Thoughts on tribal rights?

[Tallpine]

Why don't we just bomb the reservations until they agree to a "regime change"

 

[BridgeRunner]

Merely as an aside, we (American Indians) were typically on the side of the treaties having always been unfair.

What I do find interesting are the Native losers that -- now -- decide that treaties negotiated at gun point are, now, a good thing.

Hypocrites.

I have no idea what you are saying. 

By way of analogy: of I make a bad business deal due to the other party's fraud, you are saying that I should then refuse to invest the pittance I got from the bad deal, and forever refrain from turning the proceeds of that deal into something profitable for me, because it is hypocritical to profit from a deal I was swindled into?

[Gewehr98]

No bombing of reservations, please.

I enjoy giving the Ho-Chunk Nation (formerly known as the Winnebago Tribe) my gambling dollars on weekends.  They have a great buffet, and I'm paying them $35.00/person to go see Foreigner in concert at their casino on the 23rd.

They're also making a buffalo reservation at the former army ammunition plant, and will have guided hunts.  I plan on taking my Sharps for the privilege of stuffing my freezer with buffalo steaks soon.

Not only that, but if it weren't for the Indian gambling casinos, I don't know what my bingo-playing grandmother would do with all her time and money.     

[freakazoid]

What I do find interesting are the Native losers that -- now -- decide that treaties negotiated at gun point are, now, a good thing.

Because like what Bridgwalker said, they are losing what was even given to them in the treaty.

[Ezekiel]

What I do find interesting are the Native losers that -- now -- decide that treaties negotiated at gun point are, now, a good thing.

Because like what Bridgwalker said, they are losing what was even given to them in the treaty.

That's akin to me selling you my house for $20 (at gunpoint) then, later, saying the $20 was a "good deal" because it gets me a a free photo of Andrew Jackson.  Almost to say, over time, the twenty has become acceptable and we, now, support the treaties.

It's not, I don't.  (Black folk would call that being a House N*****.)

We weren't "given" anything.

[BridgeRunner]

That's akin to me selling you my house for $20 (at gunpoint) then, later, saying the $20 was a "good deal" because it gets me a a free photo of Andrew Jackson.  Almost to say, over time, the twenty has become acceptable and we, now, support the treaties.

It's not, I don't.  (Black folk would call that being a House N*****.)

We weren't "given" anything.

I just don't see that being anywhere near the universal attitude.  The long-suffering thing seems more common:  "They forced me, at gunpoint, to sell my house for $20, and my only consolation is that that $20 bill turned out to be a super-rare misprinted version that turns out to be worth 5 bajilion buckaroos.  At least I can eat and have a roof over my head, but damn I miss my house. 

But then, it seems some black folk would qualify being affluent through any "white" mechanism (i.e. not gang activity and drugs) as being a house n......

And I just don't get that. 

But then, I'm Jewish.  And Catholic.  Pick yer stereotype, we don't tend to feel guilty about liking the cash.