Wounded Knee land comes home at last

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  1stwarrior  •  3 weeks ago  •  41 comments

Wounded Knee land comes home at last

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



It was the last resolution of the day but it was a stunner.

The Oglala Sioux tribal council voted in an historic decision Sept. 7 to purchase 40 acres of Wounded Knee land from Jeanette Czywczynski for $500,000 – a move that now puts the entire Wounded Knee National Historic Landmark site under ownership of the Oglala Sioux.

Sold for far less than the $3.9 million price demanded by her now-deceased husband, James Czywczynski, the land now includes a covenant to preserve it as a sacred site and memorial without commercial development.

The vote passed with 15 members voting yes, three voting no and one member not voting. Those opposing the resolution expressed concern over allowing the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe 49 percent ownership of the land.

“Our tribes have come together through war and times of need. It’s not just our relatives buried there (on Wounded Knee land),” said council member Julian Spotted Bear, who supported the purchase.

According to the resolution, the Oglala Sioux tribe will pay $255,000 and the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe will pay $245,000 for the site, and agree to petition the U.S. Department of the Interior to take the land into trust on behalf of both tribes. The title to the land will be held in the name of the Oglala Sioux tribe.

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe made the decision to participate in the purchase about a week ago, according to Chairman Harold Frazier.

"Many of those massacred at Wounded Knee were from the Minneconjou band on Cheyenne River," Frazier said. 

"When I heard about it, I said, 'We have to buy it; let's buy it. That's our ancestors' resting place. We need to respect them,'" he said.

The agreement ends a decades-long dispute over land that is the site of the historic   Wounded Knee massacre   of 1890 in which hundreds of Lakota men, women and children were killed by U.S. soldiers of the 7th cavalry using machine guns in an attempt to suppress the Ghost Dance, a Lakota religious movement. Victims were buried in a mass grave in a nearby Catholic cemetery.

The property, which includes a portion of the Wounded Knee National Historic Landmark, has become a potent, painful reminder of brutal federal violence used to suppress Indigenous peoples.

Jeanette Czywczynski became sole owner of the property after her husband, James, died in 2019. James Czywczynski purchased the property in 1968.

The Czywczynski family operated a trading post and museum there until 1973, when American Indian Movement protesters occupied the site, destroying both the post and Czywczynski’s home.

The family moved away from the area and put the land up for sale, asking $3.9 million for the 40-acre parcel nearest the massacre site. The land, including an additional adjacent 40-acre plot, had been assessed at $14,000.

The issue of Wounded Knee ownership became a national symbol of a century of unscrupulous treatment of Native people by the U.S. government and non-Natives.

For a time, Czywczynski toyed with the idea of partnering with developers to build a motel and gas station near the site. He later offered the land to the Oglala Sioux tribe for sale but grew bitter and frustrated over negotiations.

Some tribal members wanted to develop the site for commercial purposes and some opposed such a plan, maintaining that it should be shielded from development and maintained as a sacred site.

In 2013, film star   Johnny Depp   announced a plan to buy the property and donate it to the Oglala Sioux tribe. Depp, who played the role of Tonto in a remake of the film, “The Lone Ranger,” was criticized for trying to capitalize on the film and for his misappropriation of Native culture. He was also criticized for making unsubstantiated claims of having Native ancestry. Depp did not follow through on the purchase.

In 2016, Lakota journalist Tim Giago, founder of   Indian Country Today , announced plans to purchase the Wounded Knee land for $3.9 million and went to work fundraising the purchase price.

Giago, who grew up in the town of Wounded Knee, said he wanted to put the land into trust for the entire Sioux Nation. Giago’s plans, however, fell through. He died in July 2022 at age 88.

The Oglala Sioux tribe already owned the land containing the Wounded Knee cemetery and mass grave of the 1890 massacre victims. Red Cloud Indian School recently returned about one acre of land to the tribe where Sacred Heart Church once stood.

Leaders from  the Oglala Sioux tribe did not respond to ICT’s request for comment. ICT was unable to reach Jeannette Czywczynski.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1  seeder  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

The issue of Wounded Knee ownership became a national symbol of a century of unscrupulous treatment of Native people by the U.S. government and non-Natives.

Finally - may those laying there lay there in peace and harmony - and may those and their descendents who committed this atrocity pay for their greed and stupidity.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago

“…pay for their greed and stupidity.”

At the very least, in acknowledging the event and our shame.

