Should Native Americans receive reparation paychecks?

[Martimus]

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

No reason to worry there... President Obama is doing his best to compensate them for the land that they lost.

Joe Wilson was right? Obamacare does cover illegal aliens - National Immigration Reform | Examiner.com

 

[copestag]

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.

I would think anyone would understand that a treaty is not contract law or property rights law...... and has no binding legal elements.

The fact that this ever made it through the court system at all is simple idiocy and just goes to show how ******ed the PC people are in this country.

A treaty is NOT a contract......... its closer to a pinky swear.

If the treaty was not honored (which clearly it wasnt and still isnt) then the only remedy they have is to go back to war.

 

[A.Nonymous]

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.

There's no solution where anybody wins from where I'm standing. The Native Americans are stuck with the hassle of administering a large track of land with a bunch of people on it who are not Native Americans and couldn't care less about their beliefs. The people living on the land are stuck with a government in which they legally have no representation at all or they can move at their own cost. Who wins?

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.

There are eyewitness accounts, news stories, diaries, etc.... If it was a court case it would be a slam dunk to prove that the white man illegally forced the Native Americans off their lands at gunpoint and arguably committed war crimes in the process. Slam dunk case of theft. But since the Native Americans didn't agree to have their women raped, their homes burned and their land taken, it's legally ok.

I would think anyone would understand that a treaty is not contract law or property rights law...... and has no binding legal elements.

The fact that this ever made it through the court system at all is simple idiocy and just goes to show how ******ed the PC people are in this country.

A treaty is NOT a contract......... its closer to a pinky swear.

If the treaty was not honored (which clearly it wasnt and still isnt) then the only remedy they have is to go back to war.

This is a very valid point. A treaty is essentially two parties agreeing in principle to do something. It's only enforceable to the extent that you can go to war with the other party. A peace treaty is a perfectly good example of this. Hitler signed a peace treaty with Russia. Not too long afterwards he invaded them. Does that make people less likely to sign treaties with him in the future? Absolutely. Did he do anything necessarily illegal? Not really. The only option Russia has at that point to get that land back is to mobilize soldiers and go to war. That's it. There are no legal alternatives.

 

[tommy_ed]

There's no solution where anybody wins from where I'm standing.

agreed, but it doesn't mean we can't at least try to remedy the situation.

There are eyewitness accounts, news stories, diaries, etc.... If it was a court case it would be a slam dunk to prove that the white man illegally forced the Native Americans off their lands at gunpoint and arguably committed war crimes in the process. Slam dunk case of theft. But since the Native Americans didn't agree to have their women raped, their homes burned and their land taken, it's legally ok.

yea it would be an easily made case that people were unlawfully and immorally removed from their homes, the problem is that there is no proof of exactly what land belongs to who.


as for treaties i suppose it would depend on which and what kind of treaty we're talking about. there were many peace treaties that simply define "staying on your side of the river" type situations which im sure wouldn't be valid. But there are also treaties in which specific plots of land were alotted to belong to certain tribes permanently. the main problem with a lot of these treaties is that many times they were bound by certain terms, usually that both sides must agree not to attack each other. eventually a settler or a small party of indians would get murdered by a bandit group (applies to both sides) and would end up resulting in a broken treaty. SOME of these treaties however, this isn't so. They were blatantly broken and disregarded by the government when they discovered gold, good land, etc. THESE are the treaties/land contracts i'm referring to.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I would think anyone would understand that a treaty is not contract law or property rights law...... and has no binding legal elements.

The fact that this ever made it through the court system at all is simple idiocy and just goes to show how ******ed the PC people are in this country.

A treaty is NOT a contract......... its closer to a pinky swear.

If the treaty was not honored (which clearly it wasnt and still isnt) then the only remedy they have is to go back to war.

