Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 A legal strategy pioneered by His Excellency Mayor Bloomberg. This action does say that Indians are incapable of self control and adult responsibility and the whole effort smack of paternalistic nannyism for the poor creatures that simply mimics 18th and 19th Century attitudes of the 'white mans culture'.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-02-12 08:25||
#2 The stores sold nearly 5 million cans of beer in 2010. Only about 10 people live in the town. How many people live on the reservation?
tribe members have suffered from high poverty and alcoholism rates. The nanny reservation? Seems to work about as well as inner-city projects where drugs usage and crime are high. Ah, the compassionate liberal solution for nearly everything--keeping people on one plantation or another.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-02-12 09:14||
#3 Gee, seems that they WANT to fit all the bad stereotypes of the "red man" from all the bad Westerns of the '30s & '40s.
Now, how much of that half a billion do you think some white lawyers and a handful of tribal big-wigs are in line for, hmmmm?
(paging Jessie Jackson sr. and jr. to the white courtesy phone)
Posted by AlanC 2012-02-12 09:15||
#4 The reservation system is terrible. It's a mess. It keeps people down. That was the original intent, of course.
There is no need for it anymore. Abolish it and have the feds compensate native Americans properly for the value of the land, etc. Heck, if we are to throw money around for a 'stimulus', this is a situation where the money really would help. The native Americans then can live wherever they want.
Posted by Steve White 2012-02-12 11:02||
#5 As for keeping the reservations, as long as States look hungrily at them for assets and sources of revenue to support their spending habits, it's best to treat them like national parks or reserves to keep the despoiling claim jumpers off.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-02-12 11:35||
#6 Question. Does the reservation allow folks to drive on and buy beer and avoid taxation or anything (like a PX). If so that might explain the high sales numbers vs low population on the reservation.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-02-12 11:38||
#7 The largest liquor store in the world is just across the state and reservation border in Nebraska from the reservation. South Dakota and the Sioux have trouble regulating that. I remember Russell Means brother explaining the problem in detail to a bunch of us in late 70s when asking us not to drink at some events co-sponsored by the Sioux.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is endemic on the reservation. The very best thing that could happen to the Indians would be to disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs and let the tribes live their own lives as citizens. BIA is too intrusive and controlling.
Posted by Water Modem 2012-02-12 12:24||
#8 In the new FEMA region nation to come, the great White Black Father will provide Agency Store coupons.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-02-12 12:43||
Posted by Anonymoose 2012-02-12 12:55||
#10 Have worked with schools on Indian reservations. In the norther Arizona Apache reservation schools, saw 1st graders, in school, drunk.
The return rate of young adults back to the reservation, after entering the "real world," remains high. They come back to the reservation because they can't handle the "real world." Too different for them.
Posted by Sherry 2012-02-12 16:08||
#11 Mexican press last month quoted a local Catholic mission in western Chihuahua who said that Tarahumara Indians suffered an alcoholism rate of 67 percent.
#12 I remember an early morning passing through Gallup, and judging from all the bodies in the fields it looked like there had been a major battle.
Posted by Anonymoose 2012-02-12 16:27||
#13 Who sues off socks?
Sioux sues off socks.
Suppose, to be fair, they will also sue aresols, and glue, paint companies.
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-02-12 16:47||
#14 Who sues off socks?
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-02-12 17:07||
#15 Go to your room, grom.
Posted by Barbara 2012-02-12 18:30||
#16 Native Americans are free to live wherever they want in the USA - that was not always the case. At times in the 19th century they needed permission from a federal official to leave a reservation.
The following, from the Aberdeen News, is necessary to begin to grasp the Sioux situation: Land was never for sale
The dispute is more than 130 years old.
In an 1868 treaty, the U.S. government agreed that a huge area west of the Missouri River would be set aside for use by the Sioux. After gold was discovered in the Black Hills, miners and other fortune-seekers flocked to western South Dakota. That led to military battles that culminated in George Custer's defeat at the Little Big Horn in 1876.
When the Sioux refused to ratify a new treaty giving up the Black Hills, Congress passed a law taking the land in 1877.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 upheld a lower court ruling that awarded eight Sioux tribes $106 million in compensation, the 1877 value of $17.5 million plus interest. The nation's highest court said the government had to pay for taking the tribal property, and Piersol said that award has now grown to $650 million or more.
All the Sioux tribes have refused to take the money, with tribal officials and others saying the Black Hills are not for sale.
The lawsuit by the individual tribal members also sought distribution of a smaller amount of money awarded for land taken in the 1868 treaty. Filed two years ago, the lawsuit argued that because the court system cannot return the land to the Sioux, the only remedy is to distribute money to individuals.
Piersol said federal law provides that no money from the Black Hills case can be distributed until Congress appropriates funds and federal officials agree with the tribes on a distribution plan. Congress has not provided money and all eight tribes have passed resolutions opposing distribution of the money.
The return of any land is up to Congress, the judge said.
''The fact remains that resolution by the courts is at an end. If there is to be any result other than the current stalemate, then it must come from tribal government and the Congress of the United States,'' Piersol wrote.
The eight tribes listed in the lawsuit were the Crow Creek Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, Oglala Sioux, Fort Peck Sioux and Santee Sioux.
That land was stolen from the Sioux in violation of an existing treaty, and the USSC partially ratified compensation for this theft, which nowadays is a piddling $600 million, a small fraction of what that land is worth and in comparison to what has been extracted from it. They want their land back. They don't want the money, and money would not help them. They ain't gonna get the land.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-12 21:22||
#17 I've worked near reservations for Navajo, various Pueblo peoples, Yankton Sioux & even at Pine Ridge. The personality types common among the Pine Ridge people were so different from those of the other tribes I knew, they have to stem from the old culture. Pine Ridge people were to Navajos the way, say, the Irish were to the Germans. One PHS doctor insulted someone at the Pine Ridge IHS hospital & received a nighttime visit from a Sioux carrying a rifle. He left his position immediately & never returned.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-12 21:27||