Landowner asks $3.9M for part of Wounded Knee site

I say let him put it on the open market nobody is going to pay that much for it. he`s 75 years old wait him out he`ll be dead soon then they can buy the land from his heirs at a reasonable price, surely not all his heirs can be as greedy and selfish as he is.

Originally posted by SeesFar

Originally posted by doobydoll
If I were that man, I would give it to them free of charge.

I'm sure that you would. =)

We cannot know the seller's circumstances. Perhaps he needs money as so many of us do; however, to offer something at, what? about 560 times more than it's valuation is ridiculous. And then to issue an ultimatum to the very People to whom it means most. I just don't get it. $70,000 would be ten times its value and I'm sure would tally up a nice profit for him considering he bought it (likely at market value) back in 1968.

I feel sorry for that seller. The other poster(s) were correct when they said he will ultimately pay some price for his actions.

A part of me would like to start an off-site page to see if I could get 4 million people to contribute $1 each; however, to do so would be to reward the seller's greed as well as send a message to others that they can get by with it, too.

I'd rather find a way to expose him to the public, which is one of the reasons for this thread.

Your kindheartedness is appreciated.

try a kickstarter. there is enough goodwill towards the native american to raise the money you need. its a more worthy idea than building a deathstar

Originally posted by okamitengu

try a kickstarter. there is enough goodwill towards the native american to raise the money you need. its a more worthy idea than building a deathstar

It's a noble thought and something that I immediately considered upon reading the article. I do believe the Tribes will eventually manage to purchase it for the Sioux Nation if not for the Oglala Tribe; however, as has been lightly discussed, to give in to what amounts to virtual extortion is not the right thing to do.

This man does not need to be rewarded with nearly $4mil just because he smells a way to cash in on something it took many people many years to accomplish. It would be taking too huge a chance on setting a precedent that could not be retracted.

This is complete B/S how did ANYONE have the ability to deed this land? As if we haven't created enough of a mess already by that ethnic cleansing we did.
Hell they can take land for economic reasons,why can't they exhibit a shred of decency and give these people their due. Here we see the very reason AIM existed in the first place.
I can't be more sorry about this.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
This is complete B/S how did ANYONE have the ability to deed this land? As if we haven't created enough of a mess already by that ethnic cleansing we did.
Hell they can take land for economic reasons,why can't they exhibit a shred of decency and give these people their due. Here we see the very reason AIM existed in the first place.
I can't be more sorry about this.

You'd have to go back to the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty and see what the defined boundaries of the Great Sioux Reserve originally were. You can see the outline of the original lands here and both the boundary map and the text of the Treaty included the Black Hills, which was/is sacred to many of the northern plains Tribes. However, as mentioned before, Custer led an expedition in 1874 and that expedition discovered gold in the Black Hills. Miners and prospectors began moving into Sioux territory (specifically SACRED territory) and the Sioux began to drive them off.

"History" will tell you that the Sioux (and their allies, the Cheyenne) were driving the gold seekers off because they were encroaching on their hunting lands - that is not true; they were encroaching upon and destroying SACRED land. The miners/prospectors then demanded protection from the Army. That sparked Custer's big mistake at Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn) in 1876. Resultant of that, in 1877, the government abrogated a huge portion of the Treaty of '68 and stole the land back, specifically the Black HIlls where the gold was. Once the government reneged on the Treaty and stole part of the land, they could then sell it to individuals - and they did.

That and other (illegal) actions ended up "checker boarding" the Reservation(s). And that's why non-Sioux have title (deeds) to portions of what is really the Great Sioux Reserve, including portions of Wounded Knee.

In the 1980s, the government awarded $1.6mil to the Sioux for the theft of the Black Hills back in 1877. The Sioux never accepted the money because the land was never for sale to begin with. The money built up to over $1bil, but the Sioux still refuse it and their reasoning for that is nicely explained in this article.

