Us Should Return Stolen Land To Indian Tribes, Says United Nations

[Singh559]

We talk about the horrific genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis that the world fought against but no one talks about the largest recorded genocide, especially not in the USA. 98 million Native Americans all wiped out by the first biological warfare weapon - blankets. Not just any sort of blankets, they were blankets plagued with smallpox given to the Native Americans by the settlers in hopes to wipe out populations without actually engaging in warfare. Have a look at this article:

http://www.guardian....ndian-tribes-un

edit- accidentally made this in the wrong section, plz move it to news section.

A Native American at his home on Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota, which has some of the US's poorest living conditions. Photograph: Jennifer Brown/Star Ledger/Corbis

A United Nations investigator probing discrimination against Native Americans has called on the US government to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward combatting continuing and systemic racial discrimination.

James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said no member of the US Congress would meet him as he investigated the part played by the government in the considerable difficulties faced by Indian tribes.

Anaya said that in nearly two weeks of visiting Indian reservations, indigenous communities in Alaska and Hawaii, and Native Americans now living in cities, he encountered people who suffered a history of dispossession of their lands and resources, the breakdown of their societies and "numerous instances of outright brutality, all grounded on racial discrimination".

"It's a racial discrimination that they feel is both systemic and also specific instances of ongoing discrimination that is felt at the individual level," he said.

Anaya said racism extended from the broad relationship between federal or state governments and tribes down to local issues such as education.

"For example, with the treatment of children in schools both by their peers and by teachers as well as the educational system itself; the way native Americans and indigenous peoples are reflected in the school curriculum and teaching," he said.

"And discrimination in the sense of the invisibility of Native Americans in the country overall that often is reflected in the popular media. The idea that is often projected through the mainstream media and among public figures that indigenous peoples are either gone or as a group are insignificant or that they're out to get benefits in terms of handouts, or their communities and cultures are reduced to casinos, which are just flatly wrong."

Close to a million people live on the US's 310 Native American reservations. Some tribes have done well from a boom in casinos on reservations but most have not.

Anaya visited an Oglala Sioux reservation where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national average, and life expectancy is about 50 years.

The two Sioux reservations in South Dakota – Rosebud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country's poorest living conditions, including mass unemployment and the highest suicide rate in the western hemisphere with an epidemic of teenagers killing themselves.

"You can see they're in a somewhat precarious situation in terms of their basic existence and the stability of their communities given that precarious land tenure situation. It's not like they have large fisheries as a resource base to sustain them. In basic economic terms it's a very difficult situation. You have upwards of 70% unemployment on the reservation and all kinds of social ills accompanying that. Very tough conditions," he said.

Anaya said Rosebud is an example where returning land taken by the US government could improve a tribe's fortunes as well as contribute to a "process of reconciliation".

"At Rosebud, that's a situation where indigenous people have seen over time encroachment on to their land and they've lost vast territories and there have been clear instances of broken treaty promises. It's undisputed that the Black Hills was guaranteed them by treaty and that treaty was just outright violated by the United States in the 1900s. That has been recognised by the United States supreme court," he said.

Anaya said he would reserve detailed recommendations on a plan for land restoration until he presents his final report to the UN human rights council in September.

"I'm talking about restoring to indigenous peoples what obviously they're entitled to and they have a legitimate claim to in a way that is not devisive but restorative. That's the idea behind reconciliation," he said.

But any such proposal is likely to meet stiff resistance in Congress similar to that which has previously greeted calls for the US government to pay reparations for slavery to African-American communities.

Anaya said he had received "exemplary cooperation" from the Obama administration but he declined to speculate on why no members of Congress would meet him.

"I typically meet with members of the national legislature on my country visits and I don't know the reason," he said.

Last month, the US justice and interior departments announced a $1 billion settlement over nearly 56 million acres of Indian land held in trust by Washington but exploited by commercial interests for timber, farming, mining and other uses with little benefit to the tribes.

The attorney general, Eric Holder, said the settlement "fairly and honourably resolves historical grievances over the accounting and management of tribal trust funds, trust lands and other non-monetary trust resources that, for far too long, have been a source of conflict between Indian tribes and the United States."

But Anaya said that was only a step in the right direction.

"These are important steps but we're talking about mismanagement by the government of assets that were left to indigenous peoples," he said. "This money for the insults on top of the injury. It's not money for the initial problem itself, which is the taking of vast territories. This is very important and I think the administration should be commended for moving forward to settle these claims but there are these deeper issues that need to be addressed."

[dalsingh101]

The narrative that dominates the media today (and for some time in the past) is the western/Anglocentric one. When you read pieces like this it makes you realise just how powerful that narrative is. Those in positions of power have the ability to turn render their own misdeeds practically invisible whilst at the same time keeping similar actions by others in the spotlight and thus influencing public perceptions on a grand scale The Internet offers the attractive opportunity for alternative narratives emerging but people seem to consume media like sheep.

An interesting question: If we theoretically did away with the dominant 'Anglospheric' narrative of the world/world history or at least brought its dominance down to a more equal level to alternatives, how would that effect our perception of the world?

