I'm not going to write an excruciatingly long essay outlining my point. I will simply say that Native Americans and First Nations of Canada are not treated as equally as everyone thinks or is led to believe. Firstly, we live a small plots of land (called "Reservations", or simply "reserves"), much smaller than what we originally had before Europeans settled here. Most of the time, we can't develop our land the way people can off our reserves, either because the land is unsuitable for any kind of development, or because we live in welfare systems. the welfare system ends up creating what I refer to as "Reserve mentality", since we become so dependant upon the funding we receive through welfare that we simply become lazy to find work. Alcoholism sets in because we can't cope.

This creates the problem of "every Indian is just a drunken bum". Our problems are too complicated for even me to explain here. I only want to make this a discussion about what people think of us Natives.

I don't really know what to think of the First Nations of Canada. I wish, as I do for virtually all groups (Nazis and other facists/tyrants excluded), that they would be looked upon with respect and treated with dignity. They have the same rights as all other humans, and I really appreciate their culture.

The problem is, we white men have always looked down on Natives because of their economic values. This started back in the first days of colonization, when the Coureur de Bois ran through the woods. Fur traders would exchange everyday metal objects (like hatchets, pots and pans, etc) for vast quantities of beaver pelts (which were very high in demand but low in supply in Europe)


Basically, we've been ripping you off since day one and you only learned about it in the last century or so. And we really need to stop.

Well my family never made it to the Oklahoma Res. They went into Kansas after the trails of tears.
For many years..it was never talked about. Even my grandmother believed the whole family could get lynched if people knew they were Cherokee.
I very much dislike Reservations. I think it enslaves Natives economically. My great grand parents, on the other side of my familly, lived on the Hopi Res...they were there to help build schools, homes or what ever buildings were needed.
It is a shame..life on the Res. It should not be like that. However, I know no solutions that would help.
Another social program would only keep them more enslaved.

Do you have an idea what could be done??...you have a better view of the problem it sounds.

I want to mention that I'm not racist toward white people (or anyone else for that matter), but we've suffered many indignities (and are still suffering somewhat) that I feel should be discussed. What bothers me the most is the Canadian Gov't is unwilling to acknowledge the First Nations in Canada as much as immigrants, like, say, muslims, or Africans, or even Chinese. Not that I'm saying our rights trump everyone else's rights, but we're still not treated as fairly.

Wanna know a strange story? Well, on my mom's dad's side of the family, we have a long history of being racist rednecks. In fact, my great great grandpa (not the native American one mentioned; he was from my mom's mom's side) got banished from Georgia.

Well, he worked in a train yard, and one day he left his coat hanging in the shed. Apparently a black man took it for unknown reasons, and grandpa beat him to death to retrieve the coat. Back then it wasn't really a crime to kill a black man, so grandpa and his family got banished and settled in Ohio for the remainder of our family's lives. It's hard to believe we came from Irish nobles.

But nowadays, you'd hardly imagine that this religious family ever were racist; my second cousin married a black man native to Kenya; my mom married an Arab, among other acts of cultural acceptance.

The end!

I haven't the slightest clue as what can be done - like I said, our problems are quite complicated for a single solution or group of solutions to be applied. All I can say is we might have kind of a Catch-22 (if you don't know what that is, it's a solution to a problem that cannot be achieved because of conflicting conditions from problem; a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation)

I'm from the UK so have no equivalent to relate to. What is it precisely that the native Canadian or American cannot do that the incomers can? Are they restricted from moving, prevented from taking certain jobs, unable to purchase houses etc? Or is it more of a cultural thing, such as not having freedom to use their own laws etc? Or are you talking of inherent prejudice against them for whatever reason? The first two can be relatively easily dealt with if the will of the government is there. If it is the latter there is no short term solution. That kind of attitude is usually inbred over several generations. In an ideal world the prejudice would vanish once shown to be a nonsense through mutual integration but where prejudice becomes discrimination this can be difficult to deal with. And also, to the party against which the prejudice is directed, integration can seem like absorbtion. Then the desire not to be absorbed can too easily be misread as a desire for 'independence'. No, there is no easy answer.

Our problem is prejudice from the Government of Canada - no matter how many times we've tried lobbying them, they seem to just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to us. Sure we have no problem integrating into society while still maintaining our culture and heritage, but the problem stems from resentments of the gov't.

EDIT: I'm not sure if those you in the UK are familiar with news coming out of Canada, but since about the early 1990's, the First Nations in eastern Canada (specifically the Six Nations tribes - look it up on Wikipedia for more info) have been fighting with the Canadian Gov't as well as the Ontario Provincial gov't over the lands they've been given (a land dispute). So far nothing has really been achieved since neither side is willing to come to an agreement or settlement. This is just one of many fights with the gov't.

Its not a matter of not being able to do .... Its a matter of psychology ...

For example, the untouchables of India .... the biggest problem that they face to day is that, even if you take an untouchable and put him, say in England and give him a free education ... his psychology, his thinking patterns and processes, his emotional responses, his drives, have all been shaped by a society that dictaed overtly and covertly that he and all his kind are worthless. And they have been told that for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. Its hard to over come stuff like that in one or even two generations.


