Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!gatech!akgua!akguc!mtune!mtuxo!houxm!hropus!riccb!ihopa!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!vector From: vector@inuxe.UUCP (Randal Blackwood) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: American Indians - Persecution of? Message-ID: <798@inuxe.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jul-86 16:19:51 EDT Article-I.D.: inuxe.798 Posted: Wed Jul 2 16:19:51 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jul-86 05:49:33 EDT References: <688@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> <2000@osu-eddie.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis Lines: 46 > >In <688@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> howellg@idec.stc.co.uk (Gareth Howell) writes: > >I heard on a news bulletin this morning (23/6/86) that a delegation of > >American Indians were in London to tell the UK government and the > >world about the > >planned forced mass transportation of 10,000 American Indians from > >their reservation in Arizona because someone has found mineral wealth > >beneath it. I don't know whether this is the case your talking about or not, but I heard a long piece on Nat'l. Public Radio, today about an Indian problem. My understanding of the news piece was: There is a piece of land in Arizona that has been occupied by both the Hopi and the Apache Indians. There apparently has been some kind of a dispute of the land for some 50 years. In the early 1960s a declaration was made that the land was to be used in dual occupancy. Apparently in 1973 this decision was reversed and I believe the Hopi (or maybe it was the Apache) were told to vacate the land by I think July 7, 1986. Unfortunately I didn't hear the whole discussion, but I think there were some Indians who weren't opposed to it and some that were. There was some speculation that part of the reason for the decision was that now mining companies would only have to deal with one Indian tribe instead of two. Also there seems to have been a lot of mining done on a nearby Apache reservation, and a strip mine exists right out side of this piece of land. My overall impression from what I heard is that this is a very complicated situation, which does not necessarily involve only a mining dispute. I had a hard time gathering enough information to make a good evaluation, but I would not be surprised if the deal is shady. As far as our treatment to American Indians, there is no question that our past has not been a totally equitable situation, not a thing to be proud of. However, unlike S. Africa, the Indians are not forced to live on reservations. I believe if desired they can live where ever they want to. We do have other programs design to help minorities, one being Affirmative Action, even with as much damage as this program has taken by the Reagan administration, the program is still alive, at least it is here at my workplace. I know the Am. Indians have been rather quite over the last ten years. In the early 70s the Indians tried hard to get better treatment. Unfortunately, I am not in close enough contact to know if they are quite now because they got what they wanted or if it is just they are tired of fighting. Randy Blackwood inuxe!vector