NationStates

Torsiedellious and Sturmovosk wrote:I support this. I believe that the Native Americans, or, at least the Sioux, who are dwindling in numbers, deserve their own homeland.

Geilinor wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Oh? And what piece of our sovereign territory shall we be giving up then?
Just so we know which American citizens are going to lose their homes and be forced to relocate.

Giving them their own state doesn't have to mean that non-natives will be oppressed. There can certainly be a system of dual citizenship. Also, I'm proposing that non-Native Americans in the area will also be allowed to vote on the subject of independence.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Torsiedellious and Sturmovosk wrote:I support this. I believe that the Native Americans, or, at least the Sioux, who are dwindling in numbers, deserve their own homeland.

Because fuck those Blackfoot bastards, right?
This isn't really something one can make a compromise on one or two Indian nations with. It's kind of all or nothing.

Geilinor wrote:Giving them their own state doesn't have to mean that non-natives will be oppressed. There can certainly be a system of dual citizenship. Also, I'm proposing that non-Native Americans in the area will also be allowed to vote on the subject of independence.

Waiiitt a minute, this is sounding more tempting to me all of a sudden.

Shirah Mataniya wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Right, and some Native Americans aren't really natives, because Kennewick man, being genetically South-Asian, was here first.

Do you see the stupidity in this logic of associating a certain racial/ethnic group with land?

So you condone the actions of the U.S. Government and you support what atrocities they have committed towards the natives?
Ultimately you support genocide?

Shirah Mataniya wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Right, and some Native Americans aren't really natives, because Kennewick man, being genetically South-Asian, was here first.

Do you see the stupidity in this logic of associating a certain racial/ethnic group with land?

So you condone the actions of the U.S. Government and you support what atrocities they have committed towards the natives?
Ultimately you support genocide?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Let them have their own State. A state OF the United States.

Texas

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Texas

I'll bite, why Texas?

Shirah Mataniya wrote:I came across an interesting page on Wikipedia earlier today called "Republic of Lakotah" after reading about the American Indian Movement (AIM).
Basically the Republic of Lakotah is a proposed homeland in North America for the Lakota.
The Lakota native Americans, the tribe where Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are from, have withdrawn from the 150 year old treaties between them and the United States.

I personally think the Americans should allow the Native Americans the right to reassert their sovereignty over the reservations they currently reside on and sacred tribal sites, after all the United States has promised the Native Americans the right of self determination in 1918.
The U.S. Government as the representatives of a leading respected Democratic nation should allow the Native Americans this right.
In fact they should feel obliged to do so, considering the past the colonists and the natives shared.
In accordance with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the U.S. Government promised the peoples of the five tribes (Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw) that they would never be bothered by them ever again as long they moved from their beloved homelands and moved to the west of the Mississippi, this arduous journey that killed an abundance of natives became known as trail of tears.
Of course, the colonists did not stand by their hollow promise and they continued to push ever westwards and steal lands off the natives until there was very little land left. Time and time again the American Government found an excuse and plausible way to steal more and more land, even as recently as the 1940's and onwards when the Board of Indian Affair's started the Indian Relocation Program when they transferred Native Americans living in rural and remote areas to big cities such as San Francisco and New York. Wilma Mankiller and her Cherokee family were living evidence of this scandal, before they were relocated to San Francisco in 1956, they lived in their ancestral home known to them as "Mankiller Flats" which was situated in the Adair County of Oklahoma.

A group of Native Americans called the Lakota Freedom Delegation traveled to Washington, D.C., on 17 December 2007 and delivered a statement asserting the independence of the Lakota from the United States. The group argues that the recent declaration of independence is not a secession from the USA, but rather a reassertion of sovereignty. Their leader was Russell Means, one of the prominent members of the American Indian Movement in the late 1960s and 1970's.

Its boundaries would be surrounded by the borders of the United States, covering thousands of square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. The proposed borders are those of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the United States government and the Lakota.
A group of Native Americans called the Lakota Freedom Delegation traveled to Washington, D.C., on 17 December 2007 and delivered a statement asserting the independence of the Lakota from the United States. The group argues that the recent declaration of independence is not a secession from the USA, but rather a reassertion of sovereignty. Their leader was Russell Means, one of the prominent members of the American Indian Movement in the late 1960's
and 1970's.

(Image)

Proposed location of the Republic of Lakotah

Gary Garrison of the BIA said that the group's withdrawal "doesn't mean anything." "These are not legitimate tribal governments elected by the people ... when they begin the process of violating other people's rights, breaking the law, they're going to end up like all the other groups that have declared themselves independent — usually getting arrested and being put in jail."

Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah

So this leads me to the question, do you think Native American tribes should be given the right to declare their reservations independent?

Vazdania wrote:

Shirah Mataniya wrote:I came across an interesting page on Wikipedia earlier today called "Republic of Lakotah" after reading about the American Indian Movement (AIM).
Basically the Republic of Lakotah is a proposed homeland in North America for the Lakota.
The Lakota native Americans, the tribe where Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are from, have withdrawn from the 150 year old treaties between them and the United States.

