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

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The atrocities committed against Native Americans were as bad as in any modern Palestine or anywhere else. Women were sterilized up through the 1960s...but only if they were full blooded Indian. We all know about the treaties that we used to con the Indians out of their lands. But how many of you know about all the ones we are breaking today. Alcatraz belongs to the Indians today according to legally enforcable treaty. Then there was the AIM movement that the feds shut down in the 1970s by threatening people into testifying false information, fabricated evidence, and murder. Then there are the radioactive reservations out West that the feds refuse to clean up even though they extracted Uranium, leaving the tailings to cause cancer in generations of Indians. The fact is that Native Americans have been getting screwed over since Europeans first showed up. They are getting screwed over today.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
OK we took the land, but they can own casinos and we cant.. I think in the end it evens out. its not our fault the big kahunas in the casino don't give some money to the reservations.





Huh? Ever been to Nevada or Atlantic city? Those aren't Indian casinos.


OK, don't return stolen land but at least honor the treaties made with our Native American brothers by the US govt.

Is that to much to ask?

Why is it that Americans hold everyone to a higher standard but themselves?
The hypocrisy, racism, and ignorance is so thick in this thread that it's leaking off my monitor; and it stinks.

siouxme.com...
edit on 4-5-2012 by seagrass because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The dirty little secret many revisionist historians want kept is that internecine conflicts between Native Americans was "ubiquitous"


In addition to decimation by war with European groups (in contrast to those who worked to covert Indians to faith in Christ), armed conflict and ritual violence between Indians themselves are of considerable antiquity in North America. In North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, it is evidenced that in contrast to revisionist history that tribal warfare was more like football games, recent findings provide more evidence that from antiquity Indians fought each other, that internecine "warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America reviewed herein has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of armed conflict and ritual violence." This could involve the taking of human trophies being encouraged before contact with Europeans, and hostilities that at least among some areas resulted in "the massacre and mutilation of men, women, and children."




Of course, that source being Conservapeida, I suppose those whose distaste for all things conservative might have trouble trusting this source, so let's try a source that claims no side of any political spectrum:


In the Jesuit Relation for 1671 (25, ed. 1858) Father Dablon, speaking of Green Bay, Wisconsin, wrote that the Menominee, the Sauk, the Potawatomi, and other neighboring tribes, "being driven from their own countries, which are the lands southward near Missilimakinac, have taken refuge at the head of this bay, beyond which one can see inland the 'Nation of the Fire,' or Mathkoutench, with one of the Illinois tribes called Oumiami, and the Foxes."


Driven from their homes by whom?


the Father relates: "Four nations make their abode here, namely, those who hear the name Puants [i. e., the Winnebago], who have always lived here, as it were, in their own country, and who, having been defeated by the Illinois, their enemies, have been reduced from a very flourishing and populous people to nothing; the Potawatomi, the Sauk, and the Nation of the Fork (de la Fourche) also live here, but as strangers, the fear of the Iroquois having driven them from their lands, which are between the Lake of the Hurons and that of the Illinois."



Now, inasmuch as the Neuters with their allies, the Ottawa, encountered their enemies on the western "shores" of Lake Huron, i. e., in the present Michigan peninsula, and as it is known that as late as 1642 the Neuters sent into this region a force of 2,000 warriors which destroyed a stronghold of their enemies, it can be said with propriety that the Algonquian tribes formerly inhabiting the peninsula were driven there from by the Nadō'weg, meaning, conclusively it would seem, the Neuters, but understood by the French missionaries and writers to signify the "Iroquois," properly so called. Hence, the confusion regarding the invaders who drove out the tribes formerly dwelling westward of Lake Huron. But it is also true that after the total defeat of the Neuters in 1651 by the "true" Iroquois, or League of Five Nations, these latter tribes came in touch at once with the tribes which had been at war against the Neuters, and in some cases naturally the Iroquois inherited the quarrels of the Neuters. The Iroquois proper did not, therefore, drive out the Potawatomi, the Sauk, the Foxes, and the other fugitive tribes from their ancient territories west of Lake Huron, for the Potawatomi were in Wisconsin as early as 1634, when Nicolet found them there. It was nearly 20 years later that the "true" Iroquois advanced into the lake region in pursuit of the Hurons, the Tionontati, and the Neuter fugitives, fleeing from the ruins of their towns and homes.


www.accessgenealogy.com...

What does the U.N. have to say about all of that, I wonder?

edit on 4-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LoonyConservative
 


Have you ever driven from coast to coast and from north to south? It was ALL theirs. And you think letting them have a few casinos is "evening it out"? No wonder we're in such deep doo doo.

What you don't seem to realize is that what all was taken from them is being taken from you by exactly the same kind of people: politicians and money junkies. We're all Indians now.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The dirty little secret many revisionist historians want kept is that internecine conflicts between Native Americans was "ubiquitous"


How does that relate to the US government not honoring even RECENT treaties and land agreements?

Natives fought each other, so the current US government doesnt have to honor their legal agreements?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What is so hard to understand about the fact that as tribes were driven ever westward by the encroachment of the wasicu, they came into conflict with tribes that were already settled in those areas? I'm not saying it was all peace and love before contact, but until the British and French started using the tribes as proxies in their war that they imported from Europe, there was the Iroquois federation which so impressed Ben Franklin.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The dirty little secret many revisionist historians want kept is that internecine conflicts between Native Americans was "ubiquitous"


How does that relate to the US government not honoring even RECENT treaties and land agreements?

Natives fought each other, so the current US government doesnt have to honor their legal agreements?


