The Rights of Native Americans and First Nations

[Marcus Wolfe]

The funny thing about that history that is taught in our schools... primary and secondary ... is that its mostly inaccurate. For example, Batlham mentioned the trading of metal 'trinkets' for pelts and how the White man Ripped off the indian over and over ...

 

well that's not actually accurate. For the indian, getting those pelts was easy and they couldn't understand why these weak white people couldn't just get the furs themselves. And those hatchets and things were of Great value to the indians because they didn't have such things and they were able to make very useful things with them. ... things that mostly ended up helping them hunt more beaver.

 

Actually that was me.......

 

But think about it for a sec. What if the Native tribes had any idea about how much these items were worth back in Europe? Or if they had the slightest clue as to the value of beaver belts on the European Market?

 

If the Natives were capable of selling their beaver pelts and buying their metal trinkets on the European market instead of trading them, they could've saved themselves alot of beaver pelts.

 

(It should be noted that not only beaver pelts, but the furs of other animals, including bears, minxes, wolves, deer and wolverines were in high demand, beaver was just the most pricey)

[batlham]

The funny thing about that history that is taught in our schools... primary and secondary ... is that its mostly inaccurate. For example, Batlham mentioned the trading of metal 'trinkets' for pelts and how the White man Ripped off the indian over and over ...

 

well that's not actually accurate. For the indian, getting those pelts was easy and they couldn't understand why these weak white people couldn't just get the furs themselves. And those hatchets and things were of Great value to the indians because they didn't have such things and they were able to make very useful things with them. ... things that mostly ended up helping them hunt more beaver.

 

Actually that was me.......

 

But think about it for a sec. What if the Native tribes had any idea about how much these items were worth back in Europe? Or if they had the slightest clue as to the value of beaver belts on the European Market?

 

If the Natives were capable of selling their beaver pelts and buying their metal trinkets on the European market instead of trading them, they could've saved themselves alot of beaver pelts.

 

(It should be noted that not only beaver pelts, but the furs of other animals, including bears, minxes, wolves, deer and wolverines were in high demand, beaver was just the most pricey)

1. I did not say anything about trinkets.

2. They did know how much fur was worth..since they traded it heavy with the white men.

 

However, they got screwed over because of land. Farmers and ranchers wanted more land. so..either kill the natives living on it...or move them. they did both.

The funny thing about the Cherokee was they had a higher literacy rate than any other population in the USA. (white or otherwise) They tried to integrate into white culture...In fact most were fairly white looking.

They were still taking up room and were forced marched hundreds of miles into a reservation.

Why were they? Because, of the prejudice against them. It still stands today in some areas. I think its worse in Canada. I have not met a Canadian that had anything nice to say about Native tribes.

 

Funny story. My step mother is from Canada. When she heard that my mother side was native she didn't have nice things to say about it.

The FIRST time she met my sister...she saw a picture of my mother. she then said "Well she doesn't looks like damn Indian." Well my sister didn't take that real well.

 

My moms family had to deal with a fear of people finding out they were native. Men in sheets could had tried to drag the "Praire niggers" all out and hang them.

 

Most of the prejudice against Natives in the USA is gone. You can sometimes see it around the reservations though.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

Here's the irony - Canada is supposed to a be "multicultural" society, yet we weren't even allowed to practice our traditions (or speak our native tongues) during the early 1900's, and ended up losing much of our heritage. The only thing I know about my people is by reading history books, written by non-Natives...

[Malchik]

Well some interesting suggestions come up. Firstly - the psychology of worthlessness instilled over hundreds of years makes it hard for the individuals themselves to break out of the mould. What does that really mean (if it is accurate and I am not agreeing or disagreeing)? If I believed I was worthless no amount of people telling me the opposite is going to work and nor is any amount of evidence to the contrary. The only thing that can change me will be if someone with the right expertise can work on me in such a way that I learn to re-evaluate myself. It would suggest that for a society to change it would be a few leading the way and slowly convincing the others over two or three generations. I don't see any easy way in which a government could do this.

