Native tribe blasts Oregon takeover

[Vylo]

We're you there?

What we can say is that there is evidence of nations rising and falling in the America's far before groups from Europe arrived. Tribes migrated and took land away from those who once were established in the area. We know the history of warfare between these tribes and the brutality of that warfare. It is good for us to be honest about what we know rather than hold to a romantic myth.

There was certainly warfare among the tribes, but the fact remains that the native americans were the first here, we have the archaeological evidence to support that. They didn't have to take the land from anyone else, it was open when they got here, as they discovered the land.

 

[MennoSota]

There was certainly warfare among the tribes, but the fact remains that the native americans were the first here, we have the archaeological evidence to support that. They didn't have to take the land from anyone else, it was open when they got here, as they discovered the land.

Certainly someone got here first. We can say that about any land on earth, but no one expects to go back and cede the land back to the original squatters. The present nation is the keeper of the land. When that nation falls someone else will take control of stewardship. This is the process that has happened from the beginning.

 

[Vylo]

Certainly someone got here first. We can say that about any land on earth, but no one expects to go back and cede the land back to the original squatters. The present nation is the keeper of the land. When that nation falls someone else will take control of stewardship. This is the process that has happened from the beginning.

We can say that about any land, but what we cannot say about just any land or people is that they were the original inhabitants, but this this case, the Burns Paiute were indeed the originals.

While warfare wasn't uncommon for native americans, acquiring territory wasn't that common. When you have ~15 million people for an entire continent, you have plenty of room to move around. Certainly some tribes did it, (the Lakota being a more famous example), but there wasn't nearly as much need as there was in densely populated continents like Europe.

 

[MennoSota]

We can say that about any land, but what we cannot say about just any land or people is that they were the original inhabitants, but this this case, the Burns Paiute were indeed the originals.

While warfare wasn't uncommon for native americans, acquiring territory wasn't that common. When you have ~15 million people for an entire continent, you have plenty of room to move around. Certainly some tribes did it, (the Lakota being a more famous example), but there wasn't nearly as much need as there was in densely populated continents like Europe.

You are sure that the Paiute were there first. If so, it is irrelevant to today. The US Federal Government is the present occupant and determines who can use this land. Since the Paiute members are also US citizens, they can use the same legal system that everyone else uses to gain access to federal lands. It is no longer their land, whether anyone likes it or not.
The Paiute know this, which is why they now fight their battles in the court of law rather than on the land. Those ranchers who are occupying government lands should be removed and they can use the court of law to fight their battles as well. The US government is sovereign over this matter.

 

[Vylo]

You are sure that the Paiute were there first. If so, it is irrelevant to today. The US Federal Government is the present occupant and determines who can use this land. Since the Paiute members are also US citizens, they can use the same legal system that everyone else uses to gain access to federal lands. It is no longer their land, whether anyone likes it or not.
The Paiute know this, which is why they now fight their battles in the court of law rather than on the land. Those ranchers who are occupying government lands should be removed and they can use the court of law to fight their battles as well. The US government is sovereign over this matter.

It is relevant in that they were there first. Of course that doesn't mean you have to or necessarily should cede the land to them, but to say that all land was taken from someone is isn't true, primarily because some land hasn't been occupied nearly as long.

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

{{{Red Fox!}}}

O'siyo, my friend. I am here, watching this thread in amusement. I admit that it would be a much more interesting discussion if other NDNs were here too.

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

What would the fox say?

She says that is stupid and annoying. Well, you did ask.

 

[MennoSota]

She says that is stupid and annoying. Well, you did ask.

Do you speak to Nanabozho often?

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

Do you speak to Nanabozho often?

Now why would you ask me a question like that? And besides, possibly derailing this thread from its OP.

 

[MennoSota]

Now why would you ask me a question like that? And besides, possibly derailing this thread from its OP.

The derailing happened at the fox comment. I'm just adding to the trickster fox fun.

 

[smaneck]

The derailing happened at the fox comment. I'm just adding to the trickster fox fun.

I was welcoming Red Fox back to the forum. She's been away for awhile.

 

[TerranceL]

Sometimes, but there was no shortage of land in the Americas. In any case the Northern Paiute had been there for the last 1300 years. And I think "well everyone else did it" is a pretty lame excuse.

