Thread: U.N. Treaty to Give American Land Back to Indians

The Obama Administration is weighing whether to sign off on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which could pose a problem to anyone who's purchased property in the United States in the past several centuries.

U.N. Treaty to Give American Land Back to Indians

by Valerie Richardson

05/04/2010

The declaration was overwhelmingly adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 largely by rich, European countries whose indigenous peoples triumphed over the Romans and by poor, non-European countries whose indigenous populations either never were, have long since vanished or are now relatively small and powerless.

For a wealthy country like the United States with large numbers of politically connected Indian tribes, formal adhesion to the declaration might be just a little more consequential.

The declaration starts off by affirming the rights of indigenous peoples on a number of worthy fronts, such as self-determination, freedom, peace, human rights and native languages. But then there's Article 26, which states that, "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired."

You don't have to be Christopher Columbus to see how this might raise a few red flags. About 500 years ago -- circa 1491 -- the United States was wholly occupied by indigenous peoples, also known as American Indians. If they now have a legal claim to the lands they have "traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired," this could place a significant wrinkle in New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's redevelopment plans for Lower Manhattan.

U.S. adhesion to the Declaration should be uplifting for the fees of international “public interestâ€

We need to get out of the UN. Ron Paul recognizes this. The world has gone mad and I am American Indian

We need to withdraw from the UN. We don't have people smart enough to be President to appoint people smart enough to deal with that bunch of craft-artists trying to destroy developed nations.

An April 23 article in Indian Country Today stated, "The declaration has strong provisions for supporting treaty rights and affirms indigenous peoples' collective rights to self-determination and control over their lands and natural resources. These rights will likely conflict with development plans by extractive industries and multinational corporations, but will provide greater protections for indigenous peoples."

I have long been a supporter of A.I.M and for my tribe The Mohawk Warriors. This one paragragh stuck me deeply! I live on a rez in Canada, let me tell you a long recognized treaty goes right out the window when it comes to Corporations. There was a huge stand-off between Canada and Mohawks at Oka, Quebec in 1990... the reason? They wanted to extend a golf course onto our land! Burial ground no less.

So, self determination and control over what little land we have left stikes a nerve with me.

This is a little snippet about Oka:
[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

http://nwo.media.xs2.net/articles/92_03_18warriors.htmlhttp://<br /> This article sums up ...isputes:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Dead_Indian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipperwash_Crisis

Screw the UN and anything they say or do. We are a soveriegn nation

Originally Posted by nomas

An April 23 article in Indian Country Today stated, "The declaration has strong provisions for supporting treaty rights and affirms indigenous peoples' collective rights to self-determination and control over their lands and natural resources. These rights will likely conflict with development plans by extractive industries and multinational corporations, but will provide greater protections for indigenous peoples."

I have long been a supporter of A.I.M and for my tribe The Mohawk Warriors. This one paragragh stuck me deeply! I live on a rez in Canada, let me tell you a long recognized treaty goes right out the window when it comes to Corporations. There was a huge stand-off between Canada and Mohawks at Oka, Quebec in 1990... the reason? They wanted to extend a golf course onto our land! Burial ground no less.

So, self determination and control over what little land we have left stikes a nerve with me.

This is a little snippet about Oka:
[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

http://nwo.media.xs2.net/articles/92_03_18warriors.htmlhttp://<br /> This article sums up c...isputes:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Dead_Indian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipperwash_Crisis

Yes, but each nation needs to handle those disputes and issues, not the UN, don't you agree nomas?

Nomas, for some reason your links aren't working. I think you may need carriage returns after them. Could you edit and see if adding a return after each one will get them to work? I would like to read them.

Judy,
I hate that this decree came out of the UN, but most Nations realize that Indians have little or no political power so they tend to ignore the problems. In Canada we have it better than here in the US, but it has been a long hard struggle. In some cases ( ie. Oka) it almost came to war.

These links are just snippets of incidents. I didn't post long articles because some don't like reading long drawn out examples ( me for one...LOL!) If this piques your interest please feel free to "google " Oka or Upper Ipperwash. I have videos of our struggles... Oka, Upper Ipperwash, Caledonia etc.

I hope these links work this time! My software sometimes is incompatible with the site, and I don't know why.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

http://nwo.media.xs2.net/articles/92_03_18warriors.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Dead_Indian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipperwash_Crisis[/b]

Thank you so much, nomas! I will read them.

Thank you nomas and I know it strikes a nerve in you. Here in the USA we have had a lot of various Native tribes belittled,disparaged and cheated out of lands and moneys owed to them over the course of these years. Even the State of Oklahoma was to be set up as an all Indian State. Whenever there is some new mineral deposit found they want to move the natives off the land again.

But this should not be the obligation of the UN in my opinion. We the people ought to be speaking up for our native American friends.

Has Mexico endorsed this treaty? Besides whatever problems might ensue in the US or Canada, we could also get stuck with the Aztlan advocates claiming that this IS ALSO their land, even though they left it hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Or at least they would try, in some international court.

That gets me to the "border crossed us" whine they always bring up. There was very little settlement in the border region itself because the land was not very hospitable. White settlement of the Arid lands of the SW began attracting more people----from both the newly forming US but also from other parts of Mexico. The indigenous tribes who truly lived on or very close to the border have long been identified and they were not very numerous, in contrast to present day Mexicans who live in that region.