I admire all the thought going into this little debate here...which has strayed from the original topic btw. But, before I get onto my teeny little soapbox, my dad's mom was 1/2 blood. Making him 1/4 and making me a heinz 57. Whoopee. Now that's established, shall we move forward?

First off...a lot..not all... tribes were VERY territorial. For not "owning" land, they sure held onto what they "claimed as theirs" and killed members of other tribes, just for "trespassing". SOME, tribes , were great owners of SLAVES and were proud of taking slaves. Some slaves may have even been liked well enough to be taken into the tribe, but for the most part, they were treated lower than the dogs around the camp.

As for stewardship of the land. Huh? If you look at any history of tribal cultures and locations of old dewlling sites, how many specified "latrine" areas were there? How many places to take the "garbage" out and dispose of it sanitarily? NONE. It's said the tribes moved periodically. Yep...true. They HAD to move several times a year to keep from being completely infested with fleas and other insects that bred and grew in their own waste piles. Yep, it's true that they did some burning. They burned the area they last lived in, to destroy the pests and vermin so that in a certain amount of time, they could safely return to that area and use it again. I guess that's one form of "stewardship".

Now, being a teeny bit native american, myself... ( actually I'm 100% native American... I was born and raised here for all of my life... I'm as native to America as almost every living Indian, today.)..... I find that putting the tribes up on a pedestal and trying to believe they were the kindest, gentlest, most intelligent culture...or whatever..is all fine and good...but there's a lot being said from folks here, who I truly don't think know as much about tribal life as they would have us believe.

I live between two reservations. Been around many tribal members all my life. I know some mighty good folks and I know some that are just like a lot of white folks... worthless as can be.

Now... back to TOPIC... the Lakota wanting to go completely sovereign. Personally...I don't think it's going to fly. Too many reasons to even think about listing, without being flamed, myself.

I also agree strongly with MB's post. There isn't a one of us alive today, Indian or White IMHO, that had anything to do with any treaty or breach OF it. It's kinda like saying "Gee, I had relatives in Ireland who were mistreated by those savage Englishmen. I guess we better go take back what was once ours." Hmmm. Right.

Bottom line is... all of mankind was pretty ignorant "back in the days". But..they all thought they were right up there education-wise. Gee.. similar to today's societies. We know it all!!!

There were a lot of mistakes made in ALL of mankind's growth. There were conquerers, conquered. There were slaves and slavers...not just in America..all over...and nearly all races. There will be more mistakes made as the human race exists and "grows"...using that term very loosely.

And... another matter which nobody thinks about. If you study ANY history at all, you'd know that the spaniards did everything they could to befriend the tribes...and then kill them off. From the books I've read, I think the tribes ought to be greatful that the white man that DID conquer them won over the Spanish. You think we were cruel? No way could we compare to the Spanish Conquistadors. And look what they did to Mexico and the Aztecs. Would we have done the same? Maybe so..but I hardly think as well as the Spanish did...and would have to all of the North American continent, if given the chance.

OK... off me soap box and awaiting the flames, namecalling, slander and other stuff that emotional topics like this, bring upon one's head, if he dare step out of "lockstep" with the worshippers of the Great Indian Nations. Blah.

 

Sure about all that?

 

I'd like to back up here just a little. I have been doing some generalizing and I know that. There are a lot of tribes and no two were the same, but there are some things that they had in common. One of the things that they have in common is that the US Govt did not live up to the treaties that they signed.

Also, I have encountered many Indians, most of whom were very quick to pre-judge me on the basis of race. Many were downright hostile and surly toward me and it was never provoked by me. I go into their stores and they will avoid speaking or even smiling more often than not. On an individual basis, they have given me little reason to be sympathetic. I do remain an Indian advocate in spite of all that because I know how badly they have been treated and discriminated against. I also know that the Indians who live in the traditional way are difficult for any white person to encounter at all. Most of the Indians I know still take part in traditional rites and ceremonies but are also somewhat integrated into white society and hold jobs. They are generally nice and considerate people. So I do recognize that I can't even pretend to speak for the Indians. But I have no qualms about speaking up about specific things that I do know about.

 

Liberal?

Who's a liberal?

How many firearms collectors and NRA Life Members do you know who are liberals?

I don't know of one, and I've been a NRA L/M since 1961.

Just because you don't agree with something someone sez, don't lump them all together in the same box.
That's a good example of liberalism.

 

Here's a shining example.

Did'ja ever hear of the Marshall Plan?

Named after former US Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, who as Secretary of State during 1947/49, formulated the plan to rebuild Europe, specifically Germany. It was also implemented in Japan.
------------------------------------------
btw: You answered your own question when you made reference to the rebuilding of Japan. Who paid for it? We did, for the most part.


The term "Native Americans" was never embraced by the native tribes, and has been dropped from usage by most scholars.
-------------------------------------------
CMPD: Yes, I am absolutely sure of what I typed.

Columbus was as lost as lost can be, and the "indians" came over the land bridge thousands of years ago.

Do you honestly believe the way the natives were treated in this country was fair? Their land was stolen, they were chucked into reservations, and left in some cases to starve, fed by the meager rations doled out by indian agents.
--------------------------------------------
There's also growing evidence that Egyptians sailed across the Atlantic to present day South America.

Thor Heyerdahl was one of the first writers/explorers to come up with this theory in several of his books (Kon-Tiki & Aku Aku ~ par example) which has gained momentum in recent years.

Tobacco and peanuts are indiginous only to the Americas.

Both were grown in Egypt hundreds of years before Columbus "discovered" America.
----------------------------------------------
Greywolf: It's counting coup (pronounced coo), not coupe...which is a French word for an enclosed carriage.