I'm from an immigrant family, my parents were exiled to the US from CUba ... well, they came because of religious persectution, for the most part. Once my parents were here, they worked hard and became what they decide on being.. for the most part.

Some may say, see? if that new comer can just get here and pick up and go, why cant you all who've already been here? ...

As a teacher I've been able to clue in on the reason: my parents and I have never had to read about how our ancestors were raped and pillaged over and over again, losing their land and being duped by the "superior" white man.

The funny thing about that history that is taught in our schools... primary and secondary ... is that its mostly inaccurate. For example, Batlham mentioned the trading of metal 'trinkets' for pelts and how the White man Ripped off the indian over and over ...

well that's not actually accurate. For the indian, getting those pelts was easy and they couldn't understand why these weak white people couldn't just get the furs themselves. And those hatchets and things were of Great value to the indians because they didn't have such things and they were able to make very useful things with them. ... things that mostly ended up helping them hunt more beaver.

now I don't know enough about Canadian history ... going to school in the US, history tends to really only focus on the US ... so I can't speak much about how the Indians there were treated .... but in the NE, the English propensity (at the time) to consider him/herself superior to everyone, especially non-whites ... lead to VERY lopsided justice .... a white man could send his cows on to the native's farmland and not have to worry about retribution ... If the native tried to take the white man to the white court, he was dismissed as a non-white and therefore had no grounds for a suit .... if he took justice into his own hands, the very same court system had him dragged into it, and usually, as part of the settle ment for his crime of killing the offending cow, the Native american would have to forfiet his land ...

stuff like that ... abuse of that kind happened over and over .... anyway... I have to go now ... I'll post more tomorrow.

Like I said, it's a Catch-22

Actually that was me.......

But think about it for a sec. What if the Native tribes had any idea about how much these items were worth back in Europe? Or if they had the slightest clue as to the value of beaver belts on the European Market?

If the Natives were capable of selling their beaver pelts and buying their metal trinkets on the European market instead of trading them, they could've saved themselves alot of beaver pelts.

(It should be noted that not only beaver pelts, but the furs of other animals, including bears, minxes, wolves, deer and wolverines were in high demand, beaver was just the most pricey)

1. I did not say anything about trinkets.
2. They did know how much fur was worth..since they traded it heavy with the white men.

However, they got screwed over because of land. Farmers and ranchers wanted more land. so..either kill the natives living on it...or move them. they did both.
The funny thing about the Cherokee was they had a higher literacy rate than any other population in the USA. (white or otherwise) They tried to integrate into white culture...In fact most were fairly white looking.
They were still taking up room and were forced marched hundreds of miles into a reservation.
Why were they? Because, of the prejudice against them. It still stands today in some areas. I think its worse in Canada. I have not met a Canadian that had anything nice to say about Native tribes.

Funny story. My step mother is from Canada. When she heard that my mother side was native she didn't have nice things to say about it.
The FIRST time she met my sister...she saw a picture of my mother. she then said "Well she doesn't looks like damn Indian." Well my sister didn't take that real well.

My moms family had to deal with a fear of people finding out they were native. Men in sheets could had tried to drag the "Praire niggers" all out and hang them.

Most of the prejudice against Natives in the USA is gone. You can sometimes see it around the reservations though.

Here's the irony - Canada is supposed to a be "multicultural" society, yet we weren't even allowed to practice our traditions (or speak our native tongues) during the early 1900's, and ended up losing much of our heritage. The only thing I know about my people is by reading history books, written by non-Natives...

Well some interesting suggestions come up. Firstly - the psychology of worthlessness instilled over hundreds of years makes it hard for the individuals themselves to break out of the mould. What does that really mean (if it is accurate and I am not agreeing or disagreeing)? If I believed I was worthless no amount of people telling me the opposite is going to work and nor is any amount of evidence to the contrary. The only thing that can change me will be if someone with the right expertise can work on me in such a way that I learn to re-evaluate myself. It would suggest that for a society to change it would be a few leading the way and slowly convincing the others over two or three generations. I don't see any easy way in which a government could do this.

Secondly - fighting over land rights. Ever since the dawn of recorded history groups of people have overrun the lands of other groups. Empires have risen and fallen. No doubt many on this forum have played computer games to that effect too. Any particular piece of land may have belonged to many different peoples over time. The people who owned the land prior to the current 'owners' may want to claim it back but what of the people who owned it before them? And how far back should we be allowed to go. You might consider that claiming most of the UK is part of the Roman Empire and should thus be controlled from Rome is clearly nonsense but it uses the same theory. And to have a much more recent example the nation of Israel did not exist until 1947 when it was carved out of Palastine by the so-called super-powers. This is many years after the overrunning of native american lands so shouldn't that be given back to the 'rightful' owners first? (And before I have various groups yelling at me I am only using it as an example.)

There is a well known proverb which, however angry it may make you feel, is basically true - 'possession is 9/10ths of the law'. It is not possible or even IMO desirable to 'put the clock back'. Resolution of disputes must be a moving forward and this is where so many disagreements arise. Those who have grievances want things to be as they were. That will never and can never happen. The world has moved on. In many countries such grievances are ruthlessly dealt with - genocide continues to this day. In (supposedly) more civilised nations this may not happen but the mentality is not changed. 'So what if this was yours? It's mine now.' That such grievances are heard at all is a great improvement on what used to be. If there is some groundswell amongst those without the grievance that there may be a wrong to be righted, this is even more important. (Indeed without it nothing is likely to change.) But basically you will never be able to put the clock back. What will resolve the issue must be a move forward involving both sides in SIGNIFICANT compromises. Without the compromises no one goes anywhere.