The only hope for regaining the Reservation lands is for the Sioux to purchase any lands that come up for sale, thus re-obtaining their original lands, sacred lands; and, in theory, this will also eventually close the "checker board." Czywczynski knows that and he knows the Oglala want that Wounded Knee land because it is sacred to them AND he knows they're about to get $20mil.

Purchasing will, of course, give the Sioux deeds to their land and, hopefully, that will keep the lands in the hands of the rightful owners ... unless Eminent Domain is claimed by the government and, frankly, that can happen to any land owner. Before anyone says Eminent Domain legally requires payment of compensation, please be advised that one missed "t" cross or "i" dot can make it unnecessary for completion of compensation.

As a matter of interest, it is not only the Sioux who had their lands checker boarded - this happened to several of the Nations.

reply to post by SeesFar


Out of all of your "examples" NOT a one is on historical ground.....NOT A ONE!!

I can find you a house on main street in Detroit that would be a million dollars in CA for $25,000......Because why? IT'S IN DETROIT!!!

The references you gave me hold no weight to a historical site and ground.......It is worth more money.....PERIOD

No matter your references that are 100 miles away or not, that land is not historical.......

If they want it, they will pay for it......If not, so be it someone else will.....

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by SeesFar

 

Out of all of your "examples" NOT a one is on historical ground.....NOT A ONE!!

I can find you a house on main street in Detroit that would be a million dollars in CA for $25,000......Because why? IT'S IN DETROIT!!!

The references you gave me hold no weight to a historical site and ground.......It is worth more money.....PERIOD

No matter your references that are 100 miles away or not, that land is not historical.......

If they want it, they will pay for it......If not, so be it someone else will.....

Get angry much? Prove that it is worth more than what is listed on the tax rolls. If it were worth more, then it would be reflected in the valuation.

Look at my previous post and follow the link that shows what was once the original Great Sioux Reserve. All of the properties I gave you ARE on that land.

The ground in question in the OP is not historical to the man selling it. His ancestors weren't murdered or wounded and left to freeze to death there. No, what HE sees is an opportunity to try to play upon the emotions of the Oglala and thereby get 20% of the monies they have coming.

Did you look at the Badlands? Price land in the Badlands? I gave you a clear example of land being priced at only $417 per acre.

And how do you know none of it is historical? If it was ORIGINALLY part of the Great Sioux Reserve but was later stolen back from them, then any square inch of it could potentially be historical TO THE SIOUX. All of the examples I provided to you for property values are within the purple boundary on the map shown here.

Let me ask you something: prior to this thread and the article in the OP, had YOU ever given one thought to the land that is the site of the Wounded Knee massacre?

If the man trying to soak the Oglala truly believed the land was worth the $3.9mil he is asking FROM THEM, wouldn't he have long since had in listed on the market for that price? He has not done so, has he? No, he hasn't. It is CLEARLY stated in the article "...recently gave the tribe an ultimatum: purchase the land for $3.9 million or he will open up bidding to non-Native Americans." That amounts to nothing more than a blatant threat.

HE doesn't believe it to have any great value EXCEPT to the Sioux, otherwise it would have long since been on the market or he would have been taking bids. He's done neither.

You may argue to the contrary but that doesn't make your position the correct one. The man's intent could not be more obvious.

I'm sorry if that makes you angry, but it is what it is.

ETA: The site of the Wounded Knee Massacre is an embarrassing blot upon the history of the U.S. because the U.S. military gunned down 230 unarmed women and children and over 100 unarmed men. Where is there any honor in that that would make it an historical site for everyone? Perhaps if someone wanted to purchase it and put up a big sign announcing exactly what happened there ... "On this site in 1890, the U.S. Army rounded up and disarmed some 350 people and then, in an act of supreme heroism, they systematically murdered them with machine guns. Afterward, they left the wounded - men, women and children - to freeze to death. They later returned to take photos of the frozen corpses, dug a mass grave, dumped the bodies in and posed for more pictures" .... that might make it historical to people other than the Sioux as it would then stand as an announcement of cowardice and arrogance. But that's not going to happen, is it?

