Obsolete Reservations???

[crazywolf]

Boozhoo niji,

I know this one is gonna start some fires, so be it. This have been bugging me for a couple of months and now I am bringing it out into the open for everyone to attack, flame, ridicule and possibly even get banned over.

I was at work a couple of days ago, on break and was talking to this guy. He was asking me why I decided to move from Florida to Minnesota and endure this crappy snowy weather when I could have all the sunshine I wanted. I said its not about weather, its about my culture. So we got off and started talking about culture, spirituality, language and finally, reservations. You know how in those conversations one thing leads to another right? Now I kinda respected this guy, he respected my need for being spiritual and getting close to my people. But then he one off's me with, "I think they should do away with the reservations. They started off as a holding pen at first, to convert the people to the new ways, but now they have, and the reservations have served their purpose." That was in a nutshell by the way. I wanted to save you all from his boring speech. Now I really, really wanted to enlighten him on the importance of "self determination" and "culture genocide", but all I got out was, "Well, to start off with, the reservations serve now as a gathering place, where we can still do our pow wows, dance, have sweat lodges, and live without prejudice."

He replied with, "Well that is what civic organizations and churches are for. I am just sick and tired of some native being able to come into town and do something, and then run back to the safety of the rez where the cops cannot touch him." I really wanted to continue the conversation with him, but his radio went off and he had to leave. Big fat sigh.

You know, when I moved up here I was prepared to meet with extreme prejudice. In fact, I really haven't seen a lot of it. Things are pretty quiet around here, and I live in the town that is closest to the south border of White Earth. But I do hear a lot of remarks like those. I know another guy that lives on the rez, has lived there his entire life, and he is white. He thinks it should go one of two ways. Either get rid of the reservations altogether, or close them up. The government comes in and buys out all of the land that white people own on the rez, and gives it back to the tribe, and then closes the borders. He says that if we want to be treated like a soveriegn nation, then thats exactly the way it should be. Cut off all funding and force the inhabitants to work and live on their own land. We would have to get passports to leave and green cards to live "off rez". My response to that was simple. We are already citizens of the United States. What are they gonna do? Uncitizenize us?

So after all of these remarks and everything, I had some time to think on it. Its easy when you are snow bound with no place to go. Are the reservations really important to us? Would we survive as a people if we did not have them? Would the traditions and language survive without them? Suppose for a moment that the government said, "OK, enough is enough, this is the United States and nowhere in the name does it say tribe or reservation. You guys are on your own." What would we do? What if the opposite were true, where they close the borders and actually make us independent nations with no outside funding? Could we survive on just the acerage provided? Would we be able to open trade negotiations with other countries? What exactly is the federal government's responsibility to us? Are they supposed to be like our parents for the rest of eternity?

I feel that we, as a people, would survive no matter what. I honestly believe that. We have endured much through thousands of years, and there are thousands yet to come. I know that many of the larger nations have the strength to negotiate with other countries and perhaps eventually enter the global economy. But I do not think that there are enough people to back up what our leaders are saying. Such is the fault of democracy. We vote in a leader and only the majority follows, not everyone. And in those ways sometimes a lot of talk is done, but a lot does not get done.

Now I leave it to everyone else to mull over. So what would you say or how would you react to a remark like that. I have to bite my tongue a lot because I have to keep my job. Now if I didn't have that job, I would probably speak my mind.

The reservations must stay, the federal government does owe us from now until eternity. We should be the only people allowed to own land on our reservations.

Derek

[iyeska's mother]

"the federal gov't owes us from now to eternity" "we should be the only ones allowed to own property on the rez".