I personally think the Americans should allow the Native Americans the right to reassert their sovereignty over the reservations they currently reside on and sacred tribal sites, after all the United States has promised the Native Americans the right of self determination in 1918.
The U.S. Government as the representatives of a leading respected Democratic nation should allow the Native Americans this right.
In fact they should feel obliged to do so, considering the past the colonists and the natives shared.
In accordance with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the U.S. Government promised the peoples of the five tribes (Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw) that they would never be bothered by them ever again as long they moved from their beloved homelands and moved to the west of the Mississippi, this arduous journey that killed an abundance of natives became known as trail of tears.
Of course, the colonists did not stand by their hollow promise and they continued to push ever westwards and steal lands off the natives until there was very little land left. Time and time again the American Government found an excuse and plausible way to steal more and more land, even as recently as the 1940's and onwards when the Board of Indian Affair's started the Indian Relocation Program when they transferred Native Americans living in rural and remote areas to big cities such as San Francisco and New York. Wilma Mankiller and her Cherokee family were living evidence of this scandal, before they were relocated to San Francisco in 1956, they lived in their ancestral home known to them as "Mankiller Flats" which was situated in the Adair County of Oklahoma.

A group of Native Americans called the Lakota Freedom Delegation traveled to Washington, D.C., on 17 December 2007 and delivered a statement asserting the independence of the Lakota from the United States. The group argues that the recent declaration of independence is not a secession from the USA, but rather a reassertion of sovereignty. Their leader was Russell Means, one of the prominent members of the American Indian Movement in the late 1960s and 1970's.

Its boundaries would be surrounded by the borders of the United States, covering thousands of square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. The proposed borders are those of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the United States government and the Lakota.
A group of Native Americans called the Lakota Freedom Delegation traveled to Washington, D.C., on 17 December 2007 and delivered a statement asserting the independence of the Lakota from the United States. The group argues that the recent declaration of independence is not a secession from the USA, but rather a reassertion of sovereignty. Their leader was Russell Means, one of the prominent members of the American Indian Movement in the late 1960's
and 1970's.

(Image)

Proposed location of the Republic of Lakotah

Gary Garrison of the BIA said that the group's withdrawal "doesn't mean anything." "These are not legitimate tribal governments elected by the people ... when they begin the process of violating other people's rights, breaking the law, they're going to end up like all the other groups that have declared themselves independent — usually getting arrested and being put in jail."

Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah

So this leads me to the question, do you think Native American tribes should be given the right to declare their reservations independent?

No, they shouldn't be given an independent state, next each race will want an independent state.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Vazdania wrote:No, they shouldn't be given an independent state, next each race will want an independent state.

We Irish are a simple people. We demand only Boston and every beer-brewing facility and bar in the Continental United States.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Shirah Mataniya wrote:
So you condone the actions of the U.S. Government and you support what atrocities they have committed towards the natives?
Ultimately you support genocide?

Wow, that's exactly what I said.

No, what I support is understanding that land and race having nothing to do with each other, and that by displacing tens of millions to create some "fantasy island," you would be harming even more innocent people.

We treated the natives like shit. When we took their land, when we gave them land and when we took that too. But again, you'd be causing more harm to more innocents by doing what you are proposing.

Genivaria wrote:

Shirah Mataniya wrote:That is irrelevant in my opinion and has nothing to do with Native Americans. The Native Americans had their native lands taken from them, hence why they are called Native Americans - Africans and Asians are not native to the United States theerfore it would be quite ridiculous for them to declare an independent nation with the United States. Besides those of African descent dominate many nations in the Caribbean.

They did? Last I heard they didn't recognize property back then.

Personal ethics and spiritual values were important, as they are in any society, but those ethics and values worked along with private and communal property rights, which strictly defined who could use resources and rewarded good stewardship.

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights.

For example, families among the Mahican Indians in the Northeast possessed hereditary rights to use well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers.

Customary rights governed hunting, trapping, and fishing. These rights were often expressed in terms of religion and spirituality rather than of science as we understand it today, writes Peter Usher. Nonetheless, the rules conserved the resource base and harmony within the band.[

The successful hunter was entitled to keep the skin and some choice portion of the meat for his family, writes one historian

As with hunting, Native Americans often specified fishing territories. In the Pacific Northwest, Indians had well-defined salmon fishing rights.

Personal items were nearly always privately owned. Clothes, weapons, utensils, and housing were often owned by women, for whom they provided a way to accumulate personal wealth

Genivaria wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:We Irish are a simple people. We demand only Boston and every beer-brewing facility and bar in the Continental United States.

I think the Germans will fight you for them.

Vazdania wrote:

Shirah Mataniya wrote:I came across an interesting page on Wikipedia earlier today called "Republic of Lakotah" after reading about the American Indian Movement (AIM).
Basically the Republic of Lakotah is a proposed homeland in North America for the Lakota.
The Lakota native Americans, the tribe where Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are from, have withdrawn from the 150 year old treaties between them and the United States.

