Biden Starting Plans To Give Back Lands To Native American Tribes

Biden is picking up where Obama left off. Obama gave back 560,000 acres. Trump added 76,000 acres back to Native Americans.

Biden’s representatives plan to meet with several tribal leaders to discuss plans to protect and restore tribal homelands, the U.S. Department of the Interior said on Tuesday.

Don’t count on the Supremes bailing us out on this one. They have already given the green light in a ruling back in 2019- from an earlier post:

Supreme Gorsuch sides with Liberals again on Indian hunting case

Another disappointing ruling by our changed latest Supreme Gorsuch. One can only imagine where this will lead in other Indian cases if the USA is bound to treaties written centuries ago. Better yet, apparently the issue had been ruled on before. So much for “settled Law.” Even better, wait until we have to give back much of the Southwest to Mexico.

The four dissenting justices said the majority was ignoring a clear precedent — a similar case in 1895 involving the same treaty language and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Lower courts agreed, but the justices, in a 5-4 ruling, sided with Mr. Herrera on Monday, saying the treaty is good law. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, sided with the court’s four Democratic appointed justices.

Wyoming can’t abrogate an 1868 treaty with the Crow Tribe just because it was signed before Wyoming officially became a state, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case breathing new life into American Indian-U.S. relations.

The ruling contradicts a century-old high court precedent and could guarantee American Indians’ hunting rights on some federal lands.

Now for the latest.

Reuters reported:

Federal land trust policies allow tribes to re-acquire historic land and aim to remedy practices going back more than a century that took away Native American tribes’ lands across the present-day United States.

“We have an obligation to work with Tribes to protect their lands and ensure that each community has a homeland where its citizens can live together to lead safe and fulfilling lives,” Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Bryan Newland said. “These important actions are a step in the right direction to restore homelands that will strengthen Tribal communities.”

The meetings are currently scheduled to be held throughout October. Interior Department Secretary Deb Haaland, a former U.S. representative from New Mexico, is the first Native American to lead a Cabinet agency. She oversees the U.S. government’s relationship with nearly 600 federally recognized tribal nations as well as policies guiding the use of 500 million acres of federal and tribal land, a fifth of the nation’s surface,” Reuters added.

Deb Haaland, U.S. Secretary of the InteriorSecretary Deb Haaland made history when she became the first Native American to serve as a cabinet secretary. She is a member of the Pueblo of Laguna and a 35th generation New Mexican. (Doing a fast math, giving that a generation is 30 years,  30 generations gives you about a 1000 years. I am sure she knows the name of everyone of the tribes.)

The department in April allowed regional Bureau of Indian Affairs directors to review and approve applications, a reversal of a Trump-era order that gave jurisdiction to the department’s headquarters and triggered delays.

A department official said 560,000 acres of land were placed in trust for tribes during the Obama administration, followed by 75,000 acres of land under the Trump administration.

More at Yahoo News

This should put Texas in a happy place. Not overwhelmed yet by the so called migrants? Let’s just give the state back to Mexico? How about California going back to Spain? Why not the U.S. back to Great Britain?

That’s the best of the swamp today.

For the best in conservative news push the button.  Welcome  Whatfinger  News  readers.

Reflections on Native Americans

 

by Mustang

The American Indian story is heart-breaking, but one that neither you nor I can do much about.  Yes, we all have our problems; we all struggle with one thing or another.  Despite our individual problems, Americans are compassionate toward the less fortunate.  It is something we have in common with our British cousins.

I do write about the American Indian —mostly from a historical perspective.  It is an interesting story —for me, anyway.  Writing about contemporary problems, however, is more difficult. 

The story of the American Indian is only unique in terms of its “who” and “where.”  The how and why is also part of the story, but one shared by indigenous people living around the world —in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in South and Central America.

In the 1850s Indian tribal councils had but two points of view.  Most tribal elders urged accommodation with the westward-moving foreigners, but there were more than a few who urged fighting the foreigner to the death.

Meanwhile, within the tribal council of the “great white fathers” in Washington, there were also two points of view: either eradicate the American Indian or move them to government-controlled reservations.

When the Indian realized that he must either die (i.e., be shot or starved to death) or move to a reservation, most opted for the latter.  If there is a tragedy to the story of American Indians, it is that the story appears never-ending.

It is a tragedy of the commons.

In the United States, 310 Indian reservations house a large portion of the 574 federally recognized Indian tribes.  Canada recognizes 610 separate tribes.  In both countries, the poorest citizens are reservation Indians.  It is a level of poverty that is nearly indescribable.  Let’s look at these conditions in two of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Progressive politicians argue that the problem with Indians is their alcoholism, the level of corruption among tribal leaders, and an extraordinarily high percentage of school dropouts.  These conditions do exist, but that isn’t the problem.  The problem is the reservation system.

