A_Glass_Of_Pink: the right thing to do is to give them the land back or to financially compensate them for it. Alaska did that and created native corporations to manage the funds to benefit the native people forever.

It was the honest and decent thing to do. Stolen property is stolen

You do realize they stole it from other indian tribes before hand, right?

liam76: Can someone explain why Indians should get special 'indigenious' people protection in the eyes of the UN but people from Tibet, Irish, etc don't.

I'm on it. Here you go!

Paris1127: GAT_00: We gave the land to the UN. I don't even have to look up the history of Mt. Rushmore to know it was taken from the Native Americans by either deception or force.

The British bought the land the UN in New York is built on, it only became American after the Revolution. The British got it from the Dutch in return for Suriname. The Dutch got it by giving a chest of beads to the Lenape... And the Lenape may have sold Manhattan when it was in fact Canarsee territory. Land snatching has a long history in the US.

People seem to think that the Native Americans were one people living in peaceful harmony. They were just another set of minor nations squabbling it out, and I really don't see how their modern descendents should be given anything, as we don't go around making up for hundreds-of-years-old misdeeds. Otherwise African Americans would be getting a whole lot more than any Native American.

mjg: liam76: Can someone explain why Indians should get special 'indigenious' people protection in the eyes of the UN but people from Tibet, Irish, etc don't.

I'm on it. Here you go!

Not only are you a stupid for missing the point of the question, you're an asshole for the way you did it.

LavenderWolf: mjg: liam76: Can someone explain why Indians should get special 'indigenious' people protection in the eyes of the UN but people from Tibet, Irish, etc don't.

I'm on it. Here you go!

Not only are you a stupid for missing the point of the question, you're an asshole for the way you did it.

"a stupid"

Irony, take me away.

/"a stupid asshole" was modified to "stupid" and a postponed "asshole" and I forgot to remove the a

LavenderWolf: mjg: liam76: Can someone explain why Indians should get special 'indigenious' people protection in the eyes of the UN but people from Tibet, Irish, etc don't.

I'm on it. Here you go!

Not only are you a stupid for missing the point of the question, you're an asshole for the way you did it.


Um, what is the point being made? Legit question. Sounds like liam76 wanted some background info.
/clarify

smells_like_meat: Smallpox blankets for everyone.

However, in the time period that this was purported to have happened, germ theory and any idea of contagion was unknown to science to say nothing of commoners.

The Romans were flinging plague infested corpses over the walls of beseiged towns and forts thousands of years ago... Im pretty sure people had some passing knowledge of how disease spreads in the 18th century.

sycraft: Ya... I'm thinking no.
Growing up around the Navajos you come to realize that many tribes consider every farking thing they see "sacred". Well, too bad. Nobody cares.

We might be better off with a little more of that thinking, and a little less of thinking that everything we can lay our hands has dollar signs on it.

Raw_fishFood: All I can say about Mt. Rushmore is that like the Statue of Liberty it is much smaller in real life than it is in the movies. A tad underwhelming, but still pretty cool.

It's.......it's the same size. They just take a picture of it for the movies. I mean.....they're both the same size as in the movies.

100 Watt Walrus: Might as well. The site's already been turned into the National Parks equivalent of the world's biggest ball of string. Between the 3- to 4-story parking structure, and the ridiculous overkill of granite archways and flags distracting from the sculpture, a casino genuinely couldn't be any worse.

The first time I went to Mt. Rushmore, it was before they built all that crap there. It was off-season, and we went into a little visitor's center and talked to the rangers--we were just about the only people there. A few years later, I took my son there and wow, was I shocked to see all that crap. I also realized as soon as I'd parked that I could have saved the fee if I'd just parked a little further up the road. They don't tell you that, of course.

I hated the archways, the flags, the whole thing was complete overkill. Maybe not the parking lot--I used to live next door to Yellowstone, and maybe you all don't realize it, but these tourist attractions get more visitors every year, and accommodations have to be made to serve them. Or else people biatch to high heaven. And they still biatch if they show up and don't have every comfort of home, no matter where they're at. Yeah, it's called a national PARK, not the national shopping center.

