American Indian reservations.

[Autumnleaf]

Then United States of America is built on the ruins of many Native American cultures. In return some of these Native American tribes receive land and other subsidies for their trouble. Some Americans say this is not fair since they shouldn't have to pay for Indians to live on welfare. Others say it is the least the United States can do for the people it has stolen land from. What do you say?

 

[Amiga1200]

By introducing alcohol and fast food onto reservations, we have the insulin-free blood of an unbelievable diabetes epidemic on our hands. But I think its less than the least we can do, given that some Native American reservations in South Dakota have life expectancies of 57, with full majorities of all houses in them not even having internal plumbing. Thats way below what should be provided, regardless of the perception.

Of course, like everything else, my solutions revolve around redistribution of wealth and Democratic Socialism.

 

[Autumnleaf]

By introducing alcohol and fast food onto reservations, we have the insulin-free blood of an unbelievable diabetes epidemic on our hands. But I think its less than the least we can do, given that some Native American reservations in South Dakota have life expectancies of 57, with full majorities of all houses in them not even having internal plumbing. Thats way below what should be provided, regardless of the perception.

Of course, like everything else, my solutions revolve around redistribution of wealth and Democratic Socialism.

I worked on the Lakota res in South Dakota. The government build new houses for the poor natives there. To give you an idea of the mentality there, one new home owner tore out the outside wall by the bath tub so his horses could drink from the bath tub. No indoor plumbing indeed.

 

[Daniel25]

we should honor the agreements we have made with various tribes.

 

[quatona]

Then United States of America is built on the ruins of many Native American cultures. In return some of these Native American tribes receive land and other subsidies for their trouble. Some Americans say this is not fair since they shouldn't have to pay for Indians to live on welfare. Others say it is the least the United States can do for the people it has stolen land from. What do you say?

I´d say it´s the least you can do - knowing well that some things can´t be fixed with money.

 

[Jade Margery]

When I think of the Native American peoples, it leads me directly to our hypocritical support of the creation of Israel after World War II based on the Jewish people wanting their 'holy land' back... and throwing off the people who had been living on it for hundreds of years. If the Jews had a right to take Israel back, the Native Americans should have more than a right to take America back.

Although they are given some government subsidies, the fact is that we are still screwing the Native Americans over in new ways even today. Corporations use loopholes in laws or financial bullying to set tribes against each other, buy rights to their land for cheap, or pass legislation limiting their freedoms, such as how many livestock they are allowed to have or where they are allowed to build. And in the end it comes down to the same thing--a whole race of people pushed into too small an area of the least desirable land.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would say that we should continue to provide the funding for housing and living costs.

I do feel that it would be beneficial to introduce other initiatives and ideas into the plan of repayment more centric around integration with the rest of society:

They should be able to trade or sell their on-reservation land in exchange for off-reservation land of equal acreage.
The children should be educated in regular schools where they get the chance to be with other children and establish some connections.
We should be providing more incentives for them to go to college (even if that means 100% paid tuition grants)

I know it may come across as slightly harsh and sound like I'm saying "they should just be more like us", but I feel if we really want to improve the quality of life and have citizens that can make contributions to society, I feel that there's more opportunities for them to do that off the reservation rather than staying on it.

Obviously it would be ideal if we had the power to go back in time and undo the damage that's already been done, but unfortunately that's something we can't do. Also, at this point in the game, isolation from the rest of the country isn't going solve anything as to where if we made incentives for them to get college education (which we should pay 100% for) and join the rest of the labor force and leave the reservation, that would be better for their well being and financial situation, and within a few generations, our expenses would go down after more and more of them become self sufficient.

 

[Richard]

I live in Oklahoma and the reservations here are completely different from other places. The Cherokee nation is one of the largest and has great/rich culture. You can take a look at the bad, but there's bad in every demographic. I knew the Chief of the Cherokee Nation and he was well respected, but I also knew those who were on the lower end of the totem poll, so you shouldn't judge a culture by the weakest link. Americans have the same "totems" so to speak.

