Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!uci-ics!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder
From: byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes
Subject: Re: Chippewa Spearfishing Update
Summary: Rights of indians
Keywords: Treaty Rights, Racisism, Native Americans
Message-ID: <523@smcnet.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 90 05:19:46 GMT
References: <1586@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> <12685@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: Santa Monica College Telecom, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 123

In article <12685@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>, kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) writes:

> Thanks for the information, Carl.  A number of anti-treaty groups
> have organized to fight the Indian's rights.  

Why is it right that people whose ancestors lived here before
ancestors of other people should have some kind of "extra rights"
because of their race?  Shouldn't indians have all the same-but-no-more
rights as anyone else?

> The groups have used
> a variety of propaganda techniques to gain support.  They have
> claimed that in the interest of "Equal Rights for Everyone", no
> group should have "extra rights".  

What is invalid about claims like those?  Would you argue if I said
that you have fewer rights than someone else?

[ Stuff about fishing rates deleted ]
 
> The "equal rights" claim shows an ignorance of both history and
> law.  American Indians are *not* legally just like any other
> citizen.  Indians have a special legal status as tribes and as
> individuals.  

It is true that in the past indians have been granted extra rights
(as well as been denied some others that the rest of us enjoy).  The
question at hand is whether this is the way it should be.  A hundred
years ago (roughly) we had laws that gave special status to slaves too
(we even had a few of them 20 years ago), were those laws proper?
One who accuses others of ignorance of historical facts should know that
the US was founded on the idea that all people have equal rights
and should not be treated differently based on irrelevant factors
such as ancestry.

> This status is the result of an invasion of
> immigrants upon their lands and the subsequent treaties that,
> unfair as they might be, are the only attempt to insure that the
> indigenous people of America are treated justly. 

Lots of laws in the past have been unjust (slavery laws for example)
and they were repealed.  Why should indian beneficiaries of unjust
laws get off the hook any easier than slave owners did? (I'm not equating
indians with slave owners morally, but they are both beneficiaries
of unjust laws).
 
> Treaties are the supreme law of the land, having precedence
> over the constitution.  To suggest that non-Indians have the same
> rights to lands protected by Indian treaties is to suggest that
> it's ok to renege on an agreement.

You mean like the agreements that ensured that no blacks could
move into your neighborhood? I don't claim that the issue is simple,
but the perspective that indian citizens are not given "equal protection
under the law" (sometimes that benefits them, other times not) deserves
some deep consideration don't you think? 

 
> To encourage the state and federal governments to try to break
> treaties or buy out treaty rights is to encourage them to engage
> in illegal activity, compromise their credibility and deny their
> integrity.  

How does that differ in principle from this statement?

"To encourage the state and federal governments to try to break ownership
of legally purchased slaves is to encourage them to engage in illegal
activity, compromise their credibility and deny their integrity."

> Denying Indian treaties is as bad as denying treaties
> with the Soviet Union or any other sovereign nation.  It is
> unethical to fail to honor a treaty with another nation just
> because that nation has a smaller population.  Otherwise, one is 
> subscribing to a code of ethics that "might makes right" and is
> therefore denying the possibility of ever living in peace.

The basis for breaking such treaties would not be "might makes right",
it would be "all men are created equal".
 
> Although anti-treaty groups have appealed to such noble concepts
> as equal rights and conservation, their actions throughout their
> campaigns have been marked by violence, including pipe-bombs, and
> racial hatred.

These are of course wrong, and should be condemned by all interested
(and uninterested) parties.  Don't lump everyone who is skeptical of
indian claims to extra rights into that mold, it's not accurate.
 
> The true nature of anti-treaty groups such as Equal Rights for
> Everyone, Protect American's Rights and Resources (PARR) and Stop
> Treaty Abuse (STA) became apparent in 1989 when they were joined
> in their movement by the Aryan Nation.

If that's true, it does seem to being questions about their motives
doesn't it?  Those organizations aside, there are important moral
and philosophical points to be discussed on this issue.  I'd rather
discuss those than whether violent creeps agree with one side of
the issue or another.
 
> If anyone is concerned about this and other racist movements
> against Indians, please write to Congress and also please
> subscribe to NativeNet by sending email to:
> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us

If the issue of racist movements arises, I'll be the first to defend
indians or anyone else.  I think I'll subscribe.

> because maybe we can help get something organized for April 1990.

[ Stuff about anti-treaty rally deleted ]

> HONOR Our Neighbors' Original Rights!

As long as you are talking about universal rights, you are right, if you
are talking about rights based on race, you had better be ready for a
lot of disagreement.

Brian
-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-