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

page: 5
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
The United Nations can discuss things like this when they return sovereignty back to the countries. Until then, the United Nations are the U.S. and the individual countries opposed to it are the Indian Tribes.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Jean Paul: 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?



I'm not at "war" with anyone. And I'm not being emotional. The Sioux want their lands back and the US government wants to give them worthless chits. What a good plan.

I am not a fan of the UN, either, just as I am not a fan of the US government. If the government had dealt honorably with the native peoples in the first place, we'd be talking about something else right now. But that's not how it works. Heck, even being an ally of the US government is about the stupidest thing you could do. Just ask Saddam. Or Bin Laden. Oh wait, you can't.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle


Jean Paul: 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?



I'm not at "war" with anyone. And I'm not being emotional. The Sioux want their lands back and the US government wants to give them worthless chits. What a good plan.

I am not a fan of the UN, either, just as I am not a fan of the US government. If the government had dealt honorably with the native peoples in the first place, we'd be talking about something else right now. But that's not how it works. Heck, even being an ally of the US government is about the stupidest thing you could do. Just ask Saddam. Or Bin Laden. Oh wait, you can't.


All of which has little do to with any post I've made. I have not made an argument advocating the U.S. keeping the Black Hills from the Sioux. What I have done is post links to illustrate the complexity of this issue, and for that effort you disingenuously addressed one post by quoting an entirely different post, all the while taking me to task as if I've done anything other than offer up context.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
The UN is the new pope. Everyone runs around trying to please the new pope and were still at war with brown people. Things haven't changed much in the past 1000 years. We even have the crusades back but they're called "kinetic military action" or "love bombs" now. And everyone still wants to be a King but now we call them Presidents or Prime Ministers. We even have royal weddings where the people flock to kiss the boot of the scum that has enslaved them for the past thousand years! Nice to know we haven't evolved past the medieval mindset (it's pathetic actually).
edit on 4-5-2012 by Jagermeister because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by frazzle


Jean Paul: 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?



I'm not at "war" with anyone. And I'm not being emotional. The Sioux want their lands back and the US government wants to give them worthless chits. What a good plan.

I am not a fan of the UN, either, just as I am not a fan of the US government. If the government had dealt honorably with the native peoples in the first place, we'd be talking about something else right now. But that's not how it works. Heck, even being an ally of the US government is about the stupidest thing you could do. Just ask Saddam. Or Bin Laden. Oh wait, you can't.


All of which has little do to with any post I've made. I have not made an argument advocating the U.S. keeping the Black Hills from the Sioux. What I have done is post links to illustrate the complexity of this issue, and for that effort you disingenuously addressed one post by quoting an entirely different post, all the while taking me to task as if I've done anything other than offer up context.



Here's what you said earlier: 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.

"Refused the remedy offered" sounds a bit critical of their demand for the return the land, but perhaps I'm missing the nuance. And of course it doesn't matter what you advocate anyway, we both know that highly valuable piece of real estate is "too good" to give back. regardless of what the UN might say.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 





"Refused the remedy offered" sounds a bit critical of their demand for the return the land, but perhaps I'm missing the nuance. And of course it doesn't matter what you advocate anyway, we both know that highly valuable piece of real estate is "too good" to give back. regardless of what the UN might say.


You are inferring something I did not imply. The fact remains that the Sioux Nation refused the remedy offered and did so in order to keep alive their contention that they want the land back. Unlike you, I do not know that this land will never be given back to them. Apparently I am not as cynical as you on this.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Apparently I am not as cynical as you on this.

Apparently.

Uncle Sam isn't good at giving things away and neither are the people who think they own those things. You're right, though, its complex and you have to be there to know HOW complex.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Apparently I am not as cynical as you on this.

Apparently.

Uncle Sam isn't good at giving things away and neither are the people who think they own those things. You're right, though, its complex and you have to be there to know HOW complex.




Are you suggesting you were there? Damn! Just how old are you?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Apparently I am not as cynical as you on this.

Apparently.

Uncle Sam isn't good at giving things away and neither are the people who think they own those things. You're right, though, its complex and you have to be there to know HOW complex.




Are you suggesting you were there? Damn! Just how old are you?



Cute. I may be old, but I didn't say you HAD to be there, I said you HAVE to be there, as in NOW. Its all still there, the native people are still there, the attitude of entitlement by those who control it all is still there. But I haven't gone back for five years and swore I'd never go back again. They've turned one of the most beautiful places on earth into a money making circus for tourists.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I grew up in New Mexico just near the Mescalero Apache Reservation. I had several Apache friends who would often take me home with them on the reservation as it were. I never had the opportunity to meet the great Chief Wendell Chino, who served a consecutive 43 years as their President, but I know much about this mans struggles to make that reservation one that flourishes and prospers for all the Mescalero. I may be a wasicu as you put it, but this doesn't make me as ignorant as you want to believe I am.

