&quot;First of all I should say that I agree with davy&quot; - Norman Tebbit.

They need the money to counter the genocide thats been performed on them over the last couple hundred years, and as they no longer have their land (by which I mean 'their original land' rather than 'the pokey little bits that the US government couldn't find a use for) I can see no harm in them making money off the White Man from it. If you look into the Native American gambling industry you'll find that most of it is either controlled by or owned by AIM, all with the overridding intention of shiving Whites for their cash to fuel a rebirth of the Native American nations. A bit like the IRA trying to outclass Gala to get the brits out of Ireland, but without as much bombing or guiness.

From:

davywavy.livejournal.com

I remember watching an episode of 60 Minutes some years ago about a Native American tribe in (I think) Florida who had been reduced to a population of about 20 or so, and been given a reservation of just a few hundred acres. In return, they had built a casino which precisely matched the borders of their reservation, and were making $300m a year from it. Additionally, they were granting membership of their tribe (and jobs at the casino) to anyone who wasn't white.
I laughed out loud.

From:

LOL!
You really, REALLY believe the Native American's are still 'victims'?

Oh dear.

Never mind.
I'm am sure there are some who won't laugh you ass off the reservation.

And befroe youi say it-
NO I am not discounting the genocide of the native americans; NO- they did lose all "their land"*, and YES there are many native Americans who still carry chips on their shoulders about it.

But not all do, some hate living in the past- because lets face it- people expect native Americans to be JUST like this liberal weyt dream image- rooted firmly in some fucked up 'noble savage' Green masturbation fantasy that Native Americans were in some way better with Gaia!
They really get upset that native Americans may have been just as commerical, just as ruthless and just as uncarinmg about the environment as we were. That they also, say, artifically chopped down vast areas of forest for their own benefit.
Ah well...

*- Yes they lost their land. Their land being the land their tribe could hold from attack and invasion from other tribes. There is eveidence to suggest that the Soiux tribe was so widely spread because tghey invaded, murdered and displaced other tribes on the great plains. OR do people thing that they all got on in somekinda peac pipe smoking, noble and quiet kinda dream.
native Americas invaded each other, massacred each other and yes, there is eveidence, ate each other at times. No I am not trying to say we in the west are BETTER (ha!) but please end the 'noble savage' ideal. Its MORE racist than the BNP (at least facism is HONEST racism- this is closet, liberal, 'some-of-my-best-friends-are-black' racism- more insidious but JUST as real)

From:

No I think they're still getting fucked over left right and center and are still suffering from a continued attempt to get rid of them, wither activly or passivly. I did not say they were "victims", nor did I say they should live in the past, and I did not enter some fucking hippy trip, AIM are not exactly known for their peace loving ways and compairing them to the IRA is a bit different to presenting them as 'nobel savage'.

I simply pointed out that
a) they need money
b) they don't have the land (by which I mean either 'size or quality') to do anything much with
c) they are using gambling to get money off the whites, to then give their own people money and a living.

And they are using some of that to keep their nations alive. Not 'trapped in a time warp' but 'still going as a recognisable ethnic community'. Modernised yes, but still with a sense of the past. A bit like morris dancers or your local history buff who also happens to be an estate agent or software developer.

Sorry Mark but I think you jumped to gun on me there. I'll accept that I may not have put it in the best of ways but I think you threw a lot of stuff that I never mentioned, intimated, or thought.

From:

Maybe. THIS post wouldn't have provoked me as much.
The first sounded wolly and all 'Ah, the poor noble native Americans'.

Which is something I laugh at and mock ruthelssly and totally without compromise.

Having read the accounts by native Americans of middle class white poeple turning up to reservations and telling the residents that they are 'doing it all wrong' (so many examples this is NOT just a few) and read THEIR own words on several such issues, my conclusion is that one should just let native Americans get on with it- stop the whole 'Awwwww' sympathy sticck and move on.

Oh, and laugh at the wets assumptions about 'em.
DOes this eman native americans can't be twats? Nope. they can. Just like the rest of us.

Anyways- your post seemed to stinky of 'noble savage' rubbish. THIS one doesn't. SO I will back off, put down my stick and remain at a safe distance!

From:

accepted, mostly.
Still don't see how compairing someone to the IRA can ever equate to a 'noble savage' theory, nor saying that their trying to shive someone for their cash but such it is. I guess next time I'll just include lots of swearing to avoid you thinking I'm sounding like a liberal twit.

