The "Indian" argument

[RCA]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

[constituent]

you do like most other "advocates" of the free-market and private property, and you chant the following over and over again:

do as i say, not as i do
do as i say, not as i do

[lynnf]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

could refer to the old argument that if the Native Americans had really wanted the land that they would have created a system of property deeds so that they could keep track of it :)


seriously, it wasn't all taken in a criminal fashion - there were treaties, which, of course, weren't all kept by the "white" side but it was a trade nonetheless.

lynn

[Minlawc]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

I actually wouldn't mind that. We could give the individual tribe power to form there own states, run by there own form of government, within the united states. The majority of the white, black, and latino population would have to learn the state's official language to go into office, and in public schools.

Of course I live in Ohio, I don't think any tribe has an official connection to it. I could be wrong...

[FunkBuddha]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

I say let em have it. They'd probably take better care of it anyways.

[Jeremy]

It's history. How do you expect us to be responsible for something some Europeans did a long time ago? It's like saying if you live in a house that was owned by a murderer hundreds of years ago, you should go to jail.

Also, how do you know what tribes owned what land? Did they even consider land something that could be owned?

Even so, original owners? The original owners died ages ago...

[Aratus]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when
someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand
our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

dude, spanish land deeds are sometimes almost 500 years old, and the 1880s
and 1890s is when the last few indian tribes here were sent into the reservation
system. you now might say our newer legal writs are 110 or 120 years of age...

other than legal usage, and a continuity of titles, the given fact is that the original
transfers had levels of dubiousness and perhaps could be voided when the agreed
to terms are not met. this is actually a lingering question concerning the patchwork
quilt that is our legal titles and deeds. its the central question where there is no quick
glib answer that is pat and ipso facto... the debate on this is more way complicated.

[forsmant]

The Earth belongs to the Living! Those Indians are dead and have no claim to the land anymore.

[lodge939]

Darwinism in action.

[LibertyEagle]

Was restitution not enough?

By the way, some of the land was actually paid for, not stolen, as revisionist history likes to proclaim.

[klamath]

This is an issue that will never be solved trying to cite civilization's laws and customs. Only one law applies here. The law of force. What was done to the indians can never be explained away or rationalized by our DOI or constitution. It was wrong and totally wrong by those standards.
Were the Indians totally innocent? No. they were in almost constant warfare with each other for hunting grounds, women and loot for thousands of years. How many times did hunting grounds change between tribes in those thousands of years?
Once again it was power from Washington that caused the most harm. Many local military commanders put their honor on line to make peice treaties with the indians only to have Washington break the deals.

[danberkeley]

If the "Indians" did not believe in private ownership of land, how was it that the "white man" stole their land? How can someone steal something that is not ownable? How can Person A steal a land from Person B, if Person B does not nor cannot own the land?

[jbuttell]

I say let em have it. They'd probably take better care of it anyways.

I'm afriad that anyone who may have been an 'owner' is long dead.

[Brian4Liberty]

The "native" Americans of the past were pushed out by massive immigration.

Question: Are you pro-immigration? Anti-immigration? Other?

[redearth76]

The Earth belongs to the Living! Those Indians are dead and have no claim to the land anymore.

WE ARE NOT DEAD!! we are busy trying to protect our lands we do have left!! To keep them from being exlpoited!! and most tribes did not get reparations we did want our land instead so we got neither. So if you wanna help the American Indians help us stand up protect our sovereignty to say no to coal, natural gas uranium mining. oil drilling. and other attacks on our right to do what we want with our land. Like leave to be. we like it just the way it is! So if you really wanna be informed of our fight I'd recommend watching this documentry

Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action
it's on PBS check your local listings for times
here's a link to the website there are some video clips on there
http://www.katahdin.org/films/homeland/intro.html#

[M House]

Whatever Indian's can probably pull off a decent nation just look at the Cherokee. Should we give an supposed "descendants" their land back...um probably not. We treated them garbage and the land little better. As for not using the natural resources we have get real if you use any piece of technology toss it now and just get off the computer. Personally I feel they should have fully recognized nations with states and representation if they choose though. Washington DC gets one and it's not even a fucking state. Greatest industrial misconception is that we need to strip mine and clear the entire area just to dig a hole in the ground or grind some rock. Whatever I don't control companies on this issue but given any authority on this would just make them deal. Wah wah environmental regulations, be glad some pseudo environmental protection nazi isn't suing just to make you take your nasty ass over seas to tear up someone elses.

[SeanEdwards]

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I agree with Liberty Eagle. There are deeds of sale preserved in museums...where the pilgrims purchased the land from that tribe. Problem was. indians didn't understand private property rights and kept coming on the land to do what ever they wanted. lol. Much of this history is preserved...stop believing revisionist history.. and yes, as more europeans migrated it pushed the indians around. I'm quite sure this has happened to every civilization that ever existed at some point in time. I guess they call it progress. tones

[M House]

Progress isn't wiping another civilization out.