Federal Indian reservations are communal lands.  Individual Indians are not permitted to own the land; they are only allowed to use it.  If anyone ever wondered why there are so many mobile homes on Indian reservations, communal land is the answer.

Federal and tribal laws deny the Indian access to the economy in a most insidious way.  Indians cannot improve property that they don’t own.  They cannot build permanent homes —hence mobile homes.  Since they don’t own the land, they cannot use it to establish credit or as collateral.  Without the ability to establish credit, they cannot access the economic middle class —so not only are Indians the poorest people in our country, they’re destined to remain so.

Prosperity comes from property rights.  Look at any federal reservation and you’ll find vast stretches of undeveloped land.  Well, most of this land isn’t suitable for agriculture anyway, but when reservation Indians have no way of developing the land, it does them no good except to house their remains.

The situation is not only depressing (which explains alcoholism, hopelessness, little to no interest in learning), it is also disgusting.  It is hard for me to imagine that we can’t do better than this, a situation that has existed now for the past 200 years.

When everyone owns the land, no one owns it.  Who in their right mind will make any effort to develop or improve land that they don’t own?  We can see the same conditions in America’s housing projects.  Who will exercise due care of a property that will never belong to them?

As stated earlier, America doesn’t stand alone in this embarrassing situation.  We find similar conditions in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, in South and Central America, and on the African continent.

Here’s the scary part: there are NO voices in the United States demanding an improvement to these deplorable conditions.  All we hear from state and federal politicians is their constant yammering about alcoholism and cultural lethargy.  Think about this.  Can there ever be a more insulting, disrespectful argument than to criticize American Indians for conditions forced on them by federal and tribal governments?

Have you ever been to an Indian reservation?  No?  Here’s a word to describe it: bleak.  Want a phrase?  The land resembles a moonscape.  On many US reservations, people are living in rat-infested homes without heat or reliable electricity.  Beyond these abominable conditions, Indian homes are an unhealthy environment.

Does anyone care if people are living in uninsulated garden sheds, that hundreds suffer from respiratory disease, or that there is nothing the American Indian can do to improve their condition?  Many of these Indians live 20 or more miles from the nearest stop n’ rob and have no reliable transportation.

Someone in Canada is trying to do better, though.  I read recently that a Canadian Indian named Manny Jules has been vocal about these issues.  Mr. Jules is a former Chief of the Kamloops tribe in British Columbia.  He explains the situation in this way:

“Markets haven’t been allowed to operate in reserve lands.  We’ve been legislated out of the economy.  When you don’t have individual property rights, you can’t build, you can’t be bonded, you can’t pass on wealth.  A lot of small businesses never get started because people can’t leverage property to raise funds.”

Mr. Jules and others appear successful in advancing property rights for Canadian Indians.  His interest is in the plight of  Canadian Indians, so I’m not sure how such a proposal would work for Indians living in the United States —but to these under-informed ears, Mr. Jules’ ideas seem sound.  In Canada, someone is finally doing something about the deplorable conditions on Indian reservations.  Why not here in the United States?

In the United States, Indian Reservations are managed directly by the federal government.  That’s probably the first problem to address.  Do we need a Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 21st Century?  Indian reservations are semi-sovereign entities.  State laws do not apply to Indian reservations —unless, or until tribal councils make reservation laws compatible to those of the state in which they are located.

Many federal agencies also have no jurisdiction on Indian reservations.  So, if Indian reservations are mostly controlled by federally recognized tribal councils, why haven’t these governing Indians improved the lives of their people?  Apparently, white politicians do not own a monopoly on corruption; this could help to explain both the deplorable conditions on Indian lands and a lack of interest in doing something about it.  Consider also:

  1. Land privatization would be the un-doing of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
  2. Tribal councils aren’t enthusiastic about giving up their power of patronage.  Currently, tribal leaders are given around $2.5 billion annually to spend —as they see fit.  This is a powerful incentive do leave things the way they are.
  3. The word casino is just another way to spell corruption.
  4. There are as many opinions as there are tribal councils.  I expect that tribal council meetings are as interesting as school board meetings, a guarantee that few people attend them.  Fait accompli
  5. Tribal legal structures do not favor entrepreneurial investment.  If investors do not have the confidence that they’ll receive a fair hearing in any dispute, they won’t risk making investments.
  6. In 2020, there are few Indian traditions more revered and protected than dependency.  Every member of a federally recognized tribe receives money from the U. S. government.  According to one prominent Indian (a Crow), “We don’t understand business.  After 10-15 generations of not being involved in business, we don’t care about it.  Besides, capitalism threatens our identity, our traditions.  Successful Indians have “sold out” to the white eyes; we shun such people.  No, the thing for us to do is promote our culture of malaise … ‘the tribe will take care of us.’  We accept the myth of communalism.  We don’t value education … it’s a white trick, so we resist it.”

