Should Native Americans receive reparation paychecks?

[OutofDate1980]

Here is the problem, the native americans entered into hundreds of thousands of contracts with the americans government. To this date the american government has never fulled or upheld one of those contracts, ever. Even current contracts are openly dismissed by the current american government.

If the american government broken one contract with any american company, the universe would crack open and all hell would spill forward.

Once again, all americans are not equal.

If you are a whole company, you are more important then a white male. If you are a white man you are more important then a minority male. If you are a minority male you are more important then a white female. If you are a white female you are more important then a minority female.

Once the government strips a liberty from a group of people, you can never, ever expect it back.

So to answer your question, yes they should upheld the contracts they signed. But the history with the native americans had their liberties stripped away to the point where they will never get anything out the government.

Which is a point for the rest of us. Every day, the united states government strips away your freedoms and right. Everyday they break promises and contracts with the american people. Every time we just accept it, the closer we all are to being down graded.

If I understand you correctly, American Indians were denied enforcement and the ability to enforce their rights under American contract law ?

Furthermore due process should not be based on who's ox is being gored ?

 

[Tommy78]

This is ridiculous. We're going to go back and make right any and all wrong that anyone has ever done to another race, group, party or person since the beginning of time? Why? Why now? You don't undo history, you see the error in the way that people acted and you try not to go down that road again, you don't do reparations.

 

[tommy_ed]

NO! There are no native Americans that were alive back then. Just as african Americans should not get reparations. There are no AAs alive today that were ever slaves, there are no whites alive today that were ever slave owners and there is no one in government today that was in government then.
.

the fact is, todays native americans are STILL AFFECTED by what happened. African americans are not currently being impacted by slavery. A lot of native american tribes are living in poverty on virtually worthless land, even nuclear sites. yea, they get a little tax break. big deal

This is ridiculous. We're going to go back and make right any and all wrong that anyone has ever done to another race, group, party or person since the beginning of time? Why? Why now? You don't undo history, you see the error in the way that people acted and you try not to go down that road again, you don't do reparations.

no, no one's implying that and i don't know where you got that assumption. we're talking about native american tribes. just curious, why are you so opposed? in the scenario i presented, you wouldn't even be affected as a citizen. your tax rates would stay the same.

Man.. that would be a toughy.. Manhattan Island? Most of the Mid-West? I'd hate to be the one to try to figure it out, with all of those tribes/nations.. let alone relocate all those non-native Americans from all the cities built on former native American land.

i didn't mean relocate anyone, just shift the land ownership to those who it belongs to if there can be proof via broken treaties that it was not rightful.

 

[Tommy78]

no, no one's implying that and i don't know where you got that assumption. we're talking about native american tribes. just curious, why are you so opposed? in the scenario i presented, you wouldn't even be affected as a citizen. your tax rates would stay the same.

The reason I included everyone is because there are others who have been treated unfairly. You can't just pick the Native Americans and tell others that they're out of luck. What's so special about the Native Americans compared to anyone else? Even beyond that and if we did agree, you just don't pay people because they had a tough time. Everyone has a tough time, you deal with it and move on.

 

[tommy_ed]

The reason I included everyone is because there are others who have been treated unfairly. You can't just pick the Native Americans and tell others that they're out of luck. What's so special about the Native Americans compared to anyone else? Even beyond that and if we did agree, you just don't pay people because they had a tough time. Everyone has a tough time, you deal with it and move on.

apparently you've skimmed past the entire conversation so far, because pretty much all these issues have been discussed.

What's so special about the native americans? their situation is unique from "others who have been treated unfairly" there are documents written by our government that have been broken, and never resolved. how would you feel if the government decided to reneg on the bill of rights for instance? there should be some type of resolution.

i'm not suggesting to just "pay them" (already stated this at least 3 times i believe) i think they should be given land rights to the areas that were agreed upon to be theirs and then later taken by the government, and draw a percentage of the taxes from those lands if they so wish.

 

[Tommy78]

I'm just going to take this opportunity to exit the conversation now. As far as I'm concerned my point still stand and I have nothing further to add.

 

[A.Nonymous]

the fact is, todays native americans are STILL AFFECTED by what happened. African americans are not currently being impacted by slavery. A lot of native american tribes are living in poverty on virtually worthless land, even nuclear sites. yea, they get a little tax break. big deal

I'm just a 3rd generation American. My ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with creating this situation. Why should my tax dollars pay reparations? It's not my fault and it's not my ancestors fault.