Consider the divided island of Cyprus, the province of Kosovo, Gibraltar, Melilla and Ceuta, etc. etc.

My advice is therefore not to concentrate on the past or the wrongs but on what can be achieved to move on. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. And one advance now does not preclude another one in the future.

I know this does not answer what is essentially an unanswerable question but it does emphasise the need to decide what really matters and what doesn't. And there often those with grievances cannot themselves agree.

We have the same problem in the UK of course. 'Sink' estates, where generation after generation of people don't 'succeed', with a few honourable exceptions, and seem to follow the same patterns that their parents lived, right back to WW2. Our sink estates probably wouldn't compare very favourably with any reservation. And one's post code will follow one from one failed job interview to another just like a skin colour.

Where a reservation may have the advantage, amongst so many disadvantages, is the fact that it contains a relatively homogeneous group of people, with a similar racial, and cultural, identity. Of course there are the generations of inherited despair - and I do believe despair can be inherited either by an individual, disparate community, or a tribal group - to contend with. But I would like to hope that with consciousness raising, which must already be going on, people on reserves could realise the common strengths of their shared heritage and build on them. Unless that energy is being diffused and diluted as it is expended on tribal politics.

Of course, it sounds like I'm spouting pious Polly Anna-isms. But unless a people have Unity, they get no where. Especially against Governments anywhere.
BTW what's happening with AIM and/or the Canadian equivalent?

First, sorry for misquoting


I really have no problem with the displacement of the land, and I honestly don't think that most native americans are honestly expecting people to give them their old land back ...

BUT ... There are things that need to change in our attitudes torward natives, both publicly and privately. For example, there is a lot of primary source evidence that demonstrates that our founding fathers took as much from the Nations form of government to develop the plan for ours, if not more so. I think that one thing that would help smooth things would be for our history courses, from primary school to high school, to be changed to look at our history more honestly, looking at ALL the members of our current society and dumping the old White/English-centric point of view.

darn, its raining severely here, so I have to go ...i'll try some more later

Alas, if only there was some way to make history books less biased........

Because that's the problem. All we really know about natives comes from the history books, and they tend to leave out certain things.

rob_b, batlham............if it makes you feel any better, they offer Native tongue as a secondary or third language at my high school.

As a person with very little to no Native American blood at all in me I feel completely free to say this.

YES THEY DO!

Your ancestors were here (USA) first & we destroyed your way of life & herded you onto reservations like animals. I know some of the tribes were waring with each other long before white men came to America (don't want to offend anyone by naming them) those tribes should not be compensated but the friendly tribes like the Cherokee should.
If my memory serves me you guys have a 3 part government. 1 the tribe, 2 the state? 3 the US government.

I was not aware of how bad the situation in the tribes is, but I take your word for it.
If it were up to me I would make sure that the Tribe Elders received a generous amount per each member in their Tribe and leave it up the Elders to distribute the money as they see fit.
Then if you guys don't like the way they are doing things you can elect different Elders.

EDIT:
I'm very sorry Rob_b, I didn't realize until after this post you are from Canada.
All the Canadians I've met have been very friendly people, maybe they are just scared of us Texans though.

You know, I wanted to bring up that point earlier, but then everyone would accuse me of being selfish and inhumane toward everyone else - at least now I know I'm not the only that thinks so

Don't worry about that - I'm quite more understanding of everyone else's position on this topic, and I really can't blame them for feeling the way they do. I can't speak too much for many of my people (as most of them have lived on reserves for most of their lives and aren't quite caught up in the affairs outside reserve life), but we really are trying to better ourselves.

Our gov't is structured quite similar to that of the normal gov't: 1. we have a Chief (in this day and age his/her role is more like mayor of a town), 2. the Council (in much the same manner as the US Senate - at least this is how it works on my reserve), and they're democratically elected by the people. Funny thing is, our Chief and Council are more prone to corruption than any other municipal gov't.

That sounds like emotive guesswork. Have you evidence to support it? I'm not saying you are wrong in stating the system is corrupt but I am not prepared to accept the comparison on your say so. The awkward thing about those in charge is that they are human beings. They suffer from the same weaknesses and failures the world over. As yet we do not have a kite mark (dunno the US/Canadian equivalent) to prove that human beings are certified as reaching a required ethical standard.

But before going further can I please debunk the myth that there is anywhere in the world that has this thing called democracy. The concept of democracy is that anyone can stand for election and has an equal chance of being elected. Sadly in this day and age the chance of standing and being elected depends on the funds you can raise and with none of your own to start with you have zero chance. There are different 'democratic' systems in place throughout the world but the USA (which proclaims itself the bastion of democracy) has a system that means anyone who looks for a senior government position has to be rich. The correct term for this is NOT democracy but plutocracy. Because elections are only held periodically, in the intervening periods decisions are taken by those who have voting power in the government. The correct term for this is 'oligarchy' not democracy. What it means is that a 'democratic' election does not lead to a democracy. Once we stop being confused by this we can start thinking of how to work with what it does lead to.

