Treaty rules continue in to pop up in wildlife news

[BWALKER77]

I've also debated posting to this thread, but here we are.

It seems that some of us are stuck in a bit of the perspective we learned early on. I think it is worthwhile recognizing that there are additional perspectives worth considering.

Some/many of the treaties from the late 1800's were not signed or joined voluntarily by the Tribes. They were forced and coerced into new terms by the US Government which was not upholding previous treaty terms. The US Government was not providing the housing, food, or other means set forth in the initial mid-century treaties. The US Government also attacked peaceful groups and other tribes for various reasons, some of which resulted in retaliation by Natives which the Government used to deny treaty provisions.

I'm not saying one perspective is completely right or wrong, just that the truth probably isn't as simple as some of us initially were taught. This post is a drastic oversimplification of the situation, but if you want the full perspective then check out "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee."

I wouldn't call Browns book as a full perspective at all. In reality it's pretty biased.
What happened between the Native Americans and Europeans after first contact was unfortunate, but mostly inevitable. It's what happens when a modern industrial culture comes in contact with one still more or less in the stone age. What was wrong was the blatant racism of the US government when it came to the reservation system and the various schemes foisted on the Tribes ever since. The reservation system in and of itself is racist and needs to be done away with. It's also incidentally the cause of most of the problems NA face today.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ugh, can’t believe I am going here but… here I go. I almost deleted this like 3 times…

I can’t argue that there wasn’t a healthy dose of white supremacy involved.

It does beg the question though: So what kind of supremacy were all the other ethnicities that took over territory and held slaves that made up varying ethnicities practicing? Why do we never talk about those people?

It is commonly theorized that the word slave is derived from slav or slavonic due to their being held in bondage by folks over in the middle east in like the 6th century. Was that Arab supremacy?

Were the indigenous tribes that displaced other indigenous tribes practicing some form of ethnic supremacy?

Or was everyone back then just doing what people did back then. Holding people of the past to modern ideals is really strange.

I never understood why early Americans are held to a higher standard than everyone else throughout human history as if Americans concocted the concept of conquest and slavery and were the only ones practicing them at the time.

How far back do we want to go with our finger pointing?

Damn glad most of the world wised up like 160 years ago. Well hopefully…

I don’t even know what this has to do with the topic honestly.

With that said, if we as Americans signed a treaty with these folks, honor it and/or renegotiate in good faith.

The law is the law.

Like all races - pratice, nature, frequency and recency of slave ownership varies. But that really isn't the point. Nor is that all peoples tend to have a self preference - Europeans, Japanese, etc etc etc. The question is now that we see that it is clearly wrong to extend this nature self-orientation into laws and policies based on race, gender, etc what do we have to clean up.

It is entirely possible that in a very different history, a large group of Italians would choose to use laws to greatly disadvantage a large group of "lesser" Irish immigrants if left to their own devices. But that is not relevant, as in our reality the Italians did not disadvantage the Irish in this way. It doesn't matter what they may have done, or what was in their hearts a hundred years ago.

What matters is the specific societal and governmental acts that we have done and who we did to - that is the question. And that means it is mostly about what men did to women and whites did to non-whites, and what should we do now to make for a better society that enables all to pursue life liberty and pursuit of hapiness.

As far as how we got to race, I think it come out of several posts that essentially said "Indians are lousy why give them anything they will just screw it up". And here we are.

 

[sapperJ24]

I wouldn't call Browns book as a full perspective at all. In reality it's pretty biased.
What happened between the Native Americans and Europeans after first contact was unfortunate, but mostly inevitable. It's what happens when a modern industrial culture comes in contact with one still more or less in the stone age. What was wrong was the blatant racism of the US government when it came to the reservation system and the various schemes foisted on the Tribes ever since. The reservation system in and of itself is racist and needs to be done away with. It's also incidentally the cause of most of the problems NA face today.

Appreciate the response, my intent with "full perspective" was more of the complete picture of this specific perspective than my short synopsis, not trying to suggest this work is representative the entire Native perspective. Certainly Brown has his biases, and, to me, that is the point, just as the Generals and politicians who wrote the other histories have their biases.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Buzz, treaties where changed almost as soon as they were signed in some cases. For instance the Crow reservation at one time started in Paradise valley and its agency was located in Livingston, then it was shrunk and the agency moved to Absarokee, then it was shrunk again and moved to Crow Agency.
I already stated why they should be renegotiated, but I will say it again. To reflect modernity.
And sure you could tell them to fug off, but that goes both ways.

Treaties are always open to renegotiation - so what are you willing to give them more than they have now in order for them to have less fishing rights (or other topic you want fixed). No real definition of renegotiation means - "you will take less and like it." Or do you mean renegotiation as code for we will once again take what we want to suit our needs of the moment?

 

[VikingsGuy]

The point is tribes talk about sovereignty, but it isn't what they really want.