 

[tommy_ed]

I'm just a 3rd generation American. My ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with creating this situation. Why should my tax dollars pay reparations? It's not my fault and it's not my ancestors fault.

you would pay the same amount of taxes you do now, the only difference being that a portion of it would go to the tribe who rightfully owns the land you're on. (IF that's the case in your area)

 

[A.Nonymous]

you would pay the same amount of taxes you do now, the only difference being that a portion of it would go to the tribe who rightfully owns the land you're on. (IF that's the case in your area)

But why should MY tax dollars go to them? I had absolutely nothing to do with creating their situation, nor did any of my ancestors.

 

[Crude]

Beg to differ, resistance to the expansion of slavery to new territories was the major factor for the secession. Resistance was expanded to abolition in those states in rebellion and further expanded to all states.

Well yes but...
In fact it was about states rights vs federal rights. One of those rights that was disputed was slavery. But that's another thread.

 

[ElasticNinja]

What do you suggest we do for them? Give them a senator and a few congressman? They are such a minority that it wouldn't be exactly fair the the other people that are loosing their representatives. I'm just not sure what people think it will take to make it up to the Indians or african americans for that matter. I mean I did not benefit in any way from all these wrongs. Why should I pay taxes to fund reparations for something I didn't do?

Maybe Europe should pay? I mean the reason America was settled was because of religious persecution in Europe. It probably would have happened eventually anyway but there's a direct link to people being mistreated in Europe that caused the Indians to loose their land.

wasn't it the British who tried to protect the Indians?

 

[tommy_ed]

But why should MY tax dollars go to them? I had absolutely nothing to do with creating their situation, nor did any of my ancestors.

You only would if the area you lived in was deemed to be native american land. you had nothing to do with the forming of the united states, but you pay taxes to them because you live on their soil, correct? how is that any different? why are you so opposed to part of the same amount of money you're already paying going to the native american tribe who rightfully own the land it was agreed they would have?

wasn't it the British who tried to protect the Indians?

the british allied with many indian tribes because of ulterior motives, usually to harass the united states. the brits wanted the land just as bad as the US did

Maybe Europe should pay? I mean the reason America was settled was because of religious persecution in Europe. It probably would have happened eventually anyway but there's a direct link to people being mistreated in Europe that caused the Indians to loose their land.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think you're thinking of the pilgrims. that was only one of the first groups to settle here. the great majority of people who came to the americas in the 1700s did it for opportunities to start a new life in a fresh country with plenty of available land and resources.

we're not saying the native americans owned the entire continent, and we're not saying we stole all of it. I'm saying there were many plots of land that the natives had claimed, and the united states agreed they owned and then, we simply broke written, signed agreements and took. These are the plots i'm referring to, the ones that can be proven to have been rightfully the possession of the tribes. a good example is the black hills, south dakota, which belong to the Sioux.

 

[Vihzel]

I think written agreements should be honored. We all know how important written agreements are to our court system. But obviously that would be very difficult to put into action since I'm sure a lot of people live in areas where the Native Americans have a written contract to their land. Any politician would be voted out of office unfortunately as well if he/she was saying that his constituents should be forcibly evicted from their home of 20 years.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You only would if the area you lived in was deemed to be native american land. you had nothing to do with the forming of the united states, but you pay taxes to them because you live on their soil, correct? how is that any different? why are you so opposed to part of the same amount of money you're already paying going to the native american tribe who rightfully own the land it was agreed they would have?

Last time I checked pre-Europeans showing up in the US ALL of the US was Native American land.

I pay taxes now for services I am currently receiving or that the powers that be have agreed that I receive the benefits of. I pay taxes to support school systems, road maintenance, fire department, police department, EMS, national defense, Social Security, etc............

Would you be opposed to me taking your tax dollars and giving them to me because my grandfather was discriminated against? I should get some money right? Now I know that you did not discriminate against me and it wasn't your fault at all, but you should pay me anyway for crimes that someone else's ancestor's committed against mine.

If he is on a reservation, he has no rights, but has to follow American laws. You can google it your self. No reservation is allowed representation, political leaders, or authority. If he chooses, he can leave his life, his people, and his culture to go outside of the reservation, like the examples you pointed out, but can not represent his own people, culture, and way of life. But to do so, he has to leave his people. How would you like to be forced to leave your home town/state to get elected to office, only to know that what ever you do, will never have any reflection back to the community you came from?