We will never fully pay for that tragedy…let us not continue the decades of insufferable ignorance.

Gratitude to you for keeping such atrocities in the fore. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2  CB   replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago

I don't know what to say, though my 'heart' is joyous for the Native people who are joyous! I am reading a book about a great many things Native Americans and one thing that I didn't know but am now aware of is how many different tribes/tribal names there are! As a Black person, much of the history of American Indians has not been 'extended' to me. So many questions! Maybe this article can add to our understanding.

Good on Native Americans!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago
and may those and their descendents who committed this atrocity pay for their greed and stupidity.

Howe do you want to see decedents pay?  Which decedents?  How should they pay? Please be specific. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3    3 weeks ago

First off I'm delighted that the two Sioux tribes were able to buy back the land that was originally illegally taken from them. 

Howe do you want to see decedents pay?  Which decedents?  How should they pay? Please be specific. 

It's actually quite an easy problem to solve. The US Government is a representative of the people and under that scenario, the US Government should honor the close to 400 treaties that were made with various Native nations. All have been broken by the US Government costing the tribes billions of dollars in lost land, lives and mineral rights. 

The Supreme Court held, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock(1903), that treaties with Indian tribes may be abrogated (broken) by federal law and Congress has abrogated many Indian treaties in this fashion. 

Honor their word and treaties, how what a novel concept. But it seems by the Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock decision that honor is a bridge too far for SCOTUS and congress.

I hope that is specific enough for you.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @1.3.1    3 weeks ago
It's actually quite an easy problem to solve. The US Government is a representative of the people and under that scenario, the US Government should honor the close to 400 treaties that were made with various Native nations. All have been broken by the US Government costing the tribes billions of dollars in lost land, lives and mineral rights.

Oh, so not the direct descendants as 1st warrior advocated but the country as a whole.

the US Government should honor the close to 400 treaties that were made with various Native nations. All have been broken by the US Government costing the tribes billions of dollars in lost land, lives and mineral rights. 

Is all of that land now Federal property, if so easy peasy.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.2    3 weeks ago
Oh, so not the direct descendants as 1st warrior advocated but the country as a whole.

I'm speaking for myself, I'm sure that 1st will be along to answer your question.

Is all of that land now Federal property, if so easy peasy.

No, some are federal and some are in private hands. I'm sure that you've heard of the ''land back'' or fractured land. Part of the Corbel settlement put aside a billion or so dollars to buy back fractured land on the reservations. Much of that dates back to the Dawes Act and of course, there is the infamous ''tribal termination act of 1953. 2,5 million acres of land were taken from tribes, and over 100 tribes lost their designations as Native American Indians and drove some tribes into deep poverty. 

If you really want to learn about Indian land and the US government read the ''Marshall Trilogy'' of SCOTUS, a good start to acquire the basic knowledge of how the US government passed laws to lay claim to Indian land. Follow that up with the Tribal Termination Act. 

Do you have anything to say about the actual article or are you going to continue with the deflections? It is, of course, your choice but my participation in your comments is now ended. 

Waanakiwin

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.3.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.2    3 weeks ago

“Is all of that land now Federal property, if so easy peasy.”

If only it were the original lands, then perhaps it would absolve our original sins. That will never happen, but it is never too late to make amends…

For a start, how about we provide running water, flushing toilets, and internet access to those relegated to the reservations?

Nothing is easy peasy, wry…and to so diminish the issues is to further excuse the discriminatory behaviors. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.3.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  afrayedknot @1.3.4    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

Yeah - kinda like "living up to" what you FORCED the Native Americans to give up to - but you're not willing to match your words with action.

Read ANY of the 376 treaties FORCED upon the Indian tribes - and they got what for what was taken - forcefully?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.3.6  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.2    3 weeks ago

Yes, and you know better - the "descendants" are the U.S. government who only know how to take and not give back.  Something the Native American communities/tribes/Nations have known and followed for countless centuries - you have to learn how to give before you can receive - simple - really damn simple.

There are well over 100 SCOTUS decisions that state Native American tribes/Nations are "Independent Nations" and, yet as with anything else the Feds do, as their super leader Andy Jackson stated and got away with - SCOTUS made their decision, let them enforce it?????  Bullshyte.