My father, years after I grew up and left New Mexico became the master baker for the Inn of the Mountain Gods, a resort on the Mescalero reservation and he would often share with me tales of Chief Chino. Myself, I did spend a few years as a bartender in the town of Ruidoso during the time when Chino got fed up with all the arrogant Texans skiing on the Apache mountain, that was a part of the Sierra Blanca mountain range. Disgusted, Chino took their mountain and distinguished from Sierra Blanca by renaming it Mt. Apache, or Ski Apache. This sure pissed of a lot of Texans, but pleased plenty of Apache's.

This may not compare to the Black Hills struggle, but it is presumptuous to assert I have no idea about the complexities of the Indian Nations. New Mexico is a state rich with Apaches, Navaho, Pueblo, and Zuni nations.

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



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Canada has one a helluva lot more giving back than the states have...look at Nunavit for petes sake....it is huge!
now ruled by natives.....
or look at the land claims settlements from the ;last while....
The natives get better deal in canada by far.....(Not that its a bed of roses for them)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
edit on 5-5-2012 by BABYBULL24 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
meanwhile the indian givers are on the prowl

Arizona’s Sens. McCain & Kyl Seek to Extinguish Navajo and Hopi Water Rights
educate-yourself.org...

Senate Bill 2109 Seeks to Extinguish Navajo and Hopi Water Rights

www.nativenewsnetwork.com...

TUBA CITY, ARIZONA – Senators Jon Kyl, Arizona - R, and John McCain, Arizona - R, will be in Tuba City on Thursday, April 5, 2012, to persuade Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribal leaders to give up their peoples' aboriginal and Treaty-guaranteed priority Water Rights by accepting a "Settlement Agreement" written to benefit some of the West's most powerful mining and energy corporations.

They are doing so by trying to persuade the Navajo Nation and Hopi leaders to support and endorse Senate Bill 2109. Senate Bill 2109 45; the "Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2012" was introduced by Kyl and McCain on February 14, 2012, and is on a fast track to give Arizona corporations and water interests a "100 th birthday present" that will close the door forever on Navajo and Hopi food and water sovereignty, security and self-reliance. S.2109 asks the Navajo and Hopi peoples to waive their priority Water Rights to the surface waters of the Little Colorado River "from time immemorial and thereafter, forever" in return for the shallow promise of uncertain federal appropriations to supply minimal amounts of drinking water to a handful of reservation communities.

The Bill - and the "Settlement Agreement" it ratifies - do not quantify Navajo and Hopi water rights - the foundation of all other southwestern Indian Water Rights settlements to date - thereby denying the Tribes the economic market value of their water rights, and forcing them into perpetual dependence on uncertain federal funding for any water projects. Senators Kyl and McCain know well that without water, life is not
possible. Yet, their Bill and the "Settlement Agreement" close the door forever to any possibility of irrigated agriculture and water conservation projects to heal and restore Navajo and Hopi watersheds (keeping sediment from filling downstream reservoirs) to grow high-value income and
employment-producing livestock and crops for Navajo, Hopi and external markets; and to provide once again for healthy, diabetes - and obesity-free nutrition and active lifestyles for all future generations of Navajo and Hopi children.

Senators Kyl and McCain demand that the Navajo and Hopi people waive and give up all their rights to legal protection of injury to surface and ground water supply and quality in the past, present, and future - yet the Navajo and Hopi peoples do not even know the full extent and nature of the rights they are being pressured to waive because the details of the "Settlement Agreement" are not being shared with the public.

This is wrong.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Native ancestry?

Like how my family has been in this country for over 200 years?

Am i not a native?


I think the poster was talking about indigenous people, people who were here originally.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Screw the U.N.!
Now that I got that out of the way...

History is made of nothing but people stealing land or warring over it. It would be impossible to make every land that was ever stolen around the globe to be given back to the original ethnic group. In fact, it would be impossible to even know what really belonged to who first.

I would be happy to give the Native Americans back their land. It would be much preferable to the current corrupt and evil owners. I don't own any land. I was born here into a system that seems inescapable. I have nothing I can give.