Well maybe the world needs to do a better job of picking it's leaders.

Corruptible you say? What exactly do you mean 'corruptible'?

Reading Native American History a while back, the thing that stood out the most to me wasn't the "Drive the natives off their land and take it for ourselves" aspect. That's been repeated often enough to be unsurprising. Rather, it was the treaties that were signed, and then ignored as soon as it happened to be convenient.

P.S. I was under the impression that a democracy was a system in which any citizen who cared about an issue had a voice and a vote as to what was done about it.

You know, for once somebody also sees through the transparency of "democracy" - I couldn't have said this any better myself. Democracy is just simply an illusion that those in power, no matter how good their intentions are, use to blind and deceive those that put them on their pedestal... It's just that I see it more evident in our local gov't than others. Not only is the federal and provincial gov't ignoring us, our own leaders neglect our needs (for one, housing on reserves isn't what one would call certifiably livable).

Sheesh, I thought the Chiefs would be less corruptible than other forms of municipal government. But it appears that I am wrong.

This is what many people like to call reverse racism. I don't like that term; it's, in a roundabout way, racist. I just simply call what you're doing plain old racism, because it is. You are looking only at the natives and how your comment affects them; you are completely ignoring everyone else. You are saying that the natives are better than everyone else. This is racist; this is the epitome of racism. Sure, the whites were racist to the natives before, but that doesn't give anyone the right to reverse it and have the natives racist to the whites; that's just as bad and will do nothing besides further dividing the two peoples. The only way to stop racism is to not give compensation to those who, in the past, were discriminated against but, instead, NOT BE RACIST! Just treat them as equals; forget the past; forget what happened. Just focus on the hear and now. In the hear and now, giving something to a non-white, because (s)he's non-white is racist. Instead, give something to that person because (s)he bought it or earned it. Just ignore the skin colour; ignore the heritage. Bad things happened, but that's in the past. Let's look at the slaves for example. In the past, the blacks were slaves. Let's look at one owner/slave relationship in particular: John and Joe. Joe was John's slave. Then, the slaves were free. Joe left. Now let's forward the time 100 years. Both John and Joe are dead. The current generation is John III and Joe III, Neither were alive back then. In fact, they're both only about 20 years old. One day, John III and Joe III meet each other. They don't know who each other is, and start talking. They become good friends. About four months later, John III and Joe III are talking about their family histories and find out that Joe III's grandfather was John III's grandfather's slave. There are three things that can happen, two racist, and one not. The first thing that can be done is Joe III demands reparations from John III for all those years of slavery of his grandfather, his grandfather's father, etc. This is the most racist out of the three. Why? because Joe III is demanding money from John III because Joe III is black and John III is white. There can be no clearer case of racism. Unfortunately, this is what usually happens and is why there is still a lot of racial tension. Second, Joe III can simply leave and refuse to speak to John III ever again. This is racist for the same reason as above, just not to the same degree. Third, John III and Joe III can realise the coincidence and also realise the irony of them being good friends. They continue being friends for the rest of their days. I like this; this is good; this is what should happen all the time, but it doesn't. As I said, the first scenario is usually what happens. If everyone did the third scenario, however, then all the racial tension would quickly vanish in only one or two generations.

How does this all play into the topic? If you're smart, you've already figured it out: ignore the past, and just admit all natives as full citizens of the USA or Canada (depending on where they live). Get rid of reservations, and just let the people live like normal people. The reservations are nothing but harsh reminders of what was, and the healing can never happen if those reservations continue to taint the map. They shouldn't exist. Unfortunately, racism still exists and taints almost everything, especially (as I hear) the Canadian government.



Racism is a pendulum. On one side, is white superiority, and, on the other, is non-white superiority. It used to be on the left side, but it swung down and is now reaching up to the non-white. By the time the morons in charge realise what's happening, it'll be too late, and the whites will be subjugated. The pendulum will begin swinging down again to balance things out, but, being morons, those in charge won't realise the past and will sit and offer whites reparations which will only bring the pendulum back up. Will the pendulum stop, and, if so, when? I can not say. I hope so, but doubt it. People don't seem to know what equality is. People offer compensation to cover the past instead of threating the person the same as everyone else. Giving non-whites special treatment because of what happened is just as bad. One example of this is Affirmative Action. Yes, I'm preaching equality, and I'm tearing down Affirmative Action. Crazy, huh? Again, if you're smart, you already know what I'm going to say. First, a bit of background, after the slaves were given their freedom, employers were very reluctant to hire blacks, because of racist residue. Affirmative Action was formed to force employers to give a certain percentage of their employee jobs to non-whites. This was good...for the time. Now, it's lost it's goodness, and has actually descended into racism. Now, most employers aren't racist anymore; it doesn't pay to be racist. Employers want money, and they get money by hiring good employees, regardless of who they are, personally. However, Affirmative Action still exists and still forces employers to make a certain percentage of their employee roster non-white. Let's have another example. There's a hospital. This hospital has one opening in it's surgery ward, and four people apply: one Harvard graduate, one state graduate, and two technical college graduates. You are currently thinking that the interviewer should hire the Harvard graduate; that is, after all, the smart choice. However, he, the state graduate, and one of the technical college graduates are white. The other is black. Because the hospital doesn't meet the percentage requirements, they are forced to hire the black guy. Now let's say you get a heart attack and are rushed to the ER of this hospital. You need surgery or you'll die. The only available surgeon is the new guy. Would you prefer to be operated on him or the Harvard graduate who wasn't hired? I don't care if the guy's white, black, green, or purple with pink dots; give me the Harvard guy!