[SeanEdwards]

Progress isn't wiping another civilization out.

Yes it is.

That is the fundamental truth of evolution. The cultures, and immune systems of the native Americans were not up to the challenge posed by European invaders, and so they got extinctified as a distinct entity. Bummer for them, but there's nothing we can do about it now. Not even a Jurassic Park could resurrect the destroyed nations of the native America tribes.

[M House]

Yeah I'm a biologist and not religious at all but I don't buy into viewing anything from a traditional evolutionary standpoint. You're alive simply cuz your parents chose to breed and have you. It doesn't automatically make you anymore advanced than anyone or species before you. Alot of factors went into that happening, majority of them have little to do with you being the fittest or whatever. Todays plants have millions of years of "evolution" on you, same with any insect. 80 percent of human males have a very similar Y haploid so when we were all diverging and all back thousands of years ago your ancestors might have very well been hanging out with theirs...deal.

[Imperial]

Of course I live in Ohio, I don't think any tribe has an official connection to it. I could be wrong...

Shawnee, Miami, Mingo, Illinois, ...there are more off and on through history too. The whole region was embroiled in wars between 1600-1700 when the Iroquois built a huge empire of sorts with Dutch guns after crushing the Huron.

Any Indians who lost their land from the Indian Removal Act of 1828 should get their land back. It was unconstitutional(violating 3 SCOTUS decisions) and immoral. That includes the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek(not the Red Stick ones though, who were crushed by Jackson after siding with Tecumseh, who had familial relations with them), Seminoles, Choctaws, the Shawnee faction that sided with the US against Tecumseh, and the Fox/Sauk under Black Hawk.

In addition, the huge record of broken treaties leaves plenty of space for the Indians to reclaim land. Plus, there is the old threat of force when being made to sign a treaty making it void. Or, by Tecumseh's theory, because no one tribe owned individual lands for any permanent time, they could not legally sell it. At the same time, under this system that means that the Americans could not own the land either, and I would say Americans violated the rights of Indians by claiming land for their own sole use.

However, I don't think it is feasible to retrack all that ground. Should doesn't imply will. Instead, the US should give sovereignty to all Indian tribes and tracts of land for their governance. At the same time, there should be no limit of ousting Americans or Americans ousting Indians. This gives free use of land but changing of sovereignty while protecting private property and natural rights.

[danberkeley]

I agree with Liberty Eagle. There are deeds of sale preserved in museums...where the pilgrims purchased the land from that tribe. Problem was. indians didn't understand private property rights and kept coming on the land to do what ever they wanted. lol. Much of this history is preserved...stop believing revisionist history.. and yes, as more europeans migrated it pushed the indians around. I'm quite sure this has happened to every civilization that ever existed at some point in time. I guess they call it progress. tones

So if the Indians didnt believe in private property rights, we never stole anything from them. Right?


WE ARE NOT DEAD!! we are busy trying to protect our lands we do have left!! To keep them from being exlpoited!! and most tribes did not get reparations we did want our land instead so we got neither. So if you wanna help the American Indians help us stand up protect our sovereignty to say no to coal, natural gas uranium mining. oil drilling. and other attacks on our right to do what we want with our land. Like leave to be. we like it just the way it is! So if you really wanna be informed of our fight I'd recommend watching this documentry

Do you or did your ancestors believe in private ownership of land? Btw, what's wrong with coal, natural gas, and uranium mining, or oil drilling?

[LibertyEagle]

I have a lot of native American Indian in me and all I have to say is this is bullshit. No one here deprived the Indians of anything. We should never have paid reparations for something that some of our ancestors did or didn't do. But, we did pay them. Stop feeling guilty! Don't you see that it's a tactic for you to feel bad about yourself and our Founders? If you feel guilt, it causes weakness.

[LibertyEagle]

Progress isn't wiping another civilization out.

Actually, this has happened throughout history and not just in America either. The strong conquer the weak. That is just the way it is.

[nate895]

I have a lot of native American Indian in me and all I have to say is this is bullshit. No one here deprived the Indians of anything. We should never have paid reparations for something that some of our ancestors did or didn't do. But, we did pay them. Stop feeling guilty! Don't you see that it's a tactic for you to feel bad about yourself and our Founders? If you feel guilt, it causes weakness.

Pretty much what I told my history prof. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=170171)

[M House]

Jeez why are you acting like a bunch of social Darwin's? "You shouldn't question our founders actions it makes us weak" nope not at all you are aware we are supposed to constantly question it. Whatever I think they should get better representation for sure, not sure really about just giving their quasi descendants land back. Seriously how would you draw the lines on that. But full governmental representation should and if they request it seems very fair.

