Should Native Americans receive reparation paychecks?

[Martimus]

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.

Forgive me but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You indicate that Alaskan Native Americans and Eskimo's receiving reparations is bollocks but then you indicate that the tribe receive direct federal funding and distribute monthly allowances to members of the tribe. So what is the direct federal funding? Gifts? The money from companies that you referenced, by the way, is most commonly a payment from the oil companies as a by-product of the oil pipeline. I believe all Alaskan's get a check.

Oh and one bit of info I learned from living in Alaska. The Inuit are Eskimo's not Native Americans. It may not seem a big difference to you or me but to one Alaskan Native American tribe, namely the Ashabascans, it's sufficient justification for blood shed. When I was a kid in Alaska, and please understand that this was 40 years ago, Athabascan natives were regularly jailed for injuring/killing people who mistakenly called them Eskimo's. In their culture, being called an Eskimo was a serious insult.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Isthmus it shouldnt be assumed that mentioning states relates to sovereign country. You dont necessarily need a sovereign country for a nationality, a state or pseudo state can work fine as long as the federal/central government is reasonable.

 

[tommy_ed]

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......

umm pretty sure your fed tax doesnt go to Soc. security, your soc. security tax does. and your state and city taxes cover fire, ems, etc., NOT land taxes.

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?

why do you keep assuming im saying you "did" something?? im saying they would own the land it was agreed they should own. If you live on their land, then if they want to charge you land taxes that's their choice.

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??

yes you misunderstood this point. im saying they should have the land that was contracted to them. it doesn't necessarily mean you would pay, it means if they want to charge a land tax, etc. they could. When i say they shouldn't receive money, i mean i don't think they should just sit there drawing individual checks.

But I'm currently living on it. Can they really make a legal claim to the land 200 years later?

i think you might be skimming over my posts. the legal claim to the land was made 200 years ago. it has already been made, then breached by the government. the government now acknowledges some of these breaches of contract and is trying to settle it by throwing more money at it. i don't agree with that method

 

[Tommy78]

tommy_ed: Are you a Native American? Why are you willing to fix one injustice by commiting another?

 

[tommy_ed]

tommy_ed: Are you a Native American? Why are you willing to fix one injustice by commiting another?

no, im not native american: i've been referring to them as "they", "them", and "they're" the entire thread

how would giving them back the land that is legally theirs be an injustice? who is being injusticed? the gvt?

 

[Tommy78]

no, im not native american.

Anyone arguing about this as hard as you are has to be.

how would giving them back the land that is legally theirs be an injustice?

It's legally owned by others now.

 

[Bob Maxey]

We are here, we conquered, and we built an amazing country. I for one am glad we did because had the land we "took" remained Indian land, we might be living a different kind of life.

So if you think reparations are needed, then one must ask how much, which tribes, how is the money handed out, do western tribes get more than eastern tribes and why or why not? And how do we make sure that tribal leadership does not crap on their own people and take most of the money?

Remember that many Indians were also slave traders that showed as much distain for their own people as white eyes did.

It happened, get over it, we can

 

[tommy_ed]

Anyone arguing about this as hard as you are has to be.

so are you calling me a liar? there is a link to my website in my sig. you can easily see im just a skinny white boy. once again if you would fully read the conversation you would have read the OP where i mentioned im very interested in this stuff. i've done A LOT of research on the subject, and it strikes a deep emotional chord with me. your comment could almost be construed as racist.... i have to be a native american to feel compassion towards their race?

It's legally owned by others now.

not technically... why do you think the gvt is trying to give the Sioux 1.3 billion dollars for the black hills?

i thought you gave up and were leaving this thread....?

 

[A.Nonymous]

umm pretty sure your fed tax doesnt go to Soc. security, your soc. security tax does. and your state and city taxes cover fire, ems, etc., NOT land taxes.

Social Security taxes are federal taxes. Also, my land taxes do indeed fund fire, ems, pd, etc..... You're incorrect on that.

why do you keep assuming im saying you "did" something?? im saying they would own the land it was agreed they should own. If you live on their land, then if they want to charge you land taxes that's their choice.