"More than a century later, the Sioux nation won a victory in court. On June 30, 1980, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians,[2] the United States Supreme Court upheld an award of $15.5 million for the market value of the land in 1877, along with 103 years worth of interest at 5 percent, for an additional $105 million. The Lakota Sioux, however, refused to accept payment and instead demanded the return of their territory from the United States.
In more recent proceedings the U.S. Courts have seen that the some of the monies associated with the claim have been expended and, as such, claim that the agreement is valid. In fact, several thousand tribal members have filed for and are awaiting for a final decision by the Court to decide to issue the resources to tribal members. Further court proceedings have developed since the tribal members have filed for their portion of the claim (OCT 10')."


You may notice the U.S. Supreme court differs with your claim of idiocy, contract law, property rights, legal bindings and treaty obligations, guess which claim is the law of the land ?

 

[Isthmus]

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

Not contradicting at all. you're making the asusmption that all state funding is reparations, when it is not.

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.

Well what I can tell you is that my roommates were very adamant about not being identified as Eskimos. Like you say they considered it terribly offensive. They referred t themselves as Inuit first and native american second. I never did ask what their particular tribe was though.

 

[Isthmus]

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?

Errors in title superiority happen all the time and older deeds sometimes can supersede newer ones. This is what the entire title insurance industry is all about.

 

[A.Nonymous]

agreed, but it doesn't mean we can't at least try to remedy the situation.

Why? Why try to remedy a problem that happened 200 years ago when no one has any solution where anybody wins? Everyone seems to agree that every single remedy means everyone loses. So every solution makes the situation worse for the Native Americans worse for everyone.

I still don't grasp why we need to try to fix something that happened 200 years ago in the first place. I really don't grasp why we need to fix something that happened 200 years ago if it makes it worse for the Native Americans. WTF?

yea it would be an easily made case that people were unlawfully and immorally removed from their homes, the problem is that there is no proof of exactly what land belongs to who.

You're right. They had lived on that land for hundreds of years. They had their houses there. They were farming and hunting on the surrounding land. They'd been raising their children on that land for many generations. Then we came in, raped their women, killed their children, maimed their men and forced them to leave, but since we never legally acknowledged on paper that the Native Americans owned the land it's ok. The Native Americans have no deeds certified by the white man that says they owned the land. The white man tossing them off is not a legal offense. Makes sense to me.

as for treaties i suppose it would depend on which and what kind of treaty we're talking about. there were many peace treaties that simply define "staying on your side of the river" type situations which im sure wouldn't be valid. But there are also treaties in which specific plots of land were alotted to belong to certain tribes permanently.

No, there's not different types of treaties. Not legally any way. All treaties are exactly the same from a legal perspective assuming they're legally entered into. All treaties are only as valid as long as there is a third party willing to enforce that treaty. If the US signs a peace treaty with Canada today and decides it's going to nuke them tomorrow that peace treaty is only valid as long as the UN is willing to step in and enforce it. Canada going to the US and crying about it does no good if the US has no interest in abiding by the treaty. Canada going to the UN makes a lot of sense as long as the UN is willing to enforce said treaty.

the main problem with a lot of these treaties is that many times they were bound by certain terms, usually that both sides must agree not to attack each other. eventually a settler or a small party of indians would get murdered by a bandit group (applies to both sides) and would end up resulting in a broken treaty. SOME of these treaties however, this isn't so. They were blatantly broken and disregarded by the government when they discovered gold, good land, etc. THESE are the treaties/land contracts i'm referring to.

And they only have validity as long as both sides agree to them and/or there's a 3rd party that is willing to enforce them. The minute any of that changes the treaty is meaningless.

We're still talking about treaties that were broken centuries ago. I don't see how that has no impact on this argument at all.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Errors in title superiority happen all the time and older deeds sometimes can supersede newer ones. This is what the entire title insurance industry is all about.

Fair enough. I'd still like to see you show up in court with a deed to the land my house sits on from 150 years ago and argue that you, not I, own the land my house sits on.

 

[Bob Maxey]

agreed, but it doesn't mean we can't at least try to remedy the situation.

So what do you suggest? Perhaps we should or perhaps we should learn from our past foibles and move forward and do nothing. I see lots of 'we shoulds' but no ideas of thoughts as to what we should try to do.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Fair enough. I'd still like to see you show up in court with a deed to the land my house sits on from 150 years ago and argue that you, not I, own the land my house sits on.