[LibertyEagle]

You're the one feeling guilty, M. House. Not I.

[M House]

Um yeah about the guilt thing dude hardly, I do feel a bit guilty knowing there are people who think like this still after say WWII.

[Brian4Liberty]

Actually, this has happened throughout history and not just in America either. The strong conquer the weak.

Actually it's more about reproduction, numbers and migration. Conquest makes historical headlines and creates genetic diversity, but in the long run, it's a drop in the bucket. High population concentration moves to low concentration (if it's habitable, of course).

[LibertyEagle]

Actually it's more about reproduction, numbers and migration. Conquest makes historical headlines and creates genetic diversity, but in the long run, it's a drop in the bucket. High population concentration moves to low concentration (if it's habitable, of course).

Yes and then the strong conquer the weak. :p

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah I'm a biologist and not religious at all but I don't buy into viewing anything from a traditional evolutionary standpoint. You're alive simply cuz your parents chose to breed and have you. It doesn't automatically make you anymore advanced than anyone or species before you. Alot of factors went into that happening, majority of them have little to do with you being the fittest or whatever. Todays plants have millions of years of "evolution" on you, same with any insect. 80 percent of human males have a very similar Y haploid so when we were all diverging and all back thousands of years ago your ancestors might have very well been hanging out with theirs...deal.

All humans are basically the same. As far as being "fit", it depends on your perspective. Each time a civilization grows, it also spawns a large number of dependent personalities. Too many "dependent", short-sighted, non-producers, and the civilization falls. Over time, the population becomes more hardy and self-sufficient, and it grows again. It's not a huge evolutionary leap, just minor changes in specialization.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes and then the strong conquer the weak. :p

A thousand farmers always beat ten warriors...

[BlackTerrel]

By the way, some of the land was actually paid for, not stolen, as revisionist history likes to proclaim.

Hehe yeah right... kinda like giving someone an offer they can't refuse.

[nate895]

A thousand farmers always beat ten warriors...

Not necessarily. If those warriors are armed with modern guns, and the farmers have pitchforks, or if those warriors are special operations, I'd have to put my money on the warriors.

[LibertyEagle]

Hehe yeah right... kinda like giving someone an offer they can't refuse.

No, not at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

Not necessarily. If those warriors are armed with modern guns, and the farmers have pitchforks, or if those warriors are special operations, I'd have to put my money on the warriors.

Relatively equal weapons of course. But weapons technology spreads fast. There would be farmers with the advanced weapons fairly quick. Granted, weapons advances have been evolutionary leaps.

[Brian4Liberty]

Hehe yeah right... kinda like giving someone an offer they can't refuse.

Or an offer they can't understand. Want a no-money down, interest-only loan for a bubble priced asset?

[nate895]

Relatively equal weapons of course. But weapons technology spreads fast. There would be farmers with the advanced weapons fairly quick. Granted, weapons advances have been evolutionary leaps.

Still, spec forces wins with equal guns, but superior position.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

So... Critics think Capitalists should give their land to modern-indians?

Are the non-capitalists going to do the same thing?

didn't think so....

"Oh but Socialists aren't bound by property rights" :rolleyes:

[strapko]

When in doubt, ask Edward Griffin!


"Where does Freedom Force stand on the issue of justice for American Indians?" That question was asked by a young man who told us that, because of his Native American ancestry, he was deeply concerned about past injustices committed by the US government against his ancestors – and some that were continuing even today. He concluded by saying that, before he could join Freedom Force, he wanted to know what our official position is on this issue. This was my reply.

Freedom Force is dedicated to the principles expressed in The Creed of Freedom. When those principles are understood, it is clear where we stand on literally every issue involving excessive or unjust government. It is not necessary to itemize specific examples, which is an endless and futile exercise, because collectivist governments are forever violating the rights of every individual and group that stands in the way of their attaining totalitarian power. There is not enough paper and ink in the world to record their cumulative deeds of injustice.

You ask what is the Freedom Force position on achieving justice for American Indians. Others want to know about justice for the black man. Others are focused on justice for the handicapped, the poorly educated, the old, the mentally retarded, the low wage earner, the welfare recipient, the foreign born, the children of broken homes, the victims of 9-11, the victims of the Iraq invasion, dissenters, tax protestors, whistleblowers, soldiers who have been brutalized by war – the list is endless. Freedom Force responds to all of these issues with The Creed of Freedom, which teaches a simple lesson: Two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot solve one problem by creating a new one. We cannot rectify an injustice to one by inflicting a new injustice upon another. Furthermore, punishment is not ethical unless it is applied to those who committed the crime. To apply it to their fellow countrymen or their descendants is a fresh injustice equal to the original one.

