Again, I am not suggesting rectifying past wrongs ... lest we give Rome back to the Romans and then back to those who the Romans took it from.
On the contrary, I am only addressing a limited point of honoring our existing treaties that are valid in 2005 with the American Indians ... failure to that is shame on us, not our ancestors. Just as we are not responsible for what they did, neither are they responsible for what we fail to do. - Jim W.
I think your right, we should honor all the agreements. That would give a good majority of the country back to the native Americans. They believe in the concept of the full circle of life and that might turn us around and head us back into the right direction. Right now all we seem to give them are the rights to build casinos. They run them a lot better then the mob does and freely give the money back to the environment and local needs. So much for thinking about who civilized who.
My middle son just told me his air national guard unit might be heading off to Iraq in September. He joined to help pay for college. He had to, his mom spent all my child support through the years for him and his brothers on her huge wardrobe, two new houses, and a boob job. Right now I'm a bit pissed off and am not real happy with my so called freedom. I think I should stick to my thought of "don't post when your pissed off."
Some of the old treaties are still in force. There's a major statewide dispute here in Idaho about water rights, and the Nez Pierce Indians are among the major stakeholders. So far, it seems that their rights are being respected.
It's easy to say "it's all in the past and we're not responsible", but our system of government is based on continuity. We can't go back and repair every injustice of the past. But we've been under the same Constitution for more than two hundred years, and that Constitution ratified the existing common-law legal system. That means that treaties that were legally binding then are still legally binding now, and need to be honored.
As a Creek Indian (Whose people were run out of Birmingham and Knoxville on Andy Jack's order), I find the idea of someone who ignored and defied his consitutional duty venerated on the most-used bill in american currency quite off-putting...
After Reagan died, they wanted to put him on a bill, and the $20 was considered off limits because Jackson was a Democrat (although if he ran today, neither party would claim him).
I don't think Democrats would have a problem with Martin Luther King on the $20, however. That's my pick.
Thanks ... I understand how being pissed off can affect things. By the way, my son-in-law is scheduled to go to Iraq in June. So, I can appreciate the stress that causes. Well I never had to pay child suppport and my ex and I get along well ... so that is good. Thanks again for clearing things up. - Jim W.
The Nez Perce have had a long standing good relationship with the US. For some reason the US treated them with greater respect and honored treaties with them for as long as eighty years without screwing them up. But, somehow the Nez Perce have managed to keep the relationship going well, in spite of the way the US acts.
I agree that Reagan or King would be good on the $20 bill. However, we used to have an American Indian Chief on the one dollar bill ... maybe he could be brought back and put on the $20 bill ... a fitting replacement for Jackson. We should not include Chief Seattle ... while he was a good Chief, his tirbal beliefs prohibit having one's name mentioned after death ... for each time one's name is spoken, the person turns over in their grave and loses rest. I am sure that Chief Seattle is spinning like a top right now ... so the $20 bill would put him into orbit. But seriously, a Cree, Chaktaw, or Cherokee or any of the eastern tribes could have a Chief on the $20 bill ... anyone but Jackson. - Jim W.