Are Native Americans Considered Foreigners in America?

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by intrptr

 

Many of the early 'americans' the english colonists - came from villages where common land was used by all - it was not individually owned at all.

edit on 29-5-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

By 1619 Jamestown had already instituted private land ownership. Communal ownership lasted all of 12 years there. And while forced relocation was not an official practice by government forces, it happened continually throughout the colonies as the colonist population expanded, requiring more and more land for farming.

reply to post by frazzle


They probably got drunk. got mad, got bad and killed each other like the crew of the Bounty when they arrived on Pitcairn island following their mutiny, and subsequent dumping of Capt Bligh in a rowing boat, leaving him to paddle to Aus.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Thank you for that information - which also demonstrates my point that the idea of communal land was not alien to the early colonists...

I still blame the 'leaders' for the expansion / land grabs, not the early settlers.

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

 

What would the USA look like if the Native Americans were asked to form a govt - were back in charge ??
What would be different ?

Native Americans have governments. They are called Tribal governments and supersede state authorities on the reservation.

A Brief Overview of Native American Sovereign Nation Status

Native American tribes are political entities with extensive powers of self-government. The political status of tribes actually precedes the formation of the Constitution and the United States.

The first U.S. government treaty with a tribe was negotiated in 1778. Through a series of treaties, laws, Presidential resolutions1, case law, and Supreme Court rulings the U.S. has shaped the scope of tribal sovereignty.

Four kinds of sovereign governments are recognized in U.S. law: the federal government, state government, foreign governments, and tribal governments.

The phrase “government to government” that is sometimes used in civic life refers to this unique status
that Native American tribes hold in relation to the U.S. government.

Tribal governments have self-governance powers that include: the right to form their own government; the
power to make and enforce both civil and criminal laws; the power to tax; the power to establish membership; the
right to license, zone and regulate activities; the power to engage in commercial activity; and the power to exclude
persons (Indian and non-Indian) from tribal territories.

You can read further Here

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
I pointed out Presidential Declarations and Proclamations; can you remember them actually being put into effect?

In fact I can not.

I did not even hear about such a day.

I guess it just goes to show you that just because they say it is so, doesn't make it so.

Typical Political Gobbledygook.

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


Ok but what if they were also additional to this govt - given back their lands. IE they are to form a govt and presidency in the White House / they are in charge [ majority ] in the senate ??

What then ?

If the native govt rejects the white house etc - understandable,

BUT if you were given your land back and put in charge - what would you do, given that many people who are not native live in these lands now ??

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

I understand this - but thank you for sharing clarifying it,
What I was trying to say is that - the early English [ normal] people undertood these concepts.

Most of the land grabs of Indian lands was not done by the early colonists in New England,- talking 1500s and 1600s.

Most happened in the 1800s, did they not ?

Originally, the tribes on the East Coast intended to share the land with the English colonists. However, it was not a peaceful relationship for long. From what I recall learning, the local tribes in the area of New England saw the Colonists as people to trade with (same thing in Virginia). In New England, after the Great Migration of tens of thousands of Puritans into these same lands, it began to really sour. Diseases that the tribes had not been exposed to had already started to sweep through the tribes and the influx of colonists also meant greater strain on resources. The tribes were in bad shape. I don't know if I would exactly call it a "land grab" on the part of the colonists but perhaps a failure to comprehend major cultural differences. The tribes did not expect so many more mouths on the same land as they resided so soon and the colonists didn't see the land as necessarily being "owned" or "used". Not all tribes agree and even clans within tribes can disagree with each other. Some sided with the Colonists and others fought them.

New England, however, was not the first site of English settlement in the Americas. New England was settled in 1620. Jamestown, Virginia, 1607. By 1609, residents of Jamestown were already fighting with the local tribe over resources and bad trades. By 1622, you had the Indian and Jamestown Massacres. Even before that, however, you had the Spanish coming into the SW and that's a whole other vile story about tribes being turned into slaves and massacred in 1599 (see the Acoma). Fighting at the outset there, too.

