Indigenous rights

[Iktomiwicasa]

Due to some of the reactions I have seen around DU about and towards native issues, I decided to start a series of polls to take the temperature of the community here. This first poll is very generic, but I intend to post one poll a day for the next 4-5 days and each one will become more specific as to the issues being inquired about. All I ask is that your answer be truthful without regard to political correctness.


Thanks for taking the time to look and answer.

[knitter4democracy]

1. There are many here who think First Nations rights are important.

:hug: Ignore the rest.

[mdmc]

2. What happened to indigenous peoples here in America

is a tragedy.
We can't have peace in the middle east until we have peace for native americans here.

[End Of The Road]

3. May I confess my ignorance on this?

What are the issues for Native Americans? Certainly poverty and health care, but can you give me some better insight?

[Iktomiwicasa]

4. Specifics need to wait untill a later poll

Yes, health and poverty are huge issues for our peoples, but there are even larger ones that are at the root of these serious issues. Stay tuned for further polls :)

[End Of The Road]

7. Well patience is not one of my (few) virtues...

But I'll try!

:hi:

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. Issues would include taking their land, killing them, kidnapping and raping them, enslaving them

.
.
.

and every other atrocity one human being can do to another . .

If you live in the United States, and don't know this yet

That reflects on the USA education(brainwashing) system

It appears that it's working

[End Of The Road]

10. I doubt that Native Americans

Have any illusions about us giving the country back to them. Their political concerns are about the present, not the past.

[Richard Steele]

15. As you've admitted you're unfamiliar with the issues, perhaps you shouldn't speak for them?

Seems a bit ODD that you would feel comfortable instructing us
on "their political concerns".

[AlertLurker]

98. No offense, but it's not JUST a US problem...

Take a look at the plight of the BC Nisgaa/Tlingit/Nootka/Haida/Salish, or Plains Flathead and Athapaska, or Ontario/Quebec Algonquins...go back far enough and you soon find that NO ONE remembers the Beothuk of Newfoundland, either...

[personman]

105. Indigenous peoples and cultures are under attack everywhere.

I'm new to many of these issues, but I try to inform myself. Indigenous people in the Philippines, the Maori of New Zealand, the Aborigines in Australia...

I've just recently become aware of a maori activist, Tame Iti, seems like a cool fellow. :)

"He's been involved in Maori protest for much of his life, prepared, according to Tamati Kruger, to risk the wrath of his elders and "walk his talk". Tame was just a nipper when he staged his first show of defiance. "The principal of the school here in Ruatoki told us that we had to speak English. I didn't want to do that. To me if vou didn't speak Maori, you weren't a Maori." The punishment for defiance was to join a squad which picked up horse dung. Given the popularity of horse traffic in Ruatoki it was a substantial punishment.At 15 he left the security of Ruatoki and headed for Christchurch and a strange, new world outside the valley. Increasingly, he became drawn into political struggle against the system. It was a crucial stage in Tame's life, providing him with the political ideology that would lead to more than two decades of direct anti-authority action. He joined in the "No Maori, no tour" protest, read about communism and went to China in the early 1970s, followed the American Black Panther movement, and helped set up the Maori Liberation Front, before moving north to Auckland where he met up with Syd and Hana Jackson and others who would eventially become key members of Nga Tamatoa.

Over the years Tame has been the brains behind some exceedingly novel protest action. In the 197Os he and some mates decided that Maori were such strangers in this land that thev needed to set up an embassy Borrowing a small tent from his birth father in Huntly, he made his way south. In Wellington he pitched his tent beneath Dick Seddon's statue in Parliament ground, lectured the lunchtime passersby until, feeling bit tuckered out, he stretched out his bedroll, zipped up the tent and had a snooze. A couple of hours later he was politely woken by an elderly policeman. Explaining that he was Tame Iti, the new Maori ambassador, he then wangled his way into the office of the then Maori Affairs Minister, Duncan McIntyre -some say to present his credentials. The episode ended in TV cameras, handcuffs and the "ambassador" being subjected to Her Majesty's hospitality for the night.

Then there was the time when Tame decided to stop an annual jet boat race up the Whakatane river that local kaurnatua had felt powerless to prevent. Getting nowhere by politely phoning the Pakeha race organiser, Tame plunged into the river; watched by nervous whanaunga from a convenient viewing platform. As the first boat approached he closed his eyes to karakia, opening them just in time to eyeball an irate jet boat driven In the split second in which their eves met, the driver swerved and ran into the willows lining the bank. It earnt Tame six months of PD cutting blackberry, though after two weeks he appealed his sentence -but that's another story.. Undeterred, the following year Tame was back in the river again, on horseback this time and with a few rnates for company There were more arrests - but no more jet boat races." :)

http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/he/tame.html

[AlertLurker]

124. Ever heard of Wiremu Kingi?

I don't know if I spelled it right, but this is the guy who nearly ran the English off BOTH islands in the 1800s...

Incredibly interesting (and BLOODY) rebellion. Whites conducted themselves DISGUSTINGLY (as usual). The Kingi Rebellion was pretty much COMPLETELY about white greed for land (especially on North Island) and the Whites' discovery of gold in NZ.

I really hate the British Empire of the Victorian period...and pretty much the current period, too...amazing how little attitudes change, even in view of momentous events.

[ConcernedCanuk]

110. I wasn't suggesting it was just a USA problem.

.
.
.

I have worked with and for natives in Northern Ontario.

I have visited and worked at some of the reserves, some are small lots of land that certainly are not self-sufficient.

I could go on about the deficiencies in our system, but I don't think this is the correct thread for it.

I WILL say this though.

