Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-semitism In the west

[Buffalo Roam]

The 8% of federally recognised tribes are individually recognised. ie 92% are not.

Do you want me to post the 159 Fererally recognized tribes of California?

 

[S.A.M.]

No but you could post the 92% of them that are not individually recognised.

This is English, guys.

What is wrong with you people?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No but you could post the 92% of them that are not individually recognised.

This is English, guys.

What is wrong with you people?

S.A.M yes it is English, and if a tribe conducted Treaty Negotiations with Washington, at any time from the founding of America to the 1890, by which time there were Treaties with all the Tribes in America, for one reason or another, Abrogation of Land Rights, Peace Treaties, Payment of Treaty Obligations, or Treaties to place them on Reservations, all the tribe that existed in America at the founding of America had concluded a treaty with the Federal Government, which meant that the Federal Government had recognized their sovereignty, what you are trying to use as example are those groups that want recognition as tribes that cannot show any Heritage as Native Americans, and have not conducted Treaties in the past with the United States, as independent Native Tribes.

The Fact that we have recognized 8% of the applicant show that we do look at the documentation an if it is valid we give recognition, just because you say you are Native American doesn't mean that you are Native American, just because you wear braids doesn't 't make you a Indian, look at Ward Churchill.

 

[S.A.M.]

And thats only from the federally recognised tribes. Then there are those that have no recognition.

Weren't so picky while kicking them around or grabbing their lands.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No but you could post the 92% of them that are not individually recognised.

This is English, guys.

What is wrong with you people?

I just looked up some of the non-recognized bands, in the area I live in there are 10 non-recognized bands, and guess what they are groups that want to break away from the Recognized Tribes, because of political infighting in the Tribe, these people are already recognized as tribal members in the Federally recognized Tribes.

I have had conversations with my friends about this, it is a subject that come up everytime there are tribal elections, and these groups get all bent out of shape when they don't win control of the Tribal Positions.

Talk about a tempest in a tea pot, now come the problem of showing what is inside the Tribe political infighting. The other thing is that these groups if they can win recognition can than open up their own casinos, and not have to split it with the whole tribe, most of these groups are family clans.

 

[iceaura]

Only 8% of federally recognised tribes are individually recognised.

8% of what? If they are federally recognized, they have sovereignity. That includes the other 92%, as far as I can make sense of that link.

This is English, guys.

What is wrong with you people?

You are interpreting the stuff you linked to say 92% of the federally recognized tribes do not have sovereignity. I don't read that, in that link. Do you have another source, for that interpretation ?

edit in: http://www.mbpi.org/development/SOVEREIGNTY.asp A clearer picture. 558 federally recognized tribes, all with sovereignity.

The last estimate I ran into was that 75 - 90% of the Reds in North America were killed by European disease and accompanying dislocations, in the two centuries after Columbus, before the afflicted tribes ever saw a White.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

And thats only from the federally recognised tribes. Then there are those that have no recognition.

Weren't so picky while kicking them around or grabbing their lands.

S.A.M. by 1890 all the tribe extant had made treaty with the United States, and in doing so they have Federal recognition, most of the petitions today are Family Clans that are trying to get recognition as tribes, they already have recognition as members in Federally Recognized Tribes, the Tribes keep rolls of members, 4 of my nieces are listed in and recognized on the Objibway rolls.

What is going on is these groups are looking for Federal Recognition as separate Tribes, because it then gives them the right to open Casinos and not have to share the profit with the others Tribal members, that they don't agree with, that is one of the biggest bones of contention in the Tribes, the split of the Casino profits, and who controls that split.

 

[angrybellsprout]

That was then this is now, and this is now, even then many didn't live on the reservation.

To day they still don't have to live on reservation, and with the Gaming Industry that they are the only ones allowed to run, they have really moved up, I would trade places with anyone of my Friends, as John said they get free health care, business loans, housing loans, child care, the schools are out standing, college education paid for by the Tribe.