I think we should honor the agreements we've had regardless of what happens to what we give them.

 

[Amiga1200]

The only real solution is to travel back in time in order to line up on the shores of Hispaniola in 1492 and on Plymouth Rock in 1620 with some modern laser weapons and some crazy pyrotechnics (maybe a horror movie on a giant screen) and scare the Europeans into never trying to come back here again. I kid I kid... or maybe not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I live in Oklahoma and the reservations here are completely different from other places. The Cherokee nation is one of the largest and has great/rich culture. You can take a look at the bad, but there's bad in every demographic. I knew the Chief of the Cherokee Nation and he was well respected, but I also knew those who were on the lower end of the totem poll, so you shouldn't judge a culture by the weakest link. Americans have the same "totems" so to speak.

I think we should honor the agreements we've had regardless of what happens to what we give them.

I've never seen the Oklahoma reservations, but it sounds like they're much better than the ones I have been to in North Carolina.

I actually went on a tour of one down there (or up there depending on where you live), and the conditions were pretty poor. The Native guide told us about what benefits they received (or lack thereof). Most of the population on that reservation ended up with an acre or two of scrub brush and a monthly check from the government in the amount of $550 (which even with no mortgage payment isn't really enough to live on), and alcohol and opium abuse were pretty common there. Also, sources of outside income were very limited since the school they had on the reservation wasn't deemed "accredited" by the state so unless they got a GED, they didn't have a diploma (which closes doors on a lot of job opportunities). It's reservations like that, that I feel should be given a long look at what it would take to start getting them integrated into non-reservation life hopefully prep the next generation to make a go of it on the outside world.

As for the reservations that are getting better treatment, they should have that land permenently, financially free and clear and given the proper funding and development grants to allow them to set up some industry in their own communities that will allow them to start generating their own income (and not just the stereotypical casinos that we all hear about), but some actual businesses and make those businesses tax exempt so that they can keep all of the profits. One department store could probably generate more revenue for them in a month than they're getting from the government. If something like that could be established, then in the long term both sides would win. They would have full ownership of their land and a reliable source of income, and slowly we could phase out the government funding once it's ensured that they're self-sufficient.

Obviously no solution is perfect for this situation, but when we're dealing with a mistake that our ancestors made over a couple hundred years ago, we're kind of limited on our options.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

I am of Sioux and Cherokee ancestry, and I have visited both the Qualla Boundry (Cherokee land in NC) and the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. The Cheyenne River Reservation is the poorest county in the United States. Jobs out there are very scarce, so there are many people out there who are willing to work but can't.

Having seen the poverty first hand, I have no problem with giving assistance to the people who live on the poor reservations. In fact my dream is to work as a midwife and provide services for underprivleged women on the reservation and perhaps open a free clinic.

For anyone who is interested, here is an article about the poverty on Cheyenne River
A look inside America's poorest county

I worked on the Lakota res in South Dakota.

May I ask which one?

 

[Verv]

Then United States of America is built on the ruins of many Native American cultures. In return some of these Native American tribes receive land and other subsidies for their trouble. Some Americans say this is not fair since they shouldn't have to pay for Indians to live on welfare. Others say it is the least the United States can do for the people it has stolen land from. What do you say?

The land wasn't stolen.

It was rightfully conquered.

The Native Americans did not have a civilization of worth and were not using their land in a way that was productive; the Europeans invoked the doctrine of Terra Nullis and took the land to make use of it.

It should also be pointed out that the populations of the Native Americans were so small that it would be illogical to say that they ever merited having the entirety of the continents.

Did injustices occur? Sure... But just as often did the Native Americans do grave injustices to one another as their societies were more primitive than their European counterparts.

 

[Amiga1200]

You can't apply a doctrine that is only conceived of by your culture, with the subjective values (obviously) biasing one in favor of that culture in order to take land by force.

And, your use of "terra nullis" as a is an anachronistic backwards-engineered justification in in the extreme. Much of the conquering in North, Central, and South America was done by Spaniards who, quite literally, believed that the Natives were not human (see the debates that occurred in response to Bartholomeo De Las Casas' positions). Much of the other "conquering" was done for explicitly religious purposes, or due to simple ethnocentric bigotry rather than because of a complex analysis of the cultural value of a society with different conceptions of property (or lack thereof).