Ok. I did nothing wrong. I committed no crime. Why should I pay a penalty when I've done nothing wrong? If you're paying reparations to someone, then it's assumed that they've been wronged in some way. If I am the one paying the reparations, then it logically follows that I am the one guilty for wronging them. I've done nothing wrong yet I'm to pay reparations to someone? Why?

yes you misunderstood this point. im saying they should have the land that was contracted to them. it doesn't necessarily mean you would pay, it means if they want to charge a land tax, etc. they could. When i say they shouldn't receive money, i mean i don't think they should just sit there drawing individual checks.

Now I'm extremely confused? They're charging a land tax? But I'm not paying it? Who pays it? I live in KS and my city and my state are both named after Indian tribes. It's nearly 100% certain that 200 years ago Indians lived where I live. Why should I pay more taxes because of that?

i think you might be skimming over my posts. the legal claim to the land was made 200 years ago. it has already been made, then breached by the government. the government now acknowledges some of these breaches of contract and is trying to settle it by throwing more money at it. i don't agree with that method

Yeah, but it happened 200 years ago. I can probably find hundreds of miscarriages of justice that happened 200 years ago. Should I look for the descendents of the guilty parties and punish them?

 

[A.Nonymous]

not technically...

Incorrect. I've got a deed down at the courthouse that says I own my land. But you're saying that an Indian tribe really owns it. How can I determine whether the land that my house sits on was legally purchased from the Indians vs illegally obtained. How is that determined?

 

[OutofDate1980]

Hope this contributes to the discussion: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"There are 562 federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. These tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish requirements for membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money (this includes paper currency)."

Another article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

 

[tommy_ed]

Social Security taxes are federal taxes. Also, my land taxes do indeed fund fire, ems, pd, etc..... You're incorrect on that.

no. I'm not. look on your paystub.. there is a social security tax, and a federal tax... two different things. as for land tax, it largely depends on the state. but almost always your city/state taxes are paying for fire, ems, etc.

Ok. I did nothing wrong. I committed no crime. Why should I pay a penalty when I've done nothing wrong?

RIGHT AFTER i posted this:

why do you keep assuming im saying you "did" something??

are you even reading what im typing at all? because it doesnt seem like it...

Now I'm extremely confused? They're charging a land tax? But I'm not paying it? Who pays it?

Okay i feel like ive repeated the same exact points over and over here, so PLEASE PLEASE pay attention and let me break it down again for you:
here is what i think should happen. IF it is deemed that a certain native american tribe legally owns a plot of land, then i feel that land should be given to them (since it already technically belongs to them legally).. they would receive the land tax that people already pay. Not the community taxes, not social security taxes, not an extra tax. the existing land tax. this would only apply to those who are living in said plots of land. They arent paying reparations. they are paying land taxes just like you pay to the federal gvt. no one is saying you are paying them because of wrongs done to them. im saying you would pay them the taxes for the land you are living on. does this really bother you that much? someone getting what rightfully belongs to them, but doesnt affect you in any way? something tells me you would have done great in the army on the plains in the mid 1800s....

I live in KS and my city and my state are both named after Indian tribes. It's nearly 100% certain that 200 years ago Indians lived where I live. Why should I pay more taxes because of that?

your cities are named after indian tribes? not sure how that applies to the discussion at hand... was there a signed treaty concerning the town in which it was agreed upon to belong to the natives, signed by both them and the US government? because if not then your situation doesnt apply here.

Yeah, but it happened 200 years ago. I can probably find hundreds of miscarriages of justice that happened 200 years ago. Should I look for the descendents of the guilty parties and punish them?

this is getting ridiculous. it's obvious that you're not even paying attention at this point. please re-read this thread carefully and see if you can catch yourself up to speed. wow.

 

[copestag]

I completely get the gist of what youre saying........... it breaks down like this......

you want the "property taxes" (thats the term you been grasping for) to be diverted to the indian tribes who get declared to be the rightful owners of the property I reside on

just a few small flaws in that scheme......... property taxes are not collected by owners of property....... they are collected FROM the owners of the property

and property taxes are not collected by the FEDERAL govt which in your estimation owe a debt to these tribes....... they are assessed and collected by individual counties and those funds have nothing to do with the federal level....... not 1 dime ever leaves the state coffers

so it boils down to you wanting to give ownership of my property to someone else but allow me to still live here.... as long as I pay rent in the form of property taxes rather than paying my property taxes to the only people with the power to collect them which has absolutely no connection to the federal govt whatsoever......you want it to go to the tribe who owns the property that I actually paid for........ all in the name of settling a federal debt

clearly a well thought out scheme

 

[tommy_ed]

kind of. im only assuming that the native americans would feel as though they are entitled to property taxes if they own the land. what im saying is that they should be given the land that belongs to them legally. beyond that, i don't know. obviously it would take some very serious planning and obviously there would be issues that would need resolved. but i feel like it's something that would be better than giving them garbage wasteland plots and handing people a check every month. i know it's easier to throw money at the problem, but it doesnt solve it and it actually makes the situation worse.

