It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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?
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.)
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).
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.
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
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.