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.

 

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

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismicha77
 

Dont forget the native eskimos and hawaiians.




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrytiesThe Americans, on the other hand, think that by giving some desert back to their natives that makes everything OK, so the rest of the world should just shut up and do what America tells it to do - just so long as nobody DARES tell America what to do.


Eh........ haven't the Aussies basically just been tossing a few bucks at the abbos and thats about it? and arent the abbos still living in relative poverty and have a high crime rate amongst the people?

ah look what i found


www.telegraph.co.uk...

Yep that's helping them.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Not sure where you are getting your info from mate, but that's the way the rest of the world sees America.....all 6 billion of us.

I am not surprised to see Americans doing their utmost to defend their disgusting behaviour, I've come to expect it actually.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by paganini
 


Keep on calling the Australian Aboriginals "abbos" why don't you, it only shows what you think of them as a people.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by paganini
 


Keep on calling the Australian Aboriginals "abbos" why don't you, it only shows what you think of them as a people.


I shortened Australian to Aussie as well i suppose that means i think less of them too?
Nice way to try to dodge my post when youre called on on your hypocrisy .
edit on 7-5-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by paganini
 


Calling an Australian Aboriginal an "abbo" is highly offensive to them and is considered extremely racist.

Well done on that.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by paganini
 


Calling an Australian Aboriginal an "abbo" is highly offensive to them and is considered extremely racist.

Well done on that.


And again well done on dodging when i so kindly pointed out your hypocrisy. It's amusing how you were having a ball bashing America and when i pointed at the UN doing the same thing with your own country you completely shut down and have a Hissy fit.Got nothing to say about that article ? Nothing about how taking away their porn is fixing the wrongs of your ancestors?

edit on 9-5-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
"1788 signalled a new chapter in internal race relations. "
well 10 more years and they can elect ,, a minority,,to President?,,


1788,, American,,, BarrackOBamma,, first ever,, African American?,, don't know labels change so much,,hard too keep up,,,

10 more years,,10 more years,,10 more years,, ohh that would be the Campaign Rally Chant.

10 more years,,,

ohh,,,, U.N,,,, Go Home,,,

Me.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
It’s amazing how the American bashers show up on every thread. If you UN want to give land, back to Native American one has to realize they have no written records. Most of the tribes that inhabited the land are extinct by the same means in which they came to inhabit the land by genocide. Not including the fact that they were also nomadic people, they made seasonal journeys in search of wild game. Most of the best farmland is now covered by concrete and pavement as you find anywhere in the world they were the first urban centers. What will 500 Native Americans do with Chicago when the current residences are evicted? There is a law known as Usucaption en.wikipedia.org...that dates back to Roman times and that is before the UN ever existed. If you have ever heard that possession is nine tenths of the law that is where it comes from. American Indians have all the rites any other American has. The purpose of the UN is to proactively prevent genocide and needless deaths. The US government is no longer in the business of killing off the American Indians. The UN should be more concerned with the Fukashima disaster then pointing the finger 100 years in the past. As far as Australia goes, they became famous for popping the occasional native when out shooting dingos and roos.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Dionisius
 


How can you call me a hypocrite when you don't know anything about me...if you did and ever read any of my other posts in other threads you would know I never liked the UN....the US should not be in it and the fool that started it, FDR, destroyed this country by giving away our soverienty and turning us into a welfare state. So yes I can insult the UN all I want because I wasn't born then, didn't approve of it and do not want it...understand?????????????


If you have to offer is name calling then step away.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


NO, you are wrong....how nice you said sorry....

The US has done and is currently more for the Native Americans then any other country does for any of it's people....they are handed everything from birth...if they don't want to work they don't have to...Daddy Uncle Sam takes care of them. If they don't succeed at this point it is their fault.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 


Yea, its funny how the members from some Nations blame everything on the US.
The US is so evil because we used slaves, etc... However, they conveniently forget that England traded more slaves, a lot longer than the US ever did, as did the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, just about every Nation has in one form or another.
In regards to colonialism and taking land from others, how about the Aussies and the aboriginals, England and just about every Nation that they took as a colony, especially India, Africa and even Scotland.
Spain and most of South/Central America, France and Spain brought African Slaves to Haiti to do their work for them.
Are we innocent? No, but we arent the only guilty ones either.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


If you practice sharia law you still have slaves. As a Muslim man, you have more rites than anyone else does. You can kill one of your wives or sex slaves if you find them to be disobedient. Sharia law makes every Muslim man a Gestapo and every cleric a Hitler. Don’t expect the UN to tackle the tough issues. Iran has the largest natural gas deposits in the world; I don’t know how they could survive without nuclear power. Since the Iranian government believes the Christ will only appear on earth when there is total Chaos allow them to have nuclear martial. America isn’t afraid to tackle these issues but we are total A holes for doing so. Let’s set back and wait for the end of the world. It’s every countries right to have it happen ASAP
edit on 10-5-2012 by redneck13 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


One argument is that they are plagued by alcoholism as so as are other ethnicities. I am one eighth indian and I have respect for American Indians, they are probably the most spiritual people on the earth according to their teachings even the rocks have spirits. I think the bigger question is, does the American Indian have respect for themselves.
edit on 10-5-2012 by redneck13 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 



