Posted on 01/09/2023 2:35:45 AM PST by blueplum
Republican Sen. Keith Regier is proposing asking Congress to study alternatives to reservations...
...The draft resolution argues that reservations have “failed to positively enhance the lives and well-being” of Native Americans, led to substance abuse, domestic violence, welfare dependence, poverty and substandard education. It also argues tribal members who don’t own land have the highest poverty rate and lowest life expectancy of any ethnic group in America.
It also argues reservations are “not in the best interests of either the Indians inside our borders or for our common Montana Citizens.”...
...Floyd Azure, chairman of the Fort Peck Tribe in northeastern Montana, said the draft resolution perpetuates racial stereotypes...
....The resolution argues that Native American reservations were created based on race. The U.S. Constitution recognizes tribes as sovereign governments, which is a political classification.
The federal government set the boundaries for reservations under the auspices of lessening conflicts between Native Americans and white settlers....
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
There are just too many treaties and laws in place and judicial precedent to ever end the reservations, so the congresswoman is about to kick over a hornet's nest for herself.
Today, more than 70% of Native Americans live off reservation.
And
they’re now spending time responding to the proposed resolution rather than focusing on their own legislative priorities
IE, give us more money.
I am not well studied on Indian affairs. But the language of the resolution is true and highlighted by the tribes themselves when they want more funds for this and that.
Changing the system would upset a huge money making apple cart, I am guessing from the response.
Er...congressman and himself.
“led to substance abuse, domestic violence, welfare dependence, poverty and substandard education.”
A lot of this is due to bad personal choices.
In Mexico they faced this with the term here used EJIDOS. They turned the land over to the people, most of them SOLD their properties to investors, went out and got a large TV, a new Suburban, Cowboy Boots, women went to the Beauty Salon, and they wasted, spent it in 2 years. Now they are REAL poor.
Probably a good options was to give them clear title, and let them be treated as any ordinary, regular, citizen of the United States of America... Let them form their own Building Codes and expect everyone in their zone to use a teepee. Works for me.
End special federal services for tribes & their members.
If Central American Indians can be highly productive in the USA, so can US Indians.
Tribal land belongs to the tribe and it is their decision to make, not Uncle Sam’s.
The idea of a “sovereign nation” within a sovereign nation is ridiculous. Either they’re Americans, or they’re not. Choose one.
They get special privileges, special taxation, special benefits, and don’t have to obey US laws if they’re on the land of the “sovereign nation.”
They’re a specially-privileged, government-certified victim group with special benefits. Time for this nonsense to stop. They were once proud self-sufficient people. The current system ruined them.
Where’s my casino ?
There’s no problem with the reservation system other than the welfare part. Buy out the welfare part, then allow each tribe to prosper or go bankrupt as they choose.
Montana is a good example. The Flathead reservation is well-managed and any tribal member can be proud, ditto visitors. But, the Blackfeet reservation is desolate, poor, riddled with substance abuse. The members of the Blackfeet who stay on the reservation do so for the welfare benefits worked into their treaty. Yes, differences between these two tribes include that the Flathead were a civilized tribe at the time of their encounter with the whites, while the Blackfeet were a nomadic people. But, these differences don’t have to continue forever.
Let the tribes decide their rules for membership. If they want to tie membership with living on the reservation and, so, condemn their young people to severely reduced economic opportunities, that’s on them. But, if they want to convert their reservations into homelands, so their history and culture will be sustained into the future there, while members can come and go as opportunities open to them. Well, I suspect they’ll do just fine.
What you have described is Darwinian in nature.
The prosperous and capable survive while the weak do not. The fittest adapt and continue. The unfit can’t adapt and fail to survive
I go to the Apache reservation in New Mexico and have been to other reservations. The tribe there has done very well, thank you. Casinos, gas stations, restaurants. People who work there seem very happy. I’m sure they like the way things are.
Agreed
What you have described has a Biblical illustration:
“I went past the field of a sluggard,
past the vineyard of someone who has no sense;
31 thorns had come up everywhere,
the ground was covered with weeds,
and the stone wall was in ruins.
32 I applied my heart to what I observed
and learned a lesson from what I saw:
33 A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest—
34 and poverty will come on you like a thief
and scarcity like an armed man.”
NIV
Proverbs 24
Somebody explain treaties to the Montana law maker.
Maybe they should admit they are American citizens and join the club
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Government destroyed the most uplifting course correction in human history — the teaching and preaching of the Gospel in the public square.
Now government wants to invent a synthetic behavioral system devoid of any underlying morality, other than “we’re the government, and we want your vote in exchange for ineffectual programs.”
I can’t speak for tribes other than those in Calif, but in many cases out here, tribes are selective on their membership. Tribes vote people off the island so control of the wealth of a casino or farming operation wealth is narrowed to a very few families. The land is communal, tribal membership is arbitrary, so there is no incentive to build a nice house and no way to create generational wealth. One tribe has no obligation to share with another tribe. The tribe members that are voted out in favor of a select group of ‘the chosen’ having no place to go, and so they form micro-tribes of 20-60 individuals (perhaps including relatives from Mesico), and demand recognition, funding and even more land for their micro-tribe. California started with a few dozen recognized tribes which have increased to 110 over as many years. And then there are about 70 or 80 micro-tribes (and growing) all demanding recognition. Leaving Californians to ask, where does it end?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.