There is a big difference between historical and sacred. The man is not trying to sell "historical," as you claim. He's attempting what amounts to legal extortion for sacred.

I have stayed out of this discussion till now because I live in an area where there are many people who call themselves Native Americans and I see both sides to many of these issues. I have spent a large part of my life living near Crow, Cheyenne, Sioux, Blackfoot, Flathead, Kootenai, Salish, and others. I have respect for the tribal societies of the past (although I feel they are no more 'native' to America than any other person), but I don't have much for the modern ones who blame the white man for alcoholism, poverty and drug use. I have seen that Native Americans who get out and make a life for themselves do very well. They have the same abilities and opportunities that I have.Some use them, some don't.

I agree that the price is exorbitant, I don't think the tribe should pay it, and I don't think there should be a fund raiser to pay it either. That would just encourage the next guy to try the same tactic.
I don't think that 40 acres of land is only worth $7000 either. That sounds just as ridiculous.Like it or not, historical significance does add some value to land.
If the guy won't lower his price let it go to auction and the real value of the land will be decided. The tribe should have to pay the fair value, they live in the same world as the rest of us.

Originally posted by Montana
I have stayed out of this discussion till now because I live in an area where there are many people who call themselves Native Americans and I see both sides to many of these issues. I have spent a large part of my life living near Crow, Cheyenne, Sioux, Blackfoot, Flathead, Kootenai, Salish, and others. I have respect for the tribal societies of the past (although I feel they are no more 'native' to America than any other person), but I don't have much for the modern ones who blame the white man for alcoholism, poverty and drug use. I have seen that Native Americans who get out and make a life for themselves do very well. They have the same abilities and opportunities that I have.Some use them, some don't.

I'm very disappointed that you felt the need to post the above portion. That was a blanket character assassination against an entire People; it was uncalled for, inappropriate and way beyond off topic for the thread.

Originally posted by Montana
I agree that the price is exorbitant, I don't think the tribe should pay it, and I don't think there should be a fund raiser to pay it either. That would just encourage the next guy to try the same tactic.

I could not agree with you more if you mean that there should not be a fund raiser to raise $3.9 mil; however, I fully do believe that it would be appropriate to have a fundraiser that would enable the Oglala to be a serious contender in an open public bidding process should the property be placed for public bid. With an annual per person income of only $3,050, they need outside assistance in order to raise funds to participate in a bid situation whether that assistance comes from outside the Tribe or outside the Sioux Nation.

I do wish more people would seriously consider that annual income ~ that's $254.17 a month for everything a person needs from a roof to utilities to transportation, gas, clothing, food, shoes, medical care, - **everything**. That isn't just difficult or challenging; it's not a matter of good financial stewardship in order to "get by;" that's impossible for anyone to live on much less find a way to save money.

Originally posted by Montana
I don't think that 40 acres of land is only worth $7000 either. That sounds just as ridiculous.Like it or not, historical significance does add some value to land.

And, again, I ask for whom does it add value? Do the tax rolls reflect historical value? Anything is worth what someone will pay for it. You could have a painting that's been appraised at $100,000 but, especially in today's economy, it is only worth what you can get for it. Your great-great-grandmother's teapot may be priceless to you, but the appraisers on Antique Road Show might tell you it's worth $20.00. How does one appraise the value of something considered sentimental or sacred?

Originally posted by Montana
If the guy won't lower his price let it go to auction and the real value of the land will be decided. The tribe should have to pay the fair value, they live in the same world as the rest of us.

I fully agree with your sentiment in those statements, too. I'm sure the Oglala would be more than glad to pay fair market value for the land and, from my research, neither the Oglala nor the Sioux community has asked for or suggested otherwise.

Originally posted by SeesFar


I'm very disappointed that you felt the need to post the above portion. That was a blanket character assassination against an entire People; it was uncalled for, inappropriate and way beyond off topic for the thread.

You made it on topic when you told us how destitute and poverty ridden many Native Americans are. I was replying to that part of the topic. I'm sorry to say that I have personally seen way too many examples of res dwellers blaming everyone but themselves to have stars in my eyes in regards to native americans. I'm sorry you don't like it, but sometimes truth does hurt.