'Member this little phrase in the Constitution -

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Yeah - the "descendants" of those soldiers who shot, killed, massacred 346 old men, children and women are of the U.S. government.  That same government that gave 21 Medals of Honor to the hotchkiss operators, repeating rifle operators, COOKS, FIRE TENDERS who WILLFULLY shot unarmed, frozen Native Americans.  What treaty gave them that right or authority?  NONE.

As "afrayedknot" states in 1.3.4 - how 'bout living up to your word - honor your FORCED treaties - be a damn good start, eh?

"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown will give you a huge bit of background as to what has and is occurring within Indian Country - you should read it.  I know it wasn't part of any of the curriculum in the "O" schools I attended :-)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @1.3.1    3 weeks ago
All have been broken by the US Government costing

What about the treaties broken by Indian tribes? The people they slaughtered, raped etc?  

Let's all tally up all the wrongs done to any of our ancestors (whether they are actual ancestors or not) and spend our lives championing how oppressed we are because bad things happened to people we didn't know. 

Reparations for everyone

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.3.8  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.7    3 weeks ago
What about the treaties broken by Indian tribes?

Yes that happened so please provide a link to them.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.3.9  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.7    3 weeks ago

“…and spend our lives championing how oppressed we are because bad things happened to people we didn't know.”

Or we can choose to deny the inhumane acts perpetrated by our ancestors we may not have known in an attempt to whitewash the horrors.

Focus on reparations as you will, but guessing a simple acknowledgment of the genocide, the forced relocation, the tribal school abuses, and all the broken promises would be a rather simple place to start.

A good second step would be to listen to those directly affected, both past and present.

The final and wisest course of action would be just to shut the fuck up. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.3.10  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.7    3 weeks ago
What about the treaties broken by Indian tribes? The people they slaughtered, raped etc?  

Would you list those treaties? where there 400 hundred of them. Oh, and the people that they slaughtered and raped. Shall we start with 1492 and the following centuries when Europeans invaded our country, and we fought back when it was a stated policy to exterminate the ''Indian''.

No one, especially me spent my life championing how oppressed we are, I state facts something that whiners will never understand. As far as bad things happened to people we didn't even know is of course more nonsensical BS. Bad things have happened to Indians in the 20th and 21st century, your inability to comprehend factual evidence simply shows that nothing more than a bigoted viewpoint.

If you can factually dispute anything that I posted or anything in the article you should do it now or STFU.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @1.3.8    3 weeks ago

 that happened so please provide a link to them.

Lol. you imagine they didn't?  

You can start with the Treaty of Greenville. Indians refused to allow settlers on land they ceded to the US, including the slaughter of Americans at Fort Dearborn on land ceded to the USA.    

Google is your friend. There are many more 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.3.12  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.11    3 weeks ago

You made the claim, back it up.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @1.3.10    3 weeks ago
hall we start with 1492 and the following centuries when Europeans invaded our country, and we fought back when it was a stated policy to exterminate the ''Indian''.

Will you give reparations to the land that was stolen before 1492? What about the tribes who stole land from other tribes after 1492? Or was that okay?   

You can live in a simple world where Indians are perfect passive victims  and the Americans are evil, but reality was much more complicated. At some point we need to outgrow simple narratives.

As with every treaty since the beginning of time, both sides honored treaties when it was too their advantage. If it wasn't, they ignored or violated it. Events overtake treaties. No one thinks the  Peace of Augsburg is still binding on the countries who signed it. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.3.14  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.13    3 weeks ago
Will you give reparations to the land that was stolen before 1492? What about the tribes who stole land from other tribes after 1492? Or was that okay?   

Ah yes, deflect, deflect. We are speaking of when the Europeans first stumbled onto North America.

ou can live in a simple world where Indians are perfect passive victims  and the Americans are evil, but reality was much more complicated. At some point we need to outgrow simple narratives.

I, or anyone else here said that Natives were perfect passive victims. That would be, as usual, more BS from you. We fought numerous wars against the Europeans and the American government to defend ourselves and our land. As far as I know, fighting is not being passive. At some point you need to stop trying to pass BS as fact.

As with every treaty since the beginning of time, both sides honored treaties when it was too their advantage. If it wasn't, they ignored or violated it. Events overtake treaties. No one thinks the  Peace of Augsburg is still binding on the countries who signed it. 

Yet it was the US that violated or broke the vast vast majority of treaties that they signed with NA tribes. 

The Treaty of Greenville that you post as Indians broke it the fact of the matter is this.