I do believe that the native people are given a better deal in Canada than they are in the United States, but by saying that I am NOT saying that they are given a fair shake. WE have a long way to go.

[personman]

99. Here are some resources that have helped me:

The book, "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, and also the companion volume "Voices of a People's History of the United States" (which I've not read yet, but heard a bit of below...)

Democracy Now! featuring dramatic readings from "Voices of a People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn: 2 of the dramatic readings are historical writings from indians, performed by Floyd Red Crow Westerman, the recently deceased actor and American Indian Movement activist.

Can watch it at http://anarchismtoday.org/DF_Multimedia/page=watch/id=10/d=1.html">AnarchismToday.org, or http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/28/stream">DemocracyNow.org, with additional options

Ward Churchill, an outspoken native american activist, scholar, and indigenous analyst:

http://wardchurchill.net">The Ward Churchill Solidarity Network

He has writings at Znet: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/wardchurchill

Probably plenty more if you dig through their old site. http://zmag.org

I have 3 of his videos here: http://AnarchismToday.org/DF_Multimedia.html

Or here:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?num=10&so=0&hl=en&q=ward+churchill+duration%3Along&start=0

(The first 3 videos are the same as on my site.)

http://angryindian.blogspot.com/">Intelligenta Indigena blog

http://aotearoa.indymedia.org

[porphyrian]

5. My answer is either the first or the second depending on what you mean.

Peoples' rights are important to me in general, and that includes the rights of American Indians. However, as I personally know very few and am not one myself, I spend most of my time focused on my own rights and how I can protect them for myself and everyone generally. So, wherever you draw the line between those answers decides where mine falls.

[personman]

52. IMO, and some others, our own rights depend on the rights of others

I take that as the moral of the famous poem, "When They Came..."

But the idea could go back as far as "The Golden Rule," "Do Unto Others."

"I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation." - Mikhail Bakunin, famous anarchist thinker, 1814-1876

"While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free" - Eugene V. Debs

I don't personally know nearly as diverse a range of people as I try to advocate for the rights and interests of. If groups that are likely to be a minority for the foreseeable future, like gay people, indians, black people, can only count on themselves to defend their interests, they are in a lot of trouble.

There is an idea that it is even good for our own best, selfish interests, to help others for no direct benefit to yourself:

Richard Dawkin's idea "nice guys finish first," about cooperation amongst species being beneficial for survival, and therefore, selected for naturally, actually goes back to Peter Kropotkin, a leading anarchist thinker, (lived from 1842 to 1921) over 100 years ago, who was interested in Darwinian Evolution, and wrote a book called "Mutual-Aid: A Factor of Evolution." When applied to economics, this is referred to as a "gift-economy."

Just some thoughts.

-personman

"White domination is so complete that even American Indian children want to be cowboys. It's as if Jewish children wanted to play Nazis."
-Ward Churchill

[RuleOfNah]

102. I went with 2.

2. Native American rights are somewhat important to me.

People rights are higher, planet higher than that.

"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

[tekisui]

6. Thanks for starting this.

All Human Rights are of foremost importance. Disgraceful things have been to far too many.

Look forward to more.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Good Luck

In Alaska we have debates about Native Rights all the time. I think up here we have done fairly well with trying to balance native issues with general public issues (hunting, fishing, land use, etc.). But to say there are no times of friction or racism would be dishonest. I will be interested to hear what else you have to say.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Hi, Dave...

I was hoping somebody else from Alaska would respond to this so I wouldn't have to think of something. You said pretty much what I would have. I think as Alaskans we're probably much closer to Native rights issues than most other places in the country outside of maybe the Dakotas.

[Iktomiwicasa]

12. bump for evening crew: nt

[Iktomiwicasa]

13. bump

[Orwellian_Ghost]

14. This is very important

for reasons not only that are directly related to indigenous people around the world, and that should be enough, but to pretty much every issue that impacts our lives.

K&R

[otherlander]

16. ...

I didn't vote because my first instinct was to vote for the first one but I felt that might be kind of dishonest since I don't really know much about the subject.

[Iktomiwicasa]

17. thanks

Only honest answers are helpful.

[Zorra]

18. We're all indigenous now, bro, no matter what zip is on the passport

:hi:

[Iktomiwicasa]

19. Ummm...

...sorry, but no.

[Zorra]

115. Think more about your response to my post. nt

[justanaveragedude]

20. Forgive my ignorance

What rights exactly are native American's being denied? I do not ask this question to be a smart ass, I am genuinely curious. My exposure to native Americans has been extremely limited. When I was younger I worked for a native American gentleman who was very proud of his heritage and certainly recognized how his ancestors were wronged by European colonist, however he did not feel that he had been wronged by anyone personally or that any of his rights were being denied. He made a very nice living and was afforded every right that I was. So what exactly are the issues and how are they different that issues that I face every day?

[EFerrari]

22. Good question

A working def of Indigenous people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples

FAQs re rights:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/FAQsindigenousdeclaration.pdf

Issue overview:

http://www.amnesty.ca/themes/indigenous_overview.php

UN draft:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.SUB.2.RES.1994.45.En

[Iktomiwicasa]

29. Some of the deeper questions that you ask

will have to wait for the later polls that I am going to run. These are primarily for my own education to try and understand how people around DU think, and hopefully enable me to more effectively communicate in matters of importance to native people.

Regarding your friend, please be aware that there are native nations who are much less assimilated, and who maintain a completely seperate culture from most "americans", with unique language and religions. I'm not an "american" in the sense that you likely consider yourself to be. My first loyalty is to my people.