There is nothing that can be done to undo the injustices of the distant past. If that were to be attempted, many Native Americans would have to be brought to justice today for crimes their ancestors committed against other Native Americans in tribal rivalries long before Europeans landed on this continent. And just about all Americans would be held accountable for the theft of land and property from the Mound Dwellers who were present even before that. There is no one alive whose ancestors were not victims of someone else's ancestors.

Those who seek to punish people for injustices committed by their ancestors will not find our creed to their liking, because it includes the following statement: “I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.”

We do not think it is appropriate to use the coercive power of government to tax the earnings of all citizens and give it to Native Americans as retribution for crimes committed centuries ago, because that would be endorsing several principles of collectivism and would be in violation of The Creed of Freedom on two counts: (1) It would use coercion rather than freedom to solve a social problem, and (2) it would not treat all classes of citizens equally under law.

Please note, however, that there is nothing in these principles that requires us to tolerate wrongdoing by those who are living today. Many of the issues you raised in your letter relate to serious crimes being committed by government officials on a daily basis, and Freedom Force is committed to do everything possible, not only to put a stop to that, but to bring those who are responsible to justice – in their lifetime. That is the reason the goal of Freedom Force is to acquire power. Unless we have political and social power, we will never be able to do anything about these present-day injustices except complain about them. That is the reason for our motto: “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”

If we really want to do something positive for descendents of Native Americans, we will accomplish that by doing something positive for all Americans – and for people in other countries as well. The battle for freedom and justice is universal. We cannot win it if we primarily focus on what makes us different from everyone else or how our group can benefit at the expense of others. We will win it only if we pursue common goals and establish a common bond. Freedom Force IS the answer! It is the international brotherhood for which the world has been waiting.

After reading the preceding analysis, a visitor to our web site sent the following comment:

"It seems as though you believe that if these serious crimes have been committed in the PAST, and the perpetrators have left the proceeds of these crimes to beneficiaries, that the beneficiaries should be left alone to enjoy the ill gotten gains of their deceased relatives. Now am I jumping too far, or does this mean that if, for example, I steal something from you, and then I die, and leave the stolen items to my kids, that your kids (as well as the government and Freedom Force) should just leave my kids alone?

"I would think it is a good function of the government at all times to protect the rights of the victim of a crime, and, when that victim is passed away, to protect the rights of the would-be beneficiaries (for example present day American Indians) of the victim, by, in this case, forcing the beneficiaries of the perpetrators of the crime to give back some of the inherited proceeds of the crime."

This is my reply: These are excellent points, and they lead to the realization that there needs to be a time limit for redress of past wrongs. Nearly everyone’s ancestors have stolen something from someone else’s ancestors. That’s the grim record of history. The concept of property ownership is a fairly recent phenomenon. In primitive systems, the land and everything else belonged to those who could seize it by force and then defend it. Even the American Indians took the land from the Mound Dwellers who were on the continent before them. In the 1500s in England, one branch of Christendom by force of arms seized hundreds of churches from another branch of Christendom and continues to occupy them to this day. Almost every country in Europe has a different boundary line than 500 years ago. Are we now to devote our moral and legal resources to the restoration of these lost possessions? Where does one draw the line?

WHERE DOES ONE DRAW THE LINE?
To prevent creating still more injustices in the name of rectifying old ones, I believe the line should be drawn at the point where there is no longer anyone alive who was either the direct victim or perpetrator of the theft in question. This does not include their heirs who never had an ownership right to begin with. Their only involvement is to anticipate a grant from the property holder. Anticipating the receivership of property is not the same as having a right to receive it. For heirs to be denied property they anticipate receiving is not a violation of their rights but a violation of the rights of the grantor. The grantor owns the property until he transfers it by gift or bequest. Until that time, it is his alone, and he can do with it as he wishes, including changing his mind about who will receive it. When theft occurs, the grantor is the victim, not the beneficiary. Some would disagree with this and extend the time limit for redress to include the next generation of heirs, but if one generation is good, why not a second or a third generation or a fourth, or a fifth, etc. The only place where principle is involved is to draw the line either at the point where there are no living direct victims or to draw no line at all.

Drawing no line at all is to extend the claim indefinitely, which is not only impractical but an injustice of its own. Imagine someone coming to you and saying that your home, which you purchased with hard-earned money, must now be taken from you because the person from whom you purchased it bought it from someone who bought it from someone else who inherited it from someone who stole it from the Smith family. Therefore, you are out in the cold and the Smiths’ great-great-great-great grandchildren now own it. Even to demand that you compensate Smith’s descendents in some lesser manner, such as a $50,000 cash payment or a politically-determined percentage of the value of your home would be considered outrageous by most people. To follow such a twisted claim would greatly expand the current army of lawyers and, instead of settling old injustices, would merely perpetuate them into the present day, leading to class or racial conflict and disruption of society.

