Should Native Americans receive reparation paychecks?

[tommy_ed]

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.

no. in those there are no specific contracts detailing the land's boders, acreage. etc. and there is no signed agreement of ownership.

I
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.

um. yes. how does that NOT make sense to you? and you are correct, that is a better example. thank you for helping me get my point across



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.

I
And slavery still affects black people because they live here instead of Africa.

they can go back to africa if they wish. can native americans have their land back?

I
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.

the current situation of most native americans is not entirely our fault, but it is at least 90% so. you keep bringing up that it was 200 years ago, but this is irrelevant when they are still effected by the situation. btw no one said ANYTHING about relocating people unless they themselves choose to do so.

 

[Knewz]

the current situation of most native americans is not entirely our fault, but it is at least 90% so.

99.99999% more accurate figure.

What's done can't be undone or even fixed at this point. There is nothing that can be given to amount to what was taken, and i don't just mean the geographical aspect

 

[Bob Maxey]

So lets give back what we stole. And do not forget the slaves, they deserve something as well. So how much do we give them? What is one's live, heritage, and land worth? A few hundred dollars, perhaps? Certainly, we can afford to give a few hundred to every relative or every black person, and most certainly, a few hundred to every Indian and every one of their relatives, right. I mean, we can afford it, right?

We all know we can afford a few more billion or ten times that much. Who gets what? How much do we give them? Do we go back one, three, or six generations (And what about the seventh generation, we must care about them, right) ? What about people with a black third uncle twice removed on their great grandmother's side or someone who was married to a 1/65th Cherokee. They should get something, right?

How much for pain and suffering? How much will the black and Indian lawyers get for their help? I say lets do it now, for the sake of our soul and so we feel better.

Then let me offer this: few here actually believe what I suggested above, especially if it comes form their pocket. It is easy to talk the talk, but if you get a three thousand dollar invoice from our Uncle Sam, chances are, the expletives will fly. Many that want it do not want to pay for it.

We all talk a good game and we all say we want to give back a little of that which we stole, but when it comes time to pony up, most that want it will take a step back and rethink. I seriously doubt those that publicly say we should, would feel the same if they had to give up a few grand.

I'll offer this: black folk should perhaps consider that if their ancestors were not brought here way back when, they would likely grow up and die in Africa and life there sucks for blacks. So in a way we did them a favor.

Hate me yet?

Well, try this: I am glad what happened, happened. I think we would have a very different life in the Indians ran things. It is over and done with.

 

[Knewz]

I'll offer this: black folk should perhaps consider that if their ancestors were not brought here way back when, they would likely grow up and die in Africa and life there sucks for blacks. So in a way we did them a favor.

Enslavement is never a favor. They were treated worse here than in Africa. Better to die free than live in servitude.

Well, try this: I am glad what happened, happened. I think we would have a very different life in the Indians ran things.

Stating the obvious here. If America wasn't "discovered" by foreigners of course the country would be different. Who's to say the country wouldn't be better if run by the natives? But we can throw hypotheticals all day and still end up where we are now.

 

[tommy_ed]

So lets give back what we stole. And do not forget the slaves, they deserve something as well.

bob, if you're going to jump into the conversation, at least read the thread first. the situation with the slaves is completely different and it's been covered in this thread probably 6 times now.

How much for pain and suffering? How much will the black and Indian lawyers get for their help?

nothing for pain and suffering. as we've already discussed, todays native americans arent currently being affected by their anscestors pain and suffering, only the loss of the tribal lands agreed to be theirs by the us gvt.

Well, try this: I am glad what happened, happened. I think we would have a very different life in the Indians ran things. It is over and done with, so wear a cup.

wow. now thats a little overboard. it's one thing to be glad that we have the nation we do, but to be glad that we brutally and many times slowly killed thousands of native americans, almost always causing them to retaliate by killing our citizens as well is just sad. i feel sorry for you bob... after seeing your responses on the marijuana legalization discussion and now this, all i can say is i hope one day you educate yourself enough to expand your point of view. and maybe learn to care for the situation of others even if that situation doesnt directly effect you. that goes for a couple people here... not trying to insult anyone, just generally concerned

 

[tommy_ed]

What's done can't be undone or even fixed at this point. There is nothing that can be given to amount to what was taken, and i don't just mean the geographical aspect

i completely agree with you. but we should at least try to partially resolve it. maybe some type of a better education system at the very least

 

[Bob Maxey]

Enslavement is never a favor. They were treated worse here than in Africa. Better to die free than live in servitude.

Stating the obvious here. If America wasn't "discovered" by foreigners of course the country would be different. Who's to say the country wouldn't be better if run by the natives? But we can throw hypotheticals all day and still end up where we are now.