I hope you all at least understand racism a little more now, even if you don't agree with everything I just said.
I know most of this is off topic, but I don't think this post should be deleted; it has a very important message.
Also, as one last note, I appologise for calling you racist, hoots7. You probably just didn't understand what you were saying and why it's racist; most people don't.

The idea of reparations isn't really inherently racist. Certain opinions, on both sides, may be, but the basic question is this:

Bob kills Joe and takes his stuff. Is it reasonable for Joe's great^n grandchildren to ask Bob's for some of that stuff back?

My answer would be that it depends on the magnitude of what is taken, the value of n, and what the logistics are. As an example (untainted by research), it wouldn't be possible to give Manhattan back, but breaks on property taxes for those of Lenape descent might be feasible.

Racism is an incurable affliction of this world. No matter what people say or do, someone is going to have a problem with someone else, period. Humans are by nature demanding power and are self centered. Look at a toddler for example; he goes into the kitchen because he wants cake, and he feels that he alone has first dibs on it. If he sees someone else eating the cake he'll cry and have a tantrum. Even if he's disciplined well and doesn't throw a fit, inside he feels that the cake was his from the start. The point is, humans are born caring only about themselves. This is one of the factors of racism, feeling that this land or this city belongs to me and not to you, because you are :insert different-from-me characteristic:

I am opposed to racism, 110%, but that doesn't mean that anything can be done about it. Not everyone in this modern world knows about the brutality of racism and what other nations are going through, like Bosnia, Iraq, Palestine, etc etc. The news don't talk about how this hundred of people were slaughtered today, this group was mortared, etc. No, we just hear about the local murder, the new burial site found in Germany (which was a result of a horrible holocaust 60 years ago, but what about 300 other holocausts happening right now?) and other irrelevant news.

The reason we'll always have discrimination is because humans seeks out differences in each other and base our actions on these differences. Not just race, but gender, intelligence, height, etc. Of course, one must keep in mind that anyone who is completely indiscriminate must be either bisexual or asexual, as they do not perform gender discrimination when picking sexual partners.

well that's just some unique insight.

Anyhow, land grab is very different from the bad deals we've given before. The whole beaver pelt thing is something you could look back on and laugh:

"Hey, Pocahontas, remember when we traded fur for metal objects?"

"OMG, I can't believe we let you rip us off for so long...."

<laughter>

But taking ancestral land away is something completely different.

Perhaps everything would have gone more smoothly if the European immigrants had simply assimilated with the native groups, then we'd get a whole society of Metis.

Yep. If there was a higher governing intelligence in the universe, PHILOSOPHICALLY speaking, Louis Riel (sp?) would have won.

BTW, most of the land grabbing white/off white men who came to N America had been forced to leave their own lands which had in turn been grabbed by their Lairds, landlords etc. in their former countries. See Enclosure Acts. [EDIT: This trauma has probably created the mindset that allows the ' incomers' to take from the existing inhabitants. And continues to do so. ]

You would be right - but this not just a simple matter of being racist. We practically had our culture almost wiped from our minds, our languages almost forgotten about, our heritage becoming nothing more than a feint glimmer of our past. This is referred to as "cultural genocide". It's not only just being racist toward Native peoples, it's the destruction of an entire culture, so that we, in the eyes of the European settlers, would become more like "them", and less like the "savages" that we have been referred to as for over 100 years after the first European set foot on our land. I wish not to argue against your opinions; I only wish for you to see the misunderstanding of your view.


I agree with you - in fact, I'll go so far as to say that I have several cousins who are black. But again, this isn't just a simple case of racism. Unlike slaves, Native people (for the most part) weren't made to suffer the same fate; as I pointed out, or will right now, we suffered great


Again, you are not seeing the facts - it is not just a simple matter of "forgive-and-forget". Unlike African slaves, Native Americans suffered almost every cultural atrocity under the sun, in an effort by European settlers to make us more "civilized". You do understand that if reserves are abolished or removed (first), where would we go? Many non-natives are still misunderstanding of the situation of the Native people, and while I can see integration into society as a very real possibility, how would we go about dispelling resentments/myths/prejudice/discrimination toward each other? And then there's the whole discrimination of Gov'ts toward Native peoples. Let me ask you this - if the Gov't is unwilling to change its attitudes, how can we expect people to change their's when they are the ones that elected them in the first place? I don't expect you to answer my questions (feel free to - in fact, I encourage you to; perhaps you can dispel some of my misunderstandings), but I only want to say that this is not a simple matter.


