So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
I have Cherokee blood and could not care less about some non-voting delegate in Congress that was not fully ratified years ago. We are looking at a potential World War, and you post some virtue-signaling stupidity because it makes you feel inclusive and virtuous. Get bent.
I have now educated myself. The treaty was signed by a separatist group within the Cherokee Nation. It was supported by less than 500 and opposed by over 17,000. It was so opposed that 3 of the 4 Cherokee leaders that signed it were all murdered by their tribe on the same day. The day it was to be ratified, the House was presented with the 17,000 signature petition in opposition to the treaty, a fight broke out in the House and it was never brought for a vote.
So now, 187 years later, the same tribe that murderously opposed the treaty and petitioned not to have it ratified wants one part of it honored. That’s what I get from my readings.
We treated them poorly as a nation, but they have little to stand on here. If they want this part of the treaty upheld they need to accept the whole of the document which would end their claims that their land was illegally taken. The document established the sale of all native lands East of the Mississippi, so they can’t have it both ways.
(03-20-2022 09:37 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
A good question, but only the Senate ratifies US treaties (unless they involve foreign trade) and the Treaty of New Echota was ratified in May 1836. Not sure why the Cherokee waited so long, other than the lack of resources the article cites. It probably would have been a much bigger deal years ago as well, in eras with greater prejudice and before we had other non-voting delegates in the House to model after. It really shouldn't be hard to get this done now, the article says nobody is opposing them and we have non-voting delegates already in place for DC and all the US territories.
Yeah, research it for yourself and draw your own conclusion, but it’s a huge reach.
Oh yeah, and I’ll go ahead and point out that the Cherokee were screwed by Andrew Jackson. Why are democrats always on the wrong side of history when it comes to race in this country?
No need no injunes.
Savages now stay in their own land.
/sarc. Really? This is what you’re bringing up now?
Desperado’s be desperate.
Sad
(03-20-2022 10:37 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]No need no injunes.
Savages now stay in their own land.
/sarc. Really? This is what you’re bringing up now?
Desperado’s be desperate.
Sad
Dunk, with you on this one. Timing is odd with other things going on in the world. Unlike the pandemic that never ends that started with a novel Coronavirus extracted from Fauci's fromundercheese that the Fauci funded NIH sponsored gain of function research to make it transmissable (but they deny was gain of function...), we have a threat of war that could become nuclear, and our resident Socrates Gamenole is bringing up some 180 year old treaty that was never fully ratified for a position that is nothing more than symbolic as a pressing need.
Gamenole seems amicable enough, but when virtue signaling supercedes real danger, he gets a one way ticket to ignore.
BTW, looking forward to seeing the Duke Dog walk home again with tail between legs after ODU continues our football dominance over your eunich mutt.
(03-20-2022 09:37 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
They’ve been trying. It’s been in the news my entire life. Same with tribes in the Southwest. This is nothing new.
(03-20-2022 10:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 09:37 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
A good question, but only the Senate ratifies US treaties (unless they involve foreign trade) and the Treaty of New Echota was ratified in May 1836. Not sure why the Cherokee waited so long, other than the lack of resources the article cites. It probably would have been a much bigger deal years ago as well, in eras with greater prejudice and before we had other non-voting delegates in the House to model after. It really shouldn't be hard to get this done now, the article says nobody is opposing them and we have non-voting delegates already in place for DC and all the US territories.
Here’s what happens with a lot of NA issues- they ignore them time after time after time to dissuade them from pursuing any issue further. But when they keep pressing, everyone pretends it’s the first time it’s been brought up, as if that would be a reason to keep ignoring them. It’s not.
Tribes are getting more money, more organized and more politically savvy. The US just doesn’t honor it’s obligations. That has been true for day one. And it’s not different I dealing with the nations of the world either. Make big promises, but never want to pay for them.
(03-20-2022 09:58 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]I have now educated myself. The treaty was signed by a separatist group within the Cherokee Nation. It was supported by less than 500 and opposed by over 17,000. It was so opposed that 3 of the 4 Cherokee leaders that signed it were all murdered by their tribe on the same day. The day it was to be ratified, the House was presented with the 17,000 signature petition in opposition to the treaty, a fight broke out in the House and it was never brought for a vote.
So now, 187 years later, the same tribe that murderously opposed the treaty and petitioned not to have it ratified wants one part of it honored. That’s what I get from my readings.
We treated them poorly as a nation, but they have little to stand on here. If they want this part of the treaty upheld they need to accept the whole of the document which would end their claims that their land was illegally taken. The document established the sale of all native lands East of the Mississippi, so they can’t have it both ways.
Wikipedia I presume?