Slaves were treated well by many owners. But the word "well" is up to debate. The folks that were worked to death were indentured servants because they had a finite lifespan. After a set time, they left their place of employment. Slaves were looked at as a long term investment. Also, many slaves opted to stay with their masters and many Americans hated the idea of slavery and did not own slaves.

I am not saying enslavement was/is ever a good idea, but we should never lay the blame solely on white people nor should we discount the idea that the descendants of slavery are better off here than in Africa.

By the way, many if not most slaves were rounded up and sold by their black brethren. Another thread perhaps.

You are correct, we can't say for sure what would have happened. But you should be glad we arrived just the same. We might be living under Indian rule. Again, we can't say if this would be good, better, bad, or worse. We are the product of what happened before us and for that, I say thanks.

Oddly enough, we are rapidly heading back toward slavery. Another thread perhaps.

To keep this thread on track, perhaps those that favor reparations could tell us how they would go about the process.

 

[Bob Maxey]

i completely agree with you. but we should at least try to partially resolve it. maybe some type of a better education system at the very least

So how does that work, exactly? Not too sure Indians would want White Eyes telling them how to educate their young. Perhaps money to build schools on the reservation? I am asking because I do not know if we can help those that would likely refuse help.

You should understand that things work much differently on an Indian Reservation compared to states and cities.

 

[Frisco]

If those "rounding up" other blacks did not do so, they suffered punishment and/or imprisonment or worse.

An analogy might be the Sonderkommando in the Nazi death camps, Jews who were forced to participate in harvesting gold from the bodies of the executed, etc.

Horrible thing to use as some sort of reasoning in an attempt to soften the inhumanity being meted out by slavers.

 

[noah way]

I am not saying enslavement was/is ever a good idea, but we should never lay the blame solely on white people nor should we discount the idea that the descendants of slavery are better off here than in Africa.

Typically used to justify slavery by citing a "benefit":

"Sure, we enslaved your ancestors, worked them to death, raped and abused them, etc. But if we hadn't you'd be living in a mud hut in the jungle. You ought to be thanking us."

 

[Frisco]

It would be good to see this conversation sort of condense back to what the OP and thread title are, Native American reparations.

Many of us participating here have brought up and used African American slavery as an analogy. Maybe we can leave that out now that it's been hashed enough to almost hijack the thread.

I don't want to come off as forbidding mention of slavery, etc in the thread, please. I'm just wanting to get back to the interesting topic of the thread title and OP.

Threads can be started on the other, peripheral subjects brought up by some of us in here.

 

[tommy_ed]

So how does that work, exactly? Not too sure Indians would want White Eyes telling them how to educate their young. Perhaps money to build schools on the reservation? I am asking because I do not know if we can help those that would likely refuse help.

You should understand that things work much differently on an Indian Reservation compared to states and cities.

i didn't mean force it upon them, just offer it to them

and i do understand that. it's already been discussed multiple times. seriously man. read the thread. haha i don't feel like re-explaining everything AGAIN

 

[ballisticn8]

i completely agree with you. but we should at least try to partially resolve it. maybe some type of a better education system at the very least

Who are we to say how we should or should not resolve it though? You keep bringing up education, the govt has no right to tell any indian tribe what they can or cant do on tribal land with the money that they have or are given. Its up to the tribe and the tribal leaders what is done with it. You can't tell the tribes that they have tribal land and what they do with it is their business but for reparations we will only provide educational services. Tribes run their educational systems, so are we really to exert control over how they run their educational systems in the name of it being reparations?

 

[tommy_ed]

^^^^ read my post above you

 

[Frisco]

A fairly long read, but perhaps a bit of an eye opener for some:

Journal of American Indian Education-Arizona State University

From that:

"THE HISTORY of the treatment of the NativeAmerican or Indian population during the late nineteenth century has focused primarily on the attempt of the mainstream American culture to "civilize" them."

"Beginning in the Colonial era, and continuing into the twentieth century, the white policy toward Native Americans experimented with many different methods in order to draw them into the mainstream of American culture."

"Native American groups in general opposed such absorption. As a result numerous approaches were undertaken by the Federal government in an attempt to deal with "the Indian problem." These included: removal, extermination, incorporation, assimilation, revitalization, termination and self-determination."

"By the end of the nineteenth century, the Federal government had largely settled upon a policy which attempted to assimilate Native Americans into the mainstream of American culture. Implicit in this idea of assimilation was the principle of termination, which would end the Indian’s status as a special-ward of the government and would eventually lead to the abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs."

 

[Member243850]

I'd also like some reparations. I received a ticket for passing the light while it was yellow and have been taken advantage of by the police. What do I get for my suffering?