I'm going to play devils advocate here. Please tell me why in no uncertain terms the fed. gov't. owes natives 'till eternity.
Please argue why natives are forever entitled. Yes, I'm plenty mixed and am quite torn over all of this. One grandmother walked the "trail". One grandmother was from Prussia. If you are familiar with history of WWII then you know that everyone was killed or displaced. It's gone. Another country (Russia) now has the land and descendants got nothing, ever. I'm not saying the U.S. is right with their treatment of Natives, but I am saying that at least some have tried to make things somewhat better. Shouldn't we hate the gov't a little less?
Still playing the devils advocate here, so how about refusing all federal funding? That is if it's so darn distasteful to you. You gotta start with the young ones, teaching them to stand on their own two feet. Feeling entitled is not the true NDN way is it? If being NDN is all about culture, turn them whiteys into NDNZ too! Share your culture more freely. The spirits know if ya do it for a dollar or if you're doing it to help your culture to be understood and prolificate. Respect must be earned, not just given as a birthrite. I'm referring to some who profess to speak for all Natives because of their birth, not because they have actually done much of anything to help the peoples plight or have even really seeked to see the truth from all sides. Self righteousness bites. Why in the heck declare war when education would fill the bill? If you are only looking at a situation from one side, then you have blinders on.
In wars of the old days, were'nt lands taken, families killed etc...? Did every tribe take on responsibility forever of those from the defeated sides descendants? Don't try to tell me they didn't murder but only tapped with coup sticks. Did the tribes tolerate those from the defeated sides who refused to take on their ways and did their own thing all the while depending on the victors who were doing the hunting and gathering for them? Even if they never acknowledged defeat? NO. I'm not saying what is right and what is wrong because I am quite frankly not smart enough to think I knowall the answers (or is it ignorant enough to think I know all the answers?). So it comes down to what? What is in a humans heart or what is in their dna? It is not the same thing. As I said, I am mixed. It's through no fault of my own that I was born as I was. But it is my fault if I don't freaking speak up and ask people to open their hearts and minds.
Having lived in the white world so much it is easier for me to play "devils advocate". I have been shunned by Natives who are actually blood relations 'cause I look white. Is it because I obviously wanted something? Which was to reclaim my lost heritage? Help your co worker see the light. This is the U.S. you do have rights and cannot be fired for your personal beliefs. Well, that is unless your personal beliefs are prejudice and spill over into your workplace. That goes both ways, whites against others and others against whites. You are very prejudice. I am sorry that your experience with whites has always been so bad. I will tell you now that the entitlement thing will piss folks off quick. They didn't do a dang thing to your ancestors, but they pay their taxes that support you without blinking an eye. Do you appreciate it when a dependant acts entitled and is not grateful for what you give them even though it was your uncle who created them, but you are the one who gladly cares for them in many ways? Like I said, I am playing devils advocate and am really trying to tick you off and get you thinking. Is it right for you to hate all whites and want them off "your" land? Buy it from them. Use eminant domain, whatever ya gotta do if that's your desire. But you have to do something, don't just piss and moan about it. I would venture to say that the ancestors would thump you in the ear for saying you are so entitled. There are very sorry whites and very sorry natives. You know some of each, I'm certain. Take that half of the people who are white and of good heart and teach them, share some knowledge with them. Their kids will be taught, and so on. Eventually you will have 100% as the old aholes die out and the new generations take their place. Stop hating, look for a solution instead. There is one, somewhere. It is lost on me though. Please open your arms, hearts and minds to all of the white idiots. Start 'em young. They are just ignorant and the thing about that is, you can change it, one heart at a time. Being FBI does not give you a monopoly on the truth. Hatred and prejudice is an epidemic and nobody seems to want to prevent anyone from catching it, or cure them of it. They just want to complain when someone dies from it. I'm sure you hate me too now. I am sorry for that, but not sorry that I was trying to get you to think. Whether I am right or wrong, at least I tried to loosen the dam. I fully expect to be punished for being female, mixed and having an opinion. Argue with me, help me see the situation better, please!

[Zeke]

1. We don't own the land, to begin with. (Federal Reserve Land.)
2. Tribes/Nations would die -- in a heartbeat -- if isolated from the government teat.
3. Sovereignty is a JOKE.

Anything else?

[iyeska's mother]

Dang Zeke, Can't believe that actually got posted here! My comments didn't make it past the mods. haha You have my vote!

[superndngyrl]

i think despite the reservations, that natives seems to accumulate together anyways. It would be kinda like Oklahoma.

[SuzzeQ4]

well the whole soviernty, close the borders etc, going to address that first:

Under International law a treaty is an agreement signed between 2 nations without negating the independance of either Nation and are binding forever unless otherwise stated or broken. Technically it's all our land and they "pay"us to use what is treatied with education, services etc...like rent. Technically by breaking treaty with us we can take it all back. We could try to fight it in the hague. In reality it has never been this way. Ideas like closing up the boarders etc is a misunderstanding of what a treaty is. And if Zeke thinks this "payment" is a handout, he can come explain that to my landlord.

*disclaimer* No zeke I don't think we are going to run off and become a soverign Nation, but some level of indepensence within the confines of a treaty Nation are possible with much work

Do they serve as a protected area for us to just be NDN, and do they aide in protecting language and culture?