(03-21-2022 03:27 AM)Todor Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 10:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 09:37 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
A good question, but only the Senate ratifies US treaties (unless they involve foreign trade) and the Treaty of New Echota was ratified in May 1836. Not sure why the Cherokee waited so long, other than the lack of resources the article cites. It probably would have been a much bigger deal years ago as well, in eras with greater prejudice and before we had other non-voting delegates in the House to model after. It really shouldn't be hard to get this done now, the article says nobody is opposing them and we have non-voting delegates already in place for DC and all the US territories.
Here’s what happens with a lot of NA issues- they ignore them time after time after time to dissuade them from pursuing any issue further. But when they keep pressing, everyone pretends it’s the first time it’s been brought up, as if that would be a reason to keep ignoring them. It’s not.
Tribes are getting more money, more organized and more politically savvy. The US just doesn’t honor it’s obligations. That has been true for day one. And it’s not different I dealing with the nations of the world either. Make big promises, but never want to pay for them.
Are you sure you wouldn't be happier living in a country that has no black marks on its history?
I thought Warren was their delegate....
(03-21-2022 06:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2022 03:27 AM)Todor Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 10:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 09:37 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
A good question, but only the Senate ratifies US treaties (unless they involve foreign trade) and the Treaty of New Echota was ratified in May 1836. Not sure why the Cherokee waited so long, other than the lack of resources the article cites. It probably would have been a much bigger deal years ago as well, in eras with greater prejudice and before we had other non-voting delegates in the House to model after. It really shouldn't be hard to get this done now, the article says nobody is opposing them and we have non-voting delegates already in place for DC and all the US territories.
Here’s what happens with a lot of NA issues- they ignore them time after time after time to dissuade them from pursuing any issue further. But when they keep pressing, everyone pretends it’s the first time it’s been brought up, as if that would be a reason to keep ignoring them. It’s not.
Tribes are getting more money, more organized and more politically savvy. The US just doesn’t honor it’s obligations. That has been true for day one. And it’s not different I dealing with the nations of the world either. Make big promises, but never want to pay for them.
Are you sure you wouldn't be happier living in a country that has no black marks on its history?
No I love it here. Is identifying a problem a problem for you? Let me guess, your party can do no wrong and the other can do no right?
(03-20-2022 09:45 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote: [ -> ]I have Cherokee blood and could not care less about some non-voting delegate in Congress that was not fully ratified years ago. We are looking at a potential World War, and you post some virtue-signaling stupidity because it makes you feel inclusive and virtuous. Get bent.
I've got a tiny bit of Cherokee as well. Somewhere about 16 generations back.
Next we will have 574 tribal governments insisting on a delegate.
I think we made a huge mistake in the 30s-60s promoting the autonomy concept. The whole casino thing is part of that. States can't stop Indian casinos. The mess at Wounded Knee in the early 70s was part of that. Worse could happen.
The Indians in best shape are those in Oklahoma, NOT on reservations, but integrated into society. We should start with the eastern and central time zone and buy out the rights of any tribe willing and make their reservations regular counties or cities. They get paid and self-government. We get rid of the autonomous zones.
(03-21-2022 06:59 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]I thought Warren was their delegate....
Winner of today’s internet!
(03-20-2022 09:58 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]I have now educated myself. The treaty was signed by a separatist group within the Cherokee Nation. It was supported by less than 500 and opposed by over 17,000. It was so opposed that 3 of the 4 Cherokee leaders that signed it were all murdered by their tribe on the same day. The day it was to be ratified, the House was presented with the 17,000 signature petition in opposition to the treaty, a fight broke out in the House and it was never brought for a vote.
So now, 187 years later, the same tribe that murderously opposed the treaty and petitioned not to have it ratified wants one part of it honored. That’s what I get from my readings.
We treated them poorly as a nation, but they have little to stand on here. If they want this part of the treaty upheld they need to accept the whole of the document which would end their claims that their land was illegally taken. The document established the sale of all native lands East of the Mississippi, so they can’t have it both ways.
Well the Supreme Court ruled that Jackson couldn't remove the Cherokee, but he did it anyway.
(03-21-2022 10:19 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 09:45 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote: [ -> ]I have Cherokee blood and could not care less about some non-voting delegate in Congress that was not fully ratified years ago. We are looking at a potential World War, and you post some virtue-signaling stupidity because it makes you feel inclusive and virtuous. Get bent.
I've got a tiny bit of Cherokee as well. Somewhere about 16 generations back.
Next we will have 574 tribal governments insisting on a delegate.
I think we made a huge mistake in the 30s-60s promoting the autonomy concept. The whole casino thing is part of that. States can't stop Indian casinos. The mess at Wounded Knee in the early 70s was part of that. Worse could happen.
The Indians in best shape are those in Oklahoma, NOT on reservations, but integrated into society. We should start with the eastern and central time zone and buy out the rights of any tribe willing and make their reservations regular counties or cities. They get paid and self-government. We get rid of the autonomous zones.
The Indians in best shape are the Metis, in Canada.