THE STOLEN WATCH ANALOGY
To see the dynamics of the issues involved, let us create an analogy in which Jake Klepto has stolen an expensive watch from John Victim. Jake puts the watch up for sale on the Internet and sells it to Henry Buyer. The police identify the thief and track down the watch, which now is in the possession of Mr. Buyer. The question is: What should be done with the watch? Aside from the fact that most countries have laws that require punishment for Jake Klepto, return of the watch to John Victim, and a financial loss to Henry Buyer, let us probe deeper to see if there are circumstances that would dictate a different solution.

What if John Victim and Jake Klepto are no longer alive when the watch is located? Under those circumstances, there is no way that Victim’s personal loss can be recovered and no way to punish Klepto. They are both dead, and the injustice cannot be undone or the wrong made into a right. True, the watch can be returned to the family and passed on to heirs, and perhaps Victim even intended that to happen, but the watch never belonged to his family. It belonged to him. When it was stolen, it was not the family’s loss. It was his loss. His heirs never had any right to the watch so long as it was the sole property of Mr. Victim. They may have anticipated receiving it; but, as stated previously, that is not the same as a right to receive it. Even if Mr. Victim had written a will giving the watch to his son, as long as he was alive, he had the option of changing that will or selling the watch or even giving it to someone else. His son would have no right to the watch until after the will was executed - and even then, his right would depend on whether or not the watch was actually in the estate at the time. As mentioned previously, it could have been sold, given to someone else, lost, or stolen, in which case it would not and could not be inherited.

But what if the watch had been stolen and then located by the police, as in the case of this analogy? This complicates the issue, because we now have the problem of possibly creating another injustice if we are not careful, the injustice of taking the watch away from Mr. Buyer who purchased it in good faith. Remember, Klepto is now dead, so there is no possibility of getting him to reimburse Buyer for his loss. Someone is going to lose the value of the watch. All we can do now is decide who it is going to be. In our eagerness to correct the wrong against Mr. Victim, do we now ignore the property rights of Mr. Buyer and simply demand that he give up the watch because previously it was stolen property?

If Victim were still alive, we could say that the injustice to Buyer was offset by the justice to Victim, and everything balances out. We could even justify Buyer’s loss by claiming he should have been more careful about purchasing things on the Internet. However, in this scenario, Victim is not alive, and there is no way to return the watch to him. All we can do is take it from Buyer, who purchased it with his hard-earned money, and give it to Victim’s heirs, who never spent anything for it and never had a clear right to it in the first place. In this case, there is no balancing. There is only the taking of property from someone who paid for it and giving it to someone who did not and who has no right to it. The buyer did nothing wrong, so why punish him by taking his watch? Again, I must emphasize that the watch was stolen, not from the heirs, but from Mr. Victim, and its loss was his, not theirs.

The bottom line is that, after the death of both the victim and the perpetrator, a theft or injustice can never be corrected. Any effort to do so merely creates new wrongs, and the process becomes merely a mechanism of economic conflict and social revenge against innocent people. Nothing good can come from it.

[Alawn]

When in doubt, ask Edward Griffin!

Griffin is right about this. Nobody involved on either side of it is still alive. I am innocent. Giving away my land only creates a new wrong against me.

[M House]

I think you would be better served by recognizing the issue and not repeating it. Not viewing this entirely from the point they want my land and the government might give it back to them. To this day we have territorial issues all over the world.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I love G. Edward Griffin, he is my favorite. tones :p:D

[nate895]

When in doubt, ask Edward Griffin!

I agree almost wholeheartedly with Mr. Griffin, but I would give it a certain amount of years, a statute of limitations as almost all crimes have. The crime of stealing the land on which a person's ancestors lived on is the most heinous crime imaginable except for the crime of murder or genocide. Throughout history, a country had a casus belli on countries who took land from them that was considered core land of the country it was taken from for a couple of generations, or as long as the country was at war to take it back. For some tribes, that time is long since passed, but for a select few tribes (such as the Lakotah), that time hasn't passed as they continue to fight for restoration of their lands.

[tonesforjonesbones]

While I was looking for mound dwellers, which were actually known as mound builders...i found this. hey heyyyy...it appears the white man was here first or at LEAST at the same time as the indians...what happened to all the caucasian cavemen? genocide? hmmmm tones

The Caveman from Washington State

Kennewick Man... the repudiated Caucasian caveman
(2nd edition - July 2007) by A.O. Kime

n 1996 near Kennewick, Washington, the ancient human remains of a male subject were found and his skull, it seemed to many, had the cranial/facial features of a Caucasian... and therefore distinctively different from a typical Mongoloid (Asian/American Indian). It was later determined through radiocarbon dating that these remains were 8,400 to 9,500 years old. The very idea that a Caucasian was actually in America that long ago sparked a lot of interest and spawned dozens of anthropological examinations, tests and studies. By the year 2000, at least 18 recognized scientists (and scholars) were involved.