Even after their surrender at Fallen Timbers, many Native Indians refused to honor the Treaty of Greenville. As white settlers continued to move on to land reserved for the tribes by the agreement, violence between the two peoples also continued. In the early 1800s, tribal leaders like Tecumseh and the Prophet carried on the American Indian’s struggle to regain their lost land. 
https://www.thoughtco.com/treaty-of-greenville-4776234#:~:text=Under%20the%20treaty%2C%20the%20defeated,trading%20posts%20in%20their%20territory.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.13    3 weeks ago

Was any of the land the Europeans wanted to appropriate for themselves occupied when the Europeans first landed in America? 

How long did it take for the Europeans to come into contact with natives after they first landed in any particular location? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @1.3.4    3 weeks ago

I diminished nothing.  Again, stolen land that remains in the federal government can be returned relatively easy.  Other lands, not so much.  I don’t know why that is hard for you to grasp,

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.6    3 weeks ago
Yes, and you know better - the "descendants" are the U.S. government

I had no clue that by descendants, you meant today’s federal government.

who only know how to take and not give back. 

There is something that we can easily agree on.

Something the Native American communities/tribes/Nations have known and followed for countless centuries - you have to learn how to give before you can receive - simple - really damn simple.

That was a unifying principle followed by all native people?

as with anything else the Feds do, as their super leader Andy Jackson stated and got away with - SCOTUS made their decision, let them enforce it?????  Bullshyte.

I don’t know what this means.  Buffalo shit.

What treaty gave them that right or authority?  NONE.

You have mastered the obvious.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown will give you a huge bit of background as to what has and is occurring within Indian Country - you should read it.

I did, many years ago.  Perhaps I should reread it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.18  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.15    3 weeks ago
Was any of the land the Europeans wanted to appropriate for themselves occupied when the Europeans first landed in America? 

Yes.

How long did it take for the Europeans to come into contact with natives after they first landed in any particular location? 

Not long.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.5    3 weeks ago
and they got what for what was taken - forcefully?

Huh?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.3.20  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.17    2 weeks ago

After the SCOTUS rulings by the Marshall court stated that the Cherokee lands belonged to the Cherokee and that the Feds and state of Georgia were trespassing and are not allowed on the lands without permission from the Cherokee, Andy "Long Knife" Jackson, President of the U.S., told the court to pound sand by basically saying - you made the decision, your protect the lands 'cause I'm gonna take'm - and he did.

So much for following the SCOTUS decisions.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.3.21  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.19    2 weeks ago

I know - too early to type sometimes for me :-).

What I meant was that the tribes/Nations, in most/many cases, received pretty much nothing from the Feds under the "Treaty Era".  A pie in the sky approach with nothing but crumbs given.

Example - many/most of the treaties stated that, in exchange for your millions of acres of land, the Feds will furnish medical assistance, education facilities, churches, jobs, housing, infrastructure for roads/bridges/highways, electricity, etc., with no end dates.  However, what the Tribes/Nations received wasn't anywhere near what the treaty "promised".

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.3.22  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.7    2 weeks ago

Sean - the treaties that the tribes/Nations broke??  Really and truly, the only part of a treaty that the tribes/Nations could break would be the failure of getting off the lands that the U.S. listed in the treaty.  Neither the tribes/Nations had anything  they could further give the U.S. - except more lives of their peoples.

Example - Georgia - Cherokee - the court sided with the Cherokees and ruled that Indian nations are capable of making treaties, that under the Constitution treaties are the supreme law of the land, that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation, and that state law had no force within the Cherokee boundaries. Typically, Georgia simply ignored the ruling and the federal government (judicial and executive branches) did nothing to enforce it.

That happened a lot - more times than folks realize.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1    3 weeks ago

So this land was purchased from Jeanette Czywczynski ?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.4.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    2 weeks ago

purchase 40 acres of Wounded Knee land from Jeanette Czywczynski for $500,000

Yes - stated in the thread.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

She may be a hero of sorts, in all of this?


The Czywczynski family operated a trading post and museum there until 1973, when American Indian Movement protesters occupied the site, destroying both the post and Czywczynski’s home.

At the very least: a forgiving soul?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2  Ender    3 weeks ago

With two factions owning the land I cannot understand some people's concerns. Fighting over what to do with the land could result.

Keeping it all natural and no development Imo would be the best way to go.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1  Kavika   replied to  Ender @2    3 weeks ago
the land now includes a covenant to preserve it as a sacred site and memorial without commercial development.
 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Ender  replied to  Kavika @2.1    3 weeks ago

Could that be enforceable though? I don't know. I would think after they bought it they could do whatever they want.