I'm sure the parking lot was also made to accommodate people who now show up in 35-foot RVs, instead of passenger cars like they used to. "BUT WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PARK OUR RV?" I don't know, try the Indian casino down the road. They love you guys.

cman: This whole situation is disheartening.

What is the right thing to do in this situation?

We can go the Georgist route.

In case the link is confusing, "... people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all." (Land in the economic sense of natural resources of inherently fixed supply.). People can use whatever natural resources they wish, they just have to return to the community the fair value of it (via a land value tax).

So everyone -- whether they are descendants of Europeans, Africans, Native Americans, Asians, or whatever -- pays their taxes to their community, and lives wherever they want (subject of course to the rules of the community, whether that be city, state, or country). People don't get special rights just because the 20-times-great grandfather lived there, or because their 10-times-great grandfather shot the natives living there.

Kill Whitey

So give it back to them, what's the big deal? Just make them sign a treaty that they'll allow tourists to still visit mount Rushmore (they could probably earn a buck doing so).

And pay them compensation for stealing their land of course including the value of natural resources removed from there, like the gold.

Also fark knee jerk republicans that hate and don't understand the UN. Your own Supreme court ruled in 1980 that you stole that land, thus violating a treaty.

A stupid article, and, in response, many stupid comments.

Oh, and nothing will ever come of this.

Here's the thing about Israel, too. There was an Israel. Once. But, it was a very long time ago. And, even then, as things go, Israel didn't last all that long. Two, three hundreds, or, thereabouts.

Now, imagine that an influential world governing body some 3000 years into the future, was to simply up and make the declaration that not only the inhabitants of the America's, but, also, those of Australia, Africa, and many other places, too, had to just simply move over and return to earlier inhabitants, land that the Yanks, the Aussies, and many others, had been living on for 3,000 years. Or, more. Well, this is exactly what took place in Palestine, post WWII. How long into the future is that nifty little move going to play out for us all?

And, to think, just very coincidentally, I listening to this little ditty last night.

A_Glass_Of_Pink: the right thing to do is to give them the land back or to financially compensate them for it. Alaska did that and created native corporations to manage the funds to benefit the native people forever.

It was the honest and decent thing to do. Stolen property is stolen

This.

I came to the thread not expecting an intelligent comment.

Leaving surprised.

germtheorycalendar.com/GridWithNotes.aspx

I recall saying in a previous UN thread that the reason no one respects them at the same time while fearing them gaining power is because of stuff like this.
They love solving the wrong problems.

All the starving people in the world, all the injustice, all wars and hate... And they take the time to look at a currently functional country and want to dictate changes there.

...while asking it for more money.

jso2897: asscorethethird: In reality the "Americans" have violated every single treaty with the native people. Our goal has been to destroy and marginalize every part of their being.

They deserve Mt. Rushmore, and a whole lot more. If we had a fair legal system that actually obeyed laws and treaty's we've entered into we would have to give a whole lot of the USA back to its rightful owners.

Theoretically, yes - but it will never happen, and would accomplish nothing if it did - the Native Americans are effectively extinct as peoples. Their nations are shattered, their cultures reduced to tourist attractions, their people interbred beyond genetic recognition.. There IS no way they can be made whole - as a nation, in regard to this matter, we have come to a place from which there IS no morally satisfactory path open to us.
This cannot be made right.
So the question is, where DO we go from here?

Seems that trying to fix everything going back to trying to resolve the "who screwed over who" down through history, is akin to unscrambling an egg,

Perhaps we need to develop one of these to erase all those nasty memories that keep people at each others throats (which politicians love to exploit!)

(mostly) Our tax dollars at work

mjg: LavenderWolf: mjg: liam76: Can someone explain why Indians should get special 'indigenious' people protection in the eyes of the UN but people from Tibet, Irish, etc don't.

I'm on it. Here you go!

Not only are you a stupid for missing the point of the question, you're an asshole for the way you did it.


Um, what is the point being made? Legit question. Sounds like liam76 wanted some background info.
/clarify

What, are you farking kidding? "Let me google that for you" seems like a serious response to you for a request of information?

In any case, the point was clearly: If all men are equal, giving these men something because their ancestors were wronged is, itself, stupidly wrong. Everyone's ancestors have been wronged. You don't get special treatment because of it.

cman: Weaver95: cman: This whole situation is disheartening.