How does one appraise the value of something considered sentimental or sacred?

By seeing what someone will pay for it? I believe that is the proper way. Why should the owner have to accept a lower price? That would be theft, right? Something that you have been talking about all thread long.

reply to post by SeesFar


He sounds like one of those people who buy land for the sake of it. Not knowing anything at all about real estate. Why else would someone, who has no vested interest in the Sioux nation, buy parcels of land in that region? Some people hoard "things", some people hoard real estate.

A quick search turns up that every one of his family members who have a track-able life online are women. Every single one. I'm not seeing one man who is going to inherit that property. I'm not going into the specific parallels here, but based on my own experiences I'll bet you any amount of money that when James passes on the women are going to unload that property and the other he owns a few miles away for the appraised value and be done with it all.

If I were them I'd get cozy with the assessor, Susan Hayes, because a county assessor can raise or lower the assessment and resulting taxes any way they see fit, and if they bid the property out that's exactly what a buyer is going to look at. The appraised value.

Originally posted by Montana

You made it on topic when you told us how destitute and poverty ridden many Native Americans are. I was replying to that part of the topic. I'm sorry to say that I have personally seen way too many examples of res dwellers blaming everyone but themselves to have stars in my eyes in regards to native americans. I'm sorry you don't like it, but sometimes truth does hurt.

I brought up the poverty of the Oglala and Pine Ridge, specifically, to draw a parallel to someone issuing an ultimatum for $3.9mil to a people who live in abject poverty. At no point could any logical person conceive that such would provide an opening for blanket character assassination upon Native Americans, in general. And at no point did I deny that some people blame others inappropriately for their own poor decisions ~ it seems to be a wide spread human problem these days.

If you feel that your experience with Native Americans has been primarily negative, by all means open your own thread on that but kindly leave it out of this one.

Originally posted by Montana

By seeing what someone will pay for it? I believe that is the proper way. Why should the owner have to accept a lower price? That would be theft, right? Something that you have been talking about all thread long.

He can see what someone will pay for it by placing it on the open market or subjecting to a bidding process, but he has chosen thus far not to do so. No one has said the owner has to accept less than market value for it; in fact, I believe I've stated the Oglala and/or the Sioux Nation would likely be glad to pay actual market value. I've talked about theft as same pertains to the government reneging on Treaties. As to the seller's $3.9mil price tag, I believe "legal extortion" is the term I've used and I stand by my use of it.

I will not stoop to arguing semantics with you nor accept you misapplying meaning to the words that I've used. I've made every effort to be courteous, to choose my wording carefully, to provide sources, and to keep this thread on topic. I will very much appreciate you doing the same. If you're unable to do so, I understand; however, I will not feel an obligation to acknowledge your posts.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
reply to post by SeesFar

 

He sounds like one of those people who buy land for the sake of it. Not knowing anything at all about real estate. Why else would someone, who has no vested interest in the Sioux nation, buy parcels of land in that region? Some people hoard "things", some people hoard real estate.

A quick search turns up that every one of his family members who have a track-able life online are women. Every single one. I'm not seeing one man who is going to inherit that property. I'm not going into the specific parallels here, but based on my own experiences I'll bet you any amount of money that when James passes on the women are going to unload that property and the other he owns a few miles away for the appraised value and be done with it all.

If I were them I'd get cozy with the assessor, Susan Hayes, because a county assessor can raise or lower the assessment and resulting taxes any way they see fit, and if they bid the property out that's exactly what a buyer is going to look at. The appraised value.

Thank you for the bit of research on his family; given his age, it certainly adds interest to conjecture. I would not bet against your assessments of the situation - neither the purchasing of land for the sake of owning land, nor that female heirs will have much interest in keeping such remote land when it produces nothing profitable.

Having spent many, many years in real estate escrow, I can assure anyone that the appraised value is ALWAYS what the buyer looks at; it is the beginning and end of the negotiating points (along with future potential, if any can be determined).