[dysfunctional press]

21. "native" americans are not indigenous to north/south america either...

they originally came from asia, across a land bridge at the bering strait.
they flourished, spread out and built civilizations, and were eventually conquered by invaders from more technically advanced societies.

[EFerrari]

23. Depends who you ask.

Way back in the distant past, the ancestors of humans were living down below in a world under the earth. They weren't humans yet, they lived in darkness, behaving like bugs. Now there was a Great Spirit watching over everything; some people say he was the sun. He saw how things were down under the earth, so he sent his messenger, Spider Old Woman, to talk to them. She told them that the Sun Spirit wished better for them than what they had, and that she would lead them to another world. When they came out on the surface of the earth, that's when they became humans.

[dysfunctional press]

25. ask any competent archaeologist...

that great spirit stuff is just as much crap as the judeo-christian version.

[EFerrari]

27. Your cultural slip is showing.

:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

28. and what would that be?

:shrug:

[countryjake]

33. ask any competent American Indian, north/south america...

they will tell you that this land is their land, regardless of that archaeologist crap.

[Iktomiwicasa]

34. Your answer

is related to the next poll I will post sometime this afternoon. Thanks.

[ConcernedCanuk]

41. PM me with a link to your next poll, please.

.
.
.

You might consider posting the same, or similar poll in the Canada Forum.

We're a whole different breed up here when it comes to native issues.

[dysfunctional press]

43. it WAS there land...until they were conquered.

now it belongs to the conquerers.

that's how it works in the real world.

[newmajority]

57. So you must really love the occupation of Iraq, right?

And of course, it's now "our" oil underneath all their sand. (Which is why we pay $3.50 for a fucking gallon of gas)

[dysfunctional press]

74. not at all.

iraq was/is a sovereign nation, and recognized by the rest of the world at the time as such.

and btw- i never said that i would have endorsed the conquest of the americas, but it did happen, and there's no changing that. and it doesn't change the fact that the 'native americans' were/are no more indigenous to the continent than the descendants of white europeans.

[EFerrari]

77. So, you don't recognize Indian nations as sovereign?

Your federal government did. Have you issued a signing statement or something?

(Oh, and denying that indigenous people are indigenous doesn't get your federal government out of their contracts although that is what that claim is meant to do.)

http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.html

[dysfunctional press]

82. they weren't recognized as soveriegn nations when the whites arrived.

and there was no 'federal government' at the time.

[Iktomiwicasa]

85. We recognized ourselves as sovereign.

And still do

[EFerrari]

88. I apoligize for being rude on your thread. n/t

[EFerrari]

86. LOL!

What is your problem with social justice, really?

Are you lost or something?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. I am going to have to assume...

that most Native Americans are fully aware their ancestors crossed the Bering Land bridge several thousands of years ago, because as a progressive I refuse to believe that Native Americans are all stupid.

[countryjake]

135. hence the word "competent". n/t

[The Straight Story]

112. excuse me while I

:rofl:

[Irreverend IX]

107. Would you support this horseshit being taught in schools?

Alongside the Adam and Eve myth as an "alternative theory" to evolution? Any "creation story" that isn't backed up by documented facts is a farce and anyone who believes such stories deserves only ridicule and contempt.

[EFerrari]

113. Thank you for illustrating why the rights of indigenous people

must be protected from the thoughtless and the culture blind.

And I will say this. I'd much rather have my children learn to respect themselves and each other and the Earth as NA philosophy teaches than expose them for one single minute to the attitude of your post.

[Irreverend IX]

116. Culture and philosophy are one thing...

Beliefs and practices are another. Endorsing a belief that humans are descended from Adam and Eve or that they came up from underground is inimical to the maintenance a modern society.

Are you tolerant of Mormons' belief that black people are the spiritual descendants of cowardly angels who didn't oppose Lucifer? Are you tolerant of the North African belief that the clitoris and external labia are evil and must be removed before a girl reaches puberty? Don't keep your mind so open your brain falls out.

[EFerrari]

132. You mistake the Northern European that

culture and philosophy are distinct from belief and practice for objective reality. Which is also constructed.

And, my brain is just fine, thanks!

[Irreverend IX]

133. Enough dancing around the issue...

What is your opinion of people who believe in Adam and Eve and a 6000-year-old Earth? Is it different from your opinion of people who subscribe to Native American creation beliefs, and if so, why? And if you respect this belief because "it's their culture," do you also respect the age-old practice of female genital mutilation?

All views of the interplay between culture, belief, etc. are constructed and subjective, but logic demands that if you give equal credence to evolution and Native American creation beliefs, you must also pay respect to Biblical creationism, Biblical literalism and all the crap that comes with it. The Bible says that pi equals 3, so maybe universities should be required to allow fundie Christian engineering students to use 3 as the value of pi in their assignments. After all, "it's their culture!"

[Iktomiwicasa]

137. No one here is promoting replacing evolutionary science

(which I accept as fact) with any religiously based creation story in a science class. Get off your high horse already.

[Iktomiwicasa]

31. Your opinions about our

origins are not relevant to this poll. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

[dysfunctional press]

44. it's COMPLETELY relevant.

ultimately, the descendants of the white settlers are just as indigenous as the "native" americans were.

[NuttyFluffers]

37. and race is a construct, so what's new.

now go talk to a competent anthropologist or sociologist and learn that even artificial constructs have very real ramifications.

you may take your non sequitur and go home now, or you can choose to learn something by putting away your disputatiousness...

[dysfunctional press]

45. that's fine...

just don't pretend that the ancestry of the native american populations were always indigenous to the americas- they weren't.

[EFerrari]

46. Right. This was an Edenic wilderness waiting for white pioneers

to bring civilization and to become indigenous so Anthopology could be invented. We know.