What is the right thing to do in this situation?

well...we could stop screwing over the native american indian tribes.

Should the sins of the father be placed upon the son?

I know, its not so simple. There is just no way for anyone to win this.

You know, people are always so judgmental towards Germans for the holocaust, but we have our own shameful mass murder of a whole society. The only difference is that the Germans have acknowledged their sins and at least make attempts at atonement, and we let then have casinos and think everything is great. Maybe giving back those lands would finally serve to remind us that we were just as vile as the Germans, if not more. Just happens that it was longer so, so people have forgotten more.

/not German, BTW.

I hate Indians with a passion. They're all a bunch of good for nothing drunks that get shiat loads of money.

mjg: liam76: Can someone explain why Indians should get special 'indigenious' people protection in the eyes of the UN but people from Tibet, Irish, etc don't.

I'm on it. Here you go!

I am sorry, do you need help with reading comprehension. I didn't say I don't know what "indigenous people" means.

I am curious why UN uses, what appears to me, an arbitrary definition to label people "'indigenous" and then single them out for special protection.


DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: I think there's precedent for 'special treatment' because of past wrongs. Such as, evidence of existing specific harm done to people by past actions on the part of another group of people who are (sometimes) reaping the benefits of those actions. IE, taking advantage.

Tibet, Ireland, etc would disagree.

LavenderWolf: In any case, the point was clearly: If all men are equal, giving these men something because their ancestors were wronged is, itself, stupidly wrong. Everyone's ancestors have been wronged. You don't get special treatment because of it.


Bingo. All people are created equal. But does each person have equal access to opportunity? Clearly no. And that is the case with indigenous peoples and other discriminated peoples.

Anyhow, I hope you read the article I linked to originally. Knowledge is Power, brotha.

The difference in most of these arguments is the treaties involved.
Ok, the US took the land, but also promised some other things for it that they haven't delivered on. Most courts (including supreme court) agree the treaties were violated, but it's still OK to keep screwing the plaintiff?

There were no treaties in China or Africa or most of the other stupid arguments on past wrongs in this thread. In this case binding agreements are still being violated willfully. I don't expect that to change, but it is a difference.

Rapporteur? Seriously, it couldn't be special investigator? Or maybe Delegate? No I take it back, I guess it just applies to people investigating human rights issues. A bit weird, from a US perspective to split that sort of thing off as a special branch of investigation.

GUATAPOPO: I hate Indians with a passion. They're all a bunch of good for nothing drunks that get shiat loads of money.

Thank you, please don't come again.

White people have turned the state of South Dakota into an utter shiathole. Stupid carved mountain included. Give it to them, we don't need its shiatty gold or tourist traps. Maybe they can make it less toxic once again.

mjg: LavenderWolf: In any case, the point was clearly: If all men are equal, giving these men something because their ancestors were wronged is, itself, stupidly wrong. Everyone's ancestors have been wronged. You don't get special treatment because of it.


Bingo. All people are created equal. But does each person have equal access to opportunity? Clearly no. And that is the case with indigenous peoples and other discriminated peoples.

Anyhow, I hope you read the article I linked to originally. Knowledge is Power, brotha.

The original article? You mean a comedy skit?

As for your point about them being disadvantaged, giving them mount Rushmore (land they took from other tribes) doesn't fix that.

meh.
If they can show that they have the ORIGINAL title, one that was not robo-signed, then they can have the land back.

liam76: I am curious why UN uses, what appears to me, an arbitrary definition to label people "'indigenous" and then single them out for special protection.

Clearly you did not RTFA I passed along. It contains more than a definition.

To clarify, the UN AND its Member States, including the United States, use the term Indigenous Peoples as the lingua franca for said peoples. Seriously, read the article and laws/treaties etc involved. No UN conspiracy, but fact based on US, Canada, European etc. domestic law. No big surprises, just facts.

/themoreyouknow.jpeg

Screw the UN.....

...that is all......

Terrible Old Man: Wow, the racism is strong in this thread.

Mount Rushmore was a holy place long before the white man ever showed up, a sacred place used for ceremony and revered by the tribes living around it.


meh.
separation of church and state.
get over it.

