U.S. must heal native peoples' wounds, return lands: U.N.

[MindMover]

Source: Reuters


(Reuters) - The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by more than a century of oppression, including restoring control over lands Native Americans consider to be sacred, a U.N. human rights investigator said on Friday.

James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, just completed a 12-day visit to the United States where he met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials.

"I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the history of oppression they have faced," Anaya said in a statement issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva.

That oppression, he said, has included the seizure of lands and resources, the removal of children from their families and communities, the loss of languages, violation of treaties, and brutality, all grounded in racial discrimination.

Anaya welcomed the U.S. decision to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but said more was needed. His findings will be included in a final report submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council. While not binding, the recommendations carry moral weight that can influence governments.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-usa-indigenous-un-idUSBRE8431Q220120504

[annabanana]

1. That we were meant to exist as part of nature

rather than dominate it is just one lesson we could have learned, had we ears to hear..

We did so much damage.

[Odin2005]

4. Yet those "noble savages" still killed off the Megafauna.

This notion that traditional tribal societies are "at one with nature" is romantic nonsense.

[Posteritatis]

6. Yep. That said, what was done to them was - at least - in the same league.

I know up on this side of the border I'm absolutely convinced that what Canada did to most of the First Nations peoples constitutes genocide (and I'm one of the few people throwing the term around who's actually read the formal definition). It's tragic.

[Odin2005]

10. Oh, I agree completely.

[Mabus]

16. Yet, the concurrent megafauna die-off in Europe is attributed to climate

The idea that paleo-Indians killed off the megafauna in North America is a myth and should be reexamined in context of what was happening in the rest of the world.

[4th law of robotics]

17. +1

Oh the natives were in such harmony with nature. So much so that they wiped out every species that couldn't hide/breed fast enough.

The native americans were a disaster for this continent ecologically.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. 5 paras.

You need to clip to 4.

[Vattel]

3. More needs to be done, for sure.

[Odin2005]

5. K&R.

[castnet55]

7. A biased result

Now understanding that the man that did this investigation is Native American is it possible that his results are biased?
We know that the American government did the American Indians wrong, but the real question is what are we supposed to do for those that do not want to accept life off the reservation. Do we as a society continue to pour in millions of dollars as we have in the war on poverty?
I will say that more can be done but the conversation ought to include the Nations leaders all 534 or so of them.

[alittlelark]

9. Uh, Yeah.......

[yellerpup]

12. +1

Yep.

[bemildred]

13. "Do we as a society continue to pour in millions of dollars as we have in the war on poverty?"

Why yes, yes we do. It's peanuts really, billions is still peanuts.

[sofa king]

19. Biased, or informed?

Having dipped a toe in that line of work, it is infuriating to see how uninformed people are about Indian affairs, including some of the Members of Congress who directly deal with tribes, and our last President.

The problem is this simple: we treated with Indian tribes just as we did with foreign nations, and with the same legal permanence; then we broke every damned one of those treaties and fleeced the tribes for everything they had.

From the U.N. point of view, treaty-breaking is about the worst thing one nation can do; that biased result is a foregone conclusion, because the United States is guilty as hell. Putting an actual Native American on the case gives the U.N. a lifetime's head start beyond the simple treaty violation problem, and I for one am thankful for that.

[PufPuf23]

41. Cobell vs Salazar Settlement - a "win" for the Obama Administration

There is much confusion about the issue of of American Indian Trust lands. People including many American Indians are uninformed or deliberately confused.

The Cobell vs Salazar settlement ended all American Indian claims against the US Federal Government for Indian Trust lands (Reservations and Allotments) sold under the Dawes Act and monies lost by BIA mis-management of natural resources on Indian Trust lands. Cobell vs Salazar calls for $2 billion for Dawes Act sales and $1.4 Billion for decades of mis-management by the DOI/BIA of Indian Trust natural resources (minerals, fossil energy, timber, grazing, etc.) on lands remaining in Indian Trust post Dawes Act .

The settlement was for less than $0.02 on the dollar in economic terms ignoring cultural damage and excludes most American Indians.