What ever you think the Reservation is not a place of dispair, it is now a vibrant community, of hope and moving into the future, one other benefit that the Indians on the reservation have is that they pay no taxes, State or Federal, they get to keep all of the money they earn on the reservation, plus every man woman and child receives a share of the profit from the casino, every year.

Hell I I'd trade, and I am proud as a Tom at full strut that my friends have such a good life, they deserve it.

I was sad that my mom's long lost sister died before she could give us information on the reservation that she used to live on. I know that I'd always give my first alliegance to Texas, but it would have been nice to just see what reservation life was like for her. She got back in contact with my mom for a few years before she ended up passing on, and towards the end was just about to send us all the documents on our past.

 

[iceaura]

And pretty much up to the with drawl of the colonial powers Africa was in good shape, there were a few problems but nothing like what happened between the late 60 and right up to todays problems,

What happened after the withdrawal (and trashing) by the colonial powers was that the population boomed - increases of 3.5% per year for decades, in some places.

The places with the fastest boom fell apart the quickest, and turned to bloodshed followed by famine.

Now the matter to ponder is this: What was keeping that from happening, under European management ? The onslaught of the colonial powers drove the population down by various means (including simply catching and selling people by the millions, as well as genocide in places) and it stayed there until after 1950. Then it boomed, just in time to meet droughts and political disasters and other problems, some of them hangovers from the Colonial management (the artificial country borders, for example).

Note that the standard of living did not begin to drop until after the boom started, so no mysterious "wealth effect" explains the stability of the low population levels. And if we look at the causes of the boom, among them we find a "tradition" of many children per woman. So apparently low birth rates did not explain the long time of little or no population growth, and low population densities. That leaves high death rates, under European management. How, Buffalo, do you think that was arranged?

 

[w1z4rd]

What happened after the withdrawal (and trashing) by the colonial powers was that the population boomed - increases of 3.5% per year for decades, in some places.

The places with the fastest boom fell apart the quickest, and turned to bloodshed followed by famine.

Now the matter to ponder is this: What was keeping that from happening, under European management ? The onslaught of the colonial powers drove the population down by various means (including simply catching and selling people by the millions, as well as genocide in places) and it stayed there until after 1950. Then it boomed, just in time to meet droughts and political disasters and other problems, some of them hangovers from the Colonial management (the artificial country borders, for example).

Note that the standard of living did not begin to drop until after the boom started, so no mysterious "wealth effect" explains the stability of the low population levels. And if we look at the causes of the boom, among them we find a "tradition" of many children per woman. So apparently low birth rates did not explain the long time of little or no population growth, and low population densities. That leaves high death rates, under European management. How, Buffalo, do you think that was arranged?

Could you please supply your research for the " increases of 3.5% per year for decades" statistic, because I hardly think over population was the cause of africa`s problems. I kinda feel if that was the case... India would be the bloodiest nation in the world.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I was sad that my mom's long lost sister died before she could give us information on the reservation that she used to live on. I know that I'd always give my first alliegance to Texas, but it would have been nice to just see what reservation life was like for her. She got back in contact with my mom for a few years before she ended up passing on, and towards the end was just about to send us all the documents on our past.

Hay open up the PM on your profile, I have some thing to send you.

 

[iceaura]

Could you please supply your research for the " increases of 3.5% per year for decades" statistic, because I hardly think over population was the cause of africa`s problems.

Google on population/africa, throw in a year like 1965 if you want to cut down the hits. Rwanda was one of the places, there were others.

The point was not that population boom "caused" Africa's problems. The point was that it didn't happen under colonial rule. The claim was made that life was good under colonial rule in Africa. But the death rate was very high, apparently. So - - -

 

[w1z4rd]

Google on population/africa, throw in a year like 1965 if you want to cut down the hits.