I'm sure the european and arabs thought that "well everyone else did it" was a pretty lame excuse too when the mongols invaded, but mysteriously they mongols didn't seem to care.

 

[stamperben]

You are sure that the Paiute were there first. If so, it is irrelevant to today. The US Federal Government is the present occupant and determines who can use this land. Since the Paiute members are also US citizens, they can use the same legal system that everyone else uses to gain access to federal lands. It is no longer their land, whether anyone likes it or not.
The Paiute know this, which is why they now fight their battles in the court of law rather than on the land. Those ranchers who are occupying government lands should be removed and they can use the court of law to fight their battles as well. The US government is sovereign over this matter.

Maybe you have missed the fact that treaties are engaged between nations. The United States and the native populations that were here. The US has treated the various tribes as separate nations. Thus, the treaties; agreements that have been perverted and ignored by the United States government. So of course they go to court, and those courts time and time again do not take into account the legal binding treaties that have been entered into between the two nations. Why not?

 

[MennoSota]

Maybe you have missed the fact that treaties are engaged between nations. The United States and the native populations that were here. The US has treated the various tribes as separate nations. Thus, the treaties; agreements that have been perverted and ignored by the United States government. So of course they go to court, and those courts time and time again do not take into account the legal binding treaties that have been entered into between the two nations. Why not?

I have not missed the process by which treaties are signed. However, the US has designated Native Tribes as "dependent" sovereign nations, which means they are not considered equals to the US government. This was done when the tribal nations agreed to stop fighting the US government and the land grab, which the federal government chose to do.
Not once will you find me applauding the actions of the federal government in this matter. I only state how it works today, regardless of how people feel about it.
The Paiute know this and they understand that the modern battle takes place in the courts. This is why every indigenous nation works to send some members to law school. They know who their warriors are today.

 

[smaneck]

I'm sure the european and arabs thought that "well everyone else did it" was a pretty lame excuse too when the mongols invaded, but mysteriously they mongols didn't seem to care.

LOL. I had a racist colleague when I taught at Murray State University in Kentucky. He argued that if Europeans hadn't been superior, they would not have conquered the world. I asked him if that meant the Mongols were a superior race as well. However, what Arabs (and Persians) were thinking when the Mongols invaded was that these people were Gog and Magog and it was the end of the world. These same historians had covered the Crusades and that was treated more or less as "a game of thrones."

 

[smaneck]

Not once will you find me applauding the actions of the federal government in this matter. I only state how it works today, regardless of how people feel about it.
The Paiute know this and they understand that the modern battle takes place in the courts. This is why every indigenous nation works to send some members to law school. They know who their warriors are today.

I think you are right about that.

 

[smaneck]

Thus, the treaties; agreements that have been perverted and ignored by the United States government. So of course they go to court, and those courts time and time again do not take into account the legal binding treaties that have been entered into between the two nations. Why not?

Increasingly courts have recognized many of their claims.

 

[jenny1972]

If we are talking about the Malheur lands, here is the problem: the tribe did sign a treaty ceding that land to the federal government. However, the Senate failed to ratify the treaty, not that this minor detail would stop the government from taking the land. So if the matter were to be brought before the Supreme Court, who do you suppose they would side with? It seems to me that the current arrangement where the Federal government accommodates the tribes use of the land and the tribe in turn lets them manage it works best for everyone. Otherwise I believe the Native Americans should have legal title to it, even if they use it to build a casino.



You do realize that churches hold religious services on federal lands all the time? In fact, I don't know of a single National Park that doesn't hold them.

if the tribe signed a treaty ceding the land why do you say the fed government "stole it" ?

 

[smaneck]

if the tribe signed a treaty ceding the land why do you say the fed government "stole it" ?

Because the Senate never ratified the treaty which makes it provisions null and void. A treaty has to be approved by both sides before it goes into effect.

 

[smaneck]

native amercans would have a much better chance of reclaiming land that is rightfully theirs if control over that land is transferred from the federal government to the state . However unless native amercans can prove in court that a treaty/land agreement has been broken (are in possession of the original land agreement that shows that the land belongs to them) i dot know what paperwork to prove that in a court they have. This has also raised national awareness about native land rights and if they do have evidence that a land contract was broken i hope they go to court .

It was broken as soon as the Senate failed to ratify the treaty but the government took the land anyhow.