Sovereignty does not mean untethered from the USA. Our 50 states/commonwealths are sovereigns, does that mean they have to surrender all federal support and involvement in the US? Even a cursory reading of history and legal texts shows that the USA is a nation of states, commonwealths, a federal district, territories, possessions, freely associated states, and native tribes. Each having a form of sovereinty with a range of legal frameworks/relationships governed by the federal govt.

 

[FI460]

Or do you mean renegotiation as code for we will once again take what we want to suit our needs of the moment?

And for folks pushing this line, where do you get enough senators to sign off on that type of "renegotiation" to overcome the filibuster?

 

[VikingsGuy]

. . .

What was wrong was the blatant racism of the US government when it came to the reservation system and the various schemes foisted on the Tribes ever since. The reservation system in and of itself is racist and needs to be done away with. It's also incidentally the cause of most of the problems NA face today.

An interesting question. If at the time we had made them fully voting citizens with all the rights associated therewith and fed them for a few generations so that they could make the transition in their own way it might have worked out better. But that is not what happened - for our benefit (and largely on racist grounds) we excluded them from citizenship until 1924. At this point, it is fair for them to choose to retain their unique lands and culture and that is not racist -- they are making the best of the mess we forced upon them. It would be racist to now (yet again) ignore their wishes and once again make our own rules to our own liking.

 

[406dn]

Ugh, can’t believe I am going here but… here I go. I almost deleted this like 3 times…

I can’t argue that there wasn’t a healthy dose of white supremacy involved.

It does beg the question though: So what kind of supremacy were all the other ethnicities that took over territory and held slaves that made up varying ethnicities practicing? Why do we never talk about those people?

It is commonly theorized that the word slave is derived from slav or slavonic due to their being held in bondage by folks over in the middle east in like the 6th century. Was that Arab supremacy?

Were the indigenous tribes that displaced other indigenous tribes practicing some form of ethnic supremacy?

Or was everyone back then just doing what people did back then. Holding people of the past to modern ideals is really strange.

I never understood why early Americans are held to a higher standard than everyone else throughout human history as if Americans concocted the concept of conquest and slavery and were the only ones practicing them at the time.

How far back do we want to go with our finger pointing?

Damn glad most of the world wised up like 160 years ago. Well hopefully…

I don’t even know what this has to do with the topic honestly.

With that said, if we as Americans signed a treaty with these folks, honor it and/or renegotiate in good faith.

The law is the law.

Thoughtful post.

I don't know the answer. I do think we have to have some realization that...say the first 100+ years of our country's existence, there was not a lot of racial enlightenment. There was cultural quasi religious entitlement that the North American continent was ours.

54-40 or fight was a component of the thought. Consider how much of Canada we had our eyes on for a time.

The family tree on my father's side, includes slave owners in Virginia. As I mentioned in a post my great grandfather fought proudly as a Confederate soldier. He was active in the KKK in his day. His grandson, my father, could hardly be more different, so nothing stays the same for ever.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, treaties where changed almost as soon as they were signed in some cases. For instance the Crow reservation at one time started in Paradise valley and its agency was located in Livingston, then it was shrunk and the agency moved to Absarokee, then it was shrunk again and moved to Crow Agency.
I already stated why they should be renegotiated, but I will say it again. To reflect modernity.
And sure you could tell them to fug off, but that goes both ways.

I've carefully considered your offer to renegotiate our treaty so you can, once again, put the screws to our rights.

You can GFY.

Signed___________(tribe).

Exactly what the wind river reservation just told Gov. Gordon and our legislature a couple weeks ago.

 

[Shangobango]

Thoughtful post.

I don't know the answer. I do think we have to have some realization that...say the first 100+ years of our country's existence, there was not a lot of racial enlightenment. There was cultural quasi religious entitlement that the North American continent was ours.

54-40 or fight was a component of the thought. Consider how much of Canada we had our eyes on for a time.

The family tree on my father's side, includes slave owners in Virginia. As I mentioned in a post my great grandfather fought proudly as a Confederate soldier. He was active in the KKK in his day. His grandson, my father, could hardly be more different, so nothing stays the same for ever.

I appreciate your response. Very good point that nothing stays the same.

I have several in my family tree who fought on both sides of the Civil War. I haven’t found any evidence of slave ownership. It seems my ancestors were not that well off back then from what I can tell so the lack iof evidence may not be due to ideology. At least a quarter of my ancestors were indigenous to the continent though some of my white ancestors beat my native ancestors to this neck of the woods by 50 or 60 years. At least one branch of the European side of the family tree hit the continent as early as the 1640’s.

The generational change in racism in my family is fairly recent. My generation pretty much broke the chain which is perplexing being that I am a mutt with German, Jewish, and at least two native tribes in my family tree…. I just don’t get it.