While I agree fully that Affirmative Action has, how shall I put it, lost its usefulness or run its course, I will say that it is not entirely true. In fact, I must point out that discrimination toward Native people is still prevalent. Let me give you an example. A person from my reserve applied for a job as manager of the McDonald's in the nearby town. She was quite qualified, as she had her bachelor's degree in business and management. However, she was passed up for someone of non-Native descent, someone who was, shall I say, less than adequately qualified for the job. In the end, she was eventually hired because the other person fouled up employee records and miscalculated profits. Forgive me if my story sounds inaccurate with details; I only heard it maybe once or twice, as this was an isolated. But that's not to say discrimination against white people isn't happening, I just wanted to point out that the opposite is still true.


And yes, I understand racism more better now - I really do appreciate your input on this matter Ninja. Your opinion does matter, as this seems to be the only way anyone can really put aside differences and misunderstandings. I thank you.

Even though people prefer to be around others with similar interest, take us for example, we like the Elder Scrolls games, that's why we're here doesn't mean we dislike other people.

After reading the post including the response to my own let me say this.
I don't have an once of racism in me, I have worked with many different types of people, Native Americans included.

Once I worked at a place & got transferred to another station & these 2 black guys tested me to see if I was racist. They really put this white boy through the ringer, I was mad at them & was ready to fight one of them (I couldn't fight the other guy because he was a preacher) not because the were black but because I was ticked. They finally let me know what was going on & we all had a big laugh, I've even gone to the preacher's church, they are good folks.

I don't believe in Affirmative Action either & think it is a slap in the face to the one it is purposed for.
I talked to one of my fellow black track members in high school once.
Asked him what if me & you were going to race in a track meet & we got on the line, then coach grabbed your hand & led you up in front a little, how would you feel? He said he could already beat me (which he defiantly could, he was fast), he didn't need any head start. Then I shared with him that's what Affirmative Action does to a person, it makes you look week, taking it is admitting you are.

It's different in my eyes with American Indians, driving them off the land & like someone said we also broke one treaty after another with them; we should honor our word or at least provide compensation.
Not racism to me it's just the right thing to do.

I agree hoots, and while I am (very) grateful that this view is slowly being shared by many more non-Natives than ever before, many are still unable (or unwilling at times) to come to terms that our Native peoples were here first. I'm not saying that all non-Natives be asked to leave immediately because you have to (which BTW actually wouldn't be such a good idea, as that's like "taking one step forward and ten steps back"), all I'm saying is everyone needs to have an understanding of one another.

Take Adam Beach for example - he's a wonderful and very talented Native actor from Manitoba (Canada), and anyone who has watched Law & Order SVU will have seen that I'm right. Native American people are in fact beginning to be integrated into modern society, but we still have a long way to go...

"Adam Beach", he's good, he was in the movie Wind Talkers & Flags of Our Fathers (Ira Hayes), I liked them both.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0063440/

I've got both on DVD, and in fact I like WWII films in particular. But that's off topic... moving right along.

@ rob: Yes, the natives have lost almost all their heritage, but maybe (I'm sorry if this sounds offensive; it's not meant to be) maybe, it's time to move on? Just look elsewhere, Italy for example. They're changed their culture several times over the course of history. Things change. Maybe it's time the natives move on and join, and add to, American culture. In fact, there's another example. America is the 'daughter' of England, yet, now, the two countries are different in many ways. America has her own culture now. It'll, of course, be a lengthy procedure, but I think the natives should move on. I'm not suggesting they forget their past; I'm suggesting they stop holding onto it so tightly and just let it be.
Again, I'm sorry if this offends you in any way; race is potentially the hottest topic.

I'm not at all offended - like I said, I appreciate what you have to say. But you're still not seeing that it just isn't that simple. We simply cannot, like I pointed out before, "forgive and forget". But don't worry - I wouldn't expect you to understand the ramifications of our situation.

I know, I sicken me, too. I'm too naïve. I'm thinking too far into the future and ignoring the small steps that need to be taken in between.

Don't feel bad Ninja - at least I'm a very understanding person, and can set aside my differences without being a biased a$$hole of a jerk and say all the nasty things one would expect to hear from someone of Native descent. In my eyes, carrying on like that only aims to create more division amongst people, and that is always a very bad thing. I only wish my own people were as understanding as I am...

EDIT: In fact I shall give kudos since you understand me and my position on this issue

EDIT #2: ...Huh, hrmm.... ...But it seems as though I've already given you kudos...

Ninja Lord brings up one of my bones of contention: How we teach History is Wrong.

The History of white interaction with Native peoples here in the US, particularly ... has been that we tried to "civilize" them and make the "productive" but they refused to change with the times.

Pardon me, but that's bull-puckie.

For Example, the image is repeated over and over, of natives not developing the land, by farming it and establishing homesteads, etc, in the North East. That these people were simply hunter gatherers and didn't want to give up their hunting lands.

... if that's true, how did they teach the pilgrims how to plant corn and keep farms in the area?

... i'm going to have to spend sometime and re-look up my sources to give exact examples ... to use to illustrate.


I've heard people talk about Natives not understanding western contracts and land ownership .... and that's actually true, but not in the way most people mean. Native American's had the funny idea that contracts and property ownership were "sacred" and should never be broken... they also thought that they had equal responsibility and value as their european counterparts. But they did understand land ownership. Even in Europe, at the time, you could own farmland, but that land was open to hunting ... anyone could hunt your lands, as long as they didn't not kill your animals or destroy your crops. ( I'll have to look up where I learned this too ... a lot of it comes from Lies my Teacher Told Me a pretty good book. worth reading.