The point was not that population boom "caused" Africa's problems. The point was that it didn't happen under colonial rule. The claim was made that life was good under colonial rule in Africa. But the death rate was very high, apparently. So - - -

Would it not be right to say just about every country in the world has grown since that point? Yeah the death rate was high... large parts of africa are malaria zones, and TB was killing people by the score.

With the introduction of modern vaccines and immunizations all the worlds countries grew in population.

Its a bit of a stretch to blame the colonials for that.

 

[w1z4rd]

Update to the malaria comment.. it just so happens.. that that it was in the 1960`s they tried to eradicate malaria.

As international attention is riveted by fears over Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), an older and far more deadly disease quietly ravages Africa: malaria. Malaria kills more than a million people worldwide each year—90 percent of them in Africa; 70 percent children under the age of five.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0612_030612_malaria.html

On top of this you also had the Tetse flys, sleeping sickness.

 

[iceaura]

Would it not be right to say just about every country in the world has grown since that point?

Not at Africa's rate. And most of the other peoples and countries and continents grew during the 1800s and early 1900s, as well, unless afflicted with great disaster. (The Jews, for example, did not increase in population from 1930 to 1960). Not Africa.

Not the parts in the malarial zones, and not the parts out of it. Not the parts in the tetse fly region, or the sleeping sickness region, and not the parts out of them.

The point is that Africa, unlike other places, before the DDT, before the antibiotics, held fairly steady at a low population density under colonial rule for centuries. Then it boomed. We know that the colonial invasions reduced the populations of every country afflicted, and that they remained low. My question is how one squares this with the hypothesis that colonial rule was beneficial overall.

 

[w1z4rd]

Not at Africa's rate. And most of the other peoples and countries and continents grew during the 1800s and early 1900s, as well, unless afflicted with great disaster. (The Jews, for example, did not increase in population from 1930 to 1960). Not Africa.

Not the parts in the malarial zones, and not the parts out of it. Not the parts in the tetse fly region, or the sleeping sickness region, and not the parts out of them.

The point is that Africa, unlike other places, before the DDT, before the antibiotics, held fairly steady at a low population density under colonial rule for centuries. Then it boomed. We know that the colonial invasions reduced the populations of every country afflicted, and that they remained low. My question is how one squares this with the hypothesis that colonial rule was beneficial overall.

Im afraid you are going to have to convince me with hard facts rather than speculation. I am going with vaccines and immunizations being mostly responsible for the higher population rates. That and the normal factors that effect just about every country. Including the country I live in in Africa.

So when I see your facts to support your assumption I may be able to understand your point of view. Also, please dont try fob the burden of proof off onto me. You are the one making the claims so it is therefore your responsibility to proof what you are saying.

If I look at the population growth in Zimbabwe since the 1600`s.. its seems pretty consistant: http://www.populstat.info/Africa/zimbabwc.htm <=--- Zimbabwe I see its expected to declien in 2050... does that mean the colonials will be up to mischief again then?

 

[S.A.M.]

How does the European population compare with African population at the same time?

If the European population boomed and the African did not, that is a clear indication that there was something going on.

 

[joepistole]

This thread has again gone beyond reason...look into the mirror.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Of course not. After every remnant of their culture has been sent to oblivion, the schools serve no further purpose. The damage has already been done.

Have you ever attended Pow Wow? have you ever lived with Indians friends, you don't know anything about what you are trying to judge, My friend speak their native language, they have their Sweet Grass Ceremonies, they gather for POW WOW, they have their own schools, and they can attend any school they want, they harvest wild rice in season, they are the only ones allowed to do so, they spear fish in the spring during the walleye spawning runs, as their Fathers did, and they are the only ones allowed to do so, their traditions language and culture are vibrant and growing, they can still worship the Gods of their Fathers if they so wish, and they have to pay no Jyiza to do so, in fact they have the right to pay no tax.

 

[S.A.M.]

The last estimate I ran into was that 75 - 90% of the Reds in North America were killed by European disease and accompanying dislocations, in the two centuries after Columbus, before the afflicted tribes ever saw a White.

What was the source of this estimate?