[dysfunctional press]

75. i never said or implied that white pioneers were indigenous- that's just ridiculous.

but ultimately, neither were the 'native' americans.

you can bitch about it all you want, but it won't change the facts.

[EFerrari]

78. Yes, it is ridiculous. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

81. thank-you for admitting that.

much appreciated...:hi:

[EFerrari]

84. And the UN agrees with me. It's ridiculous.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs9.htm

[newmajority]

56. Right.... and Joseph Smith said they all came over from Israel on Noah's Ark

As far as "advanced societies", that's a matter of opinion. I'm guilty of liking my modern electronic conveniences, but white culture could learn a lot about civilization from the Native Americans. Even the US Constitution owes as much to the Iroquois Confederation as it does a bunch of wig wearing Brits who didn't want to pay a tea tax.

[knitter4democracy]

69. How many thousands of years did they have to live here to be indigenous?

My dad makes the same argument, but it's ridiculous. Ten thousand years ago, most of Europe wasn't populated, either. So, does that make the Nordic countries not real? Does it make it okay to ignore Sweden or Denmark's right to rule because they weren't there ten thousand years ago?

[dysfunctional press]

80. what does being indigenous have to do with the 'right to rule'...?

and who implied anything about any country be any less 'real'?

to the victors go the spoils- and that includes the 'right to rule'.

and tens of thousands of years ago, europe WAS populated- by neanderthals...who were ultimately conquered by homo sapiens...so i'm not even sure what era you're referring to when europe wasn't 'populated'...:shrug:

[Iktomiwicasa]

83. Interesting

that you equate my people to Neanderthals...quite revealing too.

[knitter4democracy]

87. Southern Europe, yes. Northern Europe, no.

The land bridge was 10-12K years ago. Northern Europe wasn't populated then, even by Neanderthals. Most of it was under glaciers, but not all. There's no evidence that it was populated at that time, at least, no evidence that I've ever heard of, not even in bogs. Evidence shows they came north much later.

When you use the argument that the First Nations peoples aren't really indigenous because they "only" came over 10K years ago, you imply that they aren't really Americans and that they don't really have First Nations rights. That's the argument that people who think they should be entirely assimilated or wiped out use.

You say it's okay to rob them of their rights because "to the victors go the spoils," but that completely ignores the treaties. England, France, and the United States all entered into treaties with the First Nations--and then broke them whenever they felt like it. That's part of the problem that still exists today: Native Americans (regardless of how long their tribe lived here before Europeans came over) are in the situation of being held to treaties that the other side broke. When that happens, the treaty is usually null and void, but in their case, it's still being upheld on the US's end. Surely you can agree that it's a problem and not exactly fair. In the interest of peace and justice, shouldn't we at least negotiate new treaties with these nations?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. Only a few generations, same as the later settlers.

"Native Americans" are indigenous, but not meaningfully more so than the descendants of European settlers who went over hundreds of years ago.

[knitter4democracy]

108. So, you won't mind me calling all Europeans Africans, right?

Since they originally came up from Africa, they don't really have any rights to Europe and so should let newer immigrants from the Middle East and Africa have land and power, considering many have been in Europe for a generation or two now. Those Algerians in Paris should be allowed to continue to multiply and riot and gain power, right?

If you believe that First Nations peoples have no real rights to their lands or for the treaties they signed to be honored, then surely you're fine with Mexican immigrants taking over our cities and rural areas, Algerians taking over France, and Turks taking over Greece and Germany. Everyone has the same rights to the land, right? :eyes:

[EFerrari]

114. LOL!

I love you, knitter.

[knitter4democracy]

117. Right back at ya!

:hug:

I hate that argument. It's patently ridiculous.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

123. Are you sure you replied to the right post?

My point, applied to Europe, would imply that the Europeans *aren't* Africans, because they left more than a few generations ago.

Algerians should indeed be allowed to settle in Paris, and to multiply (but not to riot). However, after a few generations, their descendants won't be Algerians any more; they'll be Parisians.

I don't believe that "everyone has the same rights to land"; I do believe that rights to land don't last more than a few generations.

If I settle in America, it won't make me an American, but my grandchildren will be.

If my country invades and conquers your country, you will have a right to spend decades trying to expel us and our descendants, but not (if our descendants settle) centuries.

The foundation of Israel was a crime against humanity, and a catastrophe of the first order. The Palestinians had every right to try and destroy it in 1950; they no longer have that right.

I have mixed feelings about completely unlimited immigration; I strongly support much more liberal migration laws. That's at best tangentially relevant here, though.

[knitter4democracy]

125. Yes, I did. Where's your generational cut-off?

One, two, three? I know Russians who are still pissed off about their last war with Sweden, and that was ages ago. You're saying that they should just ignore it because it's been enough generations? Same with the Greeks and Turkey? Turkey invaded Greece a century ago and committed war crimes against civilians, but Greece should just ignore it now? Like they should ignore the Turks still kicking Greeks out of their country and whitewashing what they did to the Armenians? It's been enough generations, so it doesn't matter any more?

The problem with applying that theory to the First Nations peoples is that it doesn't answer what to do with them today. They have nation status in treaties and laws and yet don't have full sovereignty. They're still living on reservations in extreme poverty, and they have many reasons for sticking to those lands. Telling them to leave and assimilate just because it's been long enough doesn't take their language or culture into account at all. It also ignores a long history of forced assimilation and lost languages and cultures.

If your country invades mine, there's a time limit to my fighting against you? Really? That sounds like someone hasn't read too much history. Under that rule, the Russians would still be ruled by the Tatars and Europe by the Huns. France would have lost a good bit of its territory to Britain, and Germany wouldn't be one state but still many smaller nation-states.