Kind of funny how people think that the Puritans were the first but that's just a thanksgiving grade school lesson really. Virginia Tobacco Company was the first English incursion in the Americas and the Spanish Conquistadors were the first Europeans to invade. The relationships on all three fronts were either tenuous or bloody violent and even those tenuous relationships were frequently short lived.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Yes I agree.
But the puritans just by their puritanical ways - were not flexible.
They peed off the countries they came from .. it was never going to be a good combination with any people they came into contact with in the 'new' world !

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by intrptr

 

Many of the early 'americans' the english colonists - came from villages where common land was used by all - it was not individually owned at all.

edit on 29-5-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

By 1619 Jamestown had already instituted private land ownership. Communal ownership lasted all of 12 years there. And while forced relocation was not an official practice by government forces, it happened continually throughout the colonies as the colonist population expanded, requiring more and more land for farming.

Absolutely correct. The establishment of Jamestown was actually funded by private investors from England in the hopes of turning a profit. It was called the Virginia Company. It was a stock company and the settlers into Jamestown were either children of the investors or trusted representatives of those investors. This should help further explain the quick turn to private land ownership. Kind of funny to think about it but the US was founded by a corporation. Explains so much, doesn't it?

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

 

Ok but what if they were also additional to this govt - given back their lands. IE they are to form a govt and presidency in the White House / they are in charge [ majority ] in the senate ??

What then ?

If the native govt rejects the white house etc - understandable,

BUT if you were given your land back and put in charge - what would you do, given that many people who are not native live in these lands now ??

edit on 29-5-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

While me and you both know this would never happen, hypothetically speaking I would hope that the Native view of the land would guide them. Live in harmony with Mother Earth and do not rape and pillage her for war and resources.

Personally I feel we have plenty of land in America. Have you ever driven from coast to coast? Most of America’s population is around coastal regions. There is plenty of land here to share and develop for resources.

The main goal would be to unify people. If I could lay out in detail how to do that at this time I would be running for some type of office.

reply to post by HelenConway


It wasn't really communal ownership in the way you are considering it. More like corporate ownership, owned and ran by the people that provided the financial and material support for the colony. It is important to understand that while one of the benefits of going to the colonies was avoiding political and religious persecution they were first and foremost business ventures and the investors expected to see a return on their investments. Communal working of the land was more out of necessity than choice. Ships only held so many people and so many supplies.

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


It may well come back to the native people - but not in our lifetime.

Humanity is 5 mins to midnight as far as its own destruction is concerned,

When midnight chimes - we will live in a very different world ...

When the dust settles .. well maybe the native people will once again thrive.

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

 

Ok but what if they were also additional to this govt - given back their lands. IE they are to form a govt and presidency in the White House / they are in charge [ majority ] in the senate ??

What then ?

If the native govt rejects the white house etc - understandable,

BUT if you were given your land back and put in charge - what would you do, given that many people who are not native live in these lands now ??

edit on 29-5-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

While me and you both know this would never happen, hypothetically speaking I would hope that the Native view of the land would guide them. Live in harmony with Mother Earth and do not rape and pillage her for war and resources.

Personally I feel we have plenty of land in America. Have you ever driven from coast to coast? Most of America’s population is around coastal regions. There is plenty of land here to share and develop for resources.

The main goal would be to unify people. If I could lay out in detail how to do that at this time I would be running for some type of office.

About 70% of the land in the western states is owned by the federal government. In Nevada its about 80%. There's plenty of land.

Did you ever hear about the Republic of Lakotah? In 2007 several members of the tribe went to Washington and declared independence from the federal government. Of course they were ignored into oblivion and it went nowhere but was a great idea.
people.tribe.net...

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Yes correct I understand this.

I was just saying that the early settlers - did understand communal land/ ie land that is owned by all - .. they may not have replicated this model , but they certainly did understand it.

But as you and Alice quite rightly pointed out - they were funded by privateers.

Since I do claim all 50 states I should mention that the Sovereign Nation of Hawaii was taken over.

