|
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Point Pride Wrote, " When peoples beliefs or opinions on the matter are based off of completely wrong 'knowledge' likely passed down by dad and grandpa, then they are wrong. Period. The opinions I've read on here are not based on facts from the treaties. They are based on opinions passed around by a group of white folks at a bar talking 'smart'. You can think my comments rarely add up to anything all you want, I couldn't care less. Unfortunately, I will not back down on this topic. If you don't like it, don't read it. There are not a "myriad" of ways to look at this situation. The situation is pretty cut and dry." PP - Excellent post. This is common truth behind a myriad of issues (muskies are the big bad wolf that decimate all other populations in lakes, so on and so forth) I'm not getting in the mix here, but realize how many walleye's the NA tribes stock in our Northern WI waters. . . It seems only fair that they take some of what they put in, out. PS: I think it's funny I used "Myriad", too. . . Had to edit this lil' PS in here. Ubl Out!
Edited by Sam Ubl 4/23/2010 2:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI | Sworrall - Point I am making is think about it, you seem to be stuck on the law/treaty thing ( I agree yes it is binding and the law). Does it make it right, segregation was legal and they figured out it needed to be changed. All sides need to figure out what is right (open mind needed) for everybody and everything (resources/environment/fish/game), the right thing is usually somewhere in-between. This was all set in motion long long ago, times change whether we like it or not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | this thread reminded me of this scene ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbP6l6Fl4PA |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| How do you argue right and wrong here? Is it "right" that indians can spear with reckless abandon when they no longer need the fish for sustinence OR income? Is it right that I can only take two walleyes from "my" lake, even though I actually NEED that food right now? Is it right that I have to abide by these regulations because of something that took place before my ancestors even came to this country? Is it right that we feel so entitled that we're angry about a treaty put in place between two sovereign nations? What if they decided that they wanted the ceded territory BACK? Would THAT be right?
Times may change, but how we got to those treaties certainly does NOT and the Supreme Court proved that. Personally, I'd rather see a situation where the Indians exercise their rights to hunt and fish in a responsible manner, for sustinence, as was originally intended, and not kill what they can because they'd rather see the fish dead and rotting in a ditch than see us be able to catch them. My ancestors may not be responsible for the genocide that took place. But that genocide is why Northern Wisconsin is available to me. I try not to forget that. |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | While there is a plethora of of opinions, there is only one truth. Pointer is right. Sworral is right. We can't grant a right and then take it back later because Joe White guy has a sense of entitlement. The fact that these atrocities against the native population occurred many moons ago matters not, a deal is deal and a treaty is our word to these nations. Look at the bigger picture, and learn from the past. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Taxpayer - 4/23/2010 2:23 PM
Who funds these "sovereign" nations??
Potawatomi Bingo and Casino, Mole Lake Casino etc. |
|
| |
|
| >>>Taxpayer - 4/23/2010 2:23 PM
Who funds these "sovereign" nations??
Pointer: Potawatomi Bingo and Casino, Mole Lake Casino etc.<<<
LOL. True, but funny. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | Pointerpride102 - 4/23/2010 1:19 PM
Thank you Steve. People are talking like the Native Americans are some special interest group. They are not, they are their own Nation, with their own governments. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp? Some of you need a history lesson, or 5.
They lobby all the time. Ever hear of CAGE? citizen against gambling expansion. Notice it doens't call itself abolishment. They are funded by the tribe and have spent millions on both DFL & GOP. They are one of the groups fighting to restrict cantebury park from expanding, legalization of private casinos, ect. |
|
| |
|
| Steve, your rigid view on this issue disappoints me. You're a leader, I wish you would act like one on this issue.
This whole conversation, like almost every other conversation, begins and ends with one thing: money. Check the following link if you're curious about how much funding these "soverign nations" receive annually from the aforementioned genocidal, "smart talking white" American taxpayers:
http://www.maquah.net/clara/Press-ON/02-03-22_table.html
If you don't feel like following the link, the total is $121 million. Just for Minnesota. Back in 2000. I couldn't find more recent info in the 30 seconds I spent looking, but I guarantee that the dollar amount hasn't decreased since then. The "soverign nations" I keep reading about are soverign right up until that check shows up. Suddenly it's nice to be a citizen of the US of A.
You want status as a soverign nation, capable of signing and enforcing treaties, you got it. But then don't expect the same people whose resources you're exploiting in the name of those treaties to turn around and write you a check every month for, among MANY other things, road maintenance, drug abuse research, maternal and child health services and job training. That's called hypocrisy, which is what a lot of the "holier than thou" posters on this topic are exhibiting.