Also, what of the people who come from both lineages? Conqueror and conquered. Where do they fit in? What is rightfully theirs? Are they the evil conquerors or are they the victims? See, there is the problem with trying to fix a problem several centuries too late. The U.N. needs a time machine.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
The UN isn't dicating to the United States what it should do, it is simply making recomendations which the US has every right to reject. Furthermore, it is not as if it is asking for all of the US to be returned to Native American tribes, it is simply asking that a small portion be returned. It is no big deal and nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. It seems as if some here can't find anything better to do than bash the UN all day when they can't even get any of their facts straight.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I'm over half Cherokee Native American, my father was pure blood and my mother's father was pure blood. My family tree contains many sad stories.

There are tribes in the US that are in dire need of assistance from the Govt., but more land is not what's needed. The existing reservations need money for schools, hospitals, more/better law enforcement and a serious overhaul to infrastructure/utilities would be a good start. Unemployment in these areas is astronomically high and the people are literally rotting away in pools of liquor and nicotine. Seriously, you should see how some of these reservations are... it's literally like a third world country in these remote areas. Average Americans would be incredulous to find out how these human beings are living right in their own "back yard". I know because I see it with my own eyes whenever I go see my relatives.

And please don't bring up the reservation casinos as being the cure all for Native American poverty. Read this: www.guardian.co.uk...

With that said, I don't believe there are many places on earth inhabited by modern civilization that haven't been conquered, razed, pillaged, and looted many times throughout history. The fact is that most all of our ancestors (especially those of European decent) have taken land by conquest at some point in the distant past.

It seems to me that this is a slippery slope. Should we take an accounting of which lands originally belonged to which people all over the globe, and make the current nations give some form of reparation? I don't believe that would address any of the worlds current problems. We have enough troubles in the here and now without opening up wounds.

Nice to see us being thought of though,



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
What we American did to the natives population was wrong. Pushing people on to reservations to die is a horrible thing. We should have take a page out of Romes play book and Romanized them. I say do away with the reservations, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and make all the native peoples Americans once and for all.

Sure it might be seen as the white man disregarding treaties with the native populations (which it would be), but this would be the last and finial time. After this time there will be no more tribes on reservations just Americans.

This plan would do what we should have done in the first place, absorb the American Indians into the population.

Not the politically correct way of doing things but it ends the issue once and for all.

On side note:

Back in the early 1700s one of my ancestors was captured by Indians in up state New York along Lake Champlain. The Indians had been raiding settlements in the area and had take many things from the settlers including some ice skates. Now my ancestor showed the Indians how to wear and use the ice skates. They couldn't skate worth and damn and he made them think that he couldn't skate worth a damn either. So little by little he gets further from shore on the frozen lake till he fells safe, and then he takes off down the Lake Champlain on ice skates and escapes from the Indians.

Its a good story and the account of that story is in a book about the Abbott Family. I think my Great Uncle has the book, but a copy was give to the Library of Congress. Once of these days I'll have to get another copy.
edit on 5-5-2012 by JBRiddle because: For #s and giggles.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
This thread has a smell...

I'd like to see China invading the US, erasing their culture, stealing their land, raping their wives. Then in 200 years hear survivors like OP saying "it's quite normal, they won it's all about land stealing and war in human history. Nothing wrong here they had a bigger prick so we layed down. Please # me."

The simple fact few people may find it normal to bomb, kill and conquer because "it's always been about stealing land" shows clearly about how they were brainwashed by their own history books and how they always choose the winner side instead of self-questionning about moral in war in order to avoid the same mistakes again.

Some inspiration for the war worshippers



Peace


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



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

A United Nations investigator probing discrimination against Native Americans has called on the US government to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward combatting continuing and systemic racial discrimination.



James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Who the hell does the UN think they are?

Seriously.

No one will argue what happened to the native Americans was a really crappy thing to have happened NO ONE but the simple fact is that is the only reason you and I even exist in this world.

The UN itself would not exist and would not have a tax free spot in New York paid for mostly by Americans and on Native American land.

Hey UN how bout give up all that multimillion dollar posh real estate that you can sit there and judge how evil Americans are.

Of all the damn nerve!

I can't stand the UN and to sit there and dictate to the US what WE should be doing and it's not just this it's all the stupidity of the UN thinking they have the power to tell Americans what to do.

Blah.
edit on 4-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


There's nothing wrong with giving back indigenous land. The Native Americans have been screwed over by the Americans something cronic, they should at least get given back some land! Australia has done it, whi does the USA think it is so special?

The USA needs to be held accountable for their actions and should repay the Native American Indians what they have lost. Does America take responsibility for their actions? Do they acknowledge the fact that they stole the land and have trated Native Americans horribly?

-America stole the land
-America forced Native Americans off the land
-America must repay them and make appologies.

The UN does have the power to tell the USA what to do, and they should abide by the rules.
edit on 5-5-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join