Should we treat the Native Americans like we do the Amish?

[Mensch]

I was just reading up on the high rate of poverty and crime on reservations today and all the history that goes with it.

There is no argument that the United States forcibly took land from the tribes, relocated them to areas which were unsuitable for agriculture (not to mention the Trail of Tears) and massacred them. The government has also signed treaties with tribes where the conditions were not met, and are still not met.

I couldn't help but think that maybe, instead of trying to manage the reservations, we should simply get rid of them. There is far too much bureaucratic oppression going on, either by outright theft and mis allocation of land and resources by the government, or by administrative failure and convoluted regulation.

I realize that the first argument against this proposal is a fear that such a plan would force the Indians to assimilate and would destroy any attempt to preserve their cultural heritage. In a cost-benefit analysis, I believe such a proposal is good for the betterment of tribal members. I don't believe we even need to recognize tribes beyond a symbolic level.

I'm just reminded of a quote by Frederick Douglass when he said:

"In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! ... your interference is doing him positive injury."

-"What the Black Man Wants" — speech in Boston, Massachusetts

Though I haven't thought it through, I imagine we could get rid of the reservation system and from there, we could initiate some sort of "40 acres and a mule" plan to give every tribal member a fresh start with real property rights that they deserve. From there, they can go wherever they want and do whatever they wish within the confines of the law.

I'm guessing there will still be the fear that I'm trying to forcibly assimilate these people into American society. I'm simply not, and that is what brought me to title the OP, "Should we treat the Native Americans like we do the Amish?" The Amish are not forced to assimilate into American culture (in the sense that we, as Americans, force them to renounce their culture and way of life for something else). The Amish retain and preserve their cultural heritage and way of life, at least for the most part. Some Amish decide to fully assimilate into the American mainstream culture and so do many Native Americans. That should be their rightful choice.

Ultimately, the goal is to empower the tribes and their people with greater freedom to own property, to prosper, and to grow without the stifling hand of a bureaucratic, oppressive wasteland.

 

[Mensch]

The whole system of the bureaucratic oppression- using the civil administration, or using the BIA agency, using the courts, using planning, using zoning, using the whole legal system in a very cynical way in order to achieve political goals. And the political goal is to limit Native Americans to little tiny islands within the United States so the federal government controls most of the territory. The bottom line is to create conditions so difficult that the Native Americans will leave the reservations.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I really dont know. I say we leave it up to them.... If they want to keep the reservations then they should have the right to keep them. If they dont well, you get the jest of things..

 

[Mensch]

I really dont know. I say we leave it up to them.... If they want to keep the reservations then they should have the right to keep them. If they dont well, you get the jest of things..

I think you need to elaborate a bit more. Reservations, despite what people may think, are managed and are really owned by the federal government. This is despite the symbolic "sovereignty" of the tribes in question. What you're really getting at is land ownership. If the individuals wish to stay in their place, they should be allowed to do so and we should issue them the deed to the land immediately. They can still maintain the land they're on and retain their cultural heritage without the reservation system. It is system that is ruining their lives.

 

[Cephus]

Sure, a hundred years ago, the U.S. government of the day screwed over the indians. Fine, we acknowledge it. That doesn't mean the indians have to live in squalor and ancient traditions have to rule them. There's nothing keeping them on the reservations except themselves. They could have joined the 21st century long ago, joined mainstream society and stopped pretending their ancient way of life had any validity.

Like the Amish, who choose to stay where they are, the indians do the same. So long as that's their choice, they should have to live with the consequences of their choice. If they don't like those consequences, they can change their choice. The only ones ruining their lives is themselves.

 

[Mensch]

Sure, a hundred years ago, the U.S. government of the day screwed over the indians. Fine, we acknowledge it. That doesn't mean the indians have to live in squalor and ancient traditions have to rule them. There's nothing keeping them on the reservations except themselves. They could have joined the 21st century long ago, joined mainstream society and stopped pretending their ancient way of life had any validity.

Like the Amish, who choose to stay where they are, the indians do the same. So long as that's their choice, they should have to live with the consequences of their choice. If they don't like those consequences, they can change their choice. The only ones ruining their lives is themselves.

The choice to leave the reservations has never been questioned. The question remains, should we keep with the antiquated and largely oppressive system of reservations that virtually turns every tribal member into a ward of the state?

 

[Geo Patric]

I couldn't help but think that maybe, instead of trying to manage the reservations, we should simply get rid of them. There is far too much bureaucratic oppression going on, either by outright theft and mis allocation of land and resources by the government, or by administrative failure and convoluted regulation.

I realize that the first argument against this proposal is a fear that such a plan would force the Indians to assimilate and would destroy any attempt to preserve their cultural heritage. In a cost-benefit analysis, I believe such a proposal is good for the betterment of tribal members. I don't believe we even need to recognize tribes beyond a symbolic level.

yeah... they lost, so **** em. make em good americans and maybe THEY will have the opportunity to destroy hundreds of individual cultures by slaughtering 9/10ths of a population and herding the remainder into hellholes.