You say that 60 years is too long for the Palestinians to fight but that centuries are okay for others--which measuring stick are you applying to First Nations peoples? As late as the 1930s and '40s, Native American children were still being kidnapped from their families at gunpoint and forced to go to church-run assimilation camps, I mean, boarding schools, in which many tribes were mixed together, their hair was cut, and their languages and faith were forbidden. Many of those children are still alive today, so does that get under your generational cut-off?

Please read more history and talk to more Native Americans before making up this kind of rule and randomly applying it. The issues that the First Nations people have aren't that old, and there are still elders who remember the wars and the forced relocations and boarding schools. I think they have the right to be upset about that and the fact that the US Government stole their funds out of supposedly protected accounts and everything else that has been done to them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

127. Depends on context, I'm afraid - sometimes one, sometimes a lot more than three.

War crimes committed a hundred years ago should certainly be forgiven, even if not forgotted (or rather, there's nothing to forgive, because the people who committed them are dead).

Crimes committed against people still alive certainly should not be dismissed as ancient history.

However, people whose ancestors have been in a country a dozen generations - as many white Americans have - are certainly indigenous for all moral, political and legal purposes, even if not for archeological or other academic ones.

[knitter4democracy]

128. Which is it? Native Americans who were mistreated are supposed to forget?

Did you miss the part that there are people still alive who were hurt by our government? If that's not to be dismissed as ancient history but whites are indigenous and should be forgiven because some who hurt First Nations peoples are dead is a massive disconnect. Which is it? War crimes aren't that far in the past, but we're supposed to forgive and forget, even though victims who remember are still alive? I'm not sure you've thought this through.

The war crimes our government committed against First Nations people should be dealt with. It's that simple. Our nation is not that old, and the crimes weren't done all that long ago. It's purely out of self-interest for whites to say that it was done too long ago to do anything about. The reality is, victims are still alive, and they still remember. It's time to rectify the situation, not hide behind bogus history.

[Chovexani]

130. You win the internet

:rofl: :yourock:

[EFerrari]

24. This is a good way for us to learn something.

:)

[Political Heretic]

26. I chose somewhat important in an attempt to be honest.

They are important to my from my ideological perspective, but for me to pretend like indigenous rights have primarily informed my political activity - ever - would be to be very dishonest.

[puerco-bellies]

30. Ah Ho'

The Few The Proud The Apaches

[G_j]

32. very important

I was involved in the Big Mountain movement for years.

Think, for instance, Peabody coal..

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. The wellbeing of Native Americans is very important to me.

To be candid, I'm not convinced that the artificial separation - the nation-within-a-nation works to Native Americans benefit.

"Native American rights" is a somewhat abstract concept to me. Do I strongly feel that the Makahs should have a right to harvest whales? Do I strongly feel that the Quinaults should have a right to contribute to overfishing?

I believe that the government of the United States should honor its commitments. But sometimes reality has a way of complicating those commitments.

I live at the crossroads between five different indian nations, the Chehalis, the Quinault, the Skokomish, the Squaxin and the Shoalwater. I frequently see how poverty has affected them.

I could be convinced that the rights I see as abstractions could end their poverty, but it would be surprising to me.

Take the Shoalwaters for an example. Between 1988 and 1992, only 9 of 19 pregnancies resulted in children who reached one year of age.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/shol22.shtml

If we think that we have a healthcare problem, it's nothing compared to native americans. Maybe their casino will be the magic solution, I honestly don't know.

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. I could not say they were very important to me, and this is why:

Anytime you commit to a cause, especially when you're not financially invested in the outcome, you want to believe that once the underdog gets what they're looking for, that they will turn around and ensure that all the other underdogs in their group will get taken care of. But every time I get involved and learn about a situation where the Indians are getting the money, i.e. casino areas, I find out that even when there are Indian leaders, the same power grabs are occurring, and the money isn't trickling down properly.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, that maybe, if you're looking for mass support, maybe the Indian reservations should show that their culture can overcome all the nasty bad habits and practices set by "white man" government?

In fact, why don't you all show us how a good community/government should operate? Set the example.

[Iktomiwicasa]

48. Fair questions.

And they are directly related to the next upcoming poll.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. I figured.

Believe me, we are all looking for examples of good leadership and the American Indian tribes have a rare opportunity here. As much as you may hate the "white man" culture, they seem enamored of you, or your mystique, anyway. So when the tide turns and you are given the financial resources that have so far been denied, put it to good use.

American Indians are going to win billions of dollars because they have been cheated for so long, but you are going to have to dig deep within the roots of a culture which was frozen in time due to this government's machinations, and find a way to leap across a century to catch up on "modern day" themes, if you want to capture everybody's attention. Themes such as woman's rights. Maybe I presume too much, but I know about the Mexican culture and the machismo is a barrier to me. Even though I may root for them on some things, I also realize that some of the social problems they experience when it comes to adapting to American culture, may be embedded in those antiquated mores.

Just something in mind when you look to the future.

[mahina]

38. If you can include Native Hawaiian in that category,

then I'd have to say, very important.

[NuttyFluffers]

39. of course they are. how gov't treats the marginalized and weakest is crucially important.

it's, sadly, a barometer of how a regional power would treat anyone within if they were equally marginal and disenfranchised. what happens to people who are suffering the worst poverty, suicide rates, despair, alcoholism, etc is essentially YOU in another turn of the wheel of fortune. it shows what can be brought down upon anybody either through massively organized active destruction or passive neglect. NA struggles are human struggles for the very simple reason that "your next."