If it were up to me, I’d privatize these communal lands.  I would make it restrictive privatization, however.  Something on the order of Home Owners Associations and Over-55 communities because I would want this land to remain in the hands of persons who are registered members of a federally recognized tribe.

I would issue a clear title to the land where reservation Indians currently live.  I would give these people ten years of tax-free property; after that, they would be assessed a property tax to help pay for improvements to infrastructure, schools, hospitals/clinics, and police/rescue agencies.

This would encourage Indian-owned financial institutions, such as banks and credit unions, to service the economic needs of land-owning Indians.  It would be a good thing for Indians to be able to borrow money for land improvements, such as building permanent homes, digging wells, agricultural pursuits.

I’ve learned that debt isn’t always a bad thing —particularly when it creates the impetus to leave the house each morning and work for a living … as opposed to staying home and remaining reliant on the government for your scrambled eggs and bottle of wine.

We taught the Indians how to become dependent and lazy.  Now we must teach them a different lesson; hard work puts food on the table, it’s preferred to starvation, it bolsters our sense of accomplishment and self-esteem.  Easy to say —I know.  We also must make it easier for small businesses to operate on Indian lands so that they in turn can offer jobs to their own people.

Well, I’m done rambling.  I admit that what I know about tribal law would fit inside a thimble, but what I do know is that whatever the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been doing for the past 150 years, whatever the tribal governments have been doing (beyond constructing casinos) —it isn’t working.  In any case, a good look inside the US Indian Reservation system tells us all we need to know about socialism and communism, doesn’t it?

Isn’t it time to bring this sad American Indian story to a close?

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Supreme Gorsuch sides with Liberals again on Indian hunting case

 

Another disappointing ruling by our changed latest Supreme Gorsuch. One can only imagine where this will lead in other Indian cases if the USA is bound to treaties written centuries ago. Better yet, apparently the issue had been ruled on before. So much for “settled Law.” Even better, wait until we have to give back much of the Southwest to Mexico.

 

The four dissenting justices said the majority was ignoring a clear precedent — a similar case in 1895 involving the same treaty language and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

 

Wyoming can’t abrogate an 1868 treaty with the Crow Tribe just because it was signed before Wyoming officially became a state, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case breathing new life into American Indian-U.S. relations.

The ruling contradicts a century-old high court precedent and could guarantee American Indians’ hunting rights on some federal lands.

“Indian Portraits” by miracc is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The case was brought by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe, whom Wyoming charged with offseason hunting in 2014 after state officials discovered him and other tribe members hunting bull elk on the Big Horn National Forest, discarding the bodies and taking the heads for trophies.

Mr. Herrera argued he was permitted to hunt on the land, citing the treaty that guaranteed American Indians “the right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon.”

Crow leaders signed the treaty in 1868, handing over roughly 30 million acres to settlers while retaining about 8 million acres.

Lower courts agreed, but the justices, in a 5-4 ruling, sided with Mr. Herrera on Monday, saying the treaty is good law. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, sided with the court’s four Democratic appointed justices.

Read more

 

Thanks WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

Obama to buy back land 2x size of MA to give to Indians

Something for a feel good Friday. Typical redistribution. Another settlement of a lawsuit. Translation: One “threatens” a lawsuit but it is really a wink wink. Then the government reaches the so-called settlement. This is what the EPA has been doing as well. Sierra threatens, then Obama caves. The difference? It was 2010 and the Dems were more than willing go along. Black reparations of our land next . You betcha. Recall these ones?

Pigford: Nothing but reparations to Blacks, Women, Hispanics who claim to be farmers  February 26, 2011

The Obama administration is offering at least $1.3 billion to settle complaints from female and Hispanic farmers who say they faced discrimination from the Agriculture Department. Washington Post

Senate approves $4.5B payment to Native Americans, black farmers and the Sherrods November 20, 2010– yes, 2010 was a very good year.

Already, the number of people who have been paid and are still seeking payment will likely exceed the 26,785 black farmers who were considered to even be operating back in 1997, according to USDA. That’s the year the case initially began as Pigford v. (then Agriculture Secretary) Glickman and sources predicted that, at most, 3,000 might qualify.

But I digressed!

(UPI) — The U.S. government is gearing up to  spend nearly $2 billion on 10 million acres of land that will in turn be given  back to Native American tribes. (Twice the size of Massachusetts).

Congress agreed to the buyback in 2010 to settle a lawsuit.

“We can improve Indian Country if people will go along with this program and  sell their interests back to their tribes,” Kevin Washburn, the head of the  Bureau of Indian Affairs, said in an interview.

The plan entails buying back reservation land from willing sellers and  distributing that land among 150 tribes across the nation, the McClatchy  Newspapers reported Sunday.

Read more:  UPI