+ 1000000000000

I have lived my entire life being told I must pay for the mistakes of the previous generation when I had absolutely F*** ALL to do with it.

The generation of today had nothing to do with it!!

This kind of crap makes me so angry it makes me really angry.

Why must I pay for my ancestors mistakes when I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT?

That is just insanity!

This is the exact same for the USA no different to South Africa here.

That is what this reminds me of.

It is over.

So deal with it.

It happened a VERY long time ago.

Just deal with it.

The people of today ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE.

Finished and kla!

End of story.

At least the USA has a much more educated and stable Western Culture compared to South Africa where these people cut up people for body parts and for medicine sacrifices and rituals:

Minister calls for tougher charges for muti murder - News - Mail & Guardian Online

South Africa Medicine Killings And Murders

Muti killings up ahead of 2010?: News24: South Africa: News

Muti Murders - South Africa - YouTube

At least in the USA the educated faaaaar out number the crazy and uneducated losers not like here in SA.

Let me just say this, why must the people of today pay for the mistakes that happened 100's of years ago?????

Because that is really crazy stuff.

It is not their fault.

It is in the PAST. Let it go.

It is sad but true I am sorry to say.

 

[ballisticn8]

^^^^ read my post above you

teh refresh button made me its b!tch lol...

 

[A.Nonymous]

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

I've been called worse.

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.

There's no question that minorities have a harder time of it than white people. I won't argue that. I'm Asian and I've faced some of that myself. But again, the choices are to sit back and blame all your ancestors for your problems or get up and try to improve your situation. The former is unhealthy and the latter, while it may fail, is the best of the two options.

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).

True and true. There's no argument that they didn't suffer horrible injustices at the hands of the white man and the federal government as well. The thing is this was literally centuries ago. That makes a huge difference. I have no doubt that there are many, many people walking around today who are not Native Americans but who's ancestors were swindled, hoodwinked and conned out of land and possessions centuries ago as well. It would be ridiculous to argue that we need to punish the descendants of the guilty.

no. in those there are no specific contracts detailing the land's boders, acreage. etc. and there is no signed agreement of ownership.

So, by your logic, the US should not have tried to swindle them out of their land by signing contracts that they had no intention to uphold. Instead they should've come in with guns and forced them to leave their land. Then it's ok and we would not even be having the reparations discussion.

um. yes. how does that NOT make sense to you? and you are correct, that is a better example. thank you for helping me get my point across

It does not make sense to me because it is something that happened 200 YEARS AGO. That's the difference. We're not talking about something that happened yesterday and the guilty party is still running around. If that was the case, there would be no arguments about punishing the guilty party. The only discussion would be what kind of punishment. Instead, we have a situation where the person who was wronged died over a century ago and the guilty party died over a century ago and the person living on the piece of land had NOTHING to do with the crime at all.

they can go back to africa if they wish. can native americans have their land back?

No, they can't really. They don't speak the language. They don't fit in with the culture. They own no property there. Going back to Africa is no more an option for them than the Native Americans getting their land back. If anything, it's more problematic.

the current situation of most native americans is not entirely our fault, but it is at least 90% so. you keep bringing up that it was 200 years ago, but this is irrelevant when they are still effected by the situation. btw no one said ANYTHING about relocating people unless they themselves choose to do so.

Unless you're going to argue that we are currently, actively causing the situation at this moment, then it is completely relevant. If that's your argument, then I would like to know what current US policy(ies) is causing their situation. Maybe we need to change that policy. It's something that happened 200 years ago. It's 100% relevant.

If you waved a magic wand today and gave them back ownership of all the land that was taken, then I'd find myself living on an Indian reservation. Worse than that, my city government would cease to exist and I'm now dependent on the Native Americans to offer all the services the city previously offered. That might not be so bad except that since I am not a Native American I have 0 say in how the reservation is run. So I don't even get a vote on what services I want/need or how they're delivered. So now I have to move somewhere where I can actually have a say in how things are run locally. Who pays for that? You've just forced me to relocate. How is that not a crime in itself?

i didn't mean force it upon them, just offer it to them

Offer it to them how?

 

[tommy_ed]

It would be ridiculous to argue that we need to punish the descendants of the guilty.

im not arguing that anyone gets punished?

So, by your logic, the US should not have tried to swindle them out of their land by signing contracts that they had no intention to uphold. Instead they should've come in with guns and forced them to leave their land. Then it's ok and we would not even be having the reparations discussion.

notttt sure how you got that out of what i've been saying. i'm saying we should have honored the signed agreements in the first place...