All that said to say, we can’t change the past but not honoring treaties is, well…dishonorable.

 

[Derek44]

So many very thought out and intelligent responses to this thread. It’s a tricky subject, and I know where my heart and blood stands in it. Ultimately, I put my faith in the SCOTUS and hope they uphold what’s right. All the other arguments are like wrestling with pigs and I’m not proficient in that. I will say though, that accusing me of supporting sex trafficking and “2023 slavery” is basically an argument that holds the same weight as you saying you personally support Hitler and his genocidal tendencies. I’m not well versed or well researched enough to argue this topic but that’s why I put my faith in the law and court decisions that were put in place to protect these treaties and decisions made way before all our time. Sorry. I don’t have any good arguments, but I don’t think the tribes are wrong by putting their hope and faith in that same system that was imposed upon them.

So you are OK with current slavery? If so, please explain why.

 

[Shangobango]

I appreciate your response. Very good point that nothing stays the same.

I have several in my family tree who fought on both sides of the Civil War. I haven’t found any evidence of slave ownership. It seems my ancestors were not that well off back then from what I can tell so the lack iof evidence may not be due to ideology. At least a quarter of my ancestors were indigenous to the continent though some of my white ancestors beat my native ancestors to this neck of the woods by 50 or 60 years. At least one branch of the European side of the family tree hit the continent as early as the 1640’s.

The generational change in racism in my family is fairly recent. My generation pretty much broke the chain which is perplexing being that I am a mutt with German, Jewish, and at least two native tribes in my family tree…. I just don’t get it.

All that said to say, we can’t change the past but not honoring treaties is, well…dishonorable.

Like all races - pratice, nature, frequency and recency of slave ownership varies. But that really isn't the point. Nor is that all peoples tend to have a self preference - Europeans, Japanese, etc etc etc. The question is now that we see that it is clearly wrong to extend this nature self-orientation into laws and policies based on race, gender, etc what do we have to clean up.

It is entirely possible that in a very different history, a large group of Italians would choose to use laws to greatly disadvantage a large group of "lesser" Irish immigrants if left to their own devices. But that is not relevant, as in our reality the Italians did not disadvantage the Irish in this way. It doesn't matter what they may have done, or what was in their hearts a hundred years ago.

What matters is the specific societal and governmental acts that we have done and who we did to - that is the question. And that means it is mostly about what men did to women and whites did to non-whites, and what should we do now to make for a better society that enables all to pursue life liberty and pursuit of hapiness.

As far as how we got to race, I think it come out of several posts that essentially said "Indians are lousy why give them anything they will just screw it up". And here we are.

Missed your reply VG. I appreciate it as always.

This issue seems fairly simple to me. If the treaties are lawful we should honor them.

If I was a tribal member I would try to leverage everything I could to get everything I could while the getting is good.

What is more American than that?

 

[longbow51]

So many very thought out and intelligent responses to this thread. It’s a tricky subject, and I know where my heart and blood stands in it. Ultimately, I put my faith in the SCOTUS and hope they uphold what’s right. All the other arguments are like wrestling with pigs and I’m not proficient in that. I will say though, that accusing me of supporting sex trafficking and “2023 slavery” is basically an argument that holds the same weight as you saying you personally support Hitler and his genocidal tendencies. .

The comment that wanting to stop current enslavement of children somehow minimizes past slavery is incomprehensible to me, and remains so. I get that it's way easier to fight battles in the past.

As for the lake, let them have as much as they can get.

longbow out.

 

[USMC123456789]

The quote clearly refers to post-treaty/post-“conquering” stealing/misbehavior by feds.

And the US agreed to provide for most of these tribes - but since when did a man’s word mean anything - since when did folks believe in contract rights, property rights, treaties.

Two simple solutions for you - (1) get enough votes in US Congress to erase the treaty/sovereignty framework; or (2) give your land/home to the nearest tribe member and move back to the European country your ancestors fled/got kicked out of. I am fine with either of your choices.

Since you're a Vikings guy are you heading back to Europe too?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Since you're a Vikings guy are you heading back to Europe too?

They play the wrong kind of football over there . Just seems easier to honor our written commitments - an old-school approach I know.

 

[NR_Hunter]

I'm not big brain like some of you guys and can usually barely form coherent sentences, but I really think all the arguing for or against are moot points. I don't see how something like this wouldn't end up in the US Supreme Court, and I don't think the judges are going to side with the Tribes. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm sympathetic to both sides tbh. I do think treaty rights need to be honored, but I don't really know much about the treaty rights and if all of Upper Red was originally a part of it. It will be taking a lot of opportunity away from Minnesota residents, so I can understand resistance to it.

Overall, the Land Back movement makes me very uncomfortable. I just feel like it will end up being poor people (the Tribes) against poor people (public land users like me), while the wealthy landowners, people who can afford to lease etc. are entirely unaffected.