 

[A.Nonymous]

no. I'm not. look on your paystub.. there is a social security tax, and a federal tax... two different things. as for land tax, it largely depends on the state. but almost always your city/state taxes are paying for fire, ems, etc.

I think we're just quibbling over symantics. The Social Security tax is collected by the feds. Therefore it's a federal tax. And it gets pilfered by Congress to pay for all kinds of other things besides Social Security. Nevertheless the point remains the same. I pay federal taxes because I (supposedly) get the benefit from national defense, the morons in Washington running my life, etc. I pay property taxes to fund everything from emergency services to local libraries.

What Do Your Property Taxes Pay For?

RIGHT AFTER i posted this:

are you even reading what im typing at all? because it doesnt seem like it...

You keep saying I've done nothing wrong. Then you say I've got to pay up. To which I say, "WTF?" I'm paying up despite doing nothing wrong? How is that fair? I can't follow it. To me it makes sense logically to pay up if I've done something wrong. In that case I'd like to know what I've done. If I'm paying up even though I've done nothing wrong, then I want to know why I'm being punished when I've not done anything.

Okay i feel like ive repeated the same exact points over and over here, so PLEASE PLEASE pay attention and let me break it down again for you:
here is what i think should happen. IF it is deemed that a certain native american tribe legally owns a plot of land, then i feel that land should be given to them (since it already technically belongs to them legally).. they would receive the land tax that people already pay. Not the community taxes, not social security taxes, not an extra tax. the existing land tax. this would only apply to those who are living in said plots of land. They arent paying reparations. they are paying land taxes just like you pay to the federal gvt. no one is saying you are paying them because of wrongs done to them. im saying you would pay them the taxes for the land you are living on. does this really bother you that much? someone getting what rightfully belongs to them, but doesnt affect you in any way? something tells me you would have done great in the army on the plains in the mid 1800s....

Bothers me because of where I live. Almost all of the land in my entire city could be claimed as former Native American territory. Now my city has $0 to fund itself. How am I going to get police, fire and ems at my house? The city no longer has any tax base. Or do I now find myself living on an Indian reservation? And now despite the fact that I'm an American Citizen I'm now subject to whatever laws, the tribal council wants to pass, but I have ZERO say in those laws because I am not a Native American. You've just either bankrupted my city completely or you've plopped a bunch of non-Native Americans on a reservation which they have no say in running. Both of those affect me greatly and both of those things have huge repercussions for me personally. But I guess you'd suggest I move since 200 years ago when my ancestors were plowing the fields of China, someone over here screwed over the Native Americans and now I'm suffering for it.

your cities are named after indian tribes? not sure how that applies to the discussion at hand... was there a signed treaty concerning the town in which it was agreed upon to belong to the natives, signed by both them and the US government? because if not then your situation doesnt apply here.

Yeah. Our city was named after and Indian tribe that used to live here. The white man drove them off the land over 200 years ago when the cattle came through and they needed grazing land, room to run the railroad, etc.... I live in a former cowtown. Indians once lived all over here, but were driven away by cowboys and cattlemen before the Civil War. There was no signed treaty. They were simply driven off to Oklahoma. I guess that makes it ok?

this is getting ridiculous. it's obvious that you're not even paying attention at this point. please re-read this thread carefully and see if you can catch yourself up to speed. wow.

Again, you're wanting to rectify injustices of 200 years ago by punishing the ancestors of those who perpetrated said injustices. There's no question that the Native Americans were wronged. But it was 200 years ago. Do you not see how that matters?

 

[tommy_ed]

You keep saying I've done nothing wrong. Then you say I've got to pay up.

im only assuming they would put in their own system of local gvt and tax it accordingly. but that's assuming. im just saying they should get the land thats theirs.

