Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Native American Sovereignty Follow

#1 Apr 16 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
The SCOTUS hears a case today about a little Native American girl that was adopted by a loving, but non-Native American family. The couple attended the delivery with the bio-mom, took custody and began their family. This was 2010 I believe.

The bio-Dad had originally relinquished all parental rights to the child. However after the birth and adoption he decided, or his tribe decided, they wanted the baby. In 2011 a family court ruled in bio-dads favor and they took the baby from the couple. The family court was forced under the Indian Child Protection Act to give custody to the bio-Dad - a Cherokee Indian. South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the family court ruling.

Locally our administration has been sparring with the Passamaquoddy tribe over fishing licenses. The elver, little baby eels, spawn by the gazillions in the mouths of many rivers. The little worm-like critters are currently selling for about $2600/lb. The local fish and game agency gives out 750 licenses each year to catch elver. Two hundred go to the tribe. The tribe gave out 500 licenses. Boy that ****** off the gov. Anyway, the tribe claims they can do pretty much whatever they want when it comes to hunting and fishing on their lands - or the waters adjacent to their land I suppose. They Passamaquoddy had never intended to fish out more elver than what they were allotted. They just wanted to spread out the licenses more - they've done this in other years.

Should Native Americans be more equal than others because they were here first?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Apr 16 2013 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,586 posts
Treaty of 1794 wrote:
The said islands, tracts of land and privileges to be confirmed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the said Indians and their heirs forever. In testimony of all which, we, the said Alexander Campbell, John Allan and George Stillman, the committee aforesaid, and in behalf of the Commonwealth aforesaid, and the chiefs and other Indians aforesaid, in behalf of themselves and those connected with them as aforesaid, have hereunto set our hands and seals at Passamaquoddy, the twenty-ninth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four.


Yes

Link
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#3 Apr 16 2013 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,297 posts
Why does the treaty have three different dates, and a copyright of 2003?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#4 Apr 16 2013 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,586 posts
The original date of 1794, the date of the Federal Non Intercourse Act
wiki wrote:
The 1834 Act, currently codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177, provides:
[N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of land, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant the constitution.

and the 2003 copyright for the website, at a guess.

As for the 1795 date, I would also guess that it is when negotiations were concluded

Totally Gbaji'd that one!
Edited, Apr 16th 2013 2:00pm by stupidmonkey

Edited, Apr 16th 2013 2:01pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5 Apr 16 2013 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I'm going to say yes as well. My heart goes out to the families, but we Americans can be so forgetful of our arrogance. I'm sure that if any separate country found out that baby-hungry Americans were coming and stealing their indigenous children without their consent, they wouldn't be thrilled about it. Unfortunately, Native Americans today live in America today, if not on their isolated islands. They aren't as in harmony as our nostalgia might like to imagine them. They are racked with alcoholism. abuse, and all the other plagues of a material existence.

As far as the fish, if the only fishing area are on their land, I'd say tough luck to everyone else. Maybe the government needs to do a raffle for what I assume are the remaining 50 slots available to fish elver.
#6 Apr 16 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Guenny wrote:
I'm sure that if any separate country found out that baby-hungry Americans were coming and stealing their indigenous children without their consent, they wouldn't be thrilled about it.


What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?
#7 Apr 16 2013 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
******
43,994 posts
Belkira wrote:
What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?
Money it isn't even his idea to change his mind.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Apr 16 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:
I'm sure that if any separate country found out that baby-hungry Americans were coming and stealing their indigenous children without their consent, they wouldn't be thrilled about it.


What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?


Agreed. The fishing thing.. oh well. Let them fish. Re: the baby, the father gave up his rights. I fail to see how tribal policy can override parental rights in the context of state or federal law. I'm no expert, but this just seems wrong on so many levels.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#9 Apr 16 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?
Money it isn't even his idea to change his mind.


Yeah, that. There was no article, I was going off of Elinda's synopsis.

Quote:
However after the birth and adoption he decided, or his tribe decided, they wanted the baby.