[NMMNG]

40. I can't help but wonder why anybody would choose option 3

But then nothing should surprise me any more.

[Zywiec]

42. All I ask is that your answer be truthful without regard to political correctness.

That's funny since last month three people were TS'd for how they answered a poll.

:shrug:

[Iktomiwicasa]

47. Well

If someone gets tossed out of here for answering a question honestly then the place isn't very "democratic".

[conservdem]

51. Can that happen? Or does that happen?

[EFerrari]

60. Has there ever been a government that doesn't exploit it's power

for personal gain?

Shouldn't we know that as well as anyone?



:shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

63. I don't think so, I've read over the posted rules and guidelines

and it doesn't say anything about people getting in trouble for how they vote in polls. I just assume poll votes are anonymous.

[Lance_Boyle]

136. NOTHING here is anonymous to the admin, not even poll votes.

And yes, 3 people did get banned for their "anonymous" votes in a poll.

[uppityperson]

58. DU is not "democratic" but a privately owned forum with rules and moderators.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html
That is a link to the rules page. We are here as guests, agree to follow the rules that have been set up for this forum. No, not "democratic" but Private forum.And no, not as representatives of Democratic party. This is a thing people get confused about.

[Iktomiwicasa]

59. I understand that

but I still fail to see how answering a poll could be grounds for banning.

[uppityperson]

61. It happened.

Someone posted a nasty poll, some people voted the nasty way. Not sure if it was to make a statement that the poll was stupidly offensive or if they meant they agreed with the nastiness. DU admin can see who votes how, no your vote isn't private to them. So the 4 that voted the nasty way were banned. Hence, some DUers are reluctant to vote on polls since admin can see the results and act on them.

[apocalypsehow]

64. Oh, I didn't know that. Never mind my post above, I didn't see

your post until just now.

[LanternWaste]

129. However, that poll (and it's answers) were neither sincere nor topical.

However, that poll (and it's answers) were neither sincere nor topical. It was, for all intents and purposes mere flame bait-- obvious to the point where even the most unsubtle amongst us could recognize it for what it was. One could easily make the case (as Skinner & Co. certainly did) that particular expressions of hatred have no place on this board in regards to the poll you are most likely referring to.

You then believe that this particular OP poll and it's answers are written in hatred and intolerance on that same level?

Edited: spelling error

[Squatch]

49. Are native Americans entitled to any rights that other American citizens are not?

If so, then yeah...they matter to me. Equality before the law, and all that.

[EFerrari]

54. Has the US government entered into any treaties with your people?

If so, you might want to check it out. The Gubmint has a way of welshing on its promises. You might be missing out!

[Squatch]

109. One of the last times the "gubmit" entered into treaty with "my people"

it resulted in WWII.

[Redstone]

53. I'm half American Indian, and I am perfectly satisfied with the rights I have.

I get the same rights that everyone else in America does, so why should I complain, or be treated differently?

Redstone

[EFerrari]

55. Really, Redstone? I've only got a few splashes of Pipil in me

but I'm STILL pissed.



:)

[Redstone]

62. Truth. I've never suffered any discrimination because of my ethnic heritage.

My brothers and I did occasionally wonder why we wer darker than most of the other kids, growing up in Vermont, but nobody ever gave us any trouble about it.

Redstone

[Iktomiwicasa]

66. Are you and enrolled tribal member

of a federally recognized tribe, and a native that is grounded in your traditional language, culture, and religion? In my experience in dealing with indians from all over N. America, those in the long white settled areas of the east coast, and the urban areas of the west coast, generally suffer much less racism than do tribes who have managed to retain traditional culture. Here in S. Dakota, overt racism is a fact of daily life for most indians. Terms such as "Prairie Ni**er" are common, and personally I have been told by prospective white employers "Sorry, I don't hire indians". Not to mention the threat of being pulled over for "DWI" (Driving While Indian) any time I am off rez. And this doesn't even begin to touch upon the uneven enforcement of other laws WRT indian people.

[EFerrari]

71. A young lady who became a dear friend in the 70s came out here to

California on her own steam. She landed a union job, helped me get one and we did everything together, from learning to fish to playing with my little kids.

Then one day she started telling me about those gawd awful Rez indians in Wisconsin. I don't even remember how the topic came up but all of a sudden, she sounded exactly like the hateful father that she fled when she came West. It was as if she turned into a three headed alien in front of my very eyes.

I have never, ever been so heartbroken and appalled in my life, before or since. I was still a young woman then and never did speak to her again. The gulf was too wide. I didn't even know where to begin. It's possible that I've spent a number of years learning how to respond to my friend in retro in a calmer way.

[Redstone]

90. You raise a good point. I do not doubt that things are different (and much better) here in

New England for American Indians than they are in places like Dakota.

I did not intend to minimalize the problems any other Indians might have, by saying what I did. And I definitely should have mentioned where I live, because it DOES make a difference.

I thank you for the correction / amplification, which I deserved.

Redstone

[EFerrari]

91. . . .

:loveya:

[Redstone]

92. Yes, I sent him (or her) a PM as well, because I really screwed up by not recognizing

that it's a hell of a lot easier to be an American Indian here in New England than it is in other parts of the country.

I've known that all along, but failed to mention it in my posts.

Redstone

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. I see really overt racism here too.

I have to wonder if the lesson of separate-but-equal has some merit for Native Americans.

The ones I know who are most well-adujusted and affluent are those who left the reservation.

[Iktomiwicasa]

95. I'm very well adjusted

thank you very much. I am blessed to live in my community and live my culture and speak my language and practice my religion on a daily basis. I am familiar with the white world and know how to navigate through it, but I'm not assimilated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. I'm not talking about cultural assimilation.