I did Google it. What I found contradicts this. According to the Native American Rights Fund Native Americans have the right to self-govern themselves on their own reservations. They pay federal income taxes, but may or may not pay sales tax and have the right to organize their government however they choose. They can choose their own local leaders and can even establish a local legal system.

I also found that they have every right to vote in elections that you and I do regardless of whether they live on the reservation or not. Since 1924, they can vote in state, local, and federal elections just like you and I regardless of whether they live on a reservation or not. (Although I will grant you that it's a shame it took that long.) How do they not have representation in Congress when they have every right to vote for Senators and Congressmen as we do?

 

[tommy_ed]

Last time I checked pre-Europeans showing up in the US ALL of the US was Native American land.

I pay taxes now for services I am currently receiving or that the powers that be have agreed that I receive the benefits of. I pay taxes to support school systems, road maintenance, fire department, police department, EMS, national defense, Social Security, etc............

Would you be opposed to me taking your tax dollars and giving them to me because my grandfather was discriminated against? I should get some money right? Now I know that you did not discriminate against me and it wasn't your fault at all, but you should pay me anyway for crimes that someone else's ancestor's committed against mine.

Actually, it was not all native american land. the natives didn't beleive anyone owned the land prior to the arrival of white people. when we first started offering them money for land, they accepted as a joke. to them, the land belonged to everyone. by the time the whites moved further west, the native americans realized that in order to keep their homes, they would need to "own" land by the white man's terms. Hence the treaties.

Your logic is full of holes. First of all, you pay a federal tax and a land tax. Those have nothing to do with the services you mentioned.
As for your second point - how is that the same as my example? am I living in an area that was legally owned by your grandfather? once again, for the FOURTH time now - I AM NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD RECEIVE MONEY. did everyone read it that time?
No one is saying it's your fault or that you owe native americans money because of discrimination. I'm simply saying they should be given the land that is legally theirs. If the land belongs to them, they would probably receive some kind of land tax as a tribe. Not a check to individual people.
you keep bringing up discrimination, it's not about that. what the united stated government did was ILLEGAL. it's as simple as that. quit acting like you would be somehow inconvenienced by a group getting what's rightfully theirs.

 

[Crude]

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think you're thinking of the pilgrims. that was only one of the first groups to settle here. the great majority of people who came to the americas in the 1700s did it for opportunities to start a new life in a fresh country with plenty of available land and resources.

we're not saying the native americans owned the entire continent, and we're not saying we stole all of it. I'm saying there were many plots of land that the natives had claimed, and the united states agreed they owned and then, we simply broke written, signed agreements and took. These are the plots i'm referring to, the ones that can be proven to have been rightfully the possession of the tribes. a good example is the black hills, south dakota, which belong to the Sioux.

The pilgrims were the scouts, so to speak....but I did make my point, right?
Indians roamed. They depended on the land to provide them with food. If the herds moved so did they (not all but most) One small tribe could have claimed an area the size of a state. The sioux for example had a swath of land that went from missoury to south dakota. It's impossible to gurantee each tribe their land...besides, we killed off the buffalo. What I'm saying is, they did actually own the entire continent. Sure there was plenty to go around, but the indians didn't have a clue that it wasn't 3 ships, or 6 or 10. We just never stopped coming. There's no way the land could provide for that many using the indians methods. The stronger species quickly dominated and survived. That's life.

It's sad, it really is. But there is no amount of money that will fix this. In the mean time our economy is in dire need of help. The same types that screwed the indians are at it again.

oh, btw land=money. You take it away from some one you better compensate them. What if you take away their farm? That's a lively hood....that's lots of money. Not to sound like a broken record but everything evolves around money.

 

[tommy_ed]

The pilgrims were the scouts, so to speak....but I did make my point, right?

no, they were not "scouts"... so no, you didn't. you said europe could be help accountable because religious persecution forced the population of the americas. however that's not the case.

The sioux for example had a swath of land that went from missoury to south dakota. It's impossible to gurantee each tribe their land...besides, we killed off the buffalo.

yes, they had all that land at one point, but that's not the land in question. what is being discussed is the plot of land that was legally agreed upon by the united states to belong to them: the black hills. it was sacred ground to them, which is why they won't take 1.3 billion dollars for it.

There's no way the land could provide for that many using the indians methods.

what makes this statement really ironic is that it's exactly the opposite. the native american way of life used the earth in a way that gave it time to renew the natural resources they were using. it was the white man that used and abused the natural resources here.