Edited, Apr 16th 2013 4:57pm by Guenny
#10 Apr 16 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:
I'm sure that if any separate country found out that baby-hungry Americans were coming and stealing their indigenous children without their consent, they wouldn't be thrilled about it.


What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?


Agreed. The fishing thing.. oh well. Let them fish. Re: the baby, the father gave up his rights. I fail to see how tribal policy can override parental rights in the context of state or federal law. I'm no expert, but this just seems wrong on so many levels.


Man Stubs, now that you have given your intelligent and well thought out opinion, I can't wait to see what Alma has to come in and say about this exciting topic of conversation!
#11 Apr 16 2013 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,965 posts
I think I remember a news story a month or two back talking about the laws dealing with adoption of Native American children. Probably related to this story, but I didn't listen to the whole thing...

Our local fishermen and the tribe here (Odawa?) feud a bit all the time here in Michigan. I think the latest one was some net fishing that the Tribe was doing, commercially if I remember correctly, that the DNR did not allow non-Tribe to do. The fishermen were not too happy about the method, tried to get them to stop, unsuccessfully I think. Claimed it was harmful to the fish supply and the nets and methods used were dangerous to other boats in the water. I think it ended up with the Tribe agreeing to clearly mark the net locations, and they continued doing what they were doing. I'm not 100% sure of the details as I was not too concerned about it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#12 Apr 16 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
I just think the law, the way it's written is giving undue precedence to a group of people that are part of our society to help them preserve their heritage. No other race or ethnic group gets that kind of privilege.

If Tribes weren't 'Sovereign' it wouldn't fly.

I watched some documentary a while ago about a tribe that was throwing out all it's members and then firing them from their jobs at their casinos. Fewer Indians in the tribe and bigger piece of Casino profit for the remaining members. Just some expose, but rather contradictory to the story of the little Indian girl.

Lastly though, if this Cherokee really wants and loves his daughter, power to him to be her daddy. She's his.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#13 Apr 16 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,466 posts
There's a lot of backstory to similar cases in other tribal lands, where mothers have their children taken by DFCS case workers because they live in such poverty, only to have the kids fostered off to white families who want babies. It's pretty heartbreaking. I think the SCOTUS called it right on this one - Native kids belong with their families whenever possible.

____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#14 Apr 16 2013 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Catwho wrote:
I think the SCOTUS called it right on this one - Native kids belong with their families whenever possible.


Oh and the SCOTUS hasn't called it yet. They just heard it today. Sounds like it was short and sweet. A decision will be out in June.

Edited, Apr 17th 2013 1:58am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#15 Apr 16 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Guenny wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?
Money it isn't even his idea to change his mind.


Yeah, that. There was no article, I was going off of Elinda's synopsis.

Quote:
However after the birth and adoption he decided, or his tribe decided, they wanted the baby.


Edited, Apr 16th 2013 4:57pm by Guenny


I just don't understand where you're getting the whole "whitey stole the poor Native's kid" angle. According to the OP, the couple adopting was in the delivery room with the mother and the father signed off on it. Cat, there was nothing mentioned about DFCS being called. It's pretty @#%^ed up to take a kid from a good home because the tribe "made" the guy change his mind or whatever. There isn't any garuntee the kid is even going to be raised by its biological father. Seems like he or she would've been better off if they hadn't intervened.

Edited, Apr 16th 2013 7:15pm by Belkira
#16 Apr 16 2013 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,265 posts
As I understand it (and I could easily be wrong), the timeline went something like: he gave up parental rights while the child was still in her mother's custody. The mother surrendered the child subsequently without his being further consulted. Child was adopted. He sued for parental custody.

Without knowing all the he-said, she-said stuff that went on in between, I'm guessing that A) substance abuse was an issue for one or both of the birth parents; B) there was little or no contact between the birth parents after he gave up his parental rights; C) he may or may not have known that the little girl was no longer in her mother's care.