If there were ever a will to truly treat all people fairly in 2010 (lest we forget, we don't live in 1850), the massive flow of money to these "soverign nations" would end until there was a treaty in place that clearly delineated the self evident truth that ALL men are created equally. Seems like I read that somewhere else once. That equal treatment would extend to the equally administered use of PUBLIC resources such as our lakes and rivers. The likelihood that we will see the day that a political leader has enough passion for this topic and enough guts to take a stand is minimal, but to portray this fight as settled business is the easy way out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | So now they are citizens of the US? Those reservations sure are ritzy from all that money too.... |
|
| |
|
| PJonas,
Great Post. Shows exactly where the $$$ goes! I don't know Pointer they may want to be citizen's of the US but if they were, no free $$ would show up! |
|
| |
|
| Who said they weren't? If you're born here, on reservation or not, you're a US citizen. And what does the "ritziness" of indian reservations have to do with rights granted to one group and not another based on race?
My point to you, and anyone else who wants to hide behind the "treaty with a soverign nation" rationale on this topic, is that everything, and I mean everything, comes down to who writes the check. Absent $121 million plus from the federal government (aka you and me), it's safe to say that life on the res in Minnesota would be significantly less ritzy than it is now, and I agree, that's saying something.
In my mind, the issue is not whether tribes got a raw deal back in the day. They did. The issue is not whether spearing is eqitable to all parties. It isn't. The issue, in my humble opinion, is whether taxpayers should be compelled to subsidize, to the tune of $121 million in 2000, an inequitable administration of a public resource.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | You make excellent points PJonas. I've never said I'm 100% on the side of the Native Americans (just like Steve has stated). We don't have to like it but it is what it is and the treaties have held up in the courts time and time again. I'd venture to guess that there is some sort of stipulation as to why this money goes to the reservations, and I'm sure part of that reason is politics (see governor Jim Doyle). I don't think the Fed. gov't just donates the money to them as a peace offering out of the goodness of their hearts. But I guess you never know with the current and past administrations......
The fact is, the chances of things changing are about as good as getting lanced by frozen blue toilet water falling from an airplane. If the hatred for the rights they have would die down and become non existent, I'd bet you'd rarely have the Big Carr Lake type stories. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | PJonas,
We provide billions to Israel, a tiny country far removed from the US but vital to our interests. From a US Government accounting:
'Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II (not counting the huge sums being spent in Iraq). The $3 billion or so per year that Israel receives from the U.S. amounts to about $500 per Israeli.' Yet we cannot provide what is guaranteed in the treaties in exchange for adoption and formation of tribal governments using a format proscribed by Washington DC? And those to the people we sent to reservation and stole huge tracts of land, timber, and mineral rights from? THAT's hypocrisy.
By the way, I'm not 'leading' in this discussion nor am I intending to; I feel I'm offering an educated perspective. Accept it as such or not, that's up to you. I really don't care if I disappoint you, in fact in this case it appears I should be glad I did.
---'You want a status as a Sovereign nation?'---
What's THAT? They ARE, they need not want. It's not hypocrisy, it's reality.
What's with all the 'equality' issues you try to inject? The Native Americans were given the hunting, gathering, and harvest rights in the treaties OUR Government entered into with them; those rights are theirs in exchange for the land we took from them, and guess what....those are, by law, THEIR resources. The fact we effectively for over 100 years stole those resources from them, got caught, got called out by the Tribes in front of the bench at the Supreme Court....and now are upset they want those rights returned--- sort of proves it out.
Those are not 'public' resources in the Ceded Territories, they are the Tribe's first and ours when they have finished harvest for the year unless the States negotiate the sharing of them; both in harvest and in management. That's been done here in Wisconsin, read about it please. The tribes can, if they wish, spear a lake to ZERO harvest for us, but in most cases that doesn't happen.
You can fish and hunt too, no one is telling you you can't. Your privilege to fish isn't at question.