Coupe = coo-pay. Coops are for chickens.
-------------------------------------------------
Anasazi = traditional translation: Elders, ancients, "those that have gone before."

Modern day relatives are known today as the T'Hono O'Odum.

 

Dang editing time limit expired...
Indian agents were in charge of reservations and were paid a stipend per person. When the Cheyenne and Sioux began leaving their reservations in great numbers during 1874-1876, the lying, thieving agents only reported 10% of the figures that actually left.

The first to discover this was General George C. Crook at the Battle of Rosebud Creek, which occured days before the Custer Massacre.

Crook was the southern portion of a pincer movement designed to round up (actually kill) the indians. Custer's 7th Cavalry rode in from Fort Lincoln in the northeast and General Nelson Miles' infantry marched from Fort C. F. Smith in the northwest.

When Crooks force was decimated at Rosebud Creek by the Northern Cheyenne (who then linked up with the Sioux camped along the Little Big Horn River), instead of warning Custer what he was up against, Crook went fishing!

The Custer massacre was bad, but just imagine what would have happened to General Miles' infantry soldiers if they had been attacked instead.

It was estimated at the time, that well over 1000 soldiers under Gen Miles' command would have died.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1889, there were exactly 24 buffalo left in the US where millions had lived only 40 years before.

Killing off the buffalo (American Bison) was part of the US Gov't's plan to move the tribes to reservations.

 

I think they got a raw deal but that does not mean we owe them. We do, however, have an obligation to actually honor our treaties (something we've generally not done) and stop the illegal policies of the BIA which continue to force outside ideals and religion on them.

 

I suggest you study the history of the Trail of Tears. A forced march which killed thousands is a mass execution, whether or not it was done with gas.

 

And this counters what I was saying how? My point is the US is the first country in history to do this and since the Marshall plan was implemented by the US that proves rather than disproves my point.

And what country in history has allowed sovereign nations to hold territory within it's borders and still survived? (this excludes things like embassies of coarse) Most of the "reservations" were actually outside the physical borders of the US at the time they were created, and when the US expanded and overtook them the world precedent at the time would have been those reservations would have been incorporated into the surrounding state or country so the fact that they still exist is somewhat an oddity to begin with.

 

You're going to need to toss that argument out the window....

-Italy and the Vatican.
-Italy and the Republic of San Marino.
-Isla Martin Garcia within Uruguayan territorial waters of of Rio de la Plata.
Germany and Jungholz.
-Bashkend inside of the country of Azerbaijan.
-5 Azerbaijani exclaves in Armenia.
-92 Bangladeshi exclaves in India.
-Baarle in the Netherlands.
-Cypriot villages of Ormidhia and Xylotimbou are each surrounded by territory that belongs to the British Sovereign Base Area of Dhekelia.
-German Büsingen in Switzerland.
-Munsterbildchen, Rötgener Wald, Rückschlag, Mützenich and Ruitzhof, all Belgian in German territory.
-106 Indian enclaves in the Bangladesh, including Upanchowki Bhajni which is an Indian enclave within a Bangladesh enclave within India!
-Italian town of Campione d'Italia in Switzerland.
-Kyrgyz surrounded by Uzbek territory.
-Chisamula Island and Likoma Island located within Mozambican's Lake Nyasa.
-Belgian Baarle in the Netherlands
-Madha in the United Arab Emirates.
-San'kovo-Medvezh'e in Belarus.
-Llivia in France.
-Saravaksoi surrounded by Uzbek.
-Vorukh surrounded by Kyrgyz.
-Kairagach surrounded by Kyrgyz.
-Nahwa, inside the Omani exclave of Madha in the United Arab Emirates. Nahwa, in other words, is an enclave within an enclave.
-4 Uzbek exclaves surrounded by Kyrgyz.
-Hong Kong before Great Britain gave it to China.

Here's an even more extensive listing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_and_exclaves

 

Was it done on a reservation/concentration camp?.......

 

Does it really matter?

 

Oh I'm sure you're sure what you typed.....Are you sure that this was the origin of the 'Indians'?.....the land bridge from Siberia?......Why chuck the argument that they sailed across the Pacific from points unknown like the Polynesians did to Hawaii and to other islands?......Is the 'land bridge' accepted fact of the origins?

Columbus may have been looking for India and had thought that he found India, but I refuse to jump on the bandwagon that shrugs off his accomplishment with a "he was lost" quip. I defy anyone here to jump on board one of them 80' or 90' caravals in 15th century Europe and sail into the unknown across the Atlantic.......Ever seen that ship (replica) close up?

I never said the 'Indians' were treated fair.....Despite Mr. Ken's book club suggestion a la Oprah Winfrey to read the Trail of Tears, I think that they were royally screwed. ESPECIALLY the Cherokee, who were loyal 'Americans' and considered the 'civilized' tribe at the time, and who were evicted to west of the Mississippi for no good reason other than that they were Indians living east of the Mississippi.

 

I read all 4 pages and couldn't help but laugh at some of the comments. I was driving through nothern Wyoming a few years ago along I94 I believe and got gas on a reservation.

After that I lost all respect for them. I kept getting bothered by pan handlers and a few were just plain drunk and this was at around 10AM. I don't recall seeing one at normal or average weight. It must be nice to sit around and do nothing all day and get subsidized for it.

So you want me to feel sorry for the Indians? No freaking way.

Flame on.

 

You said no conquerer ever helped the country it conquered.

The Marshall Plan proves otherwise.


The reservations were outside of the physical US borders?

Where?

The Dakotas became states in 1889. Before 1889, the two states comprised the Dakota Territory. Oklahoma became a state in 1907, prior to 1907, it was Indian Territory.

Excepting Alaska, which was purchased from Russia in 1867, every US territory was within the US borders prior to the Spanish-American War of 1898.