As for African Americans in this country.... people forget that for many of them, they are only 3 generations down from Slaves, AND its only been a Generation, more or less, since the Government has stopped practicing OVERT racism. But if you take some time to read about some of their history in this country .... being made free from slavery, but not allowed to do the jobs they were skilled at to keep them from competing with whites, not being allowed to own homes in certain neighborhoods, AND not being able to address a court on equal footing with a white man ... through out MOST of the country, for YEARS ... especially between 1900-1950 .... that's ALONG time .... Think about that .... a black man born in, say 1910, would have probably been born on a share-croppers farm, of Parents who were born in slavery only in their early childhood set free ... were seeing life be VERY hard as they were basically in so much debt to the land holder that they were practically his slaves ... by age 15, has probably seen several men Lynched for things EVERYONE knows they didin't do ... decides, maybe, to escape the south and goes north, to Chicago,... and finds he can't get a job for anything other than hard labor at the trainyards ... tries to find a decent place to live, but finds that even the decent places for poor people are white only. Not officially, but very evidently .... from the ugly looks of neighbors to the threats and dead black rats on door steps ...

these things were typical ... What is that man going to teach his children when he has some, as they grow up in the 30's n 40's .... ? and those who were born in the 40's ... they got fed up and joined MLKjr and others in trying to get the Gov't to change its racist policies ... which if finally did, no real thanks to anyone in power. They faced some really terrrible things from people in authority who were supposedly there to protect and serve them ... What did they teach their children in the sixties? what did those children see that was really different in the 70's and 80's ? It's hard for a people to let go a a stigma of being the target of racism ...when you see so much of it still around.


IF African Americans in this country are a load of trouble to the people around them ... I can only say they are a product of the society that nurtured them.

I'm convinced that their culture has slowly been evolving into the stereotypes that whites have constantly proported about them for the past two centuries.

Blacks from outside the US see it ... I've had a bunch of friends through out my life that are from the Carribean who really hate being mistaken for a Black person from the US.... we've done something to our people, white, black, brown, red and yellow

anyway ... lunch breaks over ... I'll talk to you guys later .... did I make any sense?




mm... well... in summary ... this isn't something you can just 'move' on with ... someone mentioned that America was a Daughter of England ... and that could be true ... so lets use that metaphor ...

IF you have an adopted child in a home, who is subsequently sexually, physically and mentally abused by the father .... when the father dies and a step-dad comes in ... do you just tell her to, Forget about it ...get over the issues and come join the family?

I appreciate your input Jhaerlyn - in fact, you may know more about this than me But I agree that things need to change, not just on the non-Native side, but on both sides. We need to find a balance between learning the ways of the world, as well as maintaining our heritage and traditions. It won't be an easy process, nor will it be short. I can understand your analogy (kudos to you for putting it in that sense, because that's pretty much how things went down for us... ), and I do hope this can shed some light on the issues surrounding Native peoples.

EDIT: Just so you know, I have given you kudos Jhaerlyn

I agree with you to an extent - people are moulded by the society in which they are raised - but I do not believe they can be made into stereotypes. I suspect that there are very few people in the world that are 100% stereotypical. However if you only look at the things that fit your idea of the stereotype and ignore anything that doesn't fit - a not uncommon approach - you will only see stereotypes.

Sometimes societies can make it difficult for people to express their individuality. That doesn't mean they do not have that individuality. Furthermore it is not only the 'oppressing' society that creates these difficulties. There is the belief (certainly held by George Bush) that 'if you are not with us, you are against us'. This immediately stifles almost every freedom the US is supposed to stand for but it is endemic in most societies, even those who are 'oppressed'.

So if people do not display individuality do not automatically assume it isn't there and do not believe the 'fault' necessarily has to lie with the 'ruling' authority.

Thanks for the Kudos Rob

And I doubt I "know" more than you .... I just read a book or two ...and I sometimes get fired up by this stuff ... and I like to talk alot.

But I don't always say things as I mean to say them ...
Malchik, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding ... I didn't mean to say that individuals were all becoming stereo-types ... that's impossible .... rather, that individuals were molding themselves more and more into the stereo-types ... so that the culture is becoming more and more stereo-typical ... its a thing that's been happening in a lot of ways with different groups ... For Example, the other day I saw this special report on Gangsters and how Gangster movies had been shaping mobster culture ... it was pretty neat ..but basically the idea was that young mobsters were growing up seeing these movie mobsters and thinking that was how they were "supposed" to act ... and so they did.


it goes along with something that gets knocked around in education and psychology: the self-fulfilling prophesy. If you call someone over whom you have some authority or matter in someway ... and call them stupid .. on a regular basis ... they will grow to believe it, and, no matter what their IQ may have been.. they will literally function as a stupid person.


What it seems to be is that our social natures betray us in this area ...in that, human beings with normal emotional, mental and social skills and feelings do care what other people think of them.

Ok ..gotta go, See ya'll tomorrow at lunch


.... and sorry for not reading all of your very short post Malchik ... i was supposed to leave already ... and wanted to rush in and clarify a little ...and then got carried away ... I talk way too much

So much to quote from. So little time.

