From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 15:56:21 MDT
In a message dated 9/7/2002 3:49:19 PM Central Standard Time,
samantha@objectent.com writes: Actually, it comes down to genocide and a long
and disgraceful record of broken agreements made with Native Americans. The
entire land-ownership thing is white man thinking and irrelevant to the real
damage done.
Samantha,
I think it was Tom Jefferson that said we should explain ourselves out
of a decent respect for others opinions -- did I get that approximately
correct?
Spike made the mistake of giving us his opinion of the legal standing
of aborigine rights. I think that is approximately the position he was
taking.
Of course anyone arguing the Indian position doesn't care what anyone
thinks of aborigine rights -- the Indians go into court and to the best of my
knowledge never ever assert any theory of aborigine rights. Yet every time
some guy starts talking it is against aborigine rights.
So what do they assert? I haven't followed every case but generally
they seem to assert their rights in cases where:
1. The United States government has previously asserted its sovereignty over
the time and place involved in the question of Indian rights. In other words
the basic question involves the sovereignty of the United States not
aborigine rights. I don't know all the legal theories and terminology
involved but there are many cases where the U. S. asserts that it has the
right to settle questions involving prior governing bodies. I guess the U.
S. says it inherits whatever went before. For example, that titles issued by
Mexico or Spain are still valid under our law. As we know we still use
English common law.
2. When the Indian had a right under the United States law and when that
right was violated the Indian retains the right to sue in court just like any
other citizen or group of citizens.
What is amazing is the number of times that the most gross violations
of American law were carried out against the Indian. At the time there were
often laws saying that the Indian couldn't testify in court against a white
man. In Missouri for example an indian could not legally be inside the state.
However, many Indians intermarried and became part of the white or
black community. In times they became prosperous and educated. We have
governors, one ex-vice president of the U. S. and many others among our
numbers.
Some Indians have sued and have taken back land that was illegally
taken from them. Some cases are known where the economic consequences of
those old crimes would be mind boggling in today's world There was a case a
few years ago that involved a high percentage of all the land in one New
England state. Remember that Andrew Jackson arbitrarily removed the Cherokee
from their lands in North Carolina and Tennessee. In Texas there is over a
million acres near Dallas that is clearly vulerable. But, all of that is
only a drop in the bucket. The total amount is mind bogling.
However, most Indians don't seem to want to push the claims. They
have built lives for themselves since those times. They want to get on with
their own affairs.
That being true, I say look at the way the Indians are acting,
remember that at least a third of the country is part Indian, that we don't
want anyone giving our Indian relatives any grief, so let sleeping dogs lie
and don't stir things up. In this instance don't let us see you collecting
"reparations" from our relatives to give someone else.
Thank you for listening.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:50 MST