ONTD Political

US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations

11:49 am - 05/05/2012
UN's correspondent on indigenous peoples urges government to act to combat 'racial discrimination' felt by Native Americans

by Chris McGreal in Washington

A United Nations investigator probing discrimination against Native Americans has called on the US government to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward combatting continuing and systemic racial discrimination.

James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.

Anaya said that in nearly two weeks of visiting Indian reservations, indigenous communities in Alaska and Hawaii, and Native Americans now living in cities, he encountered people who suffered a history of dispossession of their lands and resources, the breakdown of their societies and "numerous instances of outright brutality, all grounded on racial discrimination".


"It's a racial discrimination that they feel is both systemic and also specific instances of ongoing discrimination that is felt at the individual level," he said.

Anaya said racism extended from the broad relationship between federal or state governments and tribes down to local issues such as education.

"For example, with the treatment of children in schools both by their peers and by teachers as well as the educational system itself; the way native Americans and indigenous peoples are reflected in the school curriculum and teaching," he said.

"And discrimination in the sense of the invisibility of Native Americans in the country overall that often is reflected in the popular media. The idea that is often projected through the mainstream media and among public figures that indigenous peoples are either gone or as a group are insignificant or that they're out to get benefits in terms of handouts, or their communities and cultures are reduced to casinos, which are just flatly wrong."

Close to a million people live on the US's 310 Native American reservations. Some tribes have done well from a boom in casinos on reservations but most have not.

Anaya visited an Oglala Sioux reservation where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national average, and life expectancy is about 50 years.

The two Sioux reservations in South Dakota – Rosebud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country's poorest living conditions, including mass unemployment and the highest suicide rate in the western hemisphere with an epidemic of teenagers killing themselves.

"You can see they're in a somewhat precarious situation in terms of their basic existence and the stability of their communities given that precarious land tenure situation. It's not like they have large fisheries as a resource base to sustain them. In basic economic terms it's a very difficult situation. You have upwards of 70% unemployment on the reservation and all kinds of social ills accompanying that. Very tough conditions," he said.

Anaya said Rosebud is an example where returning land taken by the US government could improve a tribe's fortunes as well as contribute to a "process of reconciliation".

"At Rosebud, that's a situation where indigenous people have seen over time encroachment on to their land and they've lost vast territories and there have been clear instances of broken treaty promises. It's undisputed that the Black Hills was guaranteed them by treaty and that treaty was just outright violated by the United States in the 1900s. That has been recognised by the United States supreme court," he said.

Anaya said he would reserve detailed recommendations on a plan for land restoration until he presents his final report to the UN human rights council in September.

"I'm talking about restoring to indigenous peoples what obviously they're entitled to and they have a legitimate claim to in a way that is not devisive but restorative. That's the idea behind reconciliation," he said.

But any such proposal is likely to meet stiff resistance in Congress similar to that which has previously greeted calls for the US government to pay reparations for slavery to African-American communities.

Anaya said he had received "exemplary cooperation" from the Obama administration but he declined to speculate on why no members of Congress would meet him.

"I typically meet with members of the national legislature on my country visits and I don't know the reason," he said.

Last month, the US justice and interior departments announced a $1 billion settlement over nearly 56 million acres of Indian land held in trust by Washington but exploited by commercial interests for timber, farming, mining and other uses with little benefit to the tribes.

The attorney general, Eric Holder, said the settlement "fairly and honourably resolves historical grievances over the accounting and management of tribal trust funds, trust lands and other non-monetary trust resources that, for far too long, have been a source of conflict between Indian tribes and the United States."

But Anaya said that was only a step in the right direction.

"These are important steps but we're talking about mismanagement by the government of assets that were left to indigenous peoples," he said. "This money for the insults on top of the injury. It's not money for the initial problem itself, which is the taking of vast territories. This is very important and I think the administration should be commended for moving forward to settle these claims but there are these deeper issues that need to be addressed."

The Guardian
radname 5th-May-2012 01:35 pm (UTC)
So pretty much all of the US (and Canada) then.
thecityofdis 5th-May-2012 02:47 pm (UTC)
This was my first thought, too.
poetic_pixie_13 5th-May-2012 04:08 pm (UTC)
Exactly what I thought when I read that headline.
muse_misery 5th-May-2012 04:39 pm (UTC)
yep, mte
evilgmbethy 5th-May-2012 07:38 pm (UTC)
basically
froda_baggins 5th-May-2012 07:59 pm (UTC)
Yep.
dragonhawker 7th-May-2012 11:49 pm (UTC)
My first thought as well. "Isn't that, like, ALL of it?"
ragnor144 5th-May-2012 02:14 pm (UTC)
Considering the amount of "waaah!" in the VAWA for including some Native American sovereignty over crimes committed on their own lands, I know that this will go absolutely no where, but I still think that I will write my congresspeople about it. I am slightly interested in how Dave Camp (House chair of Ways and Means and complete Republican tool) will word his "fuck off" letter.

Last month, the US justice and interior departments announced a $1 billion settlement over nearly 56 million acres of Indian land held in trust by Washington but exploited by commercial interests for timber, farming, mining and other uses with little benefit to the tribes.

At least that is a step in the right direction. Many people in my area think that the Chippewa have it so good because of the casino but don't realize that it isn't owned by all the Chippewa in Michigan. But then again too many people here think of all Native Americans as one homogeneous group.