 

Secondly - fighting over land rights. Ever since the dawn of recorded history groups of people have overrun the lands of other groups. Empires have risen and fallen. No doubt many on this forum have played computer games to that effect too. Any particular piece of land may have belonged to many different peoples over time. The people who owned the land prior to the current 'owners' may want to claim it back but what of the people who owned it before them? And how far back should we be allowed to go. You might consider that claiming most of the UK is part of the Roman Empire and should thus be controlled from Rome is clearly nonsense but it uses the same theory. And to have a much more recent example the nation of Israel did not exist until 1947 when it was carved out of Palastine by the so-called super-powers. This is many years after the overrunning of native american lands so shouldn't that be given back to the 'rightful' owners first? (And before I have various groups yelling at me I am only using it as an example.)

 

There is a well known proverb which, however angry it may make you feel, is basically true - 'possession is 9/10ths of the law'. It is not possible or even IMO desirable to 'put the clock back'. Resolution of disputes must be a moving forward and this is where so many disagreements arise. Those who have grievances want things to be as they were. That will never and can never happen. The world has moved on. In many countries such grievances are ruthlessly dealt with - genocide continues to this day. In (supposedly) more civilised nations this may not happen but the mentality is not changed. 'So what if this was yours? It's mine now.' That such grievances are heard at all is a great improvement on what used to be. If there is some groundswell amongst those without the grievance that there may be a wrong to be righted, this is even more important. (Indeed without it nothing is likely to change.) But basically you will never be able to put the clock back. What will resolve the issue must be a move forward involving both sides in SIGNIFICANT compromises. Without the compromises no one goes anywhere.

 

Consider the divided island of Cyprus, the province of Kosovo, Gibraltar, Melilla and Ceuta, etc. etc.

 

My advice is therefore not to concentrate on the past or the wrongs but on what can be achieved to move on. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. And one advance now does not preclude another one in the future.

 

I know this does not answer what is essentially an unanswerable question but it does emphasise the need to decide what really matters and what doesn't. And there often those with grievances cannot themselves agree.

[Chesto]

Well some interesting suggestions come up. Firstly - the psychology of worthlessness instilled over hundreds of years makes it hard for the individuals themselves to break out of the mould. What does that really mean (if it is accurate and I am not agreeing or disagreeing)? If I believed I was worthless no amount of people telling me the opposite is going to work and nor is any amount of evidence to the contrary. The only thing that can change me will be if someone with the right expertise can work on me in such a way that I learn to re-evaluate myself. It would suggest that for a society to change it would be a few leading the way and slowly convincing the others over two or three generations. I don't see any easy way in which a government could do this.

 

My advice is therefore not to concentrate on the past or the wrongs but on what can be achieved to move on. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. And one advance now does not preclude another one in the future.

 

I know this does not answer what is essentially an unanswerable question but it does emphasise the need to decide what really matters and what doesn't. And there often those with grievances cannot themselves agree.

 

We have the same problem in the UK of course. 'Sink' estates, where generation after generation of people don't 'succeed', with a few honourable exceptions, and seem to follow the same patterns that their parents lived, right back to WW2. Our sink estates probably wouldn't compare very favourably with any reservation. And one's post code will follow one from one failed job interview to another just like a skin colour.

 

Where a reservation may have the advantage, amongst so many disadvantages, is the fact that it contains a relatively homogeneous group of people, with a similar racial, and cultural, identity. Of course there are the generations of inherited despair - and I do believe despair can be inherited either by an individual, disparate community, or a tribal group - to contend with. But I would like to hope that with consciousness raising, which must already be going on, people on reserves could realise the common strengths of their shared heritage and build on them. Unless that energy is being diffused and diluted as it is expended on tribal politics.

 

Of course, it sounds like I'm spouting pious Polly Anna-isms. But unless a people have Unity, they get no where. Especially against Governments anywhere.

BTW what's happening with AIM and/or the Canadian equivalent?

[Jhaerlyn]

First, sorry for misquoting :(

 

 

I really have no problem with the displacement of the land, and I honestly don't think that most native americans are honestly expecting people to give them their old land back ...

 

BUT ... There are things that need to change in our attitudes torward natives, both publicly and privately. For example, there is a lot of primary source evidence that demonstrates that our founding fathers took as much from the Nations form of government to develop the plan for ours, if not more so. I think that one thing that would help smooth things would be for our history courses, from primary school to high school, to be changed to look at our history more honestly, looking at ALL the members of our current society and dumping the old White/English-centric point of view.

 

darn, its raining severely here, so I have to go :D ...i'll try some more later :D

[Marcus Wolfe]

Alas, if only there was some way to make history books less biased........