America's annexation of Hawaii

A key provisioning spot for American whaling ships, fertile ground for American protestant missionaries, and a new source of sugarcane production, Hawaii's economy became increasingly integrated with the United States. An 1875 trade reciprocity treaty further linked the two countries and U.S. sugar plantation owners from the United States came to dominate the economy and politics of the islands. When Queen Liliuokalani moved to establish a stronger monarchy, Americans under the leadership of Samuel Dole deposed her in 1893. The planters' belief that a coup and annexation by the United States would remove the threat of a devastating tariff on their sugar also spurred them to action. The administration of President Benjamin Harrison encouraged the takeover, and dispatched sailors from the USS Boston to the islands to surround the royal palace. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, worked closely with the new government.

Dole sent a delegation to Washington in 1894 seeking annexation, but the new President, Grover Cleveland, opposed annexation and tried to restore the Queen. Dole declared Hawaii an independent republic. Spurred by the nationalism aroused by the Spanish-American War, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 at the urging of President William McKinley. Hawaii was made a territory in 1900, and Dole became its first governor. Racial attitudes and party politics in the United States deferred statehood until a bipartisan compromise linked Hawaii's status to Alaska, and both became States in 1959.

Did you notice the plantation owners last name? Dole...... Where have I heard that name before

reply to post by frazzle


I was going to make a post about this might still but it goes with what you are saying as well..

"he resolution defines that homeland as those lands identified in the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty and “all such lands as located in traditional Crow territory according to tribal oral history.”

That's a lot of territory. Oral history describes Crow land as situated within four tepee poles: the north at the Bear’s Paw Mountains in northern Montana, the west at the Absaroka and Beartooth Mountains, the south at the Wind River Range in Wyoming and the east at the Black Hills of western South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming."


I read this the other day and it made me wonder what the Sioux/Lakota would have to say about this since they assert rights to some of this land as well other tribes.


Crow Tribe asserts rights through tribal resolutions

Okay, I'd like to take this out of the American-centric view of things and take a look at history. I would argue that there isn't very much arable land that hasn't changed hands one way or another in all the history of human migration.

I'm a definite white eastern European woman (with Native in there somewhere too), and my original ancestral homeland had been invaded by 4 different groups of people over the last 1000 years.

When do I get to claim compensation for my ancestors for their loss and denigration at the hands of invaders?
Is there an actual world-wide state of limitations that prevents me from claiming compensation or recognition for my ancestors?

Oh I don't? Why not? Is it because I'm white?

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


No they didn't wage wars like the European nations, every 300 or roughly that amount of years they had wars, where farmers would turn into soldiers, and those wars lasted from 10 to 50 years, only because Agriculture became a practice thus famine and drought took place, leaving the people no choice but to look for a new home. But Europeans haven't stopped waging wars for thousands of years now, two completely different things.

In the midst of those wars, which the First Nations knew had to happen, because they understood the cycles, they were still the freest and nicest people on this planet.

Originally posted by juniperberry
Okay, I'd like to take this out of the American-centric view of things and take a look at history. I would argue that there isn't very much arable land that hasn't changed hands one way or another in all the history of human migration.

I'm a definite white eastern European woman (with Native in there somewhere too), and my original ancestral homeland had been invaded by 4 different groups of people over the last 1000 years.

When do I get to claim compensation for my ancestors for their loss and denigration at the hands of invaders?
Is there an actual world-wide state of limitations that prevents me from claiming compensation or recognition for my ancestors?

Oh I don't? Why not? Is it because I'm white?

Don’t worry; I do not get any compensation.

Wait I am sorry, I did get $200 when I turned 18 years of age from the Bureau of Indian Affairs because they changed my tribal affiliation in my registration from Shawnee to Cherokee when I was born without my consent.

Woo Hoo!!! Watch out for the baller making way with reparations of $200 for changing my kid's heritage and their future children as recognized by the federal government.

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


Sadly that happens to everyone at birth, a contract signed without giving consent. An illegal contract, since a person has to be consciously aware of what he/she is signing a contract in order for it to be legal, which at birth, i mean well, we all know a new born baby can't make that decision,

Just on a note, i might get banned, i might not be able to reply any more, the other thread (memorial) one got shut-down for inspection because i ask hard ass questions.