I'd be curious as to the circumstances surrounding his giving up custody in the first place.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#17 Apr 16 2013 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts

From some articles I've read in the past, I've gathered that biological parents have really strong rights to their children, even in situations when you might think they've waived all such rights.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#18 Apr 16 2013 at 11:27 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
There was a story about this on NPR on my way home from work today.

Link

Quote:
Emotions boiled over at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday as the justices heard arguments in a case testing the meaning and reach of the Indian Child Welfare Act, known as ICWA.

The 1978 law was enacted after Congress found that more than a third of all Native American children were being taken from their families and given to white adoptive and foster parents.

The question before the court was whether a Native American biological father who gave up his parental rights and refused to provide financial support to the mother and child could later object after the non-Indian mother gave up the child for adoption.

The birth father, Dusten Brown, considers himself Cherokee. The birth mother, Christy Maldonado, is of Hispanic heritage. Maldonado got pregnant while engaged to Brown, but subsequently broke off the engagement. Brown refused to support her or the child and eventually texted Maldonado that he was giving up his parental rights. He says he thought he was turning over his rights to Maldonado and therefore was angry to learn, four months after the birth, that she had put the child up for adoption. He then filed an objection in court and sought custody.

Two years later, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that while Brown would have had no rights under state law, the Indian Child Welfare Act trumped state law. The court ordered the adoptive parents to turn the little girl, by then 2 years old, over to Brown.

The Father's Rights

On Tuesday, emotions were pretty raw inside the Supreme Court chamber. That's not particularly surprising, given that two of the justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas — have adopted children.

But it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor who jumped in feet first, repeatedly cutting off the adoptive parents' lawyer, Lisa Blatt, before Blatt could answer a question.

Finally the chief justice silenced Sotomayor, saying, "Could I hear her answer, please!"

Blatt argued that Brown could not invoke ICWA to get custody of his daughter. He had "no legal rights whatsoever," she said, because he had given them up and failed to provide any financial support.

Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed, saying, "This guy is the father of the child, and they're taking the child away from him even though he wants it."

Blatt replied that the birth father, who had not had any contact with the child and provided no financial support, had "a biological link that under state law was equivalent to a sperm donor."

But "this isn't state law," countered Scalia — it's a federal statute that uses "expansive" language to define the Indian family and to prevent its breakup.

Sotomayor took a similar view, asking, "If the choice is between a mother, a biological father or a stranger, and if the father's fit, why do you think" that the federal statute requires the child to be given to a stranger — namely, the adoptive parents?

The only stranger here, shot back Blatt, was the birth father, "who expressly repudiated all parental rights."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg challenged Blatt's characterization, noting that the birth father said he only intended to surrender his custodial rights to the mother, not to adoptive parents, and that when he found out about the adoption, he objected.

Nonetheless, Blatt argued, Congress did not intend for ICWA to reach a situation like this one, where there was no existing Indian family with custody prior to the adoption. Applying ICWA to this adoption dispute, she said, would amount to "conscripting other people's children to grow the tribal population based solely on a biological link."

A Focus On Biology?

Following Blatt to the lectern was lawyer Paul Clement, representing the guardian ad litem appointed by the state court to determine the child's best interest. The state courts had misread ICWA, he maintained. And if indeed there were such preferences for noncustodial Indian parents under the law, it would amount to an unconstitutional racial classification.

Under the state court's interpretation, said Clement, ICWA moves the inquiry away from the child's best interests to focus instead on biology, the birth father and race — namely, that the child has 1 percent Indian blood.

Not so, said lawyer Charles Rothfeld, representing the father. Brown had been found a "fit, devoted and loving father" to his other children, and by the terms of the statute, that means he should be awarded custody.

Pressed by the chief justice, Rothfeld said that it doesn't matter how large or small a child's Indian heritage is because under ICWA, an adoption cannot go forward if a biological parent wants custody and is not a threat to the emotional or physical safety of the child.

Troubled by Rothfeld's contention, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the father here appears to have "three Cherokee ancestors at the time of George Washington's father." And if you accept that view, said Breyer, "a woman who is a rape victim" could be at risk of having her child taken and given to the Indian father, who "probably just got out of prison."