 

Because that's the problem. All we really know about natives comes from the history books, and they tend to leave out certain things.

 

rob_b, batlham............if it makes you feel any better, they offer Native tongue as a secondary or third language at my high school.

[hoots7]

Not that I'm saying our rights trump everyone else's rights, but we're still not treated as fairly.

As a person with very little to no Native American blood at all in me I feel completely free to say this.

 

YES THEY DO!

 

Your ancestors were here (USA) first & we destroyed your way of life & herded you onto reservations like animals. I know some of the tribes were waring with each other long before white men came to America (don't want to offend anyone by naming them) those tribes should not be compensated but the friendly tribes like the Cherokee should.

If my memory serves me you guys have a 3 part government. 1 the tribe, 2 the state? 3 the US government.

 

I was not aware of how bad the situation in the tribes is, but I take your word for it.

If it were up to me I would make sure that the Tribe Elders received a generous amount per each member in their Tribe and leave it up the Elders to distribute the money as they see fit.

Then if you guys don't like the way they are doing things you can elect different Elders.

 

EDIT:

I'm very sorry Rob_b, I didn't realize until after this post you are from Canada.

All the Canadians I've met have been very friendly people, maybe they are just scared of us Texans though.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

Not that I'm saying our rights trump everyone else's rights, but we're still not treated as fairly.

As a person with very little to no Native American blood at all in me I feel completely free to say this.

 

YES THEY DO!

 

Your ancestors were here (USA) first & we destroyed your way of life & herded you onto reservations like animals. I know some of the tribes were waring with each other long before white men came to America (don't want to offend anyone by naming them) those tribes should not be compensated but the friendly tribes like the Cherokee should.

If my memory serves me you guys have a 3 part government. 1 the tribe, 2 the state? 3 the US government.

 

I was not aware of how bad the situation in the tribes is, but I take your word for it.

If it were up to me I would make sure that the Tribe Elders received a generous amount per each member in their Tribe and leave it up the Elders to distribute the money as they see fit.

Then if you guys don't like the way they are doing things you can elect different Elders.

 

EDIT:

I'm very sorry Rob_b, I didn't realize until after this post you are from Canada.

All the Canadians I've met have been very friendly people, maybe they are just scared of us Texans though.

You know, I wanted to bring up that point earlier, but then everyone would accuse me of being selfish and inhumane toward everyone else - at least now I know I'm not the only that thinks so :rolleyes:

 

Don't worry about that - I'm quite more understanding of everyone else's position on this topic, and I really can't blame them for feeling the way they do. I can't speak too much for many of my people (as most of them have lived on reserves for most of their lives and aren't quite caught up in the affairs outside reserve life), but we really are trying to better ourselves.

 

Our gov't is structured quite similar to that of the normal gov't: 1. we have a Chief (in this day and age his/her role is more like mayor of a town), 2. the Council (in much the same manner as the US Senate - at least this is how it works on my reserve), and they're democratically elected by the people. Funny thing is, our Chief and Council are more prone to corruption than any other municipal gov't.

[Malchik]

Funny thing is, our Chief and Council are more prone to corruption than any other municipal gov't.

 

That sounds like emotive guesswork. Have you evidence to support it? I'm not saying you are wrong in stating the system is corrupt but I am not prepared to accept the comparison on your say so. The awkward thing about those in charge is that they are human beings. They suffer from the same weaknesses and failures the world over. As yet we do not have a kite mark (dunno the US/Canadian equivalent) to prove that human beings are certified as reaching a required ethical standard.

 

But before going further can I please debunk the myth that there is anywhere in the world that has this thing called democracy. The concept of democracy is that anyone can stand for election and has an equal chance of being elected. Sadly in this day and age the chance of standing and being elected depends on the funds you can raise and with none of your own to start with you have zero chance. There are different 'democratic' systems in place throughout the world but the USA (which proclaims itself the bastion of democracy) has a system that means anyone who looks for a senior government position has to be rich. The correct term for this is NOT democracy but plutocracy. Because elections are only held periodically, in the intervening periods decisions are taken by those who have voting power in the government. The correct term for this is 'oligarchy' not democracy. What it means is that a 'democratic' election does not lead to a democracy. Once we stop being confused by this we can start thinking of how to work with what it does lead to.