If that was the case, there would be no arguments about punishing the guilty party. The only discussion would be what kind of punishment.

the funny thing about this is that even the government disagrees with you here. which is why they have ruled in favor of the native americans on multiple occasions. as i mentioned, they ruled that the taking of the black hills by the US Gvt. was a direct violation of a signed, written contract, and are currently trying to buy their way out of it. the only problem is that the sioux don't want the money. they want their sacred homelands back.

No, they can't really. They don't speak the language. They don't fit in with the culture. They own no property there. Going back to Africa is no more an option for them than the Native Americans getting their land back. If anything, it's more problematic.

sure they could, if they wanted to. the thing about that situation is most of them would consider themselves better off being in the united states than africa. you can't say the same for the native americans in just about every case, not to mention if they want their lands back they can't.

If you waved a magic wand today and gave them back ownership of all the land that was taken, then I'd find myself living on an Indian reservation.

we're already established that in your situation you wouldn't be on land that could legally be proven to belong to native americans, as there was never any written agreements outlying land and acreage belonging to natives there. so you wouldn't even be effected by this what-so-ever

 

[lordofthereef]

What about the Mexicans that ha d a ton of their land taken?

 

[A.Nonymous]

im not arguing that anyone gets punished?

Except for the people who currently own the land. 'Cuz they now find themselves on Native American territory which is considered a sovereign state. But if they're not Native Americans they have no say in how the land they live on is governed. Or how about the cities that currently exist on that land? You are going to strip them of their entire tax base eliminating thousands of jobs in the process. But this is not punishment.

notttt sure how you got that out of what i've been saying. i'm saying we should have honored the signed agreements in the first place...

This is what makes no sense. If we signed an agreement and then didn't honor it, that is a wrong and we should make it right even though it happened 200 years ago. If, 200 years ago, we grabbed guns and horses and violently threw Native Americans off land they had lived on for centuries and burned their homes and belongings in the process, that's ok. No reparations for that. Do you not see how that makes no sense?

the funny thing about this is that even the government disagrees with you here. which is why they have ruled in favor of the native americans on multiple occasions. as i mentioned, they ruled that the taking of the black hills by the US Gvt. was a direct violation of a signed, written contract, and are currently trying to buy their way out of it. the only problem is that the sioux don't want the money. they want their sacred homelands back.

The government is wrong about a million things and they're wrong about this too IMO. It happened a hundred freaking years ago.

sure they could, if they wanted to. the thing about that situation is most of them would consider themselves better off being in the united states than africa. you can't say the same for the native americans in just about every case, not to mention if they want their lands back they can't.

Better off being forceably enslaved and taken to another continent against their will? That's better off?

we're already established that in your situation you wouldn't be on land that could legally be proven to belong to native americans, as there was never any written agreements outlying land and acreage belonging to natives there. so you wouldn't even be effected by this what-so-ever

Maybe I personally would not because people here killed and maimed Native Americans to get the land instead of getting them to sign paper they didn't understand. I guess that's the difference. Someone out there does live on that land though. Maybe I, personally, would not be affected, but lots of people out there would.

 

[tommy_ed]

Except for the people who currently own the land. 'Cuz they now find themselves on Native American territory which is considered a sovereign state. But if they're not Native Americans they have no say in how the land they live on is governed. Or how about the cities that currently exist on that land? You are going to strip them of their entire tax base eliminating thousands of jobs in the process. But this is not punishment.

i will agree with you that there would have to be something figured out about that situation. it's definitely complicated, and there's no simple solution in which everybody wins.

This is what makes no sense. If we signed an agreement and then didn't honor it, that is a wrong and we should make it right even though it happened 200 years ago. If, 200 years ago, we grabbed guns and horses and violently threw Native Americans off land they had lived on for centuries and burned their homes and belongings in the process, that's ok. No reparations for that. Do you not see how that makes no sense?

please quote where i said that was okay? i didn't. i simply said there's nothing that would hold up in court if there's no signed documents.

Better off being forceably enslaved and taken to another continent against their will? That's better off?

i was referring to today's african americans. ask them if they would rather be in africa right now and see how many of them say they would...

 

[OutofDate1980]

What about the Mexicans that ha d a ton of their land taken?

Cause we took by conquest from Mexico who took it by conquest from the natives, so therefor fair.

Just give me a five minute head start prior to the bricks being thrown.

 

[Crude]

At least in the USA the educated faaaaar out number the crazy and uneducated losers not like here in SA.

Not true. Political correctness gives you the wrong impression.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Personally, I think they should at least receive something after the way we did them. ...

Maybe it would help if the US first honored it's admitted legal contract.

Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think conservatives/liberal or whoever supports contract law and property rights law.