Bothers me because of where I live. Almost all of the land in my entire city could be claimed as former Native American territory

followed by.....

ivil War. There was no signed treaty. They were simply driven off to Oklahoma. I guess that makes it ok?

then your city does not apply to this situation. like i said earlier, the natives didn't consider all of the land to be theirs. at a certain point they realized that in order to keep land for themselves they would have to abide by the white man's terms. thus, the necessity of a signed treaty.

Again, you're wanting to rectify injustices of 200 years ago by punishing the ancestors of those who perpetrated said injustices. There's no question that the Native Americans were wronged. But it was 200 years ago. Do you not see how that matters?

yea you're right. if i murder your entire family... its pretty bad now, but in 50 years it'll be cool. you probably wouldn't even be mad anymore!

 

[A.Nonymous]

then your city does not apply to this situation. like i said earlier, the natives didn't consider all of the land to be theirs. at a certain point they realized that in order to keep land for themselves they would have to abide by the white man's terms. thus, the necessity of a signed treaty.

So forcing a tribe to leave their land is ok and acceptable. Swindling them out of their land is not?

yea you're right. if i murder your entire family... its pretty bad now, but in 50 years it'll be cool. you probably wouldn't even be mad anymore!

If you're dead and my family is dead shall we toss your kid in jail for the crime? Or perhaps your kid should pay me some sort of reparations?

 

[tommy_ed]

So forcing a tribe to leave their land is ok and acceptable. Swindling them out of their land is not?

it's not what is or isnt morally questionable but rather what can be proven. treaties or land contracts have been proven to be valid. in your situation, there's no way to do that.

If you're dead and my family is dead shall we toss your kid in jail for the crime? Or perhaps your kid should pay me some sort of reparations?

in that situation there's no written signed agreement of anything being owed, so definitely not. not to mention, i assume i would be punished by the judicial system accordingly, so reparations would be null/void. (btw i oppose reparations such as this where the subject is not currently being effected by the earlier situation. i.e. slavery)
i was referring to your callousness towards the subject. you don't really seem to care that women and children were murdered like cattle, tricked into giving up their homes, and starved hald to death while at the same time not being allowed to hunt and gather on their own land. just because it happened years ago does NOT make it okay.
but once again, we're straying from the subject at hand. the land issue has nothing to do with morals or injustices to individuals, but rather the breach of signed written contracts. the reason it still matters now is because it's still affecting them.

most of them are sitting on virtually worthless land with terrible education systems, and it's mostly the us gvt's fault. if we can send xxx amount of money to haiti, and xxx amount of our soldiers to iraq, why can't we use a little brainpower and figure something out to settle this once and for all?

 

[EarlyMon]

Off topic posts and distortions of fact about our site policies cheerfully deleted.

Sorry for the interruption, please carry on.

 

[A.Nonymous]

it's not what is or isnt morally questionable but rather what can be proven. treaties or land contracts have been proven to be valid. in your situation, there's no way to do that.

It's been proven that we forced them off their land. Sometimes violently. There are news stories, first hand accounts, etc.... If you wanted to accuse the people who lived here 200 years of violently stealing land from the Native Americans it would be a slam dunk case. There's no question about it. But since they used violence instead of lies to steal the land, that's acceptable.

in that situation there's no written signed agreement of anything being owed, so definitely not. not to mention, i assume i would be punished by the judicial system accordingly, so reparations would be null/void. (btw i oppose reparations such as this where the subject is not currently being effected by the earlier situation. i.e. slavery)

So, in a better example, if I find proof that your ancestor 200 years ago stole land from an ancestor of mine, you should be forced to give me back that land? If I have proof that they signed a contract and your ancestor didn't live up to his end and took the land anyway, I should now get that land back. This despite the fact that you're now living on it.

i was referring to your callousness towards the subject. you don't really seem to care that women and children were murdered like cattle, tricked into giving up their homes, and starved hald to death while at the same time not being allowed to hunt and gather on their own land. just because it happened years ago does NOT make it okay.

It happened 200 years ago. How is that NOT relevant? It was a crime perpetrated two centuries in the past that you and I had absolutely nothing to do with. But that doesn't matter apparently.

but once again, we're straying from the subject at hand. the land issue has nothing to do with morals or injustices to individuals, but rather the breach of signed written contracts. the reason it still matters now is because it's still affecting them.

