Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land?

Yes
1
5%
No
16
84%
Alter it in some way (explain)
2
11%
#15106397
Pants-of-dog wrote:If treaties are treaties, then you agree that the Black Hills, including Mt. Rushmore, are Lakota land.

Exactly as your own courts decided.


You're still missing the point. They can't have it both ways in their situation; wanting total sovereignty over the Black Hills region and other tribal lands, but also being full US Citizens and receiving social services, etc, from the US and State governments. If they had remained non-citizens and had only a treaty relationship with the larger society and governments, you might have a point, but you don't or just choose to ignore what doesn't fit your narrative.

I don't know what I'd do exactly in their situation, but as an individual i'd see to it that what really matters in my own life and that of my family and friends was taken care of. As far as this kind of thing goes, it has no relevance to people's real lives.
#15106404
@annatar1914

Indigenous people often do not consider themselves to be citizens of the UsA (or Canada, in my expereince). The Haudenosonee (you may know them as Mohawks) have their own passports, for example. Also, indigenous people were not considered full citizens of the USA until quite recently.
#15106418
@Pants-of-dog ;

You said;

Indigenous people often do not consider themselves to be citizens of the UsA (or Canada, in my expereince).


That is the exact opposite of my experience, and I've lived near Amerindian people all my life. They have the highest rate of military service in the US Armed Forces of any ethnic group, and every one of them I've talked to before was very proud of that service and the country for which they served.


The Haudenosonee (you may know them as Mohawks) have their own passports, for example.


It's basically considered by most as a ''fantasy passport'', which sort of things do exist but have little practical real world meaning;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_passport

Validity

The validity of an Iroquois passport for various purposes has been questioned, and the issue is entangled with the larger issue of Iroquois sovereignty. In July 2010 the Bloc Québécois sovereigntist organization voiced its opposition to the validity of the passport, saying that a passport should only be issued by a country, not a nation.[13] The Isle of Man has issued public warnings rejecting the document as a valid form of either identification or nationality and regards holders as U.S. or Canadian citizens,[14] and the European Union does not recognise it as a valid travel document and has issued guidelines stating that visas cannot be affixed to the passport, barring holders from the Schengen area.[15][16] Both list the Iroquois passport as a "fantasy passport", a document issued by a minority, sect, population group or private organization,[16] which according to the Isle of Man has "no authority and to which no official recognition has been given".[14]

The governments in the United States,[17] the United Kingdom[8] and Canada[13] have refused to endorse the document as valid document for international travel. Additionally, the document does not appear on the list of acceptable identification to cross into Canada.[6] The Iroquois passport has, however, been successfully used for international travel,[18] though so has the novelty passport of the "Conch Republic" micronation.[19]

The passports do not currently meet the 2009 Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative requirements for entry to the United States, although upgrades are in progress.[20]




Also, indigenous people were not considered full citizens of the USA until quite recently.


Since 1924 all have been, with the Snyder act;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

And some Amerindians had problems with the act, ''forcing'' US citizenship on them. But the act was given impetus by the fact that so many Amerindians flocked to fight in the US Military during WWI, that it seemed obscene to not extend citizenship-which again most are very proud of in my experience.
#15106421
@annatar1914

1, My experience also confirms that military service is a huge tradition in many indigenous communities, and pride in serving in the military is also common. And these same people do not consider themselves as Canadian. It seems possible to be prooud to serve in the Canadian (or in your case, the US) military and still not consider oneself a citizen.

2. According to your link, many indigenous people did not get full citizenship rights until 1948. And voting ID laws and other policies still effectively disenfranchise many indigenous people and communities.
#15106526
If treaties are treaties, then you agree that the Black Hills, including Mt. Rushmore, are Lakota land.

Exactly as your own courts decided.


Sarcasm POD. Look at my post in Election 2020 about the magnificent SCOTUS decision yesterday.
#15106726
First let me remind you that I live just a couple of miles from a very large reservation.

This week the SCOTUS released a landmark decision about Native American treaty rights. It could be a real game changer. I was sure you would know about this but here are the Clift notes:

A really bad NA man was convicted of rape and sentenced to 1000 years in prison by Oklahoma about 20 years ago. It occurred to him that he was on land that by treaty belonged to five Native American tribes but that this treaty had simply been ignored. As his conviction had been in state court but on Indian land, the court ruled that the state court did not have jurisdiction and the conviction was invalid.

Neil Gorsuch joining the court's five more liberal justices agreed with him by the way. This is, in my opinion, a magnificent decision. And this was not about where to put a casino or who can sell cheap cigarettes. The decision covers a huge area of land. Land upon which 1.8 million mostly white people live. Tulsa is on Native American treaty land. Let this sink in for a moment.

NYT said:

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Native American Rights in Oklahoma

A 5-4 decision declaring that much of eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation could reshape criminal justice in the area by preventing state authorities from prosecuting Native Americans.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that much of eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation and that state authorities do not have the authority to prosecute criminal cases involving Native Americans.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that much of eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation and that state authorities do not have the authority to prosecute criminal cases involving Native Americans.

The 5-to-4 decision, potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades, could have far-reaching implications for the people who live across what the court affirmed was Indian Country. The lands include much of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-biggest city.

The case was steeped in the United States government’s long history of brutal removals and broken treaties with Indigenous tribes, and grappled with whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation after Oklahoma became a state.
A New Map of Oklahoma

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation.

The decision puts in doubt hundreds of state convictions of Native Americans and could change the handling of prosecutions across a vast swath of the state. Lawyers were also examining whether it had broader implications for taxing, zoning and other government functions. But many of the specific impacts will be determined by negotiations between state and federal authorities and five Native American tribes in Oklahoma.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Westerner who has sided with tribes in previous cases and joined the court’s more liberal members to form the majority, said that Congress had granted the Creek a reservation, and that the United States needed to abide by its promises.


“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”


The implications of this decision are enormous.

So perhaps we have gotten our answer about this thread. At least.

I think there is another lesson about this. That is that tradition does not trump the law and that when the federal government makes a treaty it has to stand by it.

For a few decades we (the US people) have just thrown a few bones to NA peoples. We "let" them have casinos and sell cheap cigarettes and booze. Clearly these have helped with poverty on the reservations which take advantage of them. But sovereignty is something quite different. Do the tribes own the minerals, the parks, the right to govern? This case goes a long way to answering these questions.

I seriously doubt that there is going to be much change for the people in the area in dispute. But one thing that will happen. Law enforcement will have to dance to the tribes music. If I was the chief of police of Tulsa I would very quickly change my ways. I would have the nicest policemen ever, at least toward Native Americans. It is not beyond possibility that the Various nations could dissolve all policing in their territory and replace it with their own. My reservation next door has Indian Police Service officers. Federal.

Any way you cut it this is a really big deal and it will be fun to watch it play out. For a whole shit ton of Native Americans languishing in Oklahoma prisons it is a very good day.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
So how deadly is it?

It is not looking good with the virus. They are s[…]

Election 2020

No, I am saying that a large percentage of the peo[…]

@wat0n 1. Between 20% and 25% of police killi[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

@Sivad Since you have no argument, have a good[…]