Or, perhaps a group of Indian Tribal Folks use the laws that govern eminent domain and manage to "prove" that an Indian Cultural Center should be built where your house sits.

Bob is not a lawyer, so I am sure there is more to it. But then again, there is a possibility. As for me, I would fight, just like apparently you would fight. It is not their land, it is our land. At least legally and forgetting a bunch of minutia and feelings and curious thinking.

 

[Frisco]

Or, perhaps a group of Indian Tribal Folks use the laws that govern eminent domain and manage to "prove" that an Indian Cultural Center should be built where your house sits.

Bob is not a lawyer, so I am sure there is more to it. But then again, there is a possibility. As for me, I would fight, just like apparently you would fight. It is not their land, it is our land. At least legally and forgetting a bunch of minutia and feelings and curious thinking.

Well, this stuff has been going on for a couple of centuries. All of these issues and remedies have been approached and fought over both legally and unfortunately in physical battle.

Not all Native Americans in leadership roles seem to agree as to what needs to be done as far as reparations go. Does a majority want autonomy from the U.S., cash, land returned, etc?

Going onto a reservation or into a town on the periphery of such a place is a sad sad experience, as I've noted. Alcohol being right at the center of that sadness. Lack of education, not much in the way of "purpose" seems to motivate whole tribes and their families.

I still think the initiative must be taken by the U.S. government, which seems to not hesitate much in sending billions in aid overseas while those reservations and ghettos here at home get worse.

 

[tommy_ed]

You're right. They had lived on that land for hundreds of years. They had their houses there. They were farming and hunting on the surrounding land. They'd been raising their children on that land for many generations. Then we came in, raped their women, killed their children, maimed their men and forced them to leave, but since we never legally acknowledged on paper that the Native Americans owned the land it's ok. The Native Americans have no deeds certified by the white man that says they owned the land. The white man tossing them off is not a legal offense. Makes sense to me.

i love how after acting like you could give two shits what happened to them, you are now trying to turn it around. let me reiterate, since it seems i have to repeat myself at least 2-3 times before you listen. where did i say it was okay? where did i say it wasn't illegal?i said the opposite on both counts actually. the only point i made was that there are no documents stating the specific land boundaries, therefore there is nothing that can be done legally.

No, there's not different types of treaties.

ummm, yes there are. seriously?

And they only have validity as long as both sides agree to them and/or there's a 3rd party that is willing to enforce them. The minute any of that changes the treaty is meaningless.

both sides did agree. one side broke the agreement. so if we have a lease agreement, and i suddenly decide not to honor it, that's okay because one party decided not to agree after the fact? that's not how it works.

btw, 3rd party? wtf are you even talking about. who is the third party? lol

anonymous, our debate is going in endless, circles at this point. we're never going to agree. at this point im having to repeat myself multiple times because rather than address the issue directly, you sidestep it and either act like you miss the point, or didn't read part of what i type, or actually do. i'd say at this point it's time to agree to disagree. the redundancy is getting tiring....

As for me, I would fight, just like apparently you would fight. It is not their land, it is our land. At least legally and forgetting a bunch of minutia and feelings and curious thinking.

this statement is sooooo ironic.

 

[Tommy78]

anonymous, our debate is going in endless, circles at this point. we're never going to agree. at this point im having to repeat myself multiple times because rather than address the issue directly, you sidestep it and either act like you miss the point, or didn't read part of what i type, or actually do. i'd say at this point it's time to agree to disagree. the redundancy is getting tiring....

Good, glad to see this end. Lets button this up now, kay? No one gets any reparations for crimes commited hundreds of years ago, just as it was at the start of the thread.

 

[Frisco]

Good, glad to see this end. Lets button this up now, kay? No one gets any reparations for crimes commited hundreds of years ago, just as it was at the start of the thread.

Non-participation in a threads here at AF drift down and off the page, a sort of organic "buttoning up."

 

[Tommy78]

Non-participation in a threads here at AF drift down and off the page, a sort of organic "buttoning up."