I personally think the Americans should allow the Native Americans the right to reassert their sovereignty over the reservations they currently reside on and sacred tribal sites, after all the United States has promised the Native Americans the right of self determination in 1918.
The U.S. Government as the representatives of a leading respected Democratic nation should allow the Native Americans this right.
In fact they should feel obliged to do so, considering the past the colonists and the natives shared.
In accordance with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the U.S. Government promised the peoples of the five tribes (Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw) that they would never be bothered by them ever again as long they moved from their beloved homelands and moved to the west of the Mississippi, this arduous journey that killed an abundance of natives became known as trail of tears.
Of course, the colonists did not stand by their hollow promise and they continued to push ever westwards and steal lands off the natives until there was very little land left. Time and time again the American Government found an excuse and plausible way to steal more and more land, even as recently as the 1940's and onwards when the Board of Indian Affair's started the Indian Relocation Program when they transferred Native Americans living in rural and remote areas to big cities such as San Francisco and New York. Wilma Mankiller and her Cherokee family were living evidence of this scandal, before they were relocated to San Francisco in 1956, they lived in their ancestral home known to them as "Mankiller Flats" which was situated in the Adair County of Oklahoma.

A group of Native Americans called the Lakota Freedom Delegation traveled to Washington, D.C., on 17 December 2007 and delivered a statement asserting the independence of the Lakota from the United States. The group argues that the recent declaration of independence is not a secession from the USA, but rather a reassertion of sovereignty. Their leader was Russell Means, one of the prominent members of the American Indian Movement in the late 1960s and 1970's.

Its boundaries would be surrounded by the borders of the United States, covering thousands of square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. The proposed borders are those of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the United States government and the Lakota.
A group of Native Americans called the Lakota Freedom Delegation traveled to Washington, D.C., on 17 December 2007 and delivered a statement asserting the independence of the Lakota from the United States. The group argues that the recent declaration of independence is not a secession from the USA, but rather a reassertion of sovereignty. Their leader was Russell Means, one of the prominent members of the American Indian Movement in the late 1960's
and 1970's.

(Image)

Proposed location of the Republic of Lakotah

Gary Garrison of the BIA said that the group's withdrawal "doesn't mean anything." "These are not legitimate tribal governments elected by the people ... when they begin the process of violating other people's rights, breaking the law, they're going to end up like all the other groups that have declared themselves independent — usually getting arrested and being put in jail."

Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah

So this leads me to the question, do you think Native American tribes should be given the right to declare their reservations independent?

No, they shouldn't be given an independent state, next each race will want an independent state.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Vazdania wrote:No, they shouldn't be given an independent state, next each race will want an independent state.

We Irish are a simple people. We demand only Boston and every beer-brewing facility and bar in the Continental United States.

Geilinor wrote:

Genivaria wrote:They did? Last I heard they didn't recognize property back then.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans#axzz2b8a8otFs
Many want you to think that the Native Americans didn't have property, but that would be a misconception. Every tribe approached property in different ways.

Personal ethics and spiritual values were important, as they are in any society, but those ethics and values worked along with private and communal property rights, which strictly defined who could use resources and rewarded good stewardship.

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights.

Basically, in many tribes, those who could use land responsibly and sustainably got rights over the land. Some other tribes only had communal ownership, while other tribes were different.

For example, families among the Mahican Indians in the Northeast possessed hereditary rights to use well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers.

The Mahican tribe had hereditary rights for the most valuable land.

Customary rights governed hunting, trapping, and fishing. These rights were often expressed in terms of religion and spirituality rather than of science as we understand it today, writes Peter Usher. Nonetheless, the rules conserved the resource base and harmony within the band.[

Customary rights often governed food sources.

The successful hunter was entitled to keep the skin and some choice portion of the meat for his family, writes one historian

Among Plains Indians, successful hunters had first right over caught food.

As with hunting, Native Americans often specified fishing territories. In the Pacific Northwest, Indians had well-defined salmon fishing rights.

Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest had strong fishing rights.

Personal items were nearly always privately owned. Clothes, weapons, utensils, and housing were often owned by women, for whom they provided a way to accumulate personal wealth

Personal property was important, with personal items and wealth being recognized.
Tribes were essentially socialist societies, but with some private control of land.

Vazdania wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:We Irish are a simple people. We demand only Boston and every beer-brewing facility and bar in the Continental United States.

Fine then, we Italians will take ALL of our Italian Reasturants back!!! and the Wine!!!

NO PIZZA FOR YOU!

The Grey Wolf wrote:Yes, if they so wish.

Genivaria wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Fine then, we Italians will take ALL of our Italian Reasturants back!!! and the Wine!!!

NO PIZZA FOR YOU!

Give me PASTA or give me DEATH! *draws pistol*

Vazdania wrote:

The Grey Wolf wrote:Yes, if they so wish.

Oh so you'll give whites and blacks their own independent state?

Genivaria wrote:

Vazdania wrote:Oh so you'll give whites and blacks their own independent state?

Vaz stop saying things that make sense, it's highly unlike you.
On second thought I retract that seeing as how it's just being an ass, apologies.

Vazdania wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:We Irish are a simple people. We demand only Boston and every beer-brewing facility and bar in the Continental United States.

Fine then, we Italians will take ALL of our Italian Reasturants back!!! and the Wine!!!

NO PIZZA FOR YOU!