The French (unlike the English) encouraged intermarriage with Indians. So French traders frequently married Indian women from many tribes (in the East it was typically Algonquin women; in the West the women were from a number of Plains tribes including Cree, Lakota, and Blackfeet). The resulting mixed culture was called Metis.
Officially, Metis are 1.74% of the Canadian population. But that only counts registered Metis. In reality, it's been estimated that 53-78% of Quebecois have Indian ancestry (this extends to Quebecois descendants in the USA like me).
Registered Metis have incomes similar to all Canadians, which is even more impressive when you consider that they are more concentrated in rural areas (Canada's big wealthy cities are much more internationally diverse):
![[Image: c-g17-eng.gif]](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2015001/c-g/c-g17-eng.gif)
(03-21-2022 06:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2022 03:27 AM)Todor Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 10:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 09:37 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
A good question, but only the Senate ratifies US treaties (unless they involve foreign trade) and the Treaty of New Echota was ratified in May 1836. Not sure why the Cherokee waited so long, other than the lack of resources the article cites. It probably would have been a much bigger deal years ago as well, in eras with greater prejudice and before we had other non-voting delegates in the House to model after. It really shouldn't be hard to get this done now, the article says nobody is opposing them and we have non-voting delegates already in place for DC and all the US territories.
Here’s what happens with a lot of NA issues- they ignore them time after time after time to dissuade them from pursuing any issue further. But when they keep pressing, everyone pretends it’s the first time it’s been brought up, as if that would be a reason to keep ignoring them. It’s not.
Tribes are getting more money, more organized and more politically savvy. The US just doesn’t honor it’s obligations. That has been true for day one. And it’s not different I dealing with the nations of the world either. Make big promises, but never want to pay for them.
Are you sure you wouldn't be happier living in a country that has no black marks on its history?
I actually agree with Todor that the USA doesn't always live up to its promises.
But what country does?
The remarkable foreign policy consistency in the USA and UK from 1950-2000 was an aberration. The norm for most countries is that a new administration leads to a new foreign policy.
Exhibit A is Ukraine. In 1994, we guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons. Less than 20 years later, we did nothing when Russia took Crimea.
Exhibit B is Mexico in the 1830s. Mexico was so unstable and the policies kept changing so rapidly that Texas (even Texans like Stephen Austin who had sworn a loyalty oath to Mexico) got sick of it and wanted out.
(03-21-2022 11:04 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2022 06:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2022 03:27 AM)Todor Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 10:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2022 09:37 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]So they were granted this right by treaty in 1835, but apparently the treaty was never ratified by Congress, at least the House. So 187 years later they are trying to get recognition for their delegate?
Not saying I’m for or against, just making sure I have a general understanding from the link.
A good question, but only the Senate ratifies US treaties (unless they involve foreign trade) and the Treaty of New Echota was ratified in May 1836. Not sure why the Cherokee waited so long, other than the lack of resources the article cites. It probably would have been a much bigger deal years ago as well, in eras with greater prejudice and before we had other non-voting delegates in the House to model after. It really shouldn't be hard to get this done now, the article says nobody is opposing them and we have non-voting delegates already in place for DC and all the US territories.
Here’s what happens with a lot of NA issues- they ignore them time after time after time to dissuade them from pursuing any issue further. But when they keep pressing, everyone pretends it’s the first time it’s been brought up, as if that would be a reason to keep ignoring them. It’s not.
Tribes are getting more money, more organized and more politically savvy. The US just doesn’t honor it’s obligations. That has been true for day one. And it’s not different I dealing with the nations of the world either. Make big promises, but never want to pay for them.
Are you sure you wouldn't be happier living in a country that has no black marks on its history?
I actually agree with Todor that the USA doesn't always live up to its promises.
But what country does?
The remarkable foreign policy consistency in the USA and UK from 1950-2000 was an aberration. The norm for most countries is that a new administration leads to a new foreign policy.
Exhibit A is Ukraine. In 1994, we guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons. Less than 20 years later, we did nothing when Russia took Crimea.
Exhibit B is Mexico in the 1830s. Mexico was so unstable and the policies kept changing so rapidly that Texas (even Texans like Stephen Austin who had sworn a loyalty oath to Mexico) got sick of it and wanted out.
Or the US-borders are inviolable.
So Bill Clinton bombed Serbia to give Kosovo, an Albanian majority region of Serbia their own country.
Ethnic cleansing is bad. So Europeans supplied Croatia and allowed them to ethnically cleans hundreds of thousands of Serbians and then admitted Croatia to the EU without even an apology.
Both of those two give us credibility problems in condemning what Russia did in Crimea and the Donbass.
The interesting thing is how much the current woke history books ignore what we did to the Indians. They will talk forever about discrimination against Mexican-Americans and Blacks and Chinese, but barely mention the genocidal policy against the Indians. One even claimed climate change destroyed the buffalo herds, when instead, it was a deliberate policy to starve the Indians.