Not always, but sometimes, that part is up to us. But having no rez would hasten assimilation. Locally 2 of the Algonquin tribes refused to sign a treaty, lost their land. They (for the most part) are more assimilated then the rest of their Nation; although they are going to the rez and learning (some). Also there is not a full-blood amoung them, while on the res there are plenty. So would these 2 tribes been more intact if they had signed and got a rez? Probably. There are other tribes around that also did not sign, and they have similar stories. Now I bet someone here is wondering if they assimilated better into the economic life of the region. Recently yes but mostly as proffessional NDN's, previously some did, some didn't. They still had to live through all the racism and all that. Still had imperialist government policies effecting their lives. Sure some rez' also have great loss of culture, but without it the chances were slimmer.
But what they become and what we become is up to us. Are we willing to take the time to achieve what we want and to do so properly? If we are I do think we will need the rez

[injunboy]

thought u knew

u cant argue with a three year old cause youll always lose. thats kinda the same mentality u needa approach this dude with. even if u tried to impose ur will, the short attention span would stop u cause his minds already gone. and seriously u thought about this for months.. haha

im gonna call u out cause theres no way this bothered u that much or that long

[injunboy]

what rez do u live on anyways?

btw i live on the navajo reservation

[Josiah]

LOL
Do away with Reservations has been done before look in the history books and read up on Land Allotment Act and the Dawes Commission and various other acts that did away with reservations in Oklahoma and other places the USA...

The Main issue here (despite what Zeke seems to think) is the fact that the various Treaties that are held by all the various tribes in the United States STILL HAVE LEGAL STANDING even to this day!
Otherwise why would we still be talking about it??? They would have done whatever they wanted to long ago
Disbanded all tribal Governments and Alloted all Land in the USA and be done with it over a 100 years ago.

But no
They still deal with each tribe in the various ways and still in the Courts are suits that have been brought years ago that are still being heard!!!



Some interesting Links regarding land ownership:

Allotment Act of 1891

ILTF - FAQs about Allotment

Recent allotment-related legislation

Tribe/Reservation Specific Information

Indian Land Tenure Foundation--General Allotment Act

[Josiah]

Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000

Read this one Zeke:

For full text of the bill, please click “http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ubl462.106.pdf
" (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).

Amends the Indian Land Consolidation Act to revise certain Indian land consolidation provisions.

Adds to the definition of "Indian" any person who has been found to meet such definition under a provision of federal law if consistent with the purposes of the act.

Declares that it is the policy of the United States – “(1) to prevent the further fractionation of trust allotments made to Indians; (2) to consolidate fractional interests and ownership of those interests into usable parcels; (3) to consolidate fractional interests in a manner that enhances tribal sovereignty; (4) to promote tribal self-sufficiency and self-determination; and (5) to reverse the effects of the allotment policy on Indian tribes.”

Sets forth a provision requiring the approval of the Secretary of the Interior for trust or restricted land sales, except with respect to an Indian tribe that has a Secretary-approved land consolidation plan.

Requires approval by the Secretary within 180 days of any adopted Indian tribal probate code governing descent and distribution of trust or restricted interests. Outlines approval procedures, reserves life estates for non-Indian devisees who would otherwise be precluded from inheriting by reason of the adopted code, and authorizes payments by tribes to such devisees to acquire interests.

In the absence of tribal probate codes, this act provides uniform rules for descent and distribution of interests in Indian lands.

To prevent Indian lands from passing out of trust, non-Indian heirs will only receive a life estate in Indian lands (a life estate is property that belongs to a person for their lifetime, but cannot be sold or passed on to anyone else until after the death of the person.) Because a non-Indian heir owns less than the full interest, a “remainder interest” is created, and this remainder interest must go to an Indian heir of the first or second degree. If there are no such heirs, the remainder may be purchased by any Indian co-owner of the parcel. If no offer is made to purchase the parcel, the remainder interest passes to the tribe. The rules are applicable to both testate (with a will) and intestate (no will) Indian estates.

The 2000 amendments provide an exception in cases where the Indian owners of a trust land may not have an Indian heir and the general rule would deprive them of the ability to devise more than a life estate to any of their heirs. They may devise an interest to either their heirs of the first or second degree or collateral heirs of the first or second degree. Because these people are non-Indian, the interest would pass in fee, not in trust. These interests may also be purchased by the tribe.

This act also limits the way that Indian land passes as a “joint tenancy in common.” If a person devises interests in the same parcel to more than one person, unless there is language in the will to the contrary, it is presumed to be a “joint tenancy with the right of survivorship,” meaning that each of a decedent’s heirs share a common title, so the last surviving member of the group obtains full interest as it was owned by the descendent. Any interest of less than 5 percent passing by intestate succession will also be held by the heirs with the “right of survivorship.” The Secretary of the Interior must certify that it has the capacity to track and manage interests that are held with the right of survivorship before this provision takes place.