I've been thinking about the media a lot these days. What with all the hoo ha with the very dubious connections between the British government and Rupert Murdoch's media empire doing the rounds here. Also saw the last season (5) of the brilliant US series 'The wire' which focuses on the media.

There are a lot of truths out there - society seems to be bombarded with a small group of 'selective truths' from amongst these, the others are negated through silence. And I haven't even mention the world of spin and outright lies that we get told yet!

It's no accident that those who have suffered the most are often the ones who have the least voice. As Sikhs, personally I believe it's important that we try and elevate ourselves above the 'illusion' that seems to be spun around us through media and try to find a more balanced truth about the world we live in. And that's without jumping onto wacky conspiracy theories.

PS - I think you need to careful of statements such as

"We talk about the horrific genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis that the world fought against "

The world didn't fight to prevent the genocide of Jews or Nazis. I think it wouldn't be too far out to suggest that vast swathes of the world were largely ignorant of what was happening to the Jews at the time of WW2. Although some higher level people may have had intel, the full extent of the Jewish genocide only emerged after the war.

[Singh559]

Yep, the media does control and filter what information is given to the population. I'd argue, at least here in the USA, that it's the 4th branch of government. It's a tool used by the government to influence support for predetermined foreign policy decisions. Fear is the easiest way to control a large group of people. For example: if you don't convert to my religion, you won't go to heaven. Sikhs should rise against the conditions we're in and be proactive in uncovering the truth with a neutral lens.

"We talk about the horrific genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis that the world fought against "

The world didn't fight to prevent the genocide of Jews or Nazis. I think it wouldn't be too far out to suggest that vast swathes of the world were largely ignorant of what was happening to the Jews at the time of WW2. Although some higher level people may have had intel, the full extent of the Jewish genocide only emerged after the war.

I guess you're right.

[VanHelsingh]

We talk about the horrific genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis that the world fought against but no one talks about the largest recorded genocide, especially not in the USA. 98 million Native Americans all wiped out by the first biological warfare weapon - blankets. Not just any sort of blankets, they were blankets plagued with smallpox given to the Native Americans by the settlers in hopes to wipe out populations without actually engaging in warfare. Have a look at this article:

The facts would sadly interfere with the narrative mentioned by Dalsingh, and America doesn't want it's heroic history and ongoing existence to be criticised in any way.

If you read literature and how study how stories, narratives, etc., are composed, you begin to realise how the real world and the events which happen to people around the world are also constructed and edited to fit these epic, as-old-as-time tales of good overcoming evil.

It is not defeatist to say this is a white man's world. He shall never concede control, unless the winds of change are so irresistibly strong, and only then will he modify his stance according to the popular mood, i.e. how Mandela's legend was transformed from a militant to a saint-like figure, and the subsequent fawning over his achievements by everyone from American presidents to heads of western monarchies. Why? Because it suited the agenda at the time.

Anyone wishing to change the narrative who isn't part of the controlling agenda is ostracised, cast-out into the wilderness, ridiculed - or removed permanently.

EDIT: This is one of the reasons someone such as Sant Jarnail Singh will never be accepted into the offical narrative as a freedom fighter or a man of honour, by the controlling powers. It's because his cause and his agenda did not fit the template of how things should happen according to those pulling the strings - or simply enough the Sikh cause isn't important enough to warrant such upheaval for little to no gain for those in power.

[dalsingh101]

Asides from popular media - high level academic stuff also plays its part in helping to form the 'mainstream' agenda. So we are sort of stuck in a matrix of information pumping mechanisms from trashy tabloid to high brow 'dissertations'.

I would speak of creating and pushing a 'Sikh' narrative but I doubt even the majority of apnay would subscribe to it. It's quite eye opening to see how in the end, the factors which influence individual behaviour for most societies are plain old fashioned ones, like employment, status, security. Until Sikhs can offer this to their own people independently (no small task!), we'll have our work cut out for us.

Nice post above Kaljugi.

[VanHelsingh]

I would speak of creating and pushing a 'Sikh' narrative but I doubt even the majority of apnay would subscribe to it.

You can't drop that and then retreat into the shadows! Give us something! :biggrin2:

[dalsingh101]

You can't drop that and then retreat into the shadows! Give us something! :biggrin2:

Okay. lol

You know what I think (no, what I KNOW!) the secret is. Subtlety and pervasiveness. Any theoretical 'Sikh narrative' (indeed any narrative) needs to get put out there in multiple forms, using exiting mechanisms AND through newly created ones. Unrealistic idealism has to be discarded at the outset. It has to appear 'rational', 'common sense' and universal. It has to avoid 'rightwing' and 'lefty' labels. It has to be put out there in high brow forms as well as trashy popular forms for the masses. Think about the way The Times and The Sun (both owned by the same people) put their respective messages out.