Many American Indian leaders and the Obama Administration consider the settlement a "win" rather than a political convenience even though most American Indians are excluded.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobell_v._Salazar

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

About 100 million acres of Indian Trust lands were sold by the DOI/BIA under the Dawes Act. There are individual Tribes harmed more than the $2 Billion allotted for the entire USA. About 38 million acres of Indian Trust lands remain.

The 100 million acres sold under the Dawes Act and converted to fee simple is land within existing Reservations, terminated Reservations, and Indian Trust lands outside Reservations (Allotments).


From the FAQ at : http://www.cobellsettlement.com/


2. What am I giving up as part of the Settlement?

If the Settlement becomes final, you will give up your right to sue the federal government for the claims being resolved by this Settlement. The specific claims you are giving up against the federal government are described in Section A, paragraphs 14, 15, and 21 of the Settlement Agreement. You will be "releasing" the federal government and all related people as described in Section I of the Settlement Agreement.

[Enrique]

32. so we should only pay attention to studies by white people?

because then they wouldn't be biased?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

33. +1000 n/t

[DeSwiss]

8. K&R

[yellerpup]

11. My favorite.

Thanks.

[countryjake]

14. K&R!

[limpyhobbler]

15. Let's give them something big like gigantic valuable tracts of land.

Maybe we should give stuff to the tribes. Like big tracts of land with oil and gas under it. And big tracts of really good farmland. And some ocean front property. Like really big. Like the size of counties at least. Not sure if that is realistic or not but I thought it sounded good.

[Ron Obvious]

18. Farcical nonsense

There's no end to the givebacks we could champion like this, if we give this credence. Should the Normans be forced to give back the land they stole in 1066?

[lunatica]

20. Gee, are the Nomans in power now?

Do they still have the land in their possession?

Less than useless comment as there is no Norman rule or land ownership now.

[Ron Obvious]

21. The Normans stayed

Yes, the invading Normans are still there, you know.

[lunatica]

22. LOL!

By all means, defend your statement no matter what.

[Ron Obvious]

23. Thanks

Thanks for revealing your ignorance of British history.

[sofa king]

24. Did the King of England treat with the Normans?

Did the King recognize their ownership of the entirety of Great Britain, and purchase it through treaties?

Did the King cement the sovereign relationship between the English and the Normans, put laws in place prohibiting individuals from one nation purchasing land directly from the other, hold Norman land in trust for the Normans, promise them annuities, wells, salt mines, schools, farming assistance, and blankets?

Did the King write his treaties to be in effect in perpetuity, as long as the grass is green and the sky is blue?

Because the King did all of that with Indian tribes, and the United States inherited that policy and continues it to this day.

Except when non-Indians stand to make a buck.

[Ron Obvious]

25. What difference does it make?

What difference does it make? Every land on earth is occupied because of treason, invasion and displacement of native peoples. Even the "native" Americans came from Asia and likely displaced a native people in the process.

[azurnoir]

27. I've heard of Kennewick man, have you heard of the Ainu?

The remains had been scattered in the reservoir due to erosion. Following delivery of the cranium by the coroner, they were examined by archaeologist James Chatters. After ten visits to the site, Chatters had managed to collect 350 bones and pieces of bone, which with the skull completed almost an entire skeleton.[4] The cranium was fully intact with all the teeth that had been present at the time of death.[5] All major bones were found, except the sternum and a few bones of the hands and feet. The remains were determined to be those of "a male of late middle age (40-55 years), and tall (170 to 176 cm), slender build".[5] Many of the bones were broken into several pieces.[6] At the University of California at Riverside, a small bone fragment was subjected to radiocarbon dating. This fixed the age of the skeleton at approximately 9,300 years (8,400 uncalibrated "radiocarbon years&quot , not the nineteenth century, as had originally been assumed.[4] After studying the bones, Chatters concluded they belonged to a Caucasoid male about 68 inches (173 cm) tall who had died in his mid fifties.[4]

Chatters found that bone had partially grown around a 79 mm (3.1 in) stone projectile lodged in the ilium, part of the pelvic bone.[6] On x-ray, nothing appeared. Chatters put the bone through a CT scan, and it was discovered the projectile was made from a siliceous gray stone that was found to have igneous (intrusive volcanic) origins.[6] The projectile was leaf-shaped, long, broad and had serrated edges, all fitting the definition of a Cascade point. This type of point is a feature of the Cascade phase, which occurred roughly 7,500 to 12,000 years ago.[6]