I'm talking about the really crushing poverty I see when I drive through Tahola or Queets or Oakville.

I don't know anything about you or where you live, my experience may have no relevance to yours. In my experience, Public health, poverty and education on the Native American nations is in crisis.

[EFerrari]

70. My family was the color in our Sunnyvale neighborhood

in Silicon valley, 60s. But those white guys were pretty repressed so they just called us "gypsies".

Hell, I didn't even realize the place was segregated until around 1975.

:shrug:

[patrioticintellect]

65. Who are the 15 that voted "not important"?

Do you have any decency?

[Iktomiwicasa]

68. It's ok

I prefer a person answer honestly rather than follow group political correctness. This poll is primarily for my own education....I really want to know how people here think.

[EFerrari]

72. Wave to the freeps and their proud ignorance.

:hi:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

76. While I'm not one of the 15

I can see where a person not inimical to native rights might answer in that fashion.

For instance, universal healthcare is a universal issue that knows no cultural or "racial" boundary. One might therefore, view such an issue without regard to "natives," while at the same time recognizing that natives benefit just as would everyone else.

Responsible land use is a cross-cultural issue, as well, even if it might be more significant on the "res." Must one be a native to care about such issues? Hardly.

Education? Womens' rights? Labor rights? Sexual equity? Environment? Substance "abuse?" All have aspects, that reach into individual, compartmentalized commuities. People working diligently on any one or all of those issues might very well do so while never giving a thought to the subset referenced in the OP. That doesn't however, make the person overtly hostile to the subset groups' rights.

[EFerrari]

79. Missing from your assessment is the treaty obligations

the US government contracted to with sovereign nations.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

104. True

I suppose I should've used Legalese and said "including, but not limited to," as I didn't intend the list to be exhaustive.

[Book Lover]

89. I am a very decent person

I have only so much space in my life to place the things that are important to me, and I have many that directly affect my personal life, and the lives of my family. The rights of the North American tribal peoples do not in any ways I can see. Perhaps I am wrong about that. Perhaps I am right. But when I read the OP, I mentally went through the list of "Things I Would Fight Over"; also the "Things I Think About Spontaneously" list, the "Things I Feel Emotional About" list (check mark there, by the way), the "Situations I Understand a Lot About" list, and the "Philosophies I Feel Sympathetic To" list, and only came up with one check mark. The honest answer, the answer I was asked for, was the one I clicked.

I cannot be all things to all people. Perhaps through the rest of the conversation Iktomiwicasa holds with us, I will add more checkmarks to those lists. Perhaps not. But I was asked my honest opinion, and I gave it. I am sure there are liberal ideas I hold close and dear that are not important to Iktomiwicasa at all; will you pillory him if he answered negatively to a pro-choice poll I might post, for example?

[Redstone]

101. Well, now, that was a damn good post. The kind of post that reminds me of why I like DU.

I'm half American Indian. And I REALLY appreciate that you said what you said.

Because you're telling the truth. You're being honest. You're saying that nobody can simultaneously manage to run their own life and at the same time "care passionately" or "be very concerned about" everything else in the world.

Which is the truth. And you took the time to explain that, and I have a great amount of respect for you for doing so.

Anyone give you any arguments about that post, send them to me.

Redstone

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. Yeah! No decency! Let's throw rocks at 'em! n/t

[apocalypsehow]

67. I thought long and hard before I voted in this poll

I wanted to be honest with both myself and to you, in the spirit you asked us to vote. I voted "somewhat important to me" because, though I like to think of myself as caring about the rights of all people, I am somewhat isolated from Native American culture. Or, to put it another way, I have had very little genuine contact with Native American people and their voices. This is certainly something I would like to change, in the sense of listening to those voices and learning from the expressed feelings and experiences of Native/Indigenous people. It is very important when it comes to learning more about another culture to simply listen, and learn, without putting on the lens of white privilege and filtering what is being shared through that. Something I work very hard on, and which I hope others would, too.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

73. Your raise interesting definitional questions

I acknowledge the pre-1492 peoples here as "native," even in light of the comment above about their having come here from other parts of the globe. My questions should, in no wise, be considered to be snark or sarcasm, although there are, I fear, plenty of folks here more than willing to do so.

To extend the inquiry, how shall we define native peoples? Are they limited to folks on a res? Or to people who can prove a certain percentage of "blood," in the same way that Europeans discriminated against others who shared "impure" origins? What of a place like southern West Virginia where I live, where you can see the unmistakeable evidence of "native" origins in people now deemed "white?" What of those people who are descended from "indigenous" folk who had to hide among the whites in order not to be re-settled westward?

Why are people who have been settled on land in excess of three hundred years not "indigenous," especially if, as in the example above, they are of obvious native/mixed descent? After all, the tribes with which we're familiar in the modern era have no provable link to, for instance, the peoples who made up the "Mississippian" culture or the "Eastern Woodlands" tradition. Where's the cut-off?

In the long run, however, the only locale to which any human being is native is this tiny little blue-green marble hurtling through the universe. The ignorance of that inconvenient fact has led to a lot of trouble over the millenia.

[Redstone]

96. Let me suggest another poll, if I may.

Having read some of your posts, I've developed quite a bit of respect for you, so I think you're a good person for me to ask about this.

I have a problem with the "Native American" appelation, and I've heard that many other American Indians do as well.

The joke that I always use about the "Native American" label is to say that, given the theory that our ancestors got here via the Bring Land Bridge is that, omigod, we're actually RUSSIANS! (It's a lot funnier when I say it, than when I type it.)