Addresses descent of off-reservation lands. Provides for the descent and distribution of trust or restricted lands located outside of a reservation. Also provides for the authority of the official authorized to adjudicate probate to approve agreements between a decedent’s heirs and devisees to consolidate interests in such lands.

Requires the Secretary to notify Indian tribes and owners of trust or restricted lands of the amendments made in this act with respect to testate disposition, intestate descent, and estate planning options, including opportunities for receiving assistance or advice.
Authorizes owners of interests in trust or restricted lands to bring administrative actions to challenge the application of provisions regarding descent and distribution after the Secretary has certified that notice on the amendments of this act has been made to tribes and land owners. Permits judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision.
Gives authority to the Secretary to acquire factional interests in trust or restricted lands, with owner consent and at fair market price. The Secretary may give priority to the acquisition of fractional interests representing 2 percent or less of a parcel of trust or restricted land, especially those interests that would have escheated to a tribe but for Babbitt vs. Youpee.

At the request of any Indian who owns at least 5 percent of the undivided interest in a parcel of trust or restricted land, the Secretary shall convey an interest acquired under this section to the Indian landowner upon payment by the Indian landowner of the amount paid for the interest by the Secretary.

Provides for tribal administration of acquired fractional interest and the disposition of proceeds from leases, resource sales, rights-of-way, or other transactions affecting interests in trust or restricted lands. Sets out conditions for such administration.
Grants authority to the Secretary to develop a system for establishing the fair market value of various types of lands and improvements of interests in trust or restricted lands.
Establishes an acquisition fund.

Allows the sale or other exchange of interests in trust or restricted lands, including a prohibition on termination trust or restriction status on land conveyed for less than fair market value until five years after approval of conveyance.

Requires reports from the Secretary to specified congressional committees on fractional interests in trust or restricted lands acquired and the impact on Bureau of Indian Affairs financial realty recordkeeping systems.

Authorizes the Secretary to approve leases, rights-of-way, and sales of natural resources affecting individually owned trust or restricted lands based upon the consent of specified percentages of the owners concerned (with decreasing percentages required the greater number of owners).

Requires the Secretary to provide for estate planning assistance to Indian landowners.
States that this act is inapplicable to land located in Alaska.

[NorthofAda]

i think despite the reservations, that natives seems to accumulate together anyways. It would be kinda like Oklahoma.

That was the plan for Oklahoma in the first place, wasn't it? An Indian state? That is until the white man struck oil there, then the plan changed.... of course.

[Zeke]

That was the plan for Oklahoma in the first place, wasn't it? An Indian state? That is until the white man struck oil there, then the plan changed.... of course.

Which is precisely what would occur -- Josiah's diatribe not withstanding -- if anything the Feds truly desired were found on THEIR (not our) Reserve land, again.

That's just the way it is, folks: NONE of it is our land, in reality or practice.

If they really wanted the land we're on, they'd just move tribes to DIFFERENT Federal Reserve Land and claim the new land is held "in trust," and "for us..."

BAH.

[Zeke]

The Main issue here (despite what Zeke seems to think) is the fact that the various Treaties that are held by all the various tribes in the United States STILL HAVE LEGAL STANDING even to this day!

Fantasy Island. Are they enforced? No? Do the math: if nobody is accountable, it's not in effect.

Otherwise why would we still be talking about it??? They would have done whatever they wanted to long ago

In general, they DID.

They still deal with each tribe in the various ways and still in the Courts are suits that have been brought years ago that are still being heard!!!

That whole "lack of enforcement" thing I brought up...

Seriously, in practice, this thing is DONE. DEAD. OVER.

At best, Reservations are sub-leased quarantines. The reason Natives are allowed on them, is because -- right now -- the Federal government doesn't want them bad enough to deal with the hassle of moving anybody.

Just wait...

[SuzzeQ4]

Fantasy Island. Are they enforced? No? Do the math: if nobody is accountable, it's not in effect.



In general, they DID.



That whole "lack of enforcement" thing I brought up...

Seriously, in practice, this thing is DONE. DEAD. OVER.

At best, Reservations are sub-leased quarantines. The reason Natives are allowed on them, is because -- right now -- the Federal government doesn't want them bad enough to deal with the hassle of moving anybody.

Just wait...

if we got our act together and stopped wasting our time with delegations to the UN, and went to fight it under international law, we might get somewhere

[Zeke]

if we got our act together and stopped wasting our time with delegations to the UN, and went to fight it under international law, we might get somewhere

The United States, the Great Arbiter, will never acquiesce to International Law, even if found wanting, and they wouldn't be.

We lost.

Indians need a new Plan.

Perhaps we should endeavour to escape from our OWN quarantines? But that would take some social courage...