Libertarians....

give the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska and Montana.

and California from Barstow north to San Jose.

geo.

 

[Mensch]

yeah... they lost, so **** em. make em good americans and maybe THEY will have the opportunity to destroy hundreds of individual cultures by slaughtering 9/10ths of a population and herding the remainder into hellholes.

Libertarians....

give the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska and Montana.

and California from Barstow north to San Jose.

geo.

You're usually full of thoughtful comments, Geo. Today, you've managed to take a **** upstairs. I will not engage in your hyperbole rhetoric because I don't want the mods to flush this important thread down the toilet.

Try again?

 

[Geo Patric]

You're usually full of thoughtful comments, Geo. Today, you've managed to take a **** upstairs. I will not engage in your hyperbole rhetoric because I don't want the mods to flush this important thread down the toilet.

Try again?

fine. maybe all those docile indians will listen to you and sheepishly disperse into the great american mainstream.

then again, maybe not.

geo.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I think you need to elaborate a bit more. Reservations, despite what people may think, are managed and are really owned by the federal government. This is despite the symbolic "sovereignty" of the tribes in question. What you're really getting at is land ownership. If the individuals wish to stay in their place, they should be allowed to do so and we should issue them the deed to the land immediately. They can still maintain the land they're on and retain their cultural heritage without the reservation system. It is system that is ruining their lives.

Well the tribes claim sovereignty. I agree that the tribes should maintain sovereignty 100%. Why should we not recognize the tribes?
Like what is your question here?
Im confused just as much as you are?
They wish to stay on the reservations they can stay if they want to leave they can leave...

 

[Cephus]

The choice to leave the reservations has never been questioned. The question remains, should we keep with the antiquated and largely oppressive system of reservations that virtually turns every tribal member into a ward of the state?

How are we "keeping" them at all? Lots of indian tribes have casinos now, their members make tons of money. They can walk off that reservation any time they want, they can get real educations, they can get real jobs, they can live real lives. How are we keeping them from doing any of that? How are we being oppressive? If anyone is oppressing them, it's themselves.

 

[justabubba]

appears the OP was born about 120 years too late

 

[Mensch]

fine. maybe all those docile indians will listen to you and sheepishly disperse into the great american mainstream.

then again, maybe not.

geo.

What happened to your beautiful insight? Honestly, I truly thought you were one of the best, most intelligent posters here. But unfortunately, you're destroying your credibility with hyperbole nonsense that doesn't even warrant a response.

Try again?

 

[justabubba]

What happened to your beautiful insight? Honestly, I truly thought you were one of the best, most intelligent posters here. But unfortunately, you're destroying your credibility with hyperbole nonsense that doesn't even warrant a response.

Try again?

appears he is the poster in this thread who is making the most sense

meanwhile - the OP - you, propose to deprive the Native Americans of those things agreed to by government treaty

there would be too much irony to use the term "indian giver"

 

[Mensch]

Well the tribes claim sovereignty. I agree that the tribes should maintain sovereignty 100%. Why should we not recognize the tribes?
Like what is your question here?
Im confused just as much as you are?
They wish to stay on the reservations they can stay if they want to leave they can leave...

If recognition means symbolic recognition, then I have absolutely no problem with it. But you can't be 100% sovereign and be a ward of the state. If the individual tribal member wishes to stay, then we must issue the individual land deed immediately.

 

[justabubba]

If recognition means symbolic recognition, then I have absolutely no problem with it. But you can't be 100% sovereign and be a ward of the state. If the individual tribal member wishes to stay, then we must issue the individual land deed immediately.

why can the tribe not continue to hold the deed to the property in the name of the entire tribe ... after all, it's the tribe's land to do with as it pleases

 

[Mensch]

How are we "keeping" them at all? Lots of indian tribes have casinos now, their members make tons of money. They can walk off that reservation any time they want, they can get real educations, they can get real jobs, they can live real lives. How are we keeping them from doing any of that? How are we being oppressive? If anyone is oppressing them, it's themselves.

Reservation poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reality, only a very few tribes operate large, profitable casinos and usually those tribes are very small.

See the Lumbee tribe of North Carolina as a prime example of what Native Americans can do without a reservation. The Lumbee do not have a casino. They do have a banking system (comprised of 12 banks) which they use extensively to help other tribal members establish a loan or guarantee a home. They also manage to retain their cultural heritage and to ensure some form of tribal government.

 

[Mensch]

appears the OP was born about 120 years too late

And what do you mean by that?