You know, there's a simple solution to this problem. You back out of the treaty. Then, TADA! You aren't violating it anymore.

America is what it is. If you don't like the industrialized nation life style feel free to go have some subsistence life style on the reservation. Many peoples and nations suffered/lost land when folks with an industrial base showed up on their doorstep, accept it and move forward.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: LavenderWolf: In any case, the point was clearly: If all men are equal, giving these men something because their ancestors were wronged is, itself, stupidly wrong. Everyone's ancestors have been wronged. You don't get special treatment because of it.

I think there's precedent for 'special treatment' because of past wrongs. Such as, evidence of existing specific harm done to people by past actions on the part of another group of people who are (sometimes) reaping the benefits of those actions. IE, taking advantage.

If the Sioux can show there was specific harm done to their tribe because of a loss of 'sacred land', then they can make that argument. I don't know as if it can be a financial argument, since the point is that the land is sacred, so sacred land != gold, silver, greenbacks, or casino.

I really couldn't care less about their religion anyways.

/I also wonder when we're going to reclaim cemeteries built on useful land.

mjg: liam76: I am curious why UN uses, what appears to me, an arbitrary definition to label people "'indigenous" and then single them out for special protection.

Clearly you did not RTFA I passed along. It contains more than a definition.


The link you passed along to me wasn't an article, it was a google search.

The first link in that search had the following, "Indigenous peoples are ethnic groups that are defined as "indigenous" according to one of the various definitions of the term, though there is no universally accepted definition"



mjg: To clarify, the UN AND its Member States, including the United States, use the term Indigenous Peoples as the lingua franca for said peoples. Seriously, read the article and laws/treaties etc involved. No UN conspiracy, but fact based on US, Canada, European etc. domestic law. No big surprises, just facts.

For said "arbitrary" grouping of people.

And I didn't say it was a "conspiracy", I am saying it arbitrary. I am saying it is stupid to say US must give land to Sioux, even though they took it from the Crow.

ha-ha-guy: America is what it is. If you don't like the industrialized nation life style feel free to go have some subsistence life style on the reservation. Many peoples and nations suffered/lost land when folks with an industrial base showed up on their doorstep, accept it and move forward.

you obviously don't understand how liberals think

ftfa: "I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel"


it is about feelings and feeling hurt all based on some stories he heard.

don't throw logic or facts into this, it just gets them made.

The treaty was rendered null at the battle of Wounded Knee. All protections to all parties are off the table due to the activities of that period.

I guess back in 1868 when the US "gave" that land to the Sioux the Sioux should have have written "no take backs" in to the treaty so the US wouldn't have taken it back when gold was found in dem der hills

/Native Americans, the forgotten genocide.

Paelian: Amper: Sounds like the UN is trying to get an easy fluff on their Prestige with a forced revocation, and needs to manufacture a Casus Belli to avoid the stability/infamy hit.

// obscure?

Obscure? Hardly. But would you prefer something along these lines?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x350]

Or something a bit closer to this?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 256x360]

I'm partial towards Pride of Nations.

LavenderWolf:
/I also wonder when we're going to reclaim cemeteries built on useful land.

Hah! This is a really good point.

Buffy: Will, you know how bad I feel about this. Okay? It's eating me up-
[to Anya]
Buffy: A quarter cup of brandy and let it simmer.
[to Willow]
Buffy: But even though it's hard, we have to end this. Yes, he's been wronged, and I personally would be ready to apologize, but I...
Spike: Oh, someone put a stake in me.
Xander: You got a lot of volunteers in here.
Spike: I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians.
Willow: Uh, the preferred term is...
Spike: You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not goin' around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story.
Buffy: Well, I think the Spaniards actually did a lot of - Not that I don't like Spaniards.
Spike: Listen to you. How you gonna fight anyone with that attitude?
Willow: We don't wanna fight anyone.
Buffy: I just wanna have Thanksgiving.
Spike: Heh heh. Yeah... Good luck.
Willow: Well, if we could talk to him...
Spike: You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say that would make him feel better? It's kill or be killed here. Take your bloody pick.
Xander: Maybe it's the syphilis talking, but, some of that made sense.


/With emphasis.
//You read that in his voice.
///He's right, too.