3 ms·
It's more complicated than that, at least now. Having land, even crummy land away from the ancestral homeland, is better than not having land, because: a) you
by sterlind 6y ago
It's more complicated than that, at least now. Having land, even crummy land away from the ancestral homeland, is better than not having land, because:
a) you can afford to live there, as an extremely economically disadvantaged group.
b) your tribe is in one place, instead of scattered, which makes it possible to continue to have a group identity and
c) you have at least limited autonomy.
I know people in tribes that have been shafted by the BIA and refused official recognition or land. It hurts. See the documentary "Promised Land" [0] for their account.
0. https://www.promisedlanddoc.com/ https://www.promisedlanddoc.com/
- kingkawn 6y agoA) in utter poverty created by the wars to expel and corral them into small, infertile, resourceless areas B) It is good to be with your folks, I agree, even when forced into captivity together C) their autonomy is violated essentially at whim by the fed, state, and local governments since the reservation system was created. You can see this happening now with Gov Noam in South Dakota and the Lakota
- sterlind 6y agoOh, I'm totally in agreement that the situation is unfair and that the US government engaged in genocide and cultural extermination of native peoples, and that reservations were created as ghettos for Indians so the whites could take their desirable lands. I am merely pointing out that there are tribes that have been denied federal recognition or reservations and want them, because a crappy deal is still better than no deal.
- kingkawn 6y agoSure. But I was responding to the initial comment suggesting that the overwhelming spread in their community represented a failure of governance on their part in comparison to national governments like Vietnam