Rothfeld swiftly replied that such a father could be shown to be unfit to have custody.

ICWA, he noted, was aimed at preventing the breakup of Indian families, and "there unquestionably was an [Indian] family here in the ordinary sense," including grandparents.

A Call For King Solomon And A Warning

At this point in the argument, Rothfeld seemed to become irrelevant as the justices battled it out.

"He had offered to marry the mother, and she rejected that," Scalia said.

Ginsburg interjected that she thought that there was some "ambiguity" about that.

Rothfeld chimed in to say that Brown "was excited by the pregnancy, was looking forward" to the child.

Roberts said, sarcastically, "He was excited, but ... he paid nothing during the pregnancy and nothing at the time of the birth" to support the child or the mother.

Justice Anthony Kennedy at this point seemed to call a timeout, wishing wistfully for the assistance of King Solomon.

Instead, as Kennedy observed, "What we have here is a question of a federal statute which ... displaces the ordinary best interest [of the child] determinations of the state courts."

If anyone thought that moment of quiet consideration might be the last word, they were mistaken.

In rebuttal, Blatt, the lawyer for the adoptive parents, had a warning for the justices. If you rule in favor of the father, she said, "you're basically banning the interracial adoption of abandoned Indian children. There's not a single adoptive parent in their right mind who is going to ... go through these Kafkaesque hoops."

The court's decision in this case, she told the justices, is going to apply to other absentee Indian fathers who have impregnated non-Indian women. These women, she said, will be rendered "second-class citizens" with "inferior rights," and "you're basically relegating the child ... to a piece of property with a sign that says 'Indian, keep off, do not disturb.' "

After the argument, Indian rights groups hotly disputed that notion, saying the ICWA has worked well for 35 years.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.


I'm still not sure how I feel about this. I feel bad for that kid, she's old enough for it to be quite an ordeal to be taken from who she thinks are her parents.
#19 Apr 17 2013 at 12:26 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Guenny wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:
I'm sure that if any separate country found out that baby-hungry Americans were coming and stealing their indigenous children without their consent, they wouldn't be thrilled about it.


What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?


Agreed. The fishing thing.. oh well. Let them fish. Re: the baby, the father gave up his rights. I fail to see how tribal policy can override parental rights in the context of state or federal law. I'm no expert, but this just seems wrong on so many levels.


Man Stubs, now that you have given your intelligent and well thought out opinion, I can't wait to see what Alma has to come in and say about this exciting topic of conversation!

Wouldn't be a complete Asylum thread without the overzealous hipster angle.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#20 Apr 17 2013 at 3:11 AM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I just think the law, the way it's written is giving undue precedence to a group of people that are part of our society to help them preserve their heritage. No other race or ethnic group gets that kind of privilege.

If Tribes weren't 'Sovereign' it wouldn't fly.


You think your ancestors should have finished the job, is what you're saying? They didn't wipe out native tribes as political units quite thoroughly enough?

Quote:
Should Native Americans be more equal than others because they were here first?


Great point, those guys are being treated like the fucking master race. The government needs to take action.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#21 Apr 17 2013 at 4:41 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I just think the law, the way it's written is giving undue precedence to a group of people that are part of our society to help them preserve their heritage. No other race or ethnic group gets that kind of privilege.

If Tribes weren't 'Sovereign' it wouldn't fly.


You think your ancestors should have finished the job, is what you're saying? They didn't wipe out native tribes as political units quite thoroughly enough?
No need to get gnarly. I have no clue about my heritage - no one ever made a ruling here or in my mother-land (wherever that may be) to insure my clan stayed together.

If they're defined as a separate political unit can they be part of the political unit the rest of us belong to?

Short of a museum type existence, the Native American political unit is endangered if not already long gone for all practical purposes. I'd rather not keep them impoverished, uneducated and chained to a reservation.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#22 Apr 17 2013 at 5:31 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,466 posts
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
What does this have to do with a biological father first giving up his rights then changing his mind...?
Money it isn't even his idea to change his mind.