That is my question too..I also have NA in my family...but I am getting sick of all the blaming and political correctness..they need to work together use what help (reparations..whatever you call it)they get and pull themselves up...the help is there but they have to use it.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


It’s all too easy to blame someone else for your problems, I think we have all been guilty of that at one time or another. There certainly are a number of special programs available if you seek them out. After a while, you realize the world isn’t perfect and life isn’t fair, it’s what ever you make of it.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
www.thenewamer... ican.com/world-news/north-america/item/11354-un-mt-rushmore-should-be-returned-to-the-native-americans


Text
Friday, 11 May 2012 11:37
UN: Mt. Rushmore Should be Returned to the Native Americans
Written by Raven Clabough

Reason one million (I exaggerate, but just a tad) for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations is the UN’s increasing interference in property rights, of both nations and individuals. The most recent example of this involves the Native American tribes of the United States. According to the United Nations, the United States government should return Mt. Rushmore to the Native American tribes.

Agency France-Presse reports:

Mt. Rushmore Site Should Be Returned To Indigenous Native American Tribes, U.N. Official Says.… James Anaya, a U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, completed a fact-finding mission on Friday that included meetings with a number of Native American tribal leaders as well as White House officials. His investigation led him to suggest that the United States take additional steps to repair the nation’s legacy of oppression against Native Americans. He’ll officially propose the plan in an upcoming report.

When the UN’s James Anaya visited the United States for a 12-day tour to assess whether the United States was progressing with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by President Obama, he seemed to be purposefully provoking. He referenced Mt. Rushmore and claimed it should be “restored as Native American tribal lands,” before adding, “The sense of loss, alienation and indignity is pervasive throughout Indian country. It is evident that there have still not been adequate measures of reconciliation to overcome the persistent legacies of the history of oppression, and that there is still much healing that needs to be done.”

Most critics of the United Nations recognize this as yet another ploy to interfere in issues of land rights. The UN is not a proponent of individual ownership of land, asserting the following during a United Nations Conference on Human Settlements:

Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

To this end, the UN has sought a rather gradual approach to eliminating property rights. In 2005, for example, it marginalized the Peace of Westphalia, a 300-year-old collection of treaties that ended the Thirty Years War and provided sovereignty to the nations within the Holy Roman Empire, allotting them freedom from outside control. The United Nations virtually replaced the Peace of Westphalia with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which mandates that the UN can intervene in countries' affairs and that has been used by both NATO and the United States to launch attacks.

The Daily Bell explains:

It has been noted that the Peace of Westphalia actually came to an end when the UN approved R2P, the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine. This mandate is based on the idea that states have a primary role to play in shielding their populations from genocide. If the state abdicates this role, the "international community" should provide additional resources from mediation to political structures. Finally, if genocide is still threatened, the larger community must use diplomatic and even military action to ensure that civilians are safe.

With this doctrine in place no sovereign state can truly be said to exist anymore. In the place of sovereignty is the UN itself and its member states with amorphous responsibilities to police each other's sociopolitical activities with an eye to determining whether any state is committing actionable genocide.

In addition to enacting Reponsibility to Protect, the UN violates land rights with Agenda 21. The New American’s William Jasper wrote of Agenda 21 in February, explaining that the plan is about UN global control of virtually all activities:

The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 has impacted Americans in cities across the nation. Landowners in Houston County, Minnesota, for example, are fighting for the rights to their land against a County Commissioner who has called the Constitution an “old document.” The struggle is over updates to the Land Use Plan brought on by the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

In 2007, a newlywed couple was sued by Houston County, enforcing the new Land Use Plan after the couple legally purchased a home. They were given just four options to “settle the situation.” They could either move their house 50 feet, purchase another 32 acres of land, sell their property to a neighbor, or simply tear the whole house down.

Instead, the couple opted to appeal the ruling in the Minnesota Supreme Court, which refused to even hear their case, forcing them to ultimately sell their property.

Apparently there are over 50 similar situations taking place in the area, according to county records, wherein landowners are being “denied rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

The UN’s focus on indigenous rights is just another layer being added to the anti-property rights agenda that the UN has embraced. The goal seems to be to destabilize the concept of rights by creating friction between the indigenous tribal peoples and other citizens in the hope of being able to exploit a politically correct view of rights to undermine private property rights.

From a UN cosponsor press release issued on May 7, the methodology seems clear:

First Peoples Worldwide At the UN Permanent Forum On Indigenous Issues.… The UNPFII is a body of the UN that deals specifically with Indigenous peoples’ issues. This year’s theme will be “The Doctrine of Discovery: its enduring impact on Indigenous peoples and the right to redress for past consequences”, which will draw on articles 28 and 37 from the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).…

This year’s Permanent Forum will also cover the rights of Indigenous peoples to food and food security; the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, which will be held in 2014 by the 65th General Assembly of the UN to share perspectives and best practices on the realization of indigenous peoples’ rights; a discussion of UNDRIP; and a dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, James Anaya, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Even if Americans agree that indigenous groups are entitled to land that was once taken from them, which would logically include most of the landmass of the United States, the United Nations should certainly not be involved in such a debate.


edit on 11-5-2012 by redneck13 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join