Aside from indications the so-called ‘Kennewick Man’ had Caucasian roots, there is evidence he had experienced a crescendo of violence and an untimely death. He had a spear-point embedded in his pelvis bone, had a major chest injury and his elbow was fractured.

DNA analysis would surely verify he was actually Caucasian, everyone knew, except none of the laboratories could extract a testable sample. Meanwhile, during this examination period, five American Indian tribes were insisting on possessing these remains for burial purposes. The tribes were citing their legal right (as claimants) under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The Indians were stalled however until the various examinations were completed.

Due to the fact DNA analysis was not technically possible, it was therefore necessary to rely on other means to determine the ancestry of these remains but it ended up being more-so the legal criteria, and less-so the scientific assurance, which ultimately determined these remains were of Mongoloid (Asian) origins… effectively meaning that he was, from a legal standpoint more than from a scientific standpoint, an ‘America Indian’.

Was politics involved as some believe? Well, a September 21, 2000 decision by the then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt suggests that. He determined the remains of Kennewick Man are ‘culturally affiliated’ with five area tribes (the claimants) except he did so without sufficient evidence to back it up.

According to the statute, in order to determine a relationship (cultural affiliation) to a given tribe, it must rely on a "preponderance of the evidence based upon geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion."

In the Kennewick Man’s case, this statue was poorly satisfied, relying entirely on the geographical location of the discovery and ‘oral traditions’. But it is inconceivable that any 'oral traditions' could survive 9,000 years... however broad the scope of its meaning. Yet, the amount of evidence collected may not matter if the following definition according to the National Park Service is true:

“As defined in NAGPRA, "Native American" refers to human remains and cultural items relating to tribes, peoples, or cultures that resided within the area now encompassed by the United States prior to the historically documented arrival of European explorers, irrespective of when a particular group may have begun to reside in this area, and, irrespective of whether some or all of these groups were or were not culturally affiliated or biologically related to present-day Indian tribes.”

This means any ancient human remains, any at all, discovered in America are considered ‘Native Americans’. According to that then, all that is necessary is to establish a date, the rest of the evidence has now been rendered largely irrelevant for this purpose. Whether a specimen was Asian, Caucasian, African or a Jaredite sheepherder, that doesn’t matter… if he/she is found to be older than Columbus then he/she is a Native American. While that may sound logical on the whole... except 'Native American' has become synonymous with "American Indian". Blame it on political correctness?

Note: While the above National Park Service definition is undoubtedly correct, since I can’t imagine them concocting it, I could not find it legally described in that manner under the law… although I didn’t do an exhaustive search. The NAGPRA glossary states only this: “Native American: Of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States. [25 USC 3001 (9)] Of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture indigenous to the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. [43 CFR 10.2 (d)] “

Archaeology threatened
Archaeologists are not happy with the decision that Kennewick Man was determined to be an “Native American’, not because any ancient remains found in America qualifies, regardless of race, but because the decision implies that a 'Native American' is synonymous with 'American Indian' giving Indian tribes a claim whether culturally affiliated or not. While scientists were unable to extract a DNA sample from Kennewick Man using the current technological techniques, it is possible future techniques could… except that, once an Indian tribe gets a hold of him, and re-buries him, Kennewick Man won’t be available for testing anymore. It would be of significant scientific, historical and cultural value to know the truth in this matter.

If Kennewick Man had the features of a Mongoloid (Asian), then little doubt would remain… but he didn’t have Mongoloid features, he had the features of a Caucasian which begs future testing. The Indian tribes could have a lot at stake here if it was ultimately proven Caucasians had been in America first... or even if they arrived about the same time. Perhaps this suggests the real reason behind the tribes claim... they want to 'bury the evidence'. If, however, testable samples were extracted and preserved for future DNA testing, and if the results substantiated the Kennewick Man was Caucasian... then the exasperated soul could be destined to another re-burial somewhere else. Surely not permanently however, with the snowballing effect of politically correctness, those of English heritage will soon be buried all in one place, those of Germans heritage in another, and so on and so forth. Of course then, cowboys would be forced into being buried with city-slickers and Democrats with Republicans. At any rate, the business of grave-moving is sure to flourish in the coming years.