Last, I'll re-frame G.A. Cohen's objection to Robert Nozick.
1. Nozick claims that it is a form of coercion and violence to extract taxes.
2. Most of the origin of specific "titles to land" throughout history was accrued through violence and coercion.
3. If it remains unacceptable to accrue titles to property through violence, then the titles to most lands are invalid and must be reverted to either common or equal-parts ownership or must be acceded back to the descendants of the original owners (in the cases where such tracing is possible). This solution as per Nozick's own admission, but it also logically follows especially in the case where land passes from "communal or untitled" ownership into the hands of private individuals.
4. If, however, it is acceptable to gain proper and valid title to property through violence and coercion, then the government is justified in taxing at any rate or confiscating any property it desires for its own purposes.

All your position, which I've heard precious few times (thank Ral), does is justify violence through one's belief in the subjective merits of a population that you deem "primitive".

1. For this purpose, I define capitalism and the notion of private property as "primitive" and "barbaric" due to various objections raised against it since time immemorial.
2. Given this label, I can see no way that a capitalist could claim that the violence then done against holders of property in the interest of communal ownership is unjustified. Certainly, propertarians could fight against the communitarians due to conflicting ideas about barbarism and primitivism and freedom and understanding of property, but cannot claim an objective justification from a subjective valuation unless redefining the very essence of how one conceives of "justification" or "primitive", etc... (and if redefining, I would turn you over to Wittgenstein and wash my hands of you).
3. The only just way to prevent this from an internally consistent perspective is to rely on the harm principle.
4. Using the harm principle indicates Europeans clearly violated the rights of Natives and harmed them... not only in the past, but Natives arguably continue to be left "worse off than if they had not been encountered" (a continuing violation of harm principle).

Also, the "enough and good enough" portion of Locke's conception of property is logically self-refuting and already impossible to fulfill without mass redistribution, so even a utilitarian analysis for conquering Natives and subjecting the land to a private-property concept fails.
1. It fails in its own time because the grievous harm done to the Natives was objectively (based on deaths, disease, population decline) worse from a utilitarian perspective.
2. It cannot be justified based on an interpretation of the present (i.e. the good done to generations yet untold is greater than the harm visited/being visited upon Natives) without taking into account the self-refuting nature of the justification for property itself (in a mass utilitarian context). Else it cannot be proven that coexistence with the Natives or even adoption of their culture and lack of property wouldn't have actually resulted in a greater benefit to the most people.

I'm late for work, so no more editing. Still...

 

[quatona]

The Native Americans did not have a civilization of worth

Whut?

 

[Polycarp1]

Then United States of America is built on the ruins of many Native American cultures. In return some of these Native American tribes receive land and other subsidies for their trouble. Some Americans say this is not fair since they shouldn't have to pay for Indians to live on welfare. Others say it is the least the United States can do for the people it has stolen land from. What do you say?

The term "reservation" itself should clue you into what's erroneous in the way your question is phrased from a legal point of view. From a might-is-right, we-can-do-whatever-we-want perspective, there may be an ethical question eorth discussing.

There is no single generalization one can make on Native Americans. Some were as territorial/sovereignty-oriented as Europe. Some were pragmatic socialists -- all land was common to the nation, which undertook to protect and feed its members.

But in broad terms, the majority of the nations between the Alleghenies and the Sierras regarded the land much as we do the sea: nobody "owns" it, save for the area right around one'[s home lands, but different nations have the right to exploit different resources in different areas. As the US expanded westward, we entered into treaties (sometimes after fights) with Native nations whereby our settlers could homestead and farm the land they had formerly been accustomed to hunt on, conditional on leaving them their homes (or in some cases resettling them in new areas). Those lands are their sovereign territory, just as Luxembourg is what is left of the old Grand Duchy after Germany, France, and Belgium helped themselves to the rest of it.

