8 votes

UN is going to fix US Gov't - Native American problem. That can't be good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/04/us-stolen-land-i...
The United Nations has suggested the US "give back" Mt Rushmore in the name of reconciliation. They cite the horrific way indigenous Americans were treated by the invasion of "the Founding Fathers." The UN correctly acknowledges that the Black Hills were part of the Sioux lands as defined by treaty, that the treaty was violated, that the Supreme Court has admitted to this violation and demanded restoration. The US offered the Sioux money, the Sioux refused it and demanded the treaty be honored. Now the UN is playing "Wise Elder" and saying the US should give back the land, that this is how we make it right.
I wonder what Russell Means thinks of this? It seems like such good news at first blush.... Do you see the Big Lie, grandfather? How can the US "give back" what was never theirs, how do they "give back" to you what was never yours? How can restoring an odious treaty be reconciliation? The Sioux never claimed ownership of the earth, I hope they do not start now.
But the UN is not wrong, either. The crimes against the indigenous people of this land need addressed, but it must be understood that punishing those alive today for the crimes of those long dead only makes a new wave of victims of injustice; we MUST do better than that. Dare I suggest.... we seek "Justice for all?"
The Constitution was inspired by the Iroquois Confederation. Plagiarized, you could say, although that would be a stretch. "Restoration" begins with honoring those truly enlightened individuals who shared their wisdom with men who took the concepts and claimed authorship of them, then not only denied the true authors the newly defined "Constitutional Rights" but called them "savages" and waged a genocidal campaign that continues to this day, albeit in a very subtle fashion.
The United Nations suggests we toss them a Mount Rushmore sized biscuit, I hope the Wise Elders demand they put it back like it was if they wish this to be considered "restoration."
We are mere stewards of this earth, "giving" patches of it that are not yours to give after you carved the faces of the men who destroyed your way of life and treated you like inferior humans is an elitist stunt. Who owns the earth that they may take this part of it from one and give it to another? Who sends a good and caring steward away from their homeland, rapes the land for its resources, then "gives it back" and pretends things are even-Steven now?
Dr. Paul - please talk to Russell Means and find the RIGHT answer, before the UN crams the wrong answer down our throat.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Property rights vs stewardship

A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, that is the "bottom line" of property rights. Show me the man who is laboring and the fruit of that labor is "earth." In our arrogance, we have taken to parceling up the planet and pretending we own patches of it, but the truth remains the truth - we will die and the earth will carry on, the earth owns us.
When the "founders" of this nation arrived, the people who were ALREADY HERE had a relatively enlightened civilization, and their notion of being "children of the earth" is still truth. They were good stewards of their land, long before the "Codex" nonsense was conceived of.
Land ownership is not the same ps property rights. Get your brain around this: The only way "land ownership" works is to say the Government owns ALL of the land, and is justified in saying you can live here but not there, and if you don't keep paying your taxes you can't live either place.
We are children of our Creator, and as such we are ENTITLED to dwell on this planet. If I find a piece of land that is not occupied and I make a home there. why does any man have the right to deny me that simple, basic need? The squirrels do not need titles or building permits, why do I?
I do not know the "right" answer but I know what the UN has proposed will simply cause a deeper rift between the indigenous Americans and the immigrants. My suggestion was that the 2 wisest men I know of from those groups get together and see if they can find the right answer.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Let them "own" their own land

When government gets involved nothing good comes of it. Let the Indian Nations govern themselves and quit trying to take care of them. They can take care of themselves if the government would just let them do it.

A really good explanation from John Stossel.
http://youtu.be/lMkuy86jStQ

Guys do what you normally do here: LOOK INTO THIS

The reservations were granted a sort of limited autonomy but for most, the understanding was that the Nations retained national identity, perpetual ownership and use of certain land maintenance of identity (raw ingredients of SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF DETERMINATION AS A PEOPLE).

Along with this, in view of massive amounts of land being lost forever, PERPETUAL PAYMENT AND TRIBUTE was negotiated AND AGREED UPON BY AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

And treaties between nations were drawn and solemnified. These, like all international treaties are as high a law as the Constitution itself.