The same types that screwed the indians are at it again.

the United States Government? did they ever stop???

 

[Crude]

what makes this statement really ironic is that it's exactly the opposite. the native american way of life used the earth in a way that gave it time to renew the natural resources they were using. it was the white man that used and abused the natural resources here. if you seriously didn't know that, or the fact that the pilgrims weren't "scouts" then i think you should really do some more research on this subject before making an argument. a lot of this stuff was taught to me before 4th grade....

That wasn't called for. You missed my point, that doesn't give you the right to lambast me or my level of education. I'm leaving this thread.

 

[tommy_ed]

That wasn't called for. You missed my point, that doesn't give you the right to lambast me or my level of education. I'm leaving this thread.

edited. sorry i hurt your feelings. i dont think i missed your point, just corrected it, in my opinion. i can respect your decision to move on.

 

[RiverOfIce]

I also found that they have every right to vote in elections that you and I do regardless of whether they live on the reservation or not. Since 1924, they can vote in state, local, and federal elections just like you and I regardless of whether they live on a reservation or not. (Although I will grant you that it's a shame it took that long.) How do they not have representation in Congress when they have every right to vote for Senators and Congressmen as we do?

No they dont. When they want to interact with the federal government they have to interact with bureau of land management and native american affairs. No native american tribe is allowed to run for congress or senate for their tribe, they must run for the state. What you are point out is ok, is an injustice. If you wanted to run for senate for your state, should have to hide under your neighboring state? If you should want to have a passport, should you be forced to get one from canada or mexico, when you are a usa citzen. But native americans are forced to get usa passports, even though they are independent nations. But even has independent nations, they are forced all foreign political will to a system that does not represent them as a culture, a people, or a nation.


Bottom line, can a native american run for senate for washington state, yes he can. But can he run for senate for his own tribe, no he can not. Is his nation 100% under the control of the united states, yes it is.

They have no representations or true autonomy. You can form a reglious group that has more rights in the federal government then any native American nation.

 

[ElasticNinja]

So you are saying that each tribes reservation could be turned into a state, River? Thats an interesting idea...

 

[ballisticn8]

Are you really upset that if native americans decide to live within the native american communities they have to follow the rules and laws set forth by those communities on the existing reservations? It sounds like you're arguing against your own points. You want the natives to be given more land, but at the same time, the land that they are given is soveriegn to the tribe and the tribe creates its own laws and leadership for their land but you have a problem with the rules that they create for their land because someone may not be able to run for office within their tribe?

And no, they are not 100% under the control of the us govt, each tribal nation with their tribal land is responsible for their own laws and govt structure as tribal land is sovereign in nature. You break a law and tribal land and get caught you're screwed. Even travelling on roads paid for and maintained by the dept of transportation through tribal land you are subject to laws and rules enforced by the tribe. I cant carry my gun concealed driving through certain highways within my state because those highways pass thru tribal land and I am not permitted to carry a weapon on my person thru those sovereign territories.

EDIT: My point of view, reperations made to the tribes are dispensed to the tribes as their leadership sees fit, and since they have thier own leadership on their own sovereign land honestly the only people that have any right to effect a change of how that money is dispursed are the people receiving it. If a native doesnt like the rules, leadership, living conditions, or anything else going on in their tribe they are free to move away from home and live life as any other normal breathing eating american. Its their decision to make.

 

[A.Nonymous]

No they dont. When they want to interact with the federal government they have to interact with bureau of land management and native american affairs. No native american tribe is allowed to run for congress or senate for their tribe, they must run for the state. What you are point out is ok, is an injustice. If you wanted to run for senate for your state, should have to hide under your neighboring state? If you should want to have a passport, should you be forced to get one from canada or mexico, when you are a usa citzen. But native americans are forced to get usa passports, even though they are independent nations. But even has independent nations, they are forced all foreign political will to a system that does not represent them as a culture, a people, or a nation.

How are they not allowed to run for Congress or Senate when they are considered to be US citizens and have all the voting rights of US citizens? We've had Native American Senators and Congressmen before. The Senator from Colorado represents everyone in Colorado including the Native Americans who live there.

Bottom line, can a native american run for senate for washington state, yes he can. But can he run for senate for his own tribe, no he can not. Is his nation 100% under the control of the united states, yes it is.

Do you want Native Americans to have sovereign states or do you want them to be able to have their own tribal representatives in Congress? You can't have it both ways? And their state is not 100% under control of the US. They have freedom to pass their own laws on their reservations, adjudicate their own cases and collect taxes if they choose to do so.