From:

LOL! yeah, I focused on the wrong part of the message.

(hits head with stick)

Ah... better!
We should be working properly now.

From:

Well, with regard to at least one thing they are "doing all wrong" - I'd have to say that in many instances - tribes have absolutely appalling environmental management - and not even against some pristine idealised model of environmental management - even with their nearest non-tribal neighbours.

From:

In what way do we have any better environmental management?
(laughs)
Do you know how much damage well meaning environmentalists have done 'managing' areas of outstanding natural beauty?
The fact of the matter is- the moment someone- ANYONE says they know how to manage ANY eco-system on Earth- they are deluding themselves.

Its guess work. We do not know how to do it.
No one does.

No one.

(smiles)
pax

From:

Certainly there are different values systems one can apply for any process involving people and their labour and waste generation - but with regards to environmental management I would generally argue:

The less political, the more rigorously-scientifically-researched the solution the better - with more local empowerment to implement it...albeit with a emphasis on the more-effective side of environmental solutions rather than the easy "dump and burn" or "stripmine" solutions so often used.

With regard to AONB, I know quite well some of the ridiculousness of it, especially with NIMBY sentiments regarding wind turbines. That said, imho, the greatest failure of that process isn't so much the local opposition to perceived degradation of AONBs, rather that they haven't negotiated a better compensation from the urban areas.

The challenge, I feel, is at least two-fold. To get that local community to agree to a process and a solution that they willingly implement and sustain; plus that they identify as much with the larger regional or national group as they do their own local community. If that happens, they can create a much better position to negotiate from.

I can't help but be reminded that in the cases of 'national emergency' - the widespread use of eminent domain was the prefered solution, nevermind the sacrifice of original locals.

From:

Good points.
The odd thing is- nothing wipes out life. People look in horror at strip mining, but strip mining doesn't destroy life. It smashes it on the heads lots. But when the mine is finished, life returns.

We do NOT have the power to destroy life. We can screw with nature- but it would require a lot more of us to seriously damage it.

AONB's fail because people look at them and go 'Gosh- lets stop humans impacting upon the area'. Which is insane.
ONE area om Earth doesn't have humans impacting upon it- the Nazca desert of Peru. beyond that- human impact is PART of the AONB. We forget that., We like to think that the human impact is "false" or "bad" in some way. It isn't. Its part of the area.

Outside groups can go on about getting the locals to understand things all they want- but they simply don't get it.
For example- Brazillians as a whole are very proud of their rainforests (both the Amazon and the coastal rainforests). They do not want to see it go. They also see it as a RESOURCE- one to be cultivated for the good of their people.
Until we can get our heads around that- we will fail the rainforests.

Because ya know what- Amazonia DOEs belong to Brazil. And if we wanna argue otherwise- then lets mount up and tool up and take on their army!
Otherwise- we have to open our eyes and work WITH locals.

btw- this is cynical experience talking here- I am a DEEP greenie by incination, so my ideals involve very radical ideas about dismantling the nation states of the world etc. But reality keeps kicking said ideals in the ass!
:)

From:

1. But when the mine is finished, life returns.

This presupposes people do not continue inhabitation in deeply contaminated areas. Alas, this isn't true. It seems to me that people and perception of property are indivisibly wed, more than political allegiance, and sometimes even more than ecological reality. Care to buy a lunar plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate)? ;-)

2. We like to think that the human impact is "false" or "bad" in some way. It isn't. Its part of the area.

Agreed, but there are real ecological limits, and real impact from visitor volumes/hunting/fishing/ski-doo.

3. Until we can get our heads around that- we will fail the rainforests

Oh, there's more politics involved with that as well. But I take your point. Generally speaking, I would argue that environmental services from these last plots are grossly undermarketed, undercapitalised, and undertraded. This, I think, is a unique challenge for globalism to achieve.

4. DOEs?

5. I am a DEEP greenie by incination - I never would have guessed that. ;-)

From:

I LOVE the idea that native Americans were somehow more 'in tune' with nature or other such rubbish.

NOT as funny as the look on many hippies/wet students ears when they allowed one tribe resume 'traditional Bison hunting' due to numbers being high enough only to watch the tribe buy an industrial abbatoir (STATE of the art).
Native Americas one finds HATES the liberal portrayal of them... but also know how to make a mint out of it!

From:

"I'm a native american, not a fucking museum display" was the comment one of them made to me :-)

From:

Amen!

From: