farms. So instead of the Homestead Act promoting small farms, it ended up promoting the large western ranch. Of the some 1 billion acres of public land that the government owned in the nineteenth century, 183 million acres went to railroad corporations; 140 million acres to the states; 100 million acres to Indian tribes; and 100 million acres to free farmers (the total acreage given out in cash sales). (One half of the land had not been sold because it had been reserved for national parks or was totally unsuited for agricultural development.)


There wasn't much "good land" left by that time anyway because up until the 1840s the government had auctioned off public lands to the highest bidder, allowing speculators to buy vast tracts and hold it to profit from it later on. The small farmer was effectively shut out of the action by a lack of capital, so they and the Indian peoples all ended up holding the short end of the stick. That's why I have a hard time with this "mommy gave you more cake than me" attitude. After all, we all know how much speculators and monopolists love their cake ~ and ours too.

We need to stop bickering back and forth and pay more attention to who always gets screwed, and by whom. Maybe then we could do something about it.

jmo



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I believe that all the land of Australia should be returned to the aborigines and while we are at it everyone should move back into Africa in a reverse migration and desert the rest of the world since it does not belong them./s



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by aztlan73
Let me try to understand this. Once the native americans lost their land they were and some still are living in poverty. So lets imagine if the lands are returned. After settlement and damage done by using up resources what will the land be worth to them. There is something going on here. Its a cover for something sinister. What will be done for jobs? Whats the land worth without any means of making a living?


Well, they could be given some sort of means to be productive on the land. My guess is that somehow it will be under some sort of UN Global initiative. I would hope not, but the record of the UN Sustainability program is that there is a global initiative for Global control of resources based on global governance(and who would be running things but TPTB).


That worries me, as well, since it comes right on the heels of Obama's International cooperation EO. Who was it that said never to let a crisis go to waste? Well this has been a crisis for a couple hundred years now, and all of a sudden .... the camel's big nose is under the tent.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


We have to find out who owned the land to begin with befroe we give it back we may be giving it to the wrong people not the original owners. We need to get a hold of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble they are the ones who will know. Come on people from the beginning of time man has been taking and giving land from the beginning of his exsistence, if not by war then trade. Right now that is mans reality, we can only hope that we can change.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


no the French already did help us... that's why we're cool with the French, so cool in fact that America and France has a law stating that we wouldn't commemorate any statue dealing with the American revolution without it being a joint effort between France and the United States.

...little factiod for ya


besides no one likes the Brits anyway!



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xadaz

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
America kicked the brits butts long ago, that's our story.

Coincided with the day we decided we'd rather keep India.

But India belongs to India... and what a wonderful place it is too.

Man you don't want to know about the anti-British sentiment they have going on over there, I think it outweighs their beef with the muslims over Kashmir?

I've dated in the Indian community... Lucky me that my heritage is not of the British variety living here in the Nations Capital, it is one thing I have noticed in my worldly journeys (never leaving over seas of course, they've come to Mr America) is how much each culture I have interacted with just has a great despite for British nationals... maybe some of that rubbed off on me I dunno, it could be the way they talk or the attitude they have also?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Why cant we just live in peace???
Until the great war people didnt need passports.
They moved around freely.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I don't see any Native Americans or their descendants asking for their land back.

Just saying.


Well, hold on there a minute.

I will admit, at first, when I started in on this thread I thought the idea was ridiculous, and I didn't
want anything from anybody. But after another member pointed out to me that the UN indeed
does have jurisdiction by signed treaty, I have changed my mind...

I'll take Nashville and Poughkeepsie...and maybe a nice beach-front in Malibu...No, wait...
change that...I'll take Puerto Rico


Really? Well I have some documented Cherokee. I didn't want to be a jerk off but hell, lets do it



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yeah , and the Entire European Continent should be Returned to the Neanderthals from which it was Stolen ...Oh , wait , their Exstinct ! ............



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Imagin for a moment that who you are as a people is being ripped apart, that there are generations of trauma with a hurting youth population, and that the 'assimilation' process never stopped? There is a great hurt to our Heart and there is much healing that needs to take place. I see and feel the hurt profoundly every day, every moment. This is not something which can be 'gotten over with' over night.
If you understand what I am typing, then you will understand it is a little more complicated than 'why don't they get a job?,' and so on an so forth.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I would be willing to give each remaining tribe enough land so that they could double their current population. They would each be a sovereign nation of their own and left alone to govern themselves.

While they're at it, why don't they demand that Israel give back some of the Palestinians land too?


edit on 5-5-2012 by Raverous because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by babybunnies
There was a war. The natives lost.

Then there was a purchasing agreement. The natives made a foolish decision.


No. Numerous 'agreement' (Re: Treaties) have been broken over and over and over again. Study your history.


I hesitated to post in this thread, because I don't care to get into a pissing contest over what's already done, but so far it's been... "enlightening"...

Most of these "agreements" were of the same sort as the agreement you make in a dark alley when you "agree" to hand over your wallet to the nice man holding a gun on you. Others were jokes at best, and cruel ones at that, like the Iroquois "sale" of land that didn't belong to them, both parties to the treaty knowing that, and neither caring, or the Cherokee "sale" of the entirety of Kentucky, which didn't belong to THEM, either.

My ancestors didn't sign ANY treaties - they refused. Can I now go back and give the current residents of that land the boot? Somehow, I think that would not work out all that well.

What's done is done - you have to live for tomorrow, not yesterday.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Right. Who cares if there are numerous treaties on the books (re bound by law) that are totally ignored.

Fair is fair, right?

en.wikipedia.org...





top topics
 
48
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join