(03-22-2022 11:19 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Wonder why they're pushing it now... She's a Dem.

Yep. If they just want "representation" I seem to believe that the state of Oklahoma has 2 senators and 5 house representatives. All they'd have to do is run a good candidate there and they'd have what they are asking for. The only issue for them is that Oklahoma is solidly Republican.

I hope Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic led House make this a priority in the lame duck. It is ridiculous that it has taken this long -

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/373...-delegate/

(03-21-2022 10:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(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):

My wife's family is descended from what you call a Metis marriage.

(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 Choctaw casinos in OK are amongst the largest on the planet. I went to Durant about a month ago and its nice. Most indian casinos I have been to totally screw you over, but this place was great. They had plenty of free self-serve drink bars for sodas and coffee, and the drinks were better than any fountain drink you have ever had. Gift shop prices for candy bars and snacks were very reasonable. The casino has an attached movie theatre, arcade, bowling alley, and food court. Families in the area travel there on the weekends just for an outting with the kids. The pool was closed when I went, but looks awesome. When my wife and I started walking through it, we were like "damn, this is bigger than the MGM Grand in Vegas. "

I havent been to the winstar yet. Its run by the Chickasaw's.

Winstar is like #2 largest on the planet, and Choctaw Durant is #4.

Why do most white people want to have Cherokee blood? How come it's never Apache, Hopi, Navajo, etc., it's always Cherokee. What's so special about this tribe?

???

(03-21-2022 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As someone with several native American and other indigenous people friends, I wonder about whether it would be good to do this:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) currently manages (in many cases, ineptly) about 240 million acres of federal land tat does not appear to have any purpose. What if, say, half of that land were returned to indigenous people to use as each tribe sees fit? Worst case, it is highly unlikely that they would do worse than BLM.

No purpose? Thousands of RVers and backpackers use those lands every day to boondock.

Don't be giving away my free camp sites b/c you don't think they're being used!

P.S. Besides recreation, those lands are used for energy development, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, fish and wildlife conservation, oil and gas production (when Repubs are in charge), etc. They're not just sitting around waiting to be given away.

Also, in my experience, the BLM info is organized and easy to deal with.

(03-21-2022 07:17 AM)Todor 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?

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?

Yeah, uh, no. I don't really have a party. I adhere to an ideology that one party at least acts like they are more closely aligned with than the other though, if that helps.

(03-21-2022 06:59 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I thought Warren was their delegate....

(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.

I don't necessarily disagree with him about it but, as you point out, we are not unique in the deficiencies we possess. But he bangs that drum a lot, as if there are no positives.

(03-21-2022 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 12:36 PM)b2b Wrote:  I'm 1/16... do I count as an oppressed group?

I'm about 16 generations back. Think that makes me about 1/32000th, but I have some Mexican Indian and am about 14% Indian overall. Should that make my Cherokee count?

I'm an Italian Indian, a bone fide member of the Wopaho tribe.

Everyone deserves representation.

(11-17-2022 02:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why do most white people want to have Cherokee blood? How come it's never Apache, Hopi, Navajo, etc., it's always Cherokee. What's so special about this tribe?

???

2 reasons I can think of

1) the Cherokee were in the east and most of these marriages would have happened well before mass US westward expansion.

2) many if not most of the claims are BS and wouldn't hold up under scrutiny, so the "family lore" goes back so many generations that it just becomes unverifiable.

I traced back to my first ancestor in the US, a guy who was born in England in 1584, and that's 12 generations before me- The Catholic/Anglican/Episcopalian/Presbyterian churches did a pretty good job of record keeping back in the day...

That's not to say that all of the claims are false, especially when coming from Southerners, but I remember my dad who grew up in a neighborhood of mostly "ethnic" white 3rd generation immigrants telling me how several of his friends growing up claimed "Native" American ancestry.

(03-21-2022 04:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 04:03 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 03:48 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 02:17 PM)banker Wrote:  The Cherokee broke the treaty by failing to willingly leave the land as agreed in the document causing their forced removal at great monetary and reputational cost to the US Government. To come back 187 years later and say “ Hey, we never supported the treaty, we were invalidly represented, to the point we killed the guys who signed it, and we willingly broke it by not following the conditions, but now you have to pay attention to this one clause” is, as I stated, disingenuous at best.

The U.S. government *enforced* the treaty and removed the Cherokee. Otherwise, the U.S. government forcefully removed the Cherokee without a treaty and should owe them reparations.

Give them their delegate.

Typically a contract is no longer enforceable on one party after the other party has already willfully breached it. Perhaps the Cherokee should be the one paying reparations. They broke the treaty causing the US to undergo the expense of forcing the removal and resettlement. Punitive damages from the reputational harm that was incurred, and still exists to this day, would be astronomical.

25% of their population died during the forced eviction.

Give them their non-voting delegate.

I agree. IMO if there's a single group worthy of and deserving special considerations it's the American Indian.

Welp, since we are allowing non voting delegates, I’m positive all the illegal immigrants need a delegate for representation. I’m positive there are more than 10 million and counting here.

(11-17-2022 10:12 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 02:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why do most white people want to have Cherokee blood? How come it's never Apache, Hopi, Navajo, etc., it's always Cherokee. What's so special about this tribe?

???

2 reasons I can think of

1) the Cherokee were in the east and most of these marriages would have happened well before mass US westward expansion.

2) many if not most of the claims are BS and wouldn't hold up under scrutiny, so the "family lore" goes back so many generations that it just becomes unverifiable.

I traced back to my first ancestor in the US, a guy who was born in England in 1584, and that's 12 generations before me- The Catholic/Anglican/Episcopalian/Presbyterian churches did a pretty good job of record keeping back in the day...

That's not to say that all of the claims are false, especially when coming from Southerners, but I remember my dad who grew up in a neighborhood of mostly "ethnic" white 3rd generation immigrants telling me how several of his friends growing up claimed "Native" American ancestry.

We thought our family lore was nonsense, but we actually found it was true.
Maybe part is because they were a "civilized" tribe.

Most of us are mutts.

If I had to list what I was down both sides of the family I'd run out of the front of the page in 4 generations.

(11-17-2022 10:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 10:12 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 02:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why do most white people want to have Cherokee blood? How come it's never Apache, Hopi, Navajo, etc., it's always Cherokee. What's so special about this tribe?

???

2 reasons I can think of

1) the Cherokee were in the east and most of these marriages would have happened well before mass US westward expansion.

2) many if not most of the claims are BS and wouldn't hold up under scrutiny, so the "family lore" goes back so many generations that it just becomes unverifiable.

I traced back to my first ancestor in the US, a guy who was born in England in 1584, and that's 12 generations before me- The Catholic/Anglican/Episcopalian/Presbyterian churches did a pretty good job of record keeping back in the day...

That's not to say that all of the claims are false, especially when coming from Southerners, but I remember my dad who grew up in a neighborhood of mostly "ethnic" white 3rd generation immigrants telling me how several of his friends growing up claimed "Native" American ancestry.

We thought our family lore was nonsense, but we actually found it was true.
Maybe part is because they were a "civilized" tribe.

Yeah, I tend to lend more credence in circumstances like earlier settlers in the South where there was more of a frontier, wild west approach. I'm glad you were able to confirm it!