'History is bunk': Henry Ford. Actually what Henry said was 'the study of history is bunk'. In relation to this thread I both agree and disagree with him.

Rehashing the wrongs done to one's religion/culture/race/ethnic group is a good way to stoke up one's victimhood. Especially if the wrong took place just an hour ago because of the negative way that someone reacted , through ignorance or bigotry, to you as an individual member of your race. Perhaps, even a greater sense of one's identity can be brought about by the 'study' of the awful things done to one's people throughout history. Though I suspect it will be bolstering one's identity in a negative sense, not a positive one.

It has been written, in this thread, that one should look after one's own individuality, one's own individual rights. That Reservations are anachronistic, don't work, are unfair- at best- hold people back as individuals , should be abolished etc.,etc..

Well... speaking as one who has been an 'individual' for most of the last 50 years - my own family having become terminally disfunctional around my tenth year.... Having made my way, admittedly within the greater white Anglo-Saxon UK culture of which I am part, mostly on my own and under my own steam and having acheived relative material success and 'contentment' I can let you in on a big secret. Individualism aint all it's cracked up to be.

My 'study' of history shows that groups which stay together to maintain their traditions survive in the face of all the crap that the 'majority' around them throws at them. It seems to me that you Natives of the Americas have a golden opportunity. Something which is denied to the 'individuals' in the rest of the western world. It's all there for you: your culture, your traditions, your spiritual beliefs and, yes, your race and ...the Reservations.

Study history, by all means and by who ever wrote it. Study your own oral traditions. Talk to any of your elders who are still around. Build up your identity; who you, as an 'individual' is within your culture so that in turn your culture will grow stronger . Get rid of the corrupt politicians who blight every society. ***k the Federal/state/provincial governments. Take from them what you need and what will help build you up. 'Hand outs' - so what. Take them and use them productively. The posters to this thread, alone, show that there is certainly no lack of intelligence to bring to bear on this.

Do this. Or become a westernized 'individual' who has all the toys that 'civilisation' will sell you. And learn to live in an alienated void, where your immediate family, if you are fortunate, as I now am, to have one, is the only defense against the huge things which are happening, and will happen, all around you.

This is fairly garbled. Apologies. Get too emtional about this particular subject. See... have wanted to be an 'Red Indian' since I was ten. Have wanted to have the ideal group identity which I believe is, at least partially, yours to have. Basically because it , at least, seems to BE an identity.

wow, chesto, that was good

I wish I had time to respond.. but we just were told that the server is being taken down for a while


and i agree with you that there is a definite need for looking at ones group and its strengths to solidify their identity and grow from there.

up until now I've mostly just been dumping my thoughts on what has been the ... challenges that native american and african americans face in this country.

If you could point out some of those groups specifically that you are referring to, so I can ..have something to grapple with or hold on to ..itd be great


ok, well , gotta go .have fun today

Jhaerlyn- I was speaking, mainly, about the Native Americans ( generic). I don't really understand which other 'groups' you may think I'm referring to.
I suppose the generalist tactics I espouse could be applied to any minority group that had a similar long history of traditions behind it, though I can not think of any that fit the bill other than certain reclusive religious sects. Only those more knowledgeable than I ( queue here! ) about First Peoples could say with any degree of certainty whether they, themselves, consider they are part of a larger homogeneous grouping, and not just a mixture of tribal groups who have been thrown together by their common treatment. Similar, in fact, to the way that blacks in America came together from their own tribal and ethnic backgrounds to create black consciousness and all that has come from that.

On the contrary, it doesn't take someone to be more knowledgeable than you, it only requires simple understanding of both sides of the debate. While we do consider ALL Native peoples/tribes to be of the same race, we do in fact keep the tribal affairs of each different band or treaty separate from one another.

@ Chesto: What you're saying will further divide the people and further fuel the flames of racism. By having all the 'minorities' break away and form their own independent sects, there won't be any friendly co-mingling. The only way to eliminate racism is to unite the people, not divine them.

Umm, I still think you're not seeing that this has nothing to do with racism, Ninja. It's about the rights of Native people and what can be done to solve the misunderstandings between Natives and non-Natives. I don't expect an answer from you.

I agree with you so far..


I thought you were going to tell us who Or what the other factor was besides the "'oppressing' society" but you just blame George Bush.

I have to say in Bush's defense he was talking about countrys that harbor terrorist not the freedom of people or individualism.

I agree with this part also but you never state what the other thing is you mention earlier.
If you think George Bush is the other factor, you give him to much credit, one man can't be blamed for all that.

I do not blame George Bush for everything I was simply using him as an example the US might relate to. But there can be NO excuse for his inadequately thought-through comment. No doubt had he had a chance to think about it he would have rephrased it less emotively but, as I say, it is a commonly held belief. 'If you do not agree with me you must be my enemy.' Or to put it another way 'I cannot possibly be wrong'. Either interpretation deserves being laughed out of court.

And I thought I did make it clear that it is equally the 'oppressed' societies themselves that prevent people being individual for the very reason I used the GB quote. If you do not express the perceived accepted view of the 'oppressed' society you are an outcast there too. Because if you are not with them, you are against them.