Bidding out is exactly what is going to show him where the rubber meets the road and it will equitably level the playing field.

Thank you for your input.

Originally posted by SeesFar

If you feel that your experience with Native Americans has been primarily negative, by all means open your own thread on that but kindly leave it out of this one.

I believe I said that I have seen native americans do very well, and also seen them not do very well. I recall saying that in large part this is due to the individual's actions good and bad.

Apparently this thread is only for people who agree with you about native americans and can conform to your opinions. Sorry, I didn't realize that.

He can see what someone will pay for it by placing it on the open market or subjecting to a bidding process, but he has chosen thus far not to do so.

Yes, and the second part of my post was me agreeing with you. Unfortunately since I didn't praise native americans my comments were thrown out with the bath water.

I will not stoop to arguing semantics with you nor accept you misapplying meaning to the words that I've used. I've made every effort to be courteous, to choose my wording carefully, to provide sources, and to keep this thread on topic. I will very much appreciate you doing the same. If you're unable to do so, I understand; however, I will not feel an obligation to acknowledge your posts.

If you will read my first post again and this time leave your prejudices and preconceptions behind, you will find that I was courteous and used nice words as well. No where did I disparage anyone other than to say that native americans are pretty similar to everyone else in that their current status has more to do with personal decisions than exterior forces.

If in the future you wish to post threads where alternate opinions are not accepted please state so in the initial post. That way we will know to toe the line instead of offering our own opinions and experiences.

Originally posted by SeesFar

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by SeesFar

 

Out of all of your "examples" NOT a one is on historical ground.....NOT A ONE!!

I can find you a house on main street in Detroit that would be a million dollars in CA for $25,000......Because why? IT'S IN DETROIT!!!

The references you gave me hold no weight to a historical site and ground.......It is worth more money.....PERIOD

No matter your references that are 100 miles away or not, that land is not historical.......

If they want it, they will pay for it......If not, so be it someone else will.....

Let me ask you something: prior to this thread and the article in the OP, had YOU ever given one thought to the land that is the site of the Wounded Knee massacre?

Chances are, this poster has no idea what the Wounded Knee massacre is.

Detroit or California have nothing to do with this.

S&F for you OP.

Sorry that you have to deal with those who have no knowlege of NA history before they post rubbish.

Originally posted by Montana
I believe I said that I have seen native americans do very well, and also seen them not do very well. I recall saying that in large part this is due to the individual's actions good and bad.

Really?! THAT'S what you think you said? You said this: " I have spent a large part of my life living near Crow, Cheyenne, Sioux, Blackfoot, Flathead, Kootenai, Salish, and others. I have respect for the tribal societies of the past (although I feel they are no more 'native' to America than any other person), but I don't have much for the modern ones who blame the white man for alcoholism, poverty and drug use. I have seen that Native Americans who get out and make a life for themselves do very well. They have the same abilities and opportunities that I have.Some use them, some don't."

To me, that clearly states that, though you have no experience of the "tribal societies of the past," you respect them but you have no respect for "the modern ones who blame the white man for alcoholism, poverty and drug use." You also took an opportunity to get in a dig that you do not believe any of us are "'native' to America." None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread; it was unnecessary.

You stated that "Native Americans who get out and make a life for themselves do very well," which again was off topic. There's nothing in the article cited in the OP of on-Rez life versus off-Rez life.

It WAS a blanket character assassination because it lumps Native Americans into the common two categories to which we are accustomed to being assigned: drunk or noble. Stay on the Rez and become a blaming substance abuser or get off the Rez and become 'noble' by 'making something of yourself.' (the last being my words and not yours).

Those born on the Rez do NOT have "the same ... opportunities that (you) have." Often there is NO way off the Rez, IF someone wanted off. For many, leaving the Rez means losing connections with language, culture and tradition. The more who leave, the less the languages, cultures and traditions survive.