Now Congress early in the 20th century saw fit to extend American citizenship to the Native Americans living either on or off reservations within US national boundaries. As such, the poor among them are entitled to EBT 'food stamp' benefits, etc. (Many of the Native nations provide for their own; some, e.g., Pine Ridge, are too impoverished to.) And there might be a question of whether this is right, though I think they're equally entitled with other mericqans now, whatever 'entitled' may mean here.

But it's not a case of what we gave them, except in the sense that we didn't use overwhelming power to commit genocide or take all their land -- the reservations are what they kept when they gave us the rest.

 

[Polycarp1]

The land wasn't stolen.

It was rightfully conquered.

The Native Americans did not have a civilization of worth and were not using their land in a way that was productive; the Europeans invoked the doctrine of Terra Nullis and took the land to make use of it.

It should also be pointed out that the populations of the Native Americans were so small that it would be illogical to say that they ever merited having the entirety of the continents.

Did injustices occur? Sure... But just as often did the Native Americans do grave injustices to one another as their societies were more primitive than their European counterparts.

That might be clearer translated into German -- except somebody already wrote something quite similar, back in the 1920s.

 

[Crusader05]

The land wasn't stolen.

It was rightfully conquered.

The Jews did not have a civilization of worth and were not using their land in a way that was productive; the Europeans invoked the doctrine of Terra Nullis and took the land to make use of it.

It should also be pointed out that the populations of the Jews were so small that it would be illogical to say that they ever merited having the entirety of the continents.

Did injustices occur? Sure... But just as often did the Jews do grave injustices to one another as their societies were more primitive than their European counterparts.

How about we try that with some minor changes. Does it still sound reasonable?

 

[SharonL]

I saw a program about the Indians (I agree they got the short end of the stick) but it showed the Indians that worked for a living and their places were nice and clean and kept up and the ones that received government benefits were torn down, junk all around and lots of drunks.

But they are just like anyone else - work and make your own way and you stand tall and respect yourself - sit and wait for handouts and drink, your self esteem is in the tank.

I don't know if they have any other choices, so I am not criticising them as I don't know - just telling you what I saw.

 

[Daniel25]

Some of the romanticism that secular moderns attach to the Tribes is a bit ridicolous and patronizing. The Lakota and Apache were serious business. They were not sitting around smoking dope and talking about the Earth Mother and the Holy Buffalo or whatever you think they were doing.

The Tribes are soverign states within America. And that is how they should be treated. They are not subject to state laws, but they are to federal. Tax structures are largely based on what treatises we've signed with them. Patronizing attempts to "save" them have led to some of the crudest and most embarassing actions of early 20th century america, such as schools which abducted young indians, abused them, forced them to abandon their own culture and language.

In conclusion, we should honor our treaties and leave them alone.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The land wasn't stolen.

It was rightfully conquered.

The Native Americans did not have a civilization of worth and were not using their land in a way that was productive; the Europeans invoked the doctrine of Terra Nullis and took the land to make use of it.

So if I got a large group of armed people and we came over and kicked your family out of their house on the grounds that we don't think your doing a good job keeping up with the landscaping, that officially makes it ours?

It should also be pointed out that the populations of the Native Americans were so small that it would be illogical to say that they ever merited having the entirety of the continents.

That's true, there was enough land for both the Europeans and the natives to live on it...that being said, why didn't the Europeans inhabit the large portions of land that was unused by the Natives? It's simple, the tribes had already done all the leg work and prepped the soil for growing crops, not to mention when given the chance, most of the settlers couldn't even figure out how to grow food. When the Powhatans (and I hope I'm spelling that right) quit giving handouts to the settlers of the Jamestown, 75% of them died from starvation in a matter of a few months.

To make things worse, once the Natives got shoved out to the undesirable land and still managed get that ready for growing crops, then the settlers came in and took that over and moved them somewhere else. It's almost like they we're beiing used as land excavators. So for a civilization that you describe as "worthless" and "Not using the land in a productive way", the Euro's sure we're awfully eager to jump all over the result of their unproductivity.