Is Wounded Knee a tourist spot? If so I could see something built like a visitor center or preservation center or something.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Ender @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.2  Ender  replied to  Ender @2    3 weeks ago
I cannot understand

Should have been can understand. I think.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4  CB     3 weeks ago

original

Signed by President Obama (2010). 

Note the Disclaimer: (7)(b).  This apology was deemed controversial by many Indian groups, as it was buried in a defense appropriation bill and did not offer a 'repair' of anything substantial.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5  CB     2 weeks ago
"You can not  discover land already inhabited."


President Thomas Jefferson told a gathering of tribal leaders in Washington, DC, “that they owned their lands and possessed the legal rights of use and occupancy, and that the United States was the only possible buyer of their lands whenever they were willing to sell.” ¹⁸ In the following administration, the Americans would claim against the British Empire, the “right of preemption because Indian nations did not have ‘the right to sell their lands to whom they pleased’ or ‘to dispose of their lands to any private persons, nor to any Power other than the United States.’ ” ¹⁹ 


Using the Doctrine of Discovery to declare themselves the only eligible purchaser of tribal lands, the United States government manipulated the land market by creating a monopoly through which it was able to suppress land prices, thus effectively cheating Native tribes out of their lands. These actions reveal the diseased social imagination of the United States government, as it brazenly claimed its “promised land” from a defeated, and supposedly inferior, people. As Kades points out: “The meager surviving bands ceded their lands in large part for the protection of the United States."


²⁰ Both claims in the M’Intosh case, therefore, held specious claims on the land. The land purchased from the Native tribes would have been purchased under duress and for an unreasonably low sum. The United States government claimed jurisdiction over the land based upon power and authority over the Native groups that had diminished in number in the land.


Furthermore, there is evidence that indicates that the case itself was a sham that was brought to establish land rights over Natives rather than adjudicate an actual land dispute. Ultimately, the Supreme Court case would claim to consider two different claims of ownership of the land: one obtained the land from Native tribes, while the other obtained the same land through the US government.


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant (Johnson) who had purchased the land from the United States government. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, in a unanimous opinion referenced the Doctrine of Discovery as a legal precedent for the ruling:  


As they [European colonizing nations] were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between them- selves. This principle was, that discovery gave title [emphasis ours] to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. 


So in the end, the discovery doctrine of the fifteenth century was established as a legal instrument that governed land acquisition and land ownership in nineteenth-century North America. The court acknowledged that a group of European colonizers created a governing doctrine that determined land title rights among the European nations.


Native rights would not be taken into account because those rights would be superseded by the authority of the Christian European governments over against all other claims. The Doctrine of Discovery, steeped in the diseased social and theological imagination of Anglo-Saxon ethnic purity and European Christian supremacy, would be- come the rationale for the M’Intosh decision.


Source: Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery

Written by Mark Charles and Soong-Chan Rah  page 126.

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Guide
6  Diablo Imperius    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
6.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Diablo Imperius @6    2 weeks ago

So, when the bank takes your property because you haven't made payments, who's the loser - you for not making payments (U. S. government) or the bank for sticking to the contract both of you signed (Native American tribes)???

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Diablo Imperius  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB     2 weeks ago
Georges Erasmus, a respected Aboriginal leader from Canada, said,

“Where common memory is lacking, where people do not share in the same past, there can be no real community. Where community is to be formed, common memory must be created.”

. . . .

European immigrants and their descendants have one memory. A romanticized memory of God-ordained discovery and conquest, empty lands, cheap labor, Manifest Destiny, and exceptionalism. While minorities, including Native Americans and African Americans , have a very different historical and lived experience which includes stolen lands, slavery, genocide, broken treaties, segregation, mass incarceration, boarding schools, and systemic dehumanization.

There are certain areas and groups in the United States that have not bonded well or lack bonding at all with other groups in America. It is these groups that are stirring up troubles for the rest of the republic which is striving to improve relationships across the country. Mainly these are white majority groups, pining away about the long gone past—which can not sustain itself—and wanting desperately to bring it back!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8  CB     2 weeks ago

Racism is a sin and religious folks ought to be ashamed to own it. Indeed they ought to shun it.

 
 

Who is online


MrFrost
dennissmith


25 visitors