This, too, was not the topic of my OP nor anything to do with the point I was hoping the article would make. It was an area I had, in fact, hoped to avoid though that hope soon went down the drain. The conditions of the Reservations, the need for People to remain on them, the vital importance of preserving traditions, cultures and languages would encompass several more threads that would be counterproductive because too few seem willing to deny their own ignorance, their erroneous teachings and their stereotypes.

Originally posted by Montana
Apparently this thread is only for people who agree with you about native americans and can conform to your opinions. Sorry, I didn't realize that.

Please point out where I've disagreed with anyone without providing sources to prove my point. In fact, in the first paragraph of my OP I stated "I would respectfully request that if you disagree with my sentiments, please do so in a respectful manner; don’t minimize this situation and please do not perpetuate ignorance."

You were not respectful by inappropriately bringing your own negative experiences to the thread, you minimized the situation by bringing drug and alcohol use into it and you certainly perpetuated ignorance.

Originally posted by Montana
Yes, and the second part of my post was me agreeing with you. Unfortunately since I didn't praise native americans my comments were thrown out with the bath water.

You mean the parts in which I agreed with you? The part in which I stated "I could not agree with you more" or where I said "I fully agree?" Those are the parts that went out with the bath water?

Originally posted by Montana
If you will read my first post again and this time leave your prejudices and preconceptions behind, you will find that I was courteous and used nice words as well. No where did I disparage anyone other than to say that native americans are pretty similar to everyone else in that their current status has more to do with personal decisions than exterior forces.

MY "prejudices and preconceptions?" Re-read your first paragraph in your first post. THAT was courteous? You honestly think you didn't disparage anyone? I shudder to think what you DO consider disparaging.

Originally posted by Montana
If in the future you wish to post threads where alternate opinions are not accepted please state so in the initial post. That way we will know to toe the line instead of offering our own opinions and experiences.

HOW do you believe YOUR personal experiences relate to this thread? Did you enrich the thread by disparaging others? You acted as an opportunist to use this thread to FIRST address your personal issues with Native Americans.

Originally posted by riverwild

Chances are, this poster has no idea what the Wounded Knee massacre is.

Detroit or California have nothing to do with this.

S&F for you OP.

Sorry that you have to deal with those who have no knowlege of NA history before they post rubbish.

edit on 15-2-2013 by riverwild because: (no reason given)

And you may be correct in your assessment; we cannot know.

I do not blame others for their initial ignorance about NA history. The truth is not taught in schools at any level. Hollywood, academia and irresponsible authors (as I mentioned in another thread) do a LOT to perpetuate the lies, myths and misconceptions. "New Agers" and wrong-minded "part Native Americans" who have found ways to financially profit by misappropriating what they *think* are our ways and traditions have made matters even worse, up to and including killing people in "paid sweats."

As I said in my OP, I was hoping to shed light on something and help deny ignorance. It is a huge disappointment when people are more concerned with fiercely protecting their ignorance rather than taking a chance of putting themselves into the shoes of another, reading a link that would teach them some truth and, perhaps, taking their own journey in digging out more truth. But, those of us on this site know there are some who simply don't want to deny ignorance as it's far more comfortable to remain uninformed than admit a lot of people committed a lot of wrongs over the past 400 years and some continue to do so today. I feel very sorry for them.

The whole point of the OP - that was missed by several - is that there are still people who would take advantage of a People who have been taken advantage of too many times to count. It was the bitter irony of a piteously poor People being asked to come up with an impossible sum to buy back that which was originally "given" to them and then taken away again after their ancestors were murdered there. It was the insult of a greedy seller who claims to "want to see it in the hands of the Indian people" ... but only if those Indian people who live on $254 a month can come up with $4 million.

I'm grateful to those who saw the point of the article. And I'm deeply saddened, and sadly unsurprised, by those who chose to defend the greed and wrongdoing of the one who would attempt to steal $4mil for a property valued at $7,000.00.

Thank you for seeing it.

Very informative.

Credit to Helium01 for the fine article.

