So where does Native America stand on the Bundy thing?Submitted by Smudge Pot on Wed, 04/23/2014 - 11:46
Your uncle Smudge Pot will tell you now...
that he has not a clue. I mean not even the scent of a clue. I don't even know who to ask. But allow me to frame the question:
1. This discussion of "for over 100 years has this family stewarded this land" as if this confers some aspect of ETERNAL DIVINE SANCTION just has us in stitches. Hey it's not like you have to tatoo the words I HAVE NO LONG TERM CULTURAL MEMORY on your foreheads, we already knew that about you.
2. In this mire of state law and constitutional ramblings, has anybody sought the original transference of ownership? By what legal process did a bunch of European descendants happen to come by possession of this soil? Was it claimed by no tribe? Such is not entirely unknown in parts of the Southwest because it is such a barren land that absolutely no human really wants to be on it. That is until irrigation. It may be that the most recent native inhabitants stole it from somebody else who might claim title. Heck there is a LOT OF TIME THAT PASSED ON THIS CONTINENT but might we safely presume that whomever held original title probably did not have fair skin or eyes the color of the sky?. And were subsequent transfers of ownershp voluntary or coerced (thus rendering them moot according to our ideology)? Was this a treaty and was the treaty broken (meaning legal ownership reverts to previous owner) or is this the result of a treaty upheld which would TRULY MEAN there is a CLEAR CONTRACTUAL TITLE TO THIS LAND WHICH TRULY SUPERSEDES ANY CONTRACT WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Eh? Get where I'm going with that? It's POSSIBLE there is in fact a LEGAL PRECEDENT WHICH SUPERSEDES FEDERAL CONTRACT because that would have been a deal between an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN NATION. It just so happens the constitution forbids contract between us common citizens and sovereign nations BUT the constitution did not exist as law in that land in the time frame in question. Neat, huh?
3. Let me tell you a little something about Mormons and Native America. It's not like they hate natives, far from it, Joseph Smith actually thought we were part of his lost tribes (Hopi had very similar thoughts) and he saw all of the people dwelling in harmony and Mormons are not known as any kind of notorious indian killers. Not like every little thing was always hunky-dory but there is this respect there. It's palpable, we can feel it and ANOTHER THING,
Joseph Smith's visionary writing style just makes SO MUCH SENSE in a native story telling format. It's like ho man, this guy really is THERE. He is on the JUICE. Again there is this almost subliminal respect thing going on.
4. Now being your common internet junkie I can google and wiki and find out who the inhabitants are/were just like you can and that is pretty much why I have not. See for once I'm asking you to ask yourselves. Hey! We feel our inalienable rights are or were granted by God or the Flying Spagetti Monster but what happened in the time intervening? This time I want you to find an answer. Then you can tell me about it. That should be a fun role reversal right?
Whom answers these questions gets a big, fat, smelly Smudge hug. You don't even have to get it right, all you have to do is try.
Might just hug you anyways. When you least expect it. Squish the jelly right out your ears.