The most "RECENT" treaty between the U.S. and Native Americans was The Fort Laramie Treaty, 1868. This treaty was not broken by the United States government, it was done so by migrant workers searching for gold, which led to the The Black Hills War which in turn led to the U.S. seizing that land. However, the Sioux Nation successfully sued the U.S. federal government in United States v. Souix Nation of Indians, but refused the remedy offered, of which that money ordered by the Supreme Court to be paid to the Sioux Nation remains in the Bureau of Indian Affairs account accruing interest while the Sioux continue their quest to have the Black Hills returned to them.

Those are the unemotional facts of the most "RECENT" treaty between the U.S. and Native Americans.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


What's so hard to understand about the internecine wars between Native Americans, where tribal warfare meant certain tribes were driven from their lands long before any wasicu arrived? Or should we pretend that since the Great Indian Nations were not so diligent about keeping historical records that they have no history prior to the arrival of the wasicu?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The dirty little secret many revisionist historians want kept is that internecine conflicts between Native Americans was "ubiquitous"

How does that relate to the US government not honoring even RECENT treaties and land agreements?

Natives fought each other, so the current US government doesnt have to honor their legal agreements?


The most "RECENT" treaty between the U.S. and Native Americans was The Fort Laramie Treaty, 1868.


As usual, you distort the point to fit into your agenda. Your use of straw men is duly noted.

You'll notice I said treaties and agreements.The US government ABSOLUTELY has renegged on several treaties over the years. To claim otherwise is sheer nonsense.

Furthermore,

My question to you was how does referencing internecine conflicts relate to the topic of the US government not honoring treaties? You have completely avoided a simple question.

edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 


What's so hard to understand about the internecine wars between Native Americans, where tribal warfare meant certain tribes were driven from their lands long before any wasicu arrived? Or should we pretend that since the Great Indian Nations were not so diligent about keeping historical records that they have no history prior to the arrival of the wasicu?



Again, how does that relate to the topic, specifically? Natives fought each other, so the US shouldn't honor treaties and land rights?

Answer the question.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


First of all, it is way past time you learn what a straw man argument really is. Your ignorant use of the word is becoming tiresome.

Secondly, I did not distort a thing, and spoke to your loud insistence of RECENT treatise broken and went straight to the most RECENT treaty between the U.S. and Native Americans. In referencing the Fort Laramie Treaty and the subsequent Black Hills War and finally The United State v. Sioux Indian Nations, I have demonstrated that the United States, via the Supreme Court has done its best to honor that treatise.

Personally, I would like to see the Black Hills returned to the Sioux Nation, but my desire to see that happen will not cloud my capacity for understanding truth. You can be emotional about this all you want, it is entirely unimpressive.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





Again, how does that relate to the topic, specifically? Natives fought each other, so the US shouldn't honor treaties and land rights?


Now that is a straw man argument!

I answered the question, you just didn't like that answer. That's your problem.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Paul, I asked you one question. How does 'intercene conflicts' relate to the topic about the us governments treatment of various land agreements and treaties with various tribes?

A simple question, stated several times, which you avoid. You're playing a game of avoiding the question, which in itself exposes your true, disingenuous intentions.
edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Paul, I asked you one question. How does 'intercene conflicts' relate to the topic about the us governments treatment of various land agreements and treaties with various tribes?

A simple question, stated several times, which you avoid.


I did not avoid your question, and now you are just flat out lying! You don't like the answer I gave. Tough!



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Paul, I asked you one question. How does 'intercene conflicts' relate to the topic about the us governments treatment of various land agreements and treaties with various tribes?

A simple question, stated several times, which you avoid.


I did not avoid your question, and now you are just flat out lying! You don't like the answer I gave. Tough!



LOL.

Your conflation is obvious.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

REMINDER



Please discuss the topic and not other members.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


It cannot possibly be obvious to you since you do not even know what conflation means. I have not "blended" any argument. I have simply addressed the complexities of the most "RECENT" treatise you spoke of. Learn the language you pretend to know!



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Double post
edit on 4-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 


What's so hard to understand about the internecine wars between Native Americans, where tribal warfare meant certain tribes were driven from their lands long before any wasicu arrived? Or should we pretend that since the Great Indian Nations were not so diligent about keeping historical records that they have no history prior to the arrival of the wasicu?




You were talking about the 1868 treaty apparently without knowing much about it. The Black Hills was stolen, not sold. They want their sacred land back, not a pay off to shut them up. And the real damage to the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota came with the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887 which actually damaged all the tribes of North America.

juneaukid.hubpages.com...



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 


What's so hard to understand about the internecine wars between Native Americans, where tribal warfare meant certain tribes were driven from their lands long before any wasicu arrived? Or should we pretend that since the Great Indian Nations were not so diligent about keeping historical records that they have no history prior to the arrival of the wasicu?




You were talking about the 1868 treaty apparently without knowing much about it. The Black Hills was stolen, not sold. They want their sacred land back, not a pay off to shut them up. And the real damage to the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota came with the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887 which actually damaged all the tribes of North America.

juneaukid.hubpages.com...


I linked the actual treaty itself not some hubpage. You have also quoted an older post of mine while addressing an entirely different post, and apparently you've done so in order to ignore this statement I made:




Personally, I would like to see the Black Hills returned to the Sioux Nation, but my desire to see that happen will not cloud my capacity for understanding truth. You can be emotional about this all you want, it is entirely unimpressive.


That post can be found here.

All warfare is based upon deception, but I am not at war with you, or with the Sioux Nation. I am, however, entirely unimpressed with the United Nations and their facile form of nonsense. Your willingness to use deception does make me wonder why it is you are at war with me?

edit on 4-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join