It seems certain future discoveries of possible Caucasian cavemen in America will develop into a fight similar to what is happening in Jerusalem… being battles over the authenticity and age of an artifact. After all, the most ancient artifact found in Jerusalem would carry a lot of weight in the religious claims to that ancient city. But, will there ever be a laboratory whose radiocarbon dating the Jews and Muslims can mutually agree on? I think not. The Palestinians certainly wouldn’t trust a laboratory in Tel Aviv. It all boils down to this… if a laboratory doesn’t produce a date a particular group wants… then the test won’t be accepted by them as scientifically accurate. The history of Jerusalem will never be agreed upon and perhaps now, due to NAGPRA, not the pre-recorded times in American either.

The situation is worse in America however, the American Indians, under NAGPRA, can lay claim to all of American antiquity… automatically, without conditions, regardless of what it is.

[M House]

After doing a bit of research, Native American's tribes have been testing their DNA for awhile now to test membership. Several of them share similar Y haploids with various European groups. The fact that an old skeleton here would have "European" features baffles anyone seems pretty shallow. You do realize some of them already look pretty "Europeanish" in their features take a look at some old photos and art. Of course the DNA of the skeleton should be tested what little is there as it's interesting. Skeleton is OUR ancestor not necessarily yours or theirs so neither side seems like they are gonna be reasonable about it...sad.

[constituent]

I agree with Liberty Eagle. There are deeds of sale preserved in museums...where the pilgrims purchased the land from that tribe. Problem was. indians didn't understand private property rights and kept coming on the land to do what ever they wanted.

rofl. first, the land was not the possession of a "chief" or "council" to barter with.

can i sell you land i do not own? will your claims to that land then be legitimate?

[constituent]

So if the Indians didnt believe in private property rights, we never stole anything from them. Right?



Do you or did your ancestors believe in private ownership of land? Btw, what's wrong with coal, natural gas, and uranium mining, or oil drilling?

dumb phucks not-so-anonymous....

weren't you just peddling some crap about thanksgiving being a celebration of the death of "pilgrim" socialism?

i lol'd.

[constituent]

If you feel guilt, it causes weakness.

rofl.

"that's just your pride stinging, f* pride."

[constituent]

So... Critics think Capitalists should give their land to modern-indians?


No, but they should abandon the farce that they legitimately "own" the dirt on which they've built their mcmansions.

[constituent]

Griffin is right about this. Nobody involved on either side of it is still alive. I am innocent. Giving away my land only creates a new wrong against me.

Who said you should give it away? fight or die, pretty and simple.


"That which is good for the goose..."

[danberkeley]

dumb phucks not-so-anonymous....

weren't you just peddling some crap about thanksgiving being a celebration of the death of "pilgrim" socialism?

i lol'd.

oh noes!!! ????

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am tellin you there was an agenda to re write history...and crash the capitalists..that's white folks. I remember the days when there was no "white guilt"...I feel sorry for the youth..the youth is full of white guilt. G. Edward Griffin has a great lecture you can watch on how the communists / fabians re wrote the history books to their favor and condemned white christian europeans and brough UP the minorities..particularly the blacks and indians...because they considered them the proletariat. I'll post the link. Tones

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=g+edward+griffin&emb=0&aq=f#q=g%20edward%20griffin%20communism&emb=0&start=10

The lecture is called "More Deadly Than War"...this link will take you to the general vicinity...

[RickyJ]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

How were they the original owners? Do they have any proof they were the original owners? No. They have no proof. The first person to occupy a small part of North America can't claim the whole continent for himself and all his decedents for ever. And I don't think the Indians were the first humans in North America anyway.

[RickyJ]

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

Neither can you put 9/11 truth back in the bottle. :D

[tonesforjonesbones]

I agree Ricky...there is now evidence there were caucasians here also. This business with the indians is pure political correctness. It's killing our country and our constitution. Until the Ron Paul movement gets off the political correct bandwagon, we won't get anywhere. You have to be tough and not afraid to address touchy issues...you can not fear truth. tones

[literatim]

The Indians stole it from the Caucasian group that the Kenniwick man came from.

[tonesforjonesbones]

yes...that is what is now believed..there was genocide of the Kenniwik people..the caucasians that were here first or at the same time...so where is my land??????? I want MY land! lol tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

The indians demanded the bones of the Kenniwik man before he was fully vetted lol...they wanted to bury the evidence. lol. I am not sure if they were able to accomplish it..i think the scientists have him on hold until he can be checked out...completely. tones

[danberkeley]

I am tellin you there was an agenda to re write history...and crash the capitalists..that's white folks. I remember the days when there was no "white guilt"...I feel sorry for the youth..the youth is full of white guilt. G. Edward Griffin has a great lecture you can watch on how the communists / fabians re wrote the history books to their favor and condemned white christian europeans and brough UP the minorities..particularly the blacks and indians...because they considered them the proletariat. I'll post the link. Tones

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=g+edward+griffin&emb=0&aq=f#q=g%20edward%20griffin%20communism&emb=0&start=10

The lecture is called "More Deadly Than War"...this link will take you to the general vicinity...

