- This topic has 5 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
According to the treaties many Indian tribes signed with the federal government throughout the eighteenth century, certain tribes are treated as sovereign in some things but in others not. This is what allows Indian nations to build the casinos that have made some tribes rich. What I am curious about is how this partial sovereignty works practically. I grew up in Oklahoma and it seemed to me that Indian sovereignty was selective and mainly applied to taxes. Does anyone know how Tribal sovereignty really works in practice and how the idea that Native American tribes are sovereign was developed? Was it simply an idea cooked up to get tribes to submit with less violence or did the signers of these treaties really think the Indians represented sovereign nations?
I think it was a way of confining the Indians. It was an agreement so to speak, but one-sided. Yet I do think their sovereignty was acknowledged and recognized. Was it fair to the Indians? Not if you were an Indian who once had control of all of southern RI or CT and were now delegated to a few hundred acres.
I actually think the idea of Manifest Destiny had more to do with it. The treaties were a way to take their land and salve our own conscience at the same time. If you think about it, Indian Casino's are one way of them getting back at the white man for conquering them and stealing their land. The indians certainly make enough money off of them.
What if you were invaded by Muslims ? What if your lands, values, religion were wiped out ? What could you give to your descendance ?Especially if you can do nothing to stop it. (diseases, weapons, etc) Manifest Destiny?
I suppose I could argue that it was Social Darwinism that saw Indian culture and lands conquered but I am not going to go there.
It happened, we can't change history, and the USA turned out pretty good, IMO. Europeans invaded, they were stronger, and they won. End of story.
It happened, we can't change history, and the USA turned out pretty good, IMO. Europeans invaded, they were stronger, and they won. End of story.
Who's next ?
It happened, we can't change history, and the USA turned out pretty good, IMO. Europeans invaded, they were stronger, and they won. End of story.
Who's next ?
Sure looks like the "domain of Islam" doesn't it? I still have faith that the West will reinvigorate itself and throw off the disease that is moral relativistic post-modernism.
Some tribes were to powerful the U.S. govet bribed with treaties gifts not to fight. The U.S. signed treaties which are old legal documents kind of like the constitution. Some of the treaties stated that if you settle the reservations give up your hunting and farming lands we will support with food medicine. But of course little if any food or medicine was supplied. But the land was still settled because of the treaties. The treaties stated if you move your sovern nation we will give gardianship over your lands. But now days reservations which are usually the worst land in the nations still has sovereignty because of the old documents like the constitution were signed
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