The 'fight' was taken all the way to the Supreme Court by Wisconsin and the Fed S Court refused to hear the case. (saying this for about the umteenth time). The tribes here won in court, and won easily. End of story. It IS settled business from the legal avenue. I'm trying to shout over the sometimes racist and many times uneducated rants here that there are other avenues, that we need to shut up, study up, and look at cooperation and joint management as an effective and workable model. You want to 'fight', and I'm saying you will do far more harm than good in the process. I saw what happened to the same scenario in the 80's here. Were you sleeping through that, or what?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | unless you're making 113,000.00 or more you aren't really making that big a tax payment so check yourself at the door before getting your martyr badge.
i'm not puttin' it on anyone in particular ... but, i think the words "taxpayer" get thrown around a little loosely sometimes. there is paying taxes and then there is PAYING TAXES. top 10% of wage-earners doll out 75% of the bill.
it seems the indians aren't the only ones "being funded" |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
My disagreement doesn't stem from a lack of understanding of your position. I just think you, Pointer and others are looking at this all wrong.
Your Isreal example is perfect. How do you suppose we impose our will on the Israelis? Not through treaties, certainly not through threat of force. We threaten to withhold MONEY. To look at it another way, how has the government made it de facto illegal to smoke. Tax policy. In other words, it gets so expensive to smoke, that people either can't or won't do it. It could be legal to smoke anywhere you want, but if a pack of cigarettes costs $200, nobody would. The same is true of tribal spearing. If the real threat, or actuality, of loss of funding were imposed, the COST of spearing would outweigh the benefit.
Put another way, I'm willing to stipulate that the soverign indian nations have the right to spear if you're willing to stipulate that we have other ways to approach the issue that make it far from the open and shut case you portray it to be. |
|
| |
|
| One other thing, Steve. I rarely post here because interesting topics usually degenerate to name calling, and then what's the point? I'm not saying you've "slept through" anything, and I know I haven't. I recognize your position, but respectfully disagree. I hope you, and everybody else, can do the same. |
|
| |
|
| Johhnysled,
I couldn't agree more, but that's a different topic for a different thread. The fact is SOMEBODY is paying taxes, and in my opinion, the portion of those taxes that is subsidizing spearing is unjust. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I recognize your position, but respectfully disagree. I hope you, and everybody else, can do the same'
really...then why this--, I ask?
'Steve, your rigid view on this issue disappoints me. You're a leader, I wish you would act like one on this issue. '
Make up your mind.
There's no tax dollars 'subsidizing' spearing. You need to educate yourself on this issue, seriously. Look up GLIFWC. Look up the Voigt Decision. Look up the BIA and it's function in our Government. Study the History behind all of this, and THEN stomp around about the treaty rights...if you still feel the need.
From the BIA Website:
What We Do
Services Overview
'The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities as provided by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, court decisions and Federal statutes. Within the government-to-government relationship, Indian Affairs provides services directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts to 564 Federally recognized tribes.'
See that phrase---government to government---?
There's more, I suggest you read it, in order to grasp how we ended up where we are with Tribal/US relations in 2010. Then maybe my reference to the 3 billion dollars in aid to Israel, which could have been to ANY Government anywhere in the world, will make better sense to you.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i wish you would agree with me ....
i would like my cake ... and i would like a fork so that i can eat it too ....
get me some ice cream ...
signed
anonymous |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Well, you had some good points till the whole subsidizing spearing comments.
Steve is dead on. Read the GLIFWC. My guess is we wouldn't be on page 4 of this thread if those chiming in about rights had actually read it. Because, unfortunately for you Guest, the issue is pretty cut and dry. If it wasn't it wouldn't have held up in the Supreme Court time and time again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | sled, you are killing me. |
|
| |
|
| KSauers - 4/23/2010 6:58 PM
BenR - 4/23/2010 7:54 PM
KSauers - 4/23/2010 6:50 PM
top 10% of wage-earners doll out 75% of the bill.
That's got to change and it soon will. That 10% should pay it all. That way the 90% would be solely dependent on the government. The 10% would pay such high taxes they would be as poor as the 90% . The new america. I can't wait.
So out of touch and angry...
It's exactly because I am in touch that I am "angry". Angry about what's happening to my country. Just watch any news channel or read any paper.
Well based on your post it would seem more like you are drinking kool-aid vs paying attention...also it is not only your country....BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 678
Location: Twin Cities, MN | Well I do not like kool-aid, but I would very happy if somebody can tell me just how our country is going to pay off a debt bill that is projected to reach 20 trillion by 2020. Why can the government spend money that does not exist and I can't ?
I blame them all, both parties have spent money like drunken lemurs for well over 50 years to get us where we are today.
Kick them all out of office and put term limits on every level of government, even if it takes a constitutional convention. And no running for office while in office.
The spending by the federal government is not sustainable.
Difficult decisions need to be made by leaders who do not see politics as a career or who buy votes with the taxpayers money. We shall see if any show up in November.
Pal |
|
| |
