Replies

Yeah, I read about the huge amounts the feds stole -- some things never change, eh? I didn't realize that the corporate cash went to the feds, though. That's outrageous.

I just think clarification is in order -- tribes should neither get to have it both ways (as in this article), nor get shafted from all sides. If state sovereignty has any meaning, then it can't be in name only. Yes, it would mean the end of "nation of" rhetoric, and probably of other legal areas where feds are somewhat hands off...but it should be worth it for recognition, congressional delegates, and all the other prerogatives states enjoy. It's unfair to call reservations soveriegn states but treat them differently than Pennsylvania, Montana or any other state. Otherwise, it's just a repeat of the separate but equal crap.

Has there been any push that you know of for this kind of solution? I'm sure it would be a fight, but I think with a little public discussion, most people would realize that it's the only fair way...

I agree with that. I've never heard of a push for statehood, and I don't know if it would fly as an idea, no matter how fair and rational it would be... especially with the left-wing constantly stirring up trouble...

I spent a week this summer on a few of the local rez' and worked to try and get more indians looking at conservatism as a way of improving their lot in life, but its hard to get past the years and year and years of resentment, broken promises, etc...

Maybe the next time I go there, I'll put out some feelers on that idea...