So. Try to change that and you need to amend either the treaties or your Constitution OR THE CONDITION WHICH THE TREATY CERFITIED NO LONGER EXISTS AND WAR RESUMES.

This is all very simple for ye versed in both law and contract and the Constitution. Not to mention the history of your republic. For which it stands.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

we are NOT STEWARDS

I can't believe you wrote that crap!! You have no idea where that even came from if you can write that in this post.
The entire modern concept of "Stewardship' came from SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT = AGENDA 21!!!!

http://www.epa.gov/region8/ee/teachingsustainability.html

'Stewardship' is the END of private property rights. Is that what you want? Do you really think Dr Paul wants to abolish private property rights?
Because of 'stewardship', a large part of Local Agenda 21 and ICLEI, local governments have the 'right' to tell you what can and can't do on your property because 'you don't really own it'.
Our children are being taught that they can not ever own property. So when they one day go to 'purchase' their land or house and the local or state or even fed govt tells them how they can use it, they will submit to the demands.
I'm a steward of NOTHING! I purchased my land and home and no govt official will ever tell me what to do with it.
I'm truly shocked you could write a post arguing against the UN then blatantly accept the UN's perscription for abolishing property rights with that egregious 'stewardship' garbage.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

agenda 21 will borrow a lot of verbage and ideas

from very old philosophies.

some good. some not.

what happens when agenda 21 borrows from natural rights?

are you going to give up those?

any entity can take words and invent new shades.

agenda's 21 stewardship is entirely different than mine.

just like conservative means something entirely different to a fox news sheeple, than it does to me.

do you really think

the govt is gonna give a hoot about your definition?
Wait until you have to fight your local gov for the right to do on your property what you choose, then comment.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I made no comment

about what the government does or does not think.

i merely observed that instead of focusing on truth, you focused on a word.

which is fine, but you BETTER GET THE CONTEXT AND DEFINITION RIGHT.

if a fellow Paul supporter uses the word "steward" or "stewardship", then I understand the way he is using the word. If some Agenda 21 crony comes in talking about liberty, equality, and stewardship, ...he won't be fooling anyone in my liberty circles.

you had your chance to educate people about how to be cautious when the global elite disguise their agenda in healthy terms and phrases.

instead you attacked a fellow Paul supporter because he used a turn of phrase.

good job.

Stewarship is an old concept

and it's one that was brought here with european farmers perhaps not unlike your ancestors.

This idea took new root in this land and this tradition of honoring the Earth still lives among those who are called, thus, you might not be a Steward but others might.

There are some who try to responsibly steward all resources to the benefit of others and to the source from which it came.

And there are those who do not.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Regarding the UN

They should have never existed, and should be abolished immediately. At the very least, we can withdraw, cut all funding, and tell them to get the hell out of New York.

As for Mt. Rushmore, don't give it back to the Indians, at least not in one piece. That monstrosity has Roosevelt and Lincoln on it, two of the worst presidents we've ever had. I say blow the whole damn rock to pieces. If the Indians want the land afterwards, great.

Actually, while we're on the subject of Indian Affairs, if you want to see a society made utterly dysfunctional because of endless government meddling, look no further than your local Indian reservation. Those lands are worthless (why do you think we gave them to the Indians?), and cannot sustain any sizable population, hence they live totally on federal welfare, and as a result, the places are horrific: little enclaves of the third world dotting the American countryside. The best thing for them would be to move off the reservation. Take away the federal welfare, and they will, because they'll have no other choice - and they'll be MUCH better off for it. Let them keep the land though, use it for ritual purposes or whatever, but don't live there.

People recognize what welfare has done to black communities in America, but it's the same thing 10x over for Indians.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Maybe if they had control

Maybe if they had control over their own land they could make something of it? People all around reservations manage to do so in Oklahoma, including many American Indians. The way reservations are set up, they aren't allowed to farm and raise cattle or make improvements to the land.

fiddle dee dee

That's a good point as well...

...it's bad land to begin with, and then it's directly managed by the feds who impose all kinds of restrictions.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Everyone is entitled to an opinion,

yours requires Constitutional amendment for you of all people know that treaties between sovereign nations are held as high as Constitutional law by the Constitution itself;

Therefore to unilaterally break them is not only a violation of Constitutional law but an act of war.