And of course the source isn't in the United States.

(edit to note source)

Edited at 2012-05-05 02:15 pm (UTC)
premor 5th-May-2012 02:33 pm (UTC)
And of course the source isn't in the United States.

I actually went and tried to find a US source, figuring it would have more info. I couldn't find any articles about the recommendations by a major US news company. At best, they've briefly reported about the inquiry itself in late April, e.g. Fox News with this article (that the vast majority of readers think is 'offensive', wtf).
87_misfit 5th-May-2012 02:33 pm (UTC)
Shouldn't Spain, England, and France have to pay into this too? It WAS their idea. They're the ones who decided to colonize this place, and their colonies are the ones who originally started forcing the Natives off their land.
thecityofdis 5th-May-2012 02:46 pm (UTC)
I can see an argument for Spain and France (though I disagree), but for England... I mean, they pretty much became us. We were English, and then we weren't (thanks to that war that France helped us with) and so there wasn't really a transfer of hands there, I feel like. The name of the hands just changed.
ragnor144 5th-May-2012 02:43 pm (UTC)
Dave Camp's (my Republican tool of a representative) website doesn't even have "Native Americans" as an option in the drop-down menu for topics, and our district contains reservations both well-off and impoverished. I would think that there are enough of my neighbors complaining that the casino doesn't have to pay state taxes to warrant it.


(OK LJ, Y U no let me edit again?)
madman101 5th-May-2012 03:07 pm (UTC)
AWESOME!!!
tabaqui 5th-May-2012 03:11 pm (UTC)
And we're surprised that no one would talk to this guy? Top two revolting things the US govt did - maintain slavery and the utter decimation of the Native population.

In my mind, like many other groups (the men who were experimented on with syphilis, for example) they're just waiting until a significant portion of these people die off so they don't have to 'deal' with it.

____jonas 5th-May-2012 03:34 pm (UTC)
Didn't the US government have what was, for the lack of a better word, an extermination plan at one point? (around the turn of the 20th century, maybe a bit before) I remember reading about it in Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States.'
othellia 5th-May-2012 04:14 pm (UTC)
Can't speak that personally about the other places, but Hawaii's pretty much been wanting its independence returned since the day it got taken away back in 1893.
romp 5th-May-2012 05:45 pm (UTC)
They're far ahead of other places. They still basically own the land and just lease it out, yeah? I've assumed that they'll eventually take it back completely, in part because they didn't lose all their power or have their culture destroyed to the degree indigenous people in N. America did.
/myimpression
perthro 5th-May-2012 05:03 pm (UTC)
This article is soooooo relevant to the discussion I was just having...
maladaptive 5th-May-2012 07:49 pm (UTC)
This reminds me of a discussion in one of my East Asian studies classes-- a lot of white Americans clamor to free Tibet. My professor said "I wonder how they would feel if the Navajo started a 'free Arizona' campaign?" I don't remember the exact group/state he used, given that it was years ago, but that was the sentiment.

It's something that always stuck with me. And from the looks of it: they do not seem to like it one bit.
lee_rowan 5th-May-2012 11:05 pm (UTC)
Give back the lands -- ALL RIGHTS -- that were ceded under legitimate treaties. That's all.

So a few dozen billionaires would be a few hundred million poorer. I am just weeping for them.
celtic_thistle 5th-May-2012 11:52 pm (UTC)
The US has not maintained a single goddamn treaty it signed with any American Indian nation. Not a single fucking one. It's broken all of them in some way. It doesn't surprise me that this story is being utterly ignored in the US media.
pepsquad 6th-May-2012 05:22 am (UTC)
yeah my fathers people dealt with a serious treaty violation in the 1960s
kira_snugz 6th-May-2012 01:02 am (UTC)
holy frick theres only 310 reservations in the states? i thought there was like 8-900. makes me wonder how many there are in canada.

theres loads of native canadians who never signed treaties or anything with the goverment. the goverment just showed up and was like "oh yeah, you gotta go, this place is fucking ours now"

sometimes it feels like the government is a male dog who just shows up and starts pissing on stuff "this is mine, thats mine, mine, thats mine too. no thats mine, that rock is mine, these trees are mine. I WILL PEE ON THE ENTIRE FOREST UNTIL YOU PEOPLE GET THE FUCK OUT."

the UN can talk all they want, but the only way the goverments will give that land back is over many many dead bodies, just the way they took it.
theplanfailed 13th-May-2012 08:44 pm (UTC)
What's funny about this is when the subject comes up; people who weren't even born during that time period are blamed for this. It's like all of a sudden the American collective decided to take land from the Indigineous people. Like, no. I don't remember that. I wasn't even born then. And most people didn't know what was going on. Sure they heard about the masacrers and I mostly blame the US for those because dude, could have tried harder much?

However, my American-ness shows up when the UN tries to tell us what to do. If we do it or not is none of their busniess.
Should we do it? or at least compesate them or hold up the original treaties, yes. Yes, the Government should. However, Europe can get the heck out of our business. I don't think it's that much to ask.
premor 14th-May-2012 04:27 am (UTC)
lol what does Europe have to do with any of this?
This page was loaded May 18th 2013, 7:31 pm GMT.