They have no representations or true autonomy. You can form a reglious group that has more rights in the federal government then any native American nation.

No religious group that I know of has the ability to toss their own members in the clink after due process and a conviction.

Your logic is full of holes. First of all, you pay a federal tax and a land tax. Those have nothing to do with the services you mentioned.

My federal taxes go to fund national defense, the morons on capital hill, Social Security, etc..... My land taxes go to fund the services that protect/serve my land - fire, ems, police, etc......

As for your second point - how is that the same as my example? am I living in an area that was legally owned by your grandfather?

So I have done wrong by legally purchasing a home in an area I choose to live in? I did not defraud anyone. I did not defame anyone. The documents and paperwork are all on file at the courthouse. Yet I should pay because someone I'm not even related to screwed over someone else who is long since dead over 200 years ago? Where is the logic there?

once again, for the FOURTH time now - I AM NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD RECEIVE MONEY. did everyone read it that time?

You said, "you would pay the same amount of taxes you do now, the only difference being that a portion of it would go to the tribe who rightfully owns the land you're on. " That's what you said. That's where I got that you were saying Native Americans should receive money. Perhaps I misunderstood somehow??

No one is saying it's your fault or that you owe native americans money because of discrimination. I'm simply saying they should be given the land that is legally theirs. If the land belongs to them, they would probably receive some kind of land tax as a tribe. Not a check to individual people.

But I'm currently living on it. Can they really make a legal claim to the land 200 years later? Let's say someone comes up to me today and wants my house and my land. Let's say they flat out con me out of it. It's a 100% con and I fall for it and they get my house and my land. No question it's illegal. Now, fast forward 200 years. It's 2200. My descendent is flying around in his car now. Can he sue the descendent of the person who screwed me out of my land centuries earlier to get that land bacK? I think not.

you keep bringing up discrimination, it's not about that. what the united stated government did was ILLEGAL. it's as simple as that. quit acting like you would be somehow inconvenienced by a group getting what's rightfully theirs.

I never said what the US did wasn't wrong. I said it was done centuries centuries ago by people long since dead against people long since dead. I'm Chinese. My grandfather was illegally discriminated against as recently as the late 1940s just because he was Asian. People couldn't tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese therefore they hated him despite the fact he won a Medal of Honor fighting for the US in WWII. He is still alive. Is he entitled to some sort of reparations? Absolutely not. Am I entitled to some sort of reparations because he was treated in a way that is illegal? Absolutely not. Not even close.

 

[cyberchief]

What I find surprising is the fact that nobody has brought up the injustices that many of the tribes did to other tribes! It is well documented that some tribes attacked and conquered land that was NOT theirs to begin with. This happened time and time again. Should those tribes be forced to pay reparations to other tribes for what happened hundreds of years ago? The indians are not as innocent as some would make them out to be. They attacked, pillaged, etc as much as any others!

It happened. its over. I say get rid of all treaties, call them all americans, and deal with it.

 

[Isthmus]

There seems to be a bit of a misuse of terms here that is leading to some confusion. a nation and a state (as in country, not as in the US regions sense) are two defferent and often exclussive things. A state (read, country) is a sovereign political organization that defines the borders and political structure of the land it covers an the people within it. Nations very often overlap more than one state. Often times (as in the case with many native american groups - but not all) nations fall entirely within the borders of a state. The point to take here is that just ecause an american indian nation is "independent" within it is borders it does not mean that it is exempt from the rules of the state and federal government. Also, it is most definitely not a sovereign entity. What they are is exempt from many state and some federal laws and are allowed to run their own affairs within the limits of overriding laws for the entire country.

As for reparations, IMHO that is BS. a better effort would be to actively promote education and create programs to help american indians and other financially depressed peoples not just better their lot, but develop and invest in their communities.

As for the claims about Alaskan inuit collecting reparations, I'm pretty sure that's bollocks. I used to have a pair of inuit brothers as roommates and they spoke about this. the tribes up there benefit in part from direct federal funding, as well as funding from companies paying for access to their lands for either mineral extraction of easements for mineral transport. that pool of money is in turn used for the benefit of the tribe. IIRC both of my roommates received token monthly allowances from the tribe (about $100 +/- IIRC), and both had the option to return to alaska and have the tribe pay for their college education. The catch was that they would have had to remain there working for the tribe in some capacity for a predetermined period of years if they took advantage of the program.