Yeah... the "commie" Chinese are better capitalists than the Americans. WHen the Chinese apply for a job they do not ask "how many days do I get off?", they ask "how many hours can work today?"

[tonesforjonesbones]

Communists figured out they need capital too lol.tones

[constituent]

"how many days do I get off?"

well, according to the christian talk radio program i was listening to late the other night, you should get off w/ your wife at least three times a week for health reasons...

i'm not sure if the voodoo works w/ your girlfriend/hand or not though.

[tonesforjonesbones]

How did we get to this? tones

[constituent]

The indians

the indians?

is that like the blacks?


or the westerners?


how do you define the indians tones?

[constituent]

How did we get to this? tones

moral degeneration and the decay of white society, how else?

[tonesforjonesbones]

No hegelian dialectic for me! tones (circular logic)

[SeanEdwards]

Neither can you put 9/11 truth back in the bottle. :D

Yeah, 9/11 truther arguments are about as compelling as toothpaste.

[danberkeley]

well, according to the christian talk radio program i was listening to late the other night, you should get off w/ your wife at least three times a week for health reasons...

i'm not sure if the voodoo works w/ your girlfriend/hand or not though.

:confused:

[reardenstone]

Shawnee, Miami, Mingo, Illinois, ...there are more off and on through history too. The whole region was embroiled in wars between 1600-1700 when the Iroquois built a huge empire of sorts with Dutch guns after crushing the Huron.

Any Indians who lost their land from the Indian Removal Act of 1828 should get their land back. It was unconstitutional(violating 3 SCOTUS decisions) and immoral. That includes the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek(not the Red Stick ones though, who were crushed by Jackson after siding with Tecumseh, who had familial relations with them), Seminoles, Choctaws, the Shawnee faction that sided with the US against Tecumseh, and the Fox/Sauk under Black Hawk.

In addition, the huge record of broken treaties leaves plenty of space for the Indians to reclaim land. Plus, there is the old threat of force when being made to sign a treaty making it void. Or, by Tecumseh's theory, because no one tribe owned individual lands for any permanent time, they could not legally sell it. At the same time, under this system that means that the Americans could not own the land either, and I would say Americans violated the rights of Indians by claiming land for their own sole use.

However, I don't think it is feasible to retrack all that ground. Should doesn't imply will. Instead, the US should give sovereignty to all Indian tribes and tracts of land for their governance. At the same time, there should be no limit of ousting Americans or Americans ousting Indians. This gives free use of land but changing of sovereignty while protecting private property and natural rights.

How about a Bill to restore these nations as nations and their land as well and invite them to participate in Washington. After that the case for state sovereignty can be made stronger.

[Imperial]

I actually wouldn't mind that. We could give the individual tribe power to form there own states, run by there own form of government, within the united states. The majority of the white, black, and latino population would have to learn the state's official language to go into office, and in public schools.

Of course I live in Ohio, I don't think any tribe has an official connection to it. I could be wrong...

Umm we broke the Treaty of Greenville from 1795 that gave the Native Americans Ohio. We forced the Shawnee Indians (the faction which cooperated with us in the War of 1812 and opposed Tecumseh) to move to a reservation in Missouri or Kansas. That original land that we kicked the Shawnee from was in Ohio...

[South Park Fan]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

The "Indians" did not anything. Only individual Indians could have owned any land in this continent. Thus, the burden of proof would have to be on that individual Indian to show that he is the rightful owner of your specific plot of land.

[Imperial]

This is an issue that will never be solved trying to cite civilization's laws and customs. Only one law applies here. The law of force. What was done to the indians can never be explained away or rationalized by our DOI or constitution. It was wrong and totally wrong by those standards.
Were the Indians totally innocent? No. they were in almost constant warfare with each other for hunting grounds, women and loot for thousands of years. How many times did hunting grounds change between tribes in those thousands of years?
Once again it was power from Washington that caused the most harm. Many local military commanders put their honor on line to make peice treaties with the indians only to have Washington break the deals.

Not to mention some of the generals were corrupt themselves. I think of President Harrison here, who despite personally respecting Tecumseh instigated a war against his defensive alliance.

[Imperial]

The "Indians" did not anything. Only individual Indians could have owned any land in this continent. Thus, the burden of proof would have to be on that individual Indian to show that he is the rightful owner of your specific plot of land.

What is wrong with collective ownership? In a free market wouldn't people be free to be able to own property communally?

[South Park Fan]

What is wrong with collective ownership? In a free market wouldn't people be free to be able to own property communally?

Not per se. Technically they would each individually have partial ownership of that property (e.g. shares).