When you think about it, we will reach most of our own people if we get to them through 'official' outlets and whatever the 'Sikh narrative' is, it must appeal to a broad range of people who aren't Sikh! It has to offer an effortless alternative and be out there, inescapable to all other than hermits. And we do need to silence some of our own to do this in my opinion - those who crawl up edl/bnp backsides being an example of such types.

The most important thing is that the narrative is something that the majority of apnay genuinely believe in - from their hearts and live by, by and large. The Sikh narrative cannot appear to be Sikh, but 'mainstream'. It must resonate with a broad spectrum and be an alternative to existing crap.

To give a little more substance to that, maybe a focus on historiography, awareness of the social sciences used in media and advertising and the indoctrinal nature of education are aspects we'd want to touch on without sounding like paranoid schizos. Narratives can be put across as comedy, written pieces, video.

If you notice western media like the BBC, they make a point to get black and brown faces fronting their buckwas to give it a cosmopolitan feel, even though those people will be coconuts who have been carefully vetted before.

This is really about contesting what we take for 'reality' or 'truth' in this day and age. Fact on the ground is that factors that influence what we accept in this capacity are frequently determined by the most arbitrary things like the looks of the person supplying the info. The 'officialness' of the source etc.

[VanHelsingh]

Okay. lol

You know what I think (no, what I KNOW!) the secret is. Subtlety and pervasiveness. Any theoretical 'Sikh narrative' (indeed any narrative) needs to get put out there in multiple forms, using exiting mechanisms AND through newly created ones. Unrealistic idealism has to be discarded at the outset. It has to appear 'rational', 'common sense' and universal. It has to avoid 'rightwing' and 'lefty' labels. It has to be put out there in high brow forms as well as trashy popular forms for the masses. Think about the way The Times and The Sun (both owned by the same people) put their respective messages out.

When you think about it, we will reach most of our own people if we get to them through 'official' outlets and whatever the 'Sikh narrative' is, it must appeal to a broad range of people who aren't Sikh! It has to offer an effortless alternative and be out there, inescapable to all other than hermits. And we do need to silence some of our own to do this in my opinion - those who crawl up edl/bnp backsides being an example of such types.

The most important thing is that the narrative is something that the majority of apnay genuinely believe in - from their hearts and live by, by and large. The Sikh narrative cannot appear to be Sikh, but 'mainstream'. It must resonate with a broad spectrum and be an alternative to existing crap.

To give a little more substance to that, maybe a focus on historiography, awareness of the social sciences used in media and advertising and the indoctrinal nature of education are aspects we'd want to touch on without sounding like paranoid schizos. Narratives can be put across as comedy, written pieces, video.

If you notice western media like the BBC, they make a point to get black and brown faces fronting their buckwas to give it a cosmopolitan feel, even though those people will be coconuts who have been carefully vetted before.

This is really about contesting what we take for 'reality' or 'truth' in this day and age. Fact on the ground is that factors that influence what we accept in this capacity are frequently determined by the most arbitrary things like the looks of the person supplying the info. The 'officialness' of the source etc.

Yeah you're right. We aren't capable of the above. :lol2:

Seriously, the change needs to come from the top, i.e. the official, sacred institutions back home, in order for even the mildly conservative factions within the Sikh faith to be aware of what's going on - and most importantly endorse such action.

Whilst our institutions such as the Akal Takhat Sahib are theologically sound (for all intents and purposes, minus political wrangling), the above kind of strategising and planning is way, way beyond them, and sadly, I think, those of us who do attempt to instigate some kind of action using the above methods will always be on the fringes or peered at in strange curiosity like some exotic animals performing tricks for an audience.

Oh well.

[dalsingh101]

<div>

Seriously, the change needs to come from the top, i.e. the official, sacred institutions back home. Whilst they are theologically sound (for all intents and purposes), the above kind of strategising and planning is way, way beyond them, and sadly, I think, those of us who do attempt to instigate some kind of action using the above methods will always be on the fringes or peered at in strange curiosity like some exotic animals performing tricks for an audience.<br />

<br />

Oh well.

I don't know if I share your pessimism, personally I'm quite impressed by bits and pieces I see from apnay out there. Especially those funny satirical videos of Panjabis/Sikhs that come from Canada. Like Jus Reign, AKAamazing, superwomen and that. Sure some of it is plain goofy, but some of it has very keen and perceptive observations behind it. Plus these guys have proved that WE CAN attract big audiences, which I doubted before.

The possibilities and potential out there are massive given modern technology. Maybe we need to focus on developing and encouraging talent?

[VanHelsingh]

<div>

I don't know if I share your pessimism, personally I'm quite impressed by bits and pieces I see from apnay out there. Especially those funny satirical videos of Panjabis/Sikhs that come from Canada. Like Jus Reign, AKAamazing, superwomen and that. Sure some of it is plain goofy, but some of it has very keen and perceptive observations behind it. Plus these guys have proved that WE CAN attract big audiences, which I doubted before.

The possibilities and potential out there are massive given modern technology. Maybe we need to focus on developing and encouraging talent?

I'm a glass half-empty kind of guy. :biggrin2: I guess if the will is there and it is strong enough, then I suppose someone will have to take notice.