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
____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.'
tabaqui 5th-May-2012 03:36 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if we did.
beoweasel 5th-May-2012 04:14 pm (UTC)
I don't know about outright extermination, but there was a concentrated effort to Westernize Native Americans for decades.
____jonas 5th-May-2012 04:29 pm (UTC)
It was definitely something more than westernizing them, although it might not have been outright extermination, so much as extermination by proxy.
martyfan 5th-May-2012 09:12 pm (UTC)
I've heard the word cultural genocide before. Does that fit?
furrygreen 5th-May-2012 11:33 pm (UTC)
It was both. They would decimate villages for the slightest things (say, kill every man, woman, and child if the band was accused for killing one or two people or the Trail of Tears that killed 1/4 of the Indians) AND their children were taken from them, the use of the language was forbidden, the kids were given knew names, and forced into really harsh Christian schools to "beat" the India out of them.
violetrose 6th-May-2012 12:31 am (UTC)
Yes, that it essentially what it was. Same as the cultural genocide against Aboriginals in Australia.
____jonas 6th-May-2012 08:13 am (UTC)
Yes (sorry for my ignorance regarding the terminology!).
sesmo 5th-May-2012 10:47 pm (UTC)
They took the kids and put them into boarding schools, and forced them to adopt English, and European customs. Not outright extermination of the gene pool, but an attempt to exterminate the culture.
illusivevenstar 6th-May-2012 02:32 am (UTC)
no, it was genocide.
poetic_pixie_13 5th-May-2012 04:19 pm (UTC)
Yep. Stuff like residential schools, the forced sterilization of Native American peoples, especially women, the forced relocation of entire nations, war and massacre. What happened to Native American peoples was planned out, systemic genocide, carried out by both European colonizers and then the American and Canadian governments.
____jonas 5th-May-2012 04:40 pm (UTC)
Don't forget the possible biological warfare.

And that guy got a university and a town named after him.
pandaseal 5th-May-2012 07:58 pm (UTC)
Yes, this. Manifest Destiny my Black ass, motherfuckers wanted land and were cool with committing genocide to get it.
atheistkathleen 6th-May-2012 01:19 am (UTC)
they sterilized a lot of natives
violetrose 6th-May-2012 01:33 am (UTC)
Yes.

Extermination of an entire race or ethnicity is also often more involved than just killing all members of said ethnicity; but placing their children in boarding schools, which happened in both the US, Canada and Australia.

They were set-up to force their children to adopt Western religion, customs and languages (usually English). Not to mention many were either forced or encouraged to marry Europeans and have children with them, so that eventually, the Native or Aboriginal race would be 'diluted' to the point where it was unrecognisable.

Not to mention biological warfare, which often included providing Indian tribes and families with diseased blankets or other items, to make sure they caught fatal illnesses like Smallpox, which would eventually wipe out and entire population in a particular region.

All of this, coupled with mass murder, forced relocation to lands that were foreign and had little to do with traditional cultural customs, religions, farming and basic survival techniques, was adding up to a very succinct genocide and extermination of both native populations.

Edited at 2012-05-06 01:35 am (UTC)
premor 6th-May-2012 09:54 am (UTC)
My first thought was the Indian Termination Policy, but it was a bit later (mid-20th century)
This page was loaded May 24th 2013, 10:01 pm GMT.