Why American Indian history needs to be taught in schools

American Indian history has long been ignored, yet it is rich and colorful. Many schools overlook and fail to teach the history of American Indians. In addition, many Indians live in poor conditions on reservations. What can be done to turn this situation around? Recognition for this group and education for all.

Before Columbus, before white settlers came to America, there were American Indians living peacefully on the land. They grew crops, hunted bison, sang and worshipped. Some tribes had it easier, like those in the Northwest where food was plentiful. For others the search for food took the tribes and their community across vast parts of the United States.


As white settlers came war broke out and many American Indians lost their lives. Yet, still, their culture survived. Through the worst sort of devastation, the American Indian culture remained intact. Though this went on for generations and much was lost, American Indians across the country have fought to replenish their language and their culture.

Unfortunately, in many American schools few descendants are taught about their own history. In some schools they may recognize American Indians during a special week or a special lesson. This does a disservice both to the children who should know more about their heritage, and the other children who stand to gain by learning about the cultures and traditions of the native American Indian.

American Indian warriors fought on both sides of the American Revolution, of the Civil War, and many of them still honor America through voluntarily entering into the armed forces. Many American Indians are decorated veterans. However, this group of American citizens are generally denied a mention in history text books.

Unfortunately the effect on the Native American Indians runs deep. Many live in third-world country conditions on reservations throughout the nation. Some live, work and go to school without electricity; hard to believe to those who never do without. Others live without basic services like telephones, and others deal with reservations that have become others dumping grounds.

What is the answer for the Native American Indians? If every one of us were to go to congress and demand equal rights and privileges for Native American Indians it would be a start. Schools could incorporate curriculum designed to educate about the American Indians. This needs to happen today. Not tomorrow, not next year, but today. Take the time to educate yourself about American Indian history and culture, and do your part in bringing this knowledge to everyday Americans.

www.helium.com...

reply to post by riverwild


Great article, Riverwild.

Helium01 is right; if more would learn the history, educate themselves to the Reservation, speak out to their Representatives, etc., we might get somewhere.

Thank you very much for sharing that.

well I have to say two things...

the first is neither kind nor will be appreciated

1) you really need to study economics a lot better it is worth what you are willing to pay... others night pay close to that...

grow up... real world sucks...

so what will the tribe do with it.... how many times have the tribes say one thing then do another... Why should he sell you prime real estate... with a historical value add on.. when you can turn around and build on it... why should he not have something of value for something you desperately want...

You have offered him nothing of value to him in return... again you suffer from the same errors you accuse others of being... not caring for others beliefs or needs...

I here the howl of pot calling kettle black... reverse racism.... na are as bad as everyone else of it...

2) now with this in mind why have the tribal leaders been as corrupt and slow minded as other politicians (again no pity... you got the leaders you have earned..)

a)if he goes to sell the bodies that should be there maybe he can be hit with this...

theft of bodies- or selling of human bodies- trafficking laws to my knowledge list nothing on the aliveness of the human being trafficked... if his is not a legal medical institution, mortuary, ect... he is in violation of those various laws... the tribe can screw him over for years...

b)price gouging and tax laws...

their is a limit as to what can be sold at x price.... if he is saying it is not tribal land then it is state laws...

as for taxes if he is claiming this as value the comptroller might have issue with it... unpaid taxes...


c) why has the tribes never sued the state governments for seizing religious property...

something on the separation of church and state... illegal... no expiration I have heard of



d)can the tribe extend its city limits to the land with a claim of extra territorial jurisdiction...just do what all american cities do... vote to do it ... then make sure your papers are correct with the county...

Then tax his rear.... and pass ordinances slowly screwing him over....


e)original deed....

can the deed be proven to be original or true... because the original contracts can be considered deeding....

try using mortgage laws... them turning around and selling it again and again does not in any way make it legal... think of the recent ruling in the real estate bust


My last thought is why are my fellow americans not fighting... and rolling over and taking it... why did one women have to decide to do something about it...why have not the o so wise leaders done a dang thing about it... perhaps it is because they do not care or is it because you just want the payday and not the fight to earn it...


I am being honest....