And slavery still affects black people because they live here instead of Africa. And my grandfather's decision to come to America 75 years ago still affects me. Heck, there are bad decisions my parents made that still affect me. Do I get reparations from them?

most of them are sitting on virtually worthless land with terrible education systems, and it's mostly the us gvt's fault. if we can send xxx amount of money to haiti, and xxx amount of our soldiers to iraq, why can't we use a little brainpower and figure something out to settle this once and for all?

No, no, no, no, no and no. This happened 200 freaking years ago. It's not healthy at all to sit around and blame all your present problems on something that happened two centuries previously. Nor is it healthy to encourage people to do so. It's already been settled. The US screwed up. Indians now have sovereign states with the ability to govern themselves as they see fit. Is it a perfect situation? No. But unless you want to go through the entire country and toss law abiding citizens off their lands and herd them into reservations there is no better solution.

 

[Frisco]

I agree that to "sit around and blame" today's issues on events from antiquity seems counterproductive to actually just getting out there and setting the things into motion that lead to success and prosperity for you and your family, etc.

But the chances of being able to get on that road, the so-called "American Dream," are greater if one's family history does not include being forcibly removed from one's homeland, having the family torn apart by slave trading and human bartering, the ultimate disrespect for what you are as a person: being a slave, seeing your loved ones as slaves for generations.

The successes we see out there in the black population are notable in that they are so few as compared to white people's successes in the U.S., going by the percentage of the population over the decades and centuries. It's a no-brainer: they had the spirit knocked out of them and are just now recovering many generations later.

 

[ballisticn8]

this is getting ridiculous.

Yup, thats the best thing you've said this entire post. The indians were conquered, plain and simple. This started well over 200 years ago. They did it to themselves, and the people that formed the U.S.A did it to them. Atrocities were commited by both sides, but its history, it happened, the people it happened to are no longer alive, the people that commited said actions are no longer alive.

I'm not quite sure of any people that have conquered another land making reperations to said people that were conquered.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I agree that to "sit around and blame" today's issues on events from antiquity seems counterproductive to actually just getting out there and setting the things into motion that lead to success and prosperity for you and your family, etc.

But the chances of being able to get on that road, the so-called "American Dream," are greater if one's family history does not include being forcibly removed from one's homeland, having the family torn apart by slave trading and human bartering, the ultimate disrespect for what you are as a person: being a slave, seeing your loved ones as slaves for generations.

The successes we see out there in the black population are notable in that they are so few as compared to white people's successes in the U.S., going by the percentage of the population over the decades and centuries. It's a no-brainer: they had the spirit knocked out of them and are just now recovering many generations later.

There are definitely some racial issues in this country that are problematic. No question about that. But just look at our President. He was raised by a single mom in a big city. He could've sat back and cried about how his ancestors were slaves and how he was born black so he's going to have a harder time getting ahead in the world. (Both of which are true sadly.) Instead, he decided he wanted to change the world and work hard and look at where he is today. Whether you agree with his politics or not, he's a big success story because he chose to not blame his current situation (black kid raised by single mom) on something that happened to his ancestors centuries before.

 

[Frisco]

I sure see you point, A.Nonymous (can I call you Nonny for short? ).

But I don't hold up too high the grand successes of Obama, Judge Thomas, etc when we're discussing the overall plight of African Americans (which began in 1619 in this country.. that's about 150 years, several generations, before the American Civil War), for the reason that they are a miniscule portion of the black population because of minuscule opportunities as compared to white population over time.

An analogy was put forth by H. Rap Brown (since changed his name to Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin): "try to shove a potato down a one inch pipe; some will go through, but most of it will fall away.. that's us."

Meanwhile, the analogy would continue for whites as that pipe being something more like a well traveled highway tunnel.

But, I apologize, I've side tracked this to other than Native Americans, but it's pretty close to the same situation, with the notable exception of them suffering attempts at genocide, along with the nearly complete destruction of their culture(s).

 

[Bob Maxey]

Off topic posts and distortions of fact about our site policies cheerfully deleted.

Sorry for the interruption, please carry on.

So . . . you delete distortions of fact? How very un-internet like of you, I must say. Smiley, Smiley, Smiley