Skip to comments.
Eliminate poverty on Indian reservations by eliminating Indian reservations
Opinion Journal ^
| January 27, 2006
| BY JOHN J. MILLER
Posted on 01/28/2006 4:49:14 AM PST by Keltik
The Projects on the Prairie
We can eliminate poverty on Indian reservations by eliminating Indian reservations.
BY JOHN J. MILLER Friday, January 27, 2006
The fallout from the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal has all of Washington atwitter about congressional reform--everything from proposals to restrict travel perks and lunches with lobbyists to a potential shakeup in the Republican House leadership.
A subtheme of the controversy involves not a shakeup but a shakedown--of Indian tribes by Mr. Abramoff, who used casino cash to throw money around town as well as to line his own pockets richly. The common perception is that once again the white man has cheated the red man.
Perhaps a few expressions of sympathy are in order. Yet Indians would benefit much more from their own sweeping reforms. The Abramoff rip-off should be the least of their worries. The time has come to abolish reservations for the good of the people who live on them.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: americanindians; indians; poverty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
To: LegendHasIt
You and me both. My business travel takes me to that area several times a year and I make a special effort to head up the mountain to spend some time. Gorgeous country. Gorgeous!
21
posted on
01/28/2006 5:44:14 AM PST
by
Lil'freeper
("You're useless. I'm bored. And that's it." - Simon Cowell)
To: Keltik
The US tried getting rid of Indian reservations in the 1950s with the Indian Assimilation Act. It didn't take long for the reversal of that program and the government re-establishing the few reservations that had been spun off into private ownership.
Indian tribes are not soverign nations within the usual meaning of that term. They are wards of the US and their lands are held by the government in trust for them.
22
posted on
01/28/2006 5:46:14 AM PST
by
sockhead
(socialisim . . . where everyone is equal . . . equally bad off)
To: Just mythoughts
I too served a combat tour in Vietnam (not a POW). But I do not believe that as a result my word on any topic is golden and unchallengable now and forevermore.
McCain's not a medal-waver (others do that for him) but Kerry and Murtha are.
To: pageonetoo
I agree Indian reservations are sovereign nations. However, at some point one would think the Indian population and reservations should join with the rest of the country and be part of the USA. How to do that is a major undertaking that would need a lot of input and discussion. More than we can provide here on FR.
To: FastCoyote
OR you could just eliminate the Indians and keep the casinos and reservations. That's what we would have done in the good old days:) The way of free market.
25
posted on
01/28/2006 6:04:45 AM PST
by
A. Pole
(Dr. Michael Savage is in and the diagnosis is clear: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder")
To: aruanan
There are more Indians alive in the US now than there were when Columbus arrived, according to an anthropology professor of mine who was himself Indian. Since the immigrants from the South have Indian blood in large part, the Indians might outnumber whites some day.
26
posted on
01/28/2006 6:06:33 AM PST
by
A. Pole
(Dr. Michael Savage is in and the diagnosis is clear: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder")
To: TheSpottedOwl
Indians have some of the most desirable spots of land in this country when you consider mineral rights.
If the indians didn't want a profit center from the land that was given to them thats their fault. Even goats and sheep can survive on 'crappy' ground its their fault if they didn't want to make money on it.
Haven't the indians given money to other lobbyists besides Abramoff?
27
posted on
01/28/2006 6:08:30 AM PST
by
Mrs. Shawnlaw
(Rock beats scissors, don't run with rocks. NRA)
To: dakine
Then self-supporting they shall be... After they get their lands back, they will live very well from the rents.
28
posted on
01/28/2006 6:10:46 AM PST
by
A. Pole
(Dr. Michael Savage is in and the diagnosis is clear: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder")
To: Keltik
I grew up in a mostly white city surrounded by three large Indian reservations. I visited, and saw the dire poverty on these reservations. In my view, this poverty exists because poverty is the prevalent life in all socialist environments. These reservations were all run under socialist rules. Land was owned by the community. Families were given (a little) money just for existing. One could exist without working. The solution is the same as it is for all socialist societies: capitalism.
To: elcid1970
I barely remember JFKennedy murder, I was in first grade. I remember a military buddy of my father's from Korea coming by for a visit, he had just returned from Vietnam as a non-armed military adviser. His stories were frightening of what he went through.
None in my immediate family were of age to serve, but I had cousins that were sent to Vietnam. One is barely a remnant of who he was physically and mentally, they say it was from 'agent orange', some could say he is still a POW.
We live in such a PC age that to accurately describe events is always weighted without balance.
Actually I think McCain's method of self promotion is every bit as sinister as the other two, because he will seek revenge upon those who he believes have not given or shown him the respect and honor he earned.
To: TheSpottedOwl
The problem comes from the way trust land is regulated by the federal government. Indian tribes don't really have title to that land; they merely administer it. You can't even use reservation land as collateral to get a mortgage. The TRUST system of land should be changed to a "fee simple title" system, where Indians would have regular land rights that the rest of the country enjoys. This would make the land ripe for economic development.
People should also remember that only a small fraction of the 500+ tribes in the US operate casinos, much less successful casinos.
31
posted on
01/28/2006 6:21:21 AM PST
by
seacapn
To: LegendHasIt
To: Just mythoughts
Curious that he lead the charge for campaign finance reform...exempting Native Americans on Indian reservations. Arizona is full of reservations.
To: cyborg
Some of the comments on this thread are just plain sad.
34
posted on
01/28/2006 7:49:24 AM PST
by
TheSpottedOwl
("The Less You Have...The More They'll Take"- bf)
To: sockhead
"They are wards of the US and their lands are held by the government in trust for them."
Yes, and that is being sorted out in court because Department of Interior kept lousy records of its trusteeship.
To: dakine
Then self-supporting they shall be...In a better world. CA had ballot initiatives to tax the holy crap out of them. All I know is when they hit on the casino idea, I was jumping up and down laughing, and cheering.
36
posted on
01/28/2006 7:55:34 AM PST
by
TheSpottedOwl
("The Less You Have...The More They'll Take"- bf)
To: TheSpottedOwl
Indian reservations are sovereign nations within in our country But the southern states are not and cannot be. Go figure.
To: Mrs. Shawnlaw
If the indians didn't want a profit center from the land that was given to them thats their fault. Even goats and sheep can survive on 'crappy' ground its their fault if they didn't want to make money on it. How in the hell are they supposed to do that with no capital? 'Splain that one to me. No, the "problem" started when them uppity injuns figured out a way to end their tribes destitution. A lesson for us all. Btw, they are human beings who were ass raped by the federal government, had their lands stolen, their population decimated, and their dignity trampled on. Have any idea how much money it costs to set up a mining operation??? Hmm????? I have no idea what hucksters have persuaded Indians to part with their money. Abramoff's name came up on the thread.
38
posted on
01/28/2006 8:05:22 AM PST
by
TheSpottedOwl
("The Less You Have...The More They'll Take"- bf)
To: TheSpottedOwl
I agree with you, also.
They have been through enough already...
To: seacapn
Oh no, I didn't know that! I thought that tribal land was owned outright by the tribe that the land was given to. Jeez, talk about degradation : (
Of course not every tribe can support a casino on their land, however there have to be ways for them to support themselves in a dignified manner....without interference.
40
posted on
01/28/2006 8:22:21 AM PST
by
TheSpottedOwl
("The Less You Have...The More They'll Take"- bf)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson