native american indians views on peace treaties?
543160
Peace treaty?\nOh! the one that the government wiped their a** with and flushed down the royal Sh*tter?\n\nUm?... you might want to check the royal septic!\n\n\n"Sorry honey, but i can't see a view from here"
182619
To a certain extent. Depends whether you are taking the Maori (not enough done) or pakeha (Too much done) view. On the whole though I think the Tribunal is doing an excellent job of redressing the wrongs suffered by Maori after the signing of the Treaty.
199920
The native Americans.
225319
How: from the white soldiers from foreign countries (Europe). Either by war and violence or by disease. You have to remember that they were actually open to showing the Europeans the way of the land... until they found out that they were killers. By then it was too late. Their arms were no force against guns and mass trained army's. Most tribes were non violent... hunters at best; not savages as the white man portrayed.\n\nWhy: Greed; meaning the European people who came here mainly came here to avoid prosecution... so they were criminals anyway. They looked at America like a "free piece of pie" and they would do anything including rape and pillage to get their piece.\n\nTribes in South Dakota lost the black hills and have never been given them back. The government offered a fraction of what it is worth - but they have declined the money. They just want rightful ownership of their land. Most treaties have never been honored because they signed names to the treaty like John Smith... and because the U.S. government still does not federally recognize each bands tribe. There are probably several hundred tribes in each state which do not have "reservations" because if they did, their would not be enough land for the government and less power over the people.
279211
"Tecumseh felt that the land belonged to the natives and that signing a treaty with the Americans would mean giving up the native way of life.  He believed that is was the obligation of the natives to band together to fight the Americans as one united group and dreamed of a Native American nation stretching from the Appalachian Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico." I found this on a website and it goes into more detail but that is the gist of it. Quote: www.westliberty.com
855948
They didn't have immigration laws back then.  The first native Americans that met the settlers liked and helped them.  Other tribes weren't so nice on the intrusion of their land,(the territory they were aware of and hunted in etc) even if it was other Native Americans.  You act like like they had maps and all abided by the same rules and cultural practices and met once a year to toke the peace pipe and compare notes.
215075
There was really no bad or good.  Just ignorance and greed on the part of the Europeans.  They thought that they were doing good when trying to convert the native peoples.  It just pissed the Indians off.  I agree that it was right of them to fight for their land, tho.
540876
It depends on who you talk to. Everyone will have a different opinion. You can't generalize one opinion for a group of different Native Nations.
463087
My opinion is yes.  Canadian Native Americans already have rights of the border, it should be opened up to others too.
710194
I think Native Americans are sooo nice!  I knew several full-blooded NA's from the Menominee tribe.  Very friendly folks. I think everyone believes NA's are still one with nature, even today.  I watched a lot of the Native American Grammy's (Nammy's?), and thought it was cool how the music ranged from folk music, pop, a reggaeton sound, and even almost hip-hop. I also liked how their dress, onstage, was from native attire to waaay more up-to-date than what I wear. I thought it proved that NA's don't just wear leather & feathers and play drums.  I think everyone feels guilty about the land that was taken away from people who initially welcomed the new visitors.  I have Shawnee blood in me from the Algonquian tribe.
140859
To take this further, i've often wondered of those who joined the war effort, the highest percentage of those who volunteered (per capita) were American Indians. \n\nFrom the American Indian perspective, war is viewed as a major disruption of the natural order of life and of the universe. Native American peoples conceptualize no separation between mind, body, spirit, and "religion," while the western society world-view (that of the U.S. majority) embraces a reductionistic/separatist conceptualization of a mind, body, and spirit. Thus, a more holistic paradigm of self, spirit, and nature is embraced by American Indian and Alaska Native peoples. Warriors are viewed as people who are placed not only in physical danger, but also in spiritual danger by their participation in war. All tribes see the warrior as sacrificing self (purposefully exposing oneself to trauma or even death) on behalf of the people; it is a role and an undertaking worthy of the highest respect. Thus, only the most serious reasons legitimize war. Veterans are held in the highest respect in each Tribe. The warrior tradition explains part of it, but defending one's home and way of life has always caused us to volunteer, even if its oversees.
993292
Native Americans are no different than any other group of people, we each have our own opinions and they are all different.  That is what makes humanity interesting and each person unique. History is  in the past, we can all learn from it.  That is why the USA made laws. By learning through years that some things need regulating. The immigration problem is one of those things.  Manifest Destiny is part of history.  So is the fact that the USA acquired land through winning a war.  The treaty, concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico was required to cede its claim to California and New Mexico, as well as lands in between them and to the north, to the United States and to recognize the Rio Grande as the southern and western boundary of Texas. In return, the United States paid Mexico a gratuitous $15 million cash and assumed some $3,250,000 more in claims of American citizens on the Mexican government. The USA never stole any land from Mexico.  Mexico lost that war, get over it.\n\nI am a Native American (half Cherokee)
305202
The Federal Government hitherto had employed various means of conflict resolution including gunboat diplomacy. However, of recent the involvement of local elders in negotiations seems to be fruitful. There are ongoing efforts to include these elders in the drafting of multilateral agreements between the communities, oil companies and government.
148319
"Cherokees, Easley staff discuss new gaming contract"\nhttp://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412469\n\n"The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians met in January with Gov. Mike Easley's legal adviser to discuss a new gaming agreement with the state as it seeks to add live poker at its casino, officials said."\n\n"Claim made on land planned for tribe"\nhttp://www.times-journal.com/report.lasso?WCD=5123\n\n"On Tuesday, former Fort Payne attorney Charles McGee filed a deed with the DeKalb County Probate Office, claiming one-half ownership of 69 acres of land that Hammonds has said he plans to deed to the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, currently based in Oklahoma."\n\n"Cigarette suit hinges on Cherokees' decision"\nhttp://www.durantdemocrat.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/news8.txt\n\n"The Cherokee Nation has 15 days to join area smoke-shop owners in a lawsuit over Oklahoma's new cigarette-tax rules or the legal challenge may be thrown out, a judge said Monday."
638161
It is a proven fact that Indigenous peoples were set up for failure. A little history for all of you who are so close minded that you can't even come up with a tangible answer...\n \n In 1786, the United States established its first "Native American" reservation and approached each tribe as an independent nation. This policy remained intact for more than one hundred years. But as President James Monroe noted in his second inaugural address in 1821, treating Native Americans this way “flattered their pride, retarded their improvement, and in many instances paved the way to their destruction.” \n\nIn addition, Monroe observed that America’s westward growth “has constantly driven them back, with almost the total sacrifice of the lands which they have been compelled to abandon. They have claims on the magnanimity and . . . on the justice of this nation which we must all feel.” Despite Monroe’s concern for the plight of Native Americans, his administration successfully removed them from states north of the Ohio River. \n \nYeah, so Monroe, like so many others may have sympathized with our mistreatment, but still did nothing to reverse the continuing cycle of Indigenous peoples suppression!!!
985216
Probably what these folks are referring to are government reparations, in the form of laws that have made Native Americans sovereign governments unto themselves - tribal governments that may operate businesses in international trade zones, etc. - such as casinos, even if they don't agree with state laws. I can't imagine anyone seeing this as "making it up to them" anymore than we can say I am of European heritage, so I did it to them {Actually, I am Cherokee, Spanish-Jew, European Catholic go figure}. We cannot, however, throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. In an attempt to 'repair' the damage done to the culture, standard of living, and gene pool as a whole, this decision was made. It is a constantly changing and growing, evolving thing....as the consequences of that decision evolve, we see results and all have to live with it and adjust. Here in Oklahoma, for instance, state highways and roads are paid for with public tax dollars to reach these 'international trade zones.' what about that? On the other hand, the tribes ALL provide an amazing amount of charity and other structural social good support to society at large here. Again, we have to deal with it as we go along -- just like the many tribes as ethnicities have had to struggle with many questions. Here, there are fights in the tribes I have heard about between the "pure" bloods, or 1/2 versus 1/8 blood, etc. It seems to never end. What I personally believe is important is recognizing and acknowledging what occurred, in its truthful entirety. A good step toward this is the first ever National Museum for Native Americans- see the site below. I personally have read much about the Trail of Tears and the book "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" still rips at my guts as I write this. These are tough issues with roots deep in the past. To compare this with 9-11 is, in my opinion, a fallacious argument at best; a disservice to a near genocidal event at worst. We cannot make such general, thoughtless statements off the cuff; after all, we are all Americans if we live in the 50 states, whether hyphenated with another lineage or not.
517151
Weren't the Indian's here before anyone??? Anyway...I say let 'em. If they can do it, then so be it. I doubt they'd ever be able to, but if they demanded it, I wouldn't hate them for it. They can do whatever they want, just like the rest of us. Just as long as they don't go to war over it, then I don't see the harm of them CLAIMING anything. Now, taking it, that's a different situation all together....That could get ugly, and I wouldn't want anyone getting hurt...