You sure? The last 4 or 5 threads I was interested in posting in did not end that way, they were edited to hell and then closed.

 

[tommy_ed]

Good, glad to see this end. Lets button this up now, kay? No one gets any reparations for crimes commited hundreds of years ago, just as it was at the start of the thread.

HAHA! i love how you assume i was saying you were right. i wasn't. Byyyy the way, most native americans already do receive reparation checks. so yea, you fail again. you can go back to lurking now

 

[A.Nonymous]

Or, perhaps a group of Indian Tribal Folks use the laws that govern eminent domain and manage to "prove" that an Indian Cultural Center should be built where your house sits.

Bob is not a lawyer, so I am sure there is more to it. But then again, there is a possibility. As for me, I would fight, just like apparently you would fight. It is not their land, it is our land. At least legally and forgetting a bunch of minutia and feelings and curious thinking.

That is my point exactly. It's MY land now. You can argue that it never should've been my land in the first place. Fine. That may be a strong argument. But the offense of stealing the land took place over a century ago. NOW I am living on it. Native Americans have not lived on this land for over a century. Yet I am now going to be told that I have no legal claim to everyone else living on it for the past hundred years or so has no legal claim to it.

Fine. Now I want the property taxes I've been paying for the past 5-6 years I've been living here. You cannot legally collect taxes from me on land that I do not own therefore I argue that I'm entitled to those taxes back with interest. That's going to be a fun argument.

Or you can claim that I did own that property for those 5-6 years, but the Native Americans now own it. Fine. Then I want market value for that land. The feds are going to have to buy my house from me and pay all my moving expenses since they're basically exercising eminent domain here. I'm probably going to fight that as well. That's going to be a nasty fight there.

 

[Tommy78]

HAHA! i love how you assume i was saying you were right.

I didn't assume that, you just assumed that I assumed it. Did I just blow you mind with that one?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Going onto a reservation or into a town on the periphery of such a place is a sad sad experience, as I've noted. Alcohol being right at the center of that sadness. Lack of education, not much in the way of "purpose" seems to motivate whole tribes and their families.

I most certainly agree, they are sad places. But isn't it up to the tribal leaders of the more than 150 or so Indian tribes/nations to help their own? Because of tribal law, helping apparently must come from tribal leadership; I gather it can be very difficult for whites to help. They will always accept the cash, but no guarantees your money will buy bricks and fire hoses and food.

It is estimated that income from Indian casinos is in excess of 55 Billion dollars. The states where the casinos exist as well as the casino corporations get most of the money. Apparently. Perhaps some of that cash (the amount I mentioned is not necessarily the profit, just raw earnings) or more of it can go to help the Indian people?

I did a little research to see what these casinos earn and it is a tricky and complicated thing. There is more to it than just a nice and easy way to provide for a tribe. I gather it is a dirty business with lots of secret deals and backroom crap that makes a definitive answer a tough thing to assess.

I know I cannot open a casino in Utah, and that is not fair, is it? Or is it a case of the Indians keeping the white man down? Big Smiley.

If we were to provide reparations, it is not clear to me from most posts that anyone has any ideas, just keep saying we should help. There were perhaps 8 or 9 Utah tribes. Do they All get a check? Where does their land end and another person or tribes lands begin? This is very complicated and before reparations can be handed out, many undeterminable things must be determined.

At least the lawyers will prosper.

 

[Frisco]

I most certainly agree, they are sad places. But isn't it up to the tribal leaders of the more than 150 or so Indian tribes/nations to help their own? Because of tribal law, helping apparently must come from tribal leadership; I gather it can be very difficult for whites to help. They will always accept the cash, but no guarantees your money will buy bricks and fire hoses and food.

It is estimated that income from Indian casinos is in excess of 55 Billion dollars. The states where the casinos exist as well as the casino corporations get most of the money. Apparently. Perhaps some of that cash (the amount I mentioned is not necessarily the profit, just raw earnings) or more of it can go to help the Indian people?