To further investigate the mystery of the Kennewick man and determine whether the skeleton belonged to the Umatilla Native American tribe, an extraction of DNA was analyzed, and according to the report of the scientists doing the DNA analysis: "available technology and protocols do not allow the analysis of ancient DNA from these remains."[7]

Anthropologist Joseph Powell of the University of New Mexico was also allowed to examine the remains and his conclusions were contradictory. Powell used craniometric data obtained by anthropologist William White Howells of Harvard University and anthropologist Tsunehiko Hanihara (Japanese:埴原恒彦 of Saga University that had the "advantage" of including data drawn from "Asia" and "North America" populations.[8] Powell said that Kennewick Man was not European but most resembled the "Ainu"[4] and "Polynesians".[8] Powell said that the "Ainu" descend from the Jōmon people who are an "east Asian" population with "closest biological affinity with south-east Asians rather than western Eurasian peoples".[9] Furthermore, Powell said that dental analysis showed the skull had a "94 percent" chance of being a "Sundadont" group like the "Ainu" and "Polynesians" and only a "48 percent" chance of being a "Sinodont" group like that of "north Asia".[8] Powell said analysis of the skull showed it to be "unlike American Indians and Europeans".[8] Powell concluded that Kennewick man "is clearly not a Caucasoid" unless "Ainu" and "Polynesians" are considered "Caucasoid".[9]

This page was last modified on 2 May 2012 at 20:52.

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

The Ainu are the native peoples of Japan and both the Tlingit and Haida tribes of the NW coast of the US are related to them too

[Ron Obvious]

31. I've heard of them...

I've only just heard of them but I'm almost completely ignorant of them and Japanese history.

Real history is always more fascinating than our tidy narratives, isn't it?

[sofa king]

34. Yes, but few of them promised to pay for it.

We did. We wrote it into the highest law of the land, to be in effect forever.

And then we broke our own law, and not just any law, but treaties, the most important laws there are next to Amendments. I used to be able to scream shrilly "it could happen to you, someday!"

But then it did, thanks to George Bush and Jack Abramoff, and we're all Indians now. Except the rest of us don't have a receipt, and they do.

[ieoeja]

42. Did the Norman King treat with the English?

You wrote that entire piece backwards, so I will correct and try to answer....


"Did the Norman King treat with the English?"

Yes.


"Did the King recognize their ownership of the entirety of England (there was no Great Britain at the time), and purchase it through treaties?"

William's claim to the throne was based on alleged promises by the English. I don't believe a purchase was involved. But he certainly recognized their right to give him the kingdom which meant he had to first recognize their ownership of England.


"Did the king cement the soverign relationship between the English and the Normans, put laws in place prohibiting individuals from one nation purchasing land directly from the other, hold English land in trust for the English, promise them annuities, wells, salt mines, schools, farming assistance, and blankets?"

He certainly promised them other specific things that would be the equivalent.


"Did the King write his treaties to be in effect in perpetuity."

Yes. The Magna Carta, for instance, was signed by a later Norman King, and it has expiration date.


"Because the King did all of that with Indian tribes, and the United States inherited that policy and continues it to this day."

The United States vacated and voided all British claims, laws, etc and established its own. Lord Baltimore, for example, owned the entire colony of Maryland. Colonists who thought they were purchasing land in the colony were actually only purchasing the right to use the land so long as Lord Baltimore saw it fit to allow them. Following the American Revolution, Baltimore's claims were vacated and certain prominent Marylanders filed claims on vast tracts of the new State. None other than Alexander Hamilton himself stole my family's farm.

But the main point that the United States followed Britain's lead eventually came to be true once they crossed the Mississippi. East of the Mississippi, where the large tribes were located, there was little pretense made of treating with the tribes in perpetuity. Though Cherokee almost became a fully assimilated State until Congress backed down in the face of a threatened military coup.


Now my turn:

Did the Chiefs treat with the United States?

Did the Chiefs recognize the right of the United States to enforce these treaties? Did they agree to let the United States soley punish violators of the treaties?

Did the Chiefs view treaties as void on numerous occasions when American citizen violated the treaties and American law despite the fact that the US Army probably spent as much or more time kicking settlers out of Indian land than they did fighting the Indians?