So. A DU poll may not be the best way to find out the answer to my question, but I'll ask your opinion: Do most American Indians actually prefer the title "Native Americans," or not.

(PS: Any other American Indian / Native Americans who want to chime in on this subject, I'd be happy to hear from you as well.)

Redstone

[Iktomiwicasa]

100. Around here in western Indian Country

we generally refer to ourselves generically as "indians" unless we are speaking about specific nations. Speaking for myself,I'm not offended by either term, nor are most other 'skins that I know.

[Redstone]

103. I don't get "offended" by either, myself, I just was asking about preferences.

But, as I said, it's easy for me to not care. I'm sure it's different where you are, and in the Dineh'ta, and other places.

Redstone

[countryjake]

111. kick

[BeHereNow]

118. K&R.

This is going to get interesting...
BHN:popcorn:

[Iktomiwicasa]

119. Heh

:hi:

[BeHereNow]

121. Heh...

:hug:
I see you've been busy! 406?
Like I said-

:popcorn:

BHN

[Iktomiwicasa]

138. Eh....

...it's been really cold up here. Lots of time inside keeping the fire going, gotta stay busy somehow ;)

[BeHereNow]

139. I'm glad to see you posting again... this place needs a good shaking now and then.

Sorry about the cold though.
Stay warm.

It was hotter than hell here today- strange days indeed.

BHN

[Iktomiwicasa]

140. 8 degrees and snowing

at the moment. Just a good Dakota winter. Plenty of snow this winter, and we really need it for the water.

[petronius]

120. Indigenous rights are no more or less important to me than anyone else's rights

So I guess I'm either the top option or the bottom, depending on how one reads the question... :shrug:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

122. I'm concerned about their rights

I've always had very warm feelings for Native Americans. When I was a kid of about 4 or 5, my father was stationed to an Air Force base at Midwest City, Oklahoma and we moved into a house next door to a very important member of the Caddo nation and his family. This was back in about 1953 or 1954. The father had moved to the city from the reservation to send his two sons to school. I became friends with the little boy my age. I think I recall his name was Terry Hensugar. I played a lot with both brothers and we'd go crawdad hunting in the creek near by. They had very little furniture inside their house and I remember finding that strange as a little boy. I very vividly remember the white neighbor who lived across the street who came to our front door shortly after we moved in. My mother spoke to her through the screen. The lady was red with anger and said to my mother: "do you realize you're letting your son play with a full-blooded Indian?" My mother smiled and said "yes, it's great" and shut the door in her face. The hatred back then towards Native Americans could be intense and I still imagine there are people who feel that way.

I became obsessed with reading about Native Americans when I was a little older. I read everything I could get my hands on, from Black Elk Speaks, The Scared Pipe, Sun Chief, Mountain Wolf Woman, and many others, even to books in Spanish. I lived in San Francisco in 1969 and 1970 and got involved in assisting the Alcatraz occupation. I worked with a lady from the Rosebud reservation who was employed by the Oakland American Indian Association named Belva Cottier. She was a wonderful lady and a true human being. Her position didn't allow her to get involved in Alcatraz but she did anyway. I helped her raise money, buy food, milk, and water drums to help the people on the island. I even worked with some hippies named People's Architecture from Berkeley to organize a concert on behalf of the occupation of Alcatraz and we were able to convince Buffy Sainte-Marie to come and sing and play guitar at a concert in San Francisco. I will never forget Belva Cottier.

Anyway, I am concerned about the future of Native Americans and whether they can retain their heritage. I also deplore the fact that our government has literally stolen billions of dollars from them. There's an ongoing struggle in the courts that officially began in 1996 to acquire an accounting of all the monies owed to various tribes from the mismanagement of their lands held in trust. We're talking about more than 100 years of duplicity in the government having managed leased land on behalf of various nations and either failing to collect the proceeds from major cattle, mining, and timber companies or outright stealing it. The Department of the Interior was nailed with a contempt of court citation during the course of the initial lawsuit, accused of destroying documents by the court. The government even tried to get the plaintiffs to accept a bogus accounting from Arthur Anderson, of Enron fame. The suit is still ongoing and it really disturbs me to think that our government has done this, violating yet more agreements.

http://www.indiantrust.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Articles.ViewDetail&Article_id=365&Month=8&Year=2006

[Recursion]

126. Unfortunately, the casino buy-off may have salved enough consciences...

...ie, the idea seems to be "let them build casinos and then we won't have to worry about anything else."

[Virginia Dare]

131. The first nations to meet the English in this country aren't even federally recognized..

Virginia tribes are fighting for recognition...

The Senate could act before year's end to extend federal recognition to six Virginia Indian tribes, U.S. Sen. Jim Webb said last week.

Webb, D-Va., told reporters Thursday that he hopes to persuade North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan to convene a hearing soon on House-approved legislation to grant the recognition. Dorgan is chairman of the Senate's Indian Affairs Committee.

Webb, who had taken months to study the bill, announced his backing for it several weeks ago and appeared at a news conference with tribal leaders and Reps. Bobby Scott, D-3rd District, and James Moran, D-8th District, to drum up additional support.

"As one whose professional career has been largely involved in writing, I consider myself to be a devoted student of cultural histories," Webb said. "I have come to the conclusion that this recognition is justified based on principles of dignity and fairness."

Webb said that in addition to appealing to Dorgan, he hopes to win over Virginia's other senator, Republican John Warner. He has been wary about recognizing the tribes in the past.

http://hamptonroads.com/node/424451

[NaturalHigh]

141. How about focusing on human rights...

rather than breaking it down by groups.