Given as the treaties (the terms of most of which are as eternal as "the rivers flow and the grass grows) were effected as treaties of peace and given when a treaty is broken, whatever condition preceded them resume....

what you therefore suggest, very plainly and simply is war. In other words, First and Second Wounded Knee weren't enough for you.

So. Go right ahead. Try to take more. If it's what you really want.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

And another thing...

"...First and Second Wounded Knee weren't enough for you. So. Go right ahead. Try to take more. If it's what you really want."

Really? You're bragging about Wounded Knee? That's about as silly as me bragging about Koniggratz or Sedan.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Bragging? Hmmmmm........

I have no idea what events you refer to. As to First Wounded Knee, nobody brags about having been slaughtered, I suspect because very few people made it out alive and only the living brag.

As to Second Wounded Knee, neither my ancestors nor myself took part in it so again, no reason for me to brag.

I merely point out that to break a treaty of peace there is war.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Aren't Indians attempting to

Aren't Indians attempting to break the treaties by going to the UN and asking them to force us to give them more than the treaties called for?

fiddle dee dee

What treaty said that?

Which treaty divested the sovereign nations the right to parley with other nations and representatives?

The treaties mostly bind native people to stay on their reservations and don't make war on you. However this talk might be academic. The USA has broken the treaties so many times and in so many ways that I don't hold many natives to them.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Mount Rushmore

They are only asking for Mount Rushmore,And it really is on tribal lands in their reservation. You may be a victim of the MSM.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I thought about you, my

I thought about you, my friend, when I read about the UN and Mount Rushmore :)

Me? I only learned about this

Me? I only learned about this a little while ago on this site and that was my own thought/question. I don't think it matters how much they are asking for. My point is only that they are disregarding the treaty when they ask for more land. But really, I don't know all the circumstances surrounding the original treaty. Maybe you're right...

fiddle dee dee

Please consider the original treaties

and the displacement and injustices involved. Who was the one to break the treaties? A little history is in order here before consideration of any actions for or against Native Americans. Keep in mind that even Black freeman were marched along with the Indians on the trail of tears to Oklahoma due to fair "Treaties"

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

What?

Where did I suggest breaking any treaties? I didn't say take the land, I said stop giving them federal welfare, because it's totally destroyed their society.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

That would be amazing if Dr.

That would be amazing if Dr. Paul and Russell Means got together to promote liberty!

¶~~*~~Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne~~*~~¶

I can only give one "up" vote...

...so this note is for 100 more. {{{}}}

From what I understand

life on the reservation sucks. So the U.N.'s solution is to make the reservation bigger. What I dont understand is why these people just dont leave there crappy little reservation.

Crappy little.....

Dine'Tah is bigger than some of your states. Possessed of MASSIVE mineral wealth. But I suppose it's a crappy little place until your ancestors are buried there and your medicine bundles and the umbilical chords of your children and the sheep that have been in your family for generations (of sheep as well as humans).

Crappy little reservations are all we got. All you got is crappy Ikea furniture in a bank owned home you brought home in your bank owned car for your bank owned family to dress up your bank owned lifestyle.

It used to be The Land. Now most of it is your crappy real estate.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Blah...

...talk to me when you stop using antibiotics and metal. Until then, I'll take your criticism of Western civilization with a grain of salt.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Have you ever asked a Native American

how hard it is for them to forge a life away from the reservation?

My parents have done OK

Moved from Pineridge Rez to Texas.

The problem is that the

The problem is that the federal government holds American Indian tribal money in trusts and won't relinquish it to them until they can prove that they are capable of managing it themselves. That is never going to happen because some tribal leaders are making big bucks by keeping their tribes dependent. they are not interested in preparing Indians to be independent from government. It's very similar to how our welfare system keeps the poor dependent on government for basic needs.

fiddle dee dee

I'm obviously not a UN fan...

but even by their incredibly-low standards, this is ridiculous. Don't they have bigger things to come up with dumb "solutions" for?

I don't play, I commission the league.