 

[Mensch]

appears he is the poster in this thread who is making the most sense

meanwhile - the OP - you, propose to deprive the Native Americans of those things agreed to by government treaty

there would be too much irony to use the term "indian giver"

How so? Did you not read the OP? We currently do not adhere fully to the conditions of any Indian treaty (and each of these treaties were made under duress). You seem to think the treaties are wonderful and we should stick to them, whereas I believe a more appropriate, beneficial, and moral decision would be to give each tribal member the opportunity to own their own land outright. I used the term "40 acres and a mule" because it is the closest term to describe giving Indians real property rights without all the attachments and positive injury associated with the reservation systems. As we now speak, reservation land is owned by both Indian and non-Indian people (I despise using the term Indian, but it's just another antiquated term our government has set to dictate the identity of a group of people).

So, I wish to give each adult Native American the rights to a deed of land, immediately whereas you wish to maintain the status quo of a failed reservation system and empty promises.

 

[whysoserious]

And what do you mean by that?

It's their land so it's their choice. We have no say in it. I suppose if they want to give it back, then we could talk. But unfortunately, you'd have to take the case to the tribes themselves since it is their land to do what they want with.

 

[Mensch]

why can the tribe not continue to hold the deed to the property in the name of the entire tribe ... after all, it's the tribe's land to do with as it pleases

Do a little research.

Indian reservation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenants-in-common is NOT the same as a land owner.

 

[Demon of Light]

I agree with the principle of what you are saying Elijah, though I would come at it from a different angle. To give an idea the Bureau of Indian Affairs had an overall budget of $2.4 billion in 2008 to deal with all services for tribal territories and the cost of maintaining the agency itself while the Detroit Public Schools system, now on the verge of bankruptcy, had a budget of $1.2 billion in 2007. What we have here is a classic case persistent to this day of a "Separate but Equal" doctrine with regards to the Native Americans. The fact these institutions are separate from those of the white population means there is a lower priority with regards to funding and improvement than it would be if the majority population had a stake in these institutions. Seeking to "preserve their way of life" just demonstrates why this philosophy of forced multi-culturalism should be rejected in any society. No side benefits from it at all, least of all the people whose culture is being "protected" by the State.

That said I recognize that there are problems with abolishing the reservation system. What I consider the primary issue is that our society and system of laws do not respect the same ideals as the tribal populations. No sense of collective ownership exists in American law. The closest thing we have is the co-operative and I think this model would be difficult to apply to the situation in a manner similar to tribal ownership. Absent a change in our own laws and political system I do not think we can reasonably accommodate the abolition of the reservation system without a serious negative impact on Native American society.

 

[Mensch]

It's their land so it's their choice. We have no say in it. I suppose if they want to give it back, then we could talk. But unfortunately, you'd have to take the case to the tribes themselves since it is their land to do what they want with.

See my previous post. A tenant-in-common has no real rights to the property. I'm looking at the individual level.

 

[Mensch]

I agree with the principle of what you are saying Elijah, though I would come at it from a different angle. To give an idea the Bureau of Indian Affairs had an overall budget of $2.4 billion in 2008 to deal with all services for tribal territories and the cost of maintaining the agency itself while the Detroit Public Schools system, now on the verge of bankruptcy, had a budget of $1.2 billion in 2007. What we have here is a classic case persistent to this day of a "Separate but Equal" doctrine with regards to the Native Americans. The fact these institutions are separate from those of the white population means there is a lower priority with regards to funding and improvement than it would be if the majority population had a stake in these institutions. Seeking to "preserve their way of life" just demonstrates why this philosophy of forced multi-culturalism should be rejected in any society. No side benefits from it at all, least of all the people whose culture is being "protected" by the State.

That said I recognize that there are problems with abolishing the reservation system. What I consider the primary issue is that our society and system of laws do not respect the same ideals as the tribal populations. No sense of collective ownership exists in American law. The closest thing we have is the co-operative and I think this model would be difficult to apply to the situation in a manner similar to tribal ownership. Absent a change in our own laws and political system I do not think we can reasonably accommodate the abolition of the reservation system without a serious negative impact on Native American society.

I believe it is the collective ownership of land that is the real problem. Without real property rights, the individual tribal member is unable to access adequate credit in his own name or leverage the value of his home or do anything without the "help" of a larger, less efficient government. When individuals are able to secure rights to a property, there's a real chance for them to build an identity, form a profitable specialization, and to establish a niche in the marketplace.

 

[Cephus]

Reservation poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reality, only a very few tribes operate large, profitable casinos and usually those tribes are very small.

See the Lumbee tribe of North Carolina as a prime example of what Native Americans can do without a reservation. The Lumbee do not have a casino. They do have a banking system (comprised of 12 banks) which they use extensively to help other tribal members establish a loan or guarantee a home. They also manage to retain their cultural heritage and to ensure some form of tribal government.

Which is entirely fine that they do that. Locally, pretty much every tribe has a casino and pretty much all the indians are driving a Mercedes, they're very successful. I realize that's not the case everywhere. However, in those cases where they are living in poverty on the reservation, nothing stops them from getting the hell off the reservation. If they choose to remain in poverty, I have little sympathy for them.