When the Chiefs viewed a treaty as void, should Americans have regarded them as still in affect? When the Chiefs waged war on the United States afterwards and were subsequently defeated, were Americans required to continue honoring a treaty that the Chiefs themselves considered void?

[azurnoir]

29. here is the difference -assimilation in fact the very form of English you now speak and write in is

a result of that assimilation

[Ron Obvious]

30. Of course

I agree entirely.

[sofa king]

35. Assimilation is not a legal defense for the U.S.

This is not a cultural question. It is not a racial question, nor a genetic one. It is a political question between multiple sovereign entities which have entered into legal agreements with one another, government to government.

And hell yes, the "right of conquest" and "assimilation" cards are played by every rube who walks into Indian issues thinking they have a simple answer (including, among others, Donald Trump) which happens every goddamned week (forgive me, I'm having a flashback, here).

I'm not saying you guys are among them, but it would help you a lot to read that Wikipedia entry above. That, at least would separate you from this guy:

[Ron Obvious]

36. OK

Thanks for not lumping me in with that moron. Before I even clicked on your link, I was already pretty sure what it was going to be.

History is complex. I think we suffer from the desire to separate good guys from bad guys into an easy narrative, but more often than not it's simply competing desires for resources won by the most well-armed one. No more, no less. That's not something to be proud of, but neither is it something to be ashamed of.

As an aside, the "Indians" I know prefer to be called Indians rather than Native Americans. I have no idea if they're typical.

[sofa king]

38. Yep, even the term "Indian" is contentious.

There are at least three major groups of Native Americans: American Indians, who primarily live and control territory in the Lower 48, Alaska Native Corporations and Villages, most of which have much less sovereignty thanks to Alaska being created a state during the Termination Era; and other native peoples including Native Hawaiians, who have little to no status as sovereign entities.

Then if you go back to American Indians, it gets even worse. California Indian tribes have a reduced set of rights thanks to some evil legislation that culled their power a hundred years ago; Oklahoma tribes have similarly reduced rights. Many tribes from the east coast, having pre-existed the United States within the original 13 colonies, were left for the individual states to deal with, and many of them are still not federally recognized at all, but still retain a tenuous relationship with their parent state and even hold state-protected "reservations." One or two of those entities even retain treaty rights, even though they are not officially "tribes."

"Indian" therefore has a potentially different legal definition from that of "Native American;" Indians signed treaties and have guaranteed rights; Native Americans, not so much. It used to be easy to spot which tribal bills were written by Democrats, and which were written by Republicans, because the Republican bills were always harmful and always had "Native American" in the title--specifically because the GOP has been trying for 20 years to use the "Native American" legal term as an anchor so that they can one day push it over the side and drag Indian tribes with it.

But I'm not kidding at all about us all being Indians now. The Republicans figured out how to steal your pensions and your homes by stealing Indian trust funds and land (No, really! One of the GOP's favorite tactics was to issue reservation land to individual Indians in fee, then wreck the economy on the reservation, raise property taxes, and steal their homes, just like Bush did to the rest of us). They're going to steal your Social Security like that, too (and have already tried), and any other potentially valuable resource to which we are entitled or control.

When those of you reading this lose all that, if you haven't already, just remind yourself that standing up to protect the tribes was the way you could have protected yourself. But now, you're fucked, because none of us gave enough of a damn to protect our most vulnerable people.

The fleet slowed down for its slowest ship, and now we're all dead in the water.

[Ron Obvious]

39. Very informative

Very informative -- thanks! I think we're all in agreement about Republicans here!

[may3rd]

26. Is Ghadaffy still listed on the board of human rights commission ?

Everybody need to pack up,head back to europe,asia,africa and wherever the huddled masses originated from. We will all be welcomed if we agree to assimilate

[AnOhioan]

37. Resistance is futile?

[slackmaster]

28. The Firesign Theatre used this as one of the core themes in one of their best albums

In The Next World, You're On Your Own

"Eat fascist death, flaming media pigs!"

[rppper]

40. i can sort of see where.....

...this can be done in the Appalachian areas and areas seized from the cherokee nation, but what about the conquests and purchases from spain and mexico? do we return the greater part of the southwest to mexico? this is where we as a nation seem to hit that brick wall....