Returning National Parks to American Indians

This is a movement I have been watching for quite some time. It is an interesting concept, to say the least. To get an idea of what's going on, see:
www.cnn.com...

The idea is trumpeted here as well:
www.theatlantic.com...

The basic premise behind this idea is that the founding and expansion of the US is based upon many evils; Imperialism, colonialism and slavery.

The American story of “the Indian” is one of staggering loss. Some estimates put the original Indigenous population of what would become the contiguous United States between 5 million and 15 million at the time of first contact. By 1890, around the time America began creating national parks in earnest, roughly 250,000 Native people were still alive. In 1491, Native people controlled all of the 2.4 billion acres that would become the United States. Now we control about 56 million acres, or roughly 2 percent.

We live in a time of historical reconsideration, as more and more people recognize that the sins of the past still haunt the present. For Native Americans, there can be no better remedy for the theft of land than land. And for us, no lands are as spiritually significant as the national parks. They should be returned to us. Indians should tend—and protect and preserve—these favored gardens again.

I particularly like this sentence in the Atlantic article:

Viewed from the perspective of history, Yellowstone is a crime scene.

Considering that the US government has all but surrendered soveriegnty of it's southern border, it seems rather natural to me that the National Parks be returned to the Native American Indian tribes. And then of course, there's the millions of acres of BLM lands in the Western US that should, as well, be returned to their rightful owners, the Native peoples.

What says ATS?

a reply to: TonyS

My old man had a saying when my brother and I would ask for unrealistic things, "...and people in hell want ice water".

This isn't going to happen.

No.

It's not like the Indian tribes who lived there when Europeans arrived had always lived there. They too fought for that land and killed or chased off the previous Native American tribal inhabitants and had done so for many thousands of years prior. Humans have fought for land since time immemorial, why should one group of people who happened to be the current occupants when Europeans arrived get that land back? They lost. End of story.

To the winners go the spoils, this has been the case forever. Why are we suddenly obsessed with returning land back to people who lost, also known as the weaker, less developed group of people?

Of course I'm playing devil's advocate here to make a point, I'm not that big of a jerk, but the point I think is valid.

Sounds fair to me. I thought if we would give the Native Americans the northern mid-west states, we could clear some conscience. National Parks ! that would really be nice and might help with our national dharma *.

* Dharma is anything that upholds a positive order.

Not sure how giving them national parks is going to help them?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Not sure how giving them national parks is going to help them?

What would be cooler than watching Old Faithful erupt while throwing a seven on the craps table and smoking a tax free ciggie?

The Nez Perce have opened two casinos which are thriving, and the profits have allowed them to buy a local golf course. They are slowly purchasing the land they once freely roamed.

I wonder how many other tribes across the nation are also purchasing their ancestral lands? Seems like a brilliant move.

Not sure how giving them national parks is going to help them?

MONEY.

MAMMOTH HOT SPRINGS, WY– A new National Park Service (NPS) report shows that a record 4.25 million people visited Yellowstone National Park in 2016. These visitors spent $524.3 million in communities near the park. That spending supported 8,156 jobs in the local area and had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $680.3 million.

[www.nps.gov...]

Okay but when do we stop calling them Indians and call them indigenous Americans instead?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Okay but when do we stop calling them Indians and call them indigenous Americans instead?

I think the right answer is "As soon as they ask you to." Here in Canada, the word Indian is being retired for white folks.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's a great question and I don't have an answer other than to say that I am increasingly uncomfortable with the term "Indian". In Canada they are referred to as First Nations people's. I prefer that to indigenous because, well, there are no north American indigenous people.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Okay but when do we stop calling them Indians and call them indigenous Americans instead?

Well technically by further extrapolation it's shouldn't be America anymore, it's whatever those indigenous tribes call the land. Ergo I am a child of a foreign immigrant living on the border of the Creek and Cherokee nations. So from now on my tax checks go to Harrah's in North Carolina.

originally posted by: BelleEpoque
Sounds fair to me. I thought if we would give the Native Americans the northern mid-west states, we could clear some conscience. National Parks ! that would really be nice and might help with our national dharma *.

* Dharma is anything that upholds a positive order.

That Dharma is more on the Spanish and Dutch. Seems their sins have been transferred to us such as 15 million, I think it was a lot more that died, but shouldn't the Indians go to Spain for reparations? Also, if we applied this same logic to the whole world I would think ALL borders would be changed, and a good number of countries would disappear, but hey it's those evil Americans....geez

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Okay but when do we stop calling them Indians and call them indigenous Americans instead?

Well technically by further extrapolation it's shouldn't be America anymore, it's whatever those indigenous tribes call the land. Ergo I am a child of a foreign immigrant living on the border of the Creek and Cherokee nations. So from now on my tax checks go to Harrah's in North Carolina.

I'm told they called it "dirt" or "the ground". Not exactly fond of national identities I guess.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Not sure how giving them national parks is going to help them?

What would be cooler than watching Old Faithful erupt while throwing a seven on the craps table and smoking a tax free ciggie?

🤣🤣🤣 great visual.

May as well throw an abortion clinic in there too. That’s what they’re talking about in Oklahoma now that they’re putting a complete ban on abortions in the state, they’ll do them on the reservations.

I am for it.....let them be caretakers and manage the wildlife. Lots of treaties were broken and should be illegal.



FYI, The Seminole tribe own the Hard Rock Cafe chain.......

a reply to: TonyS

I think California should be the first to return their land. Let the people supporting these movements put it to a vote to see who is willing to give up their land first.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

my pop said that to, he also liked to say

sh@@ in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

a reply to: TonyS

In Australia this has been happening for a while though they don’t necessarily own them, there’s certain national parks/state forests with specialised designation that the Aboriginals are charged with the care of.

Indigenous rangers are employed and engaged by the Parks department to conduct various works. It works well here, indigenous people have opportunities for employment not otherwise generally available to them and plays (albeit a minor) role in them reconnecting with the land of their ancestors and carrying on their tradition of caring for the bush.

That said, if we’re talking about a redrawing of maps and handing land back to folk; doe the Greeks get to reclaim Constantinople (Istanbul), do the Maori in NZ have to leave? They’ve only been there about 1500 years yet are referred to as the indigenous people of NZ. Plenty more examples.

Should every country and every territory be returned to the most original peoples that lived there. If not, why not? Food for thought.

a reply to: TonyS
Is the offer really as generous as it sounds? National Parks were allowed to become national parks because the land was "unwanted", or at least less usable for farming and industry. How many Indians will want to return to the hunting life and use the land as it used to be used?