I did a little research to see what these casinos earn and it is a tricky and complicated thing. There is more to it than just a nice and easy way to provide for a tribe. I gather it is a dirty business with lots of secret deals and backroom crap that makes a definitive answer a tough thing to assess.

I know I cannot open a casino in Utah, and that is not fair, is it? Or is it a case of the Indians keeping the white man down? Big Smiley.

If we were to provide reparations, it is not clear to me from most posts that anyone has any ideas, just keep saying we should help. There were perhaps 8 or 9 Utah tribes. Do they All get a check? Where does their land end and another person or tribes lands begin? This is very complicated and before reparations can be handed out, many undeterminable things must be determined.

At least the lawyers will prosper.

Very powerful points, Bob.

The issue I have about it all, though, is how leaders, nearly any leaders on Earth and over history, seem to have in common hording power and wealth, no matter the culture or system of government.

Notable exceptions are small tribes such as the Yanomami in the Amazon regions, etc. They have to share and share equally for the most part across the population of the tribe just to survive.

Clever laws orchestrating use of those earned tribal monies from the casinos could make a big difference, but again, here we are with wealthy people who own gambling entities paying off "the man" to keep the status quo, just as in Nevada and Atlantic City.

 

[tommy_ed]

I didn't assume that, you just assumed that I assumed it.

you said

No one gets any reparations for crimes commited hundreds of years ago, just as it was at the start of the thread.

which was the point you were trying to make, thus you assumed you had somehow been proven to be correct. the irony however is that they've already been receiving reparations for years, so it wasn't that way at the start of the thread

 

[Frisco]

Let's not spar over who's "right," etc...

Let's just talk the issues themselves, please.

Posts #122 brings out some stuff worth talking about, in my opinion.

 

[A.Nonymous]

i love how after acting like you could give two shits what happened to them, you are now trying to turn it around. let me reiterate, since it seems i have to repeat myself at least 2-3 times before you listen. where did i say it was okay? where did i say it wasn't illegal?i said the opposite on both counts actually. the only point i made was that there are no documents stating the specific land boundaries, therefore there is nothing that can be done legally.

You're missing my point. You are arguing that what the feds should've done is go in there with guns drawn and blast the bejesus out of the Native Americans and take their land that way. That is what should've happened. Instead they signed treaties that they didn't even bother to uphold.

We have two situations here. In the first situation, historical records clearly describe and delineate where native lands are. The US goes to the natives and signs a treaty they never uphold and steal the land. The natives should be entitled to reparations for this.

In the second situation we have historical records that clearly describe and delineate where native lands are. The US goes in with guns and shoots everyone and takes the land. The natives should NOT be entitled to reparations for this.

Do you not see the inconsistency?

ummm, yes there are. seriously?

Please show me the legal precedent for the different kinds of treaties. It does not exist. As far as the courts are concerned there is only one kind of treaty.

both sides did agree. one side broke the agreement. so if we have a lease agreement, and i suddenly decide not to honor it, that's okay because one party decided not to agree after the fact? that's not how it works.

First of all, you're talking about something that is happening right now. If I presented evidence showing that an ancestor of yours with held the rent 150 years ago should I be able to force you to pay that rent today with interest? Of course not. It's over a century in the past.

Second of all that lease agreement depends 100% on a 3rd party being willing to enforce it. If you don't pay me I can go to the local authorities, make a claim in small claims court, get a judgement and get my money that way. The validity of that lease is 100% dependent on the local authorities being willing to enforce that lease.

btw, 3rd party? wtf are you even talking about. who is the third party? lol

That's my point exactly. Who is the third party here to enforce the treaty?

 

[A.Nonymous]

If we were to provide reparations, it is not clear to me from most posts that anyone has any ideas, just keep saying we should help. There were perhaps 8 or 9 Utah tribes. Do they All get a check? Where does their land end and another person or tribes lands begin? This is very complicated and before reparations can be handed out, many undeterminable things must be determined.

At least the lawyers will prosper.

This is one of my main problems with reparations. Who gets them? As I said before, there are really two core issues. Who gets the reparations and who pays them?