Yeah, that. There was no article, I was going off of Elinda's synopsis.

Quote:
However after the birth and adoption he decided, or his tribe decided, they wanted the baby.


Edited, Apr 16th 2013 4:57pm by Guenny


I just don't understand where you're getting the whole "whitey stole the poor Native's kid" angle. According to the OP, the couple adopting was in the delivery room with the mother and the father signed off on it. Cat, there was nothing mentioned about DFCS being called. It's pretty @#%^ed up to take a kid from a good home because the tribe "made" the guy change his mind or whatever. There isn't any garuntee the kid is even going to be raised by its biological father. Seems like he or she would've been better off if they hadn't intervened.

Edited, Apr 16th 2013 7:15pm by Belkira


Right. I was discussing another story with similar base situations (native kids fostered/adopted out to white families) that exposed the ugly underbelly of the system a few years ago. I even linked to the article.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#23 Apr 17 2013 at 6:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I just think the law, the way it's written is giving undue precedence to a group of people that are part of our society to help them preserve their heritage. No other race or ethnic group gets that kind of privilege.

If Tribes weren't 'Sovereign' it wouldn't fly.

This is the point of sovereignty, isn't it? I mean, if we're saying "You can do whatever you want until it conflicts in some way with what we want, then you can't" then they're as 'sovereign' as I am in my living room. It would seem that respecting their sovereignty even when we disagree is what makes it worthwhile to them. No other group has it because no other group has had quite the same relationship with the US government. Not to say other groups haven't been extremely ill-treated but the relationship between the American Indian tribes and the US government have been at a different level politically and legally.

Should they maintain it? I don't see why not, barring some truly major issue. I couldn't name something off the cuff but we'd essentially be breaking a treaty with those people and I don't believe that "catching too many fish" or "adoption/family services case" should be the grounds for it. That's despite whatever my personal opinions may be in the individual cases.

Elinda wrote:
Short of a museum type existence, the Native American political unit is endangered if not already long gone for all practical purposes. I'd rather not keep them impoverished, uneducated and chained to a reservation.

You're not keeping them anything. If they all want to pick up and move to the big city and dissolve their tribe and way of life, nothing is keeping them from doing so. If they wish to remain on what little land still belongs to them and continue an existence for good or ill as a tribe, they have the right to do so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Apr 17 2013 at 7:16 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I just think the law, the way it's written is giving undue precedence to a group of people that are part of our society to help them preserve their heritage. No other race or ethnic group gets that kind of privilege.

If Tribes weren't 'Sovereign' it wouldn't fly.

This is the point of sovereignty, isn't it?
It is. Can we have two nations living under the same roof?

Native Americans are Americans, they're subject to the same taxes, the same 'rules' the same benefits (mostly, unless they don't) - but not the same enforcement or justice system. How can we allow a second set of rules to govern them yet expect them to follow state and federal rules. If they had set up tribes like municipalities that could work - but it's not ever been done that way.

...and really for what purpose?

To make us feel like we're letting the indigenous people of this land resume the lives that the white man interrupted a couple centuries ago?

Native Americans are never going back to the longhouse and hunting buffalo. I'd think we'd be anxious to make them part of our little US family instead of always being the red-headed step child.

I've no doubt that Indian children were unnecessarily removed from their families a few decades ago, but, IMO, the ICWA was really poor legislation in response. In the case of the ICWA an abused Indian child as determined by the US Social Services people, does not necessarily make an abused child in the eyes of the tribe.

Sovereignty in general though just has not played out well for anyone. Native Americans are not a prospering people. The Casino's were a nice little cheering-up for them, but are quickly turning into a losing proposition - what then? Stories abound of native american women who have been abused raped beaten and yet their perpetrators go unpunished under tribal law. But even more, what about that Indian woman that was raped by a white man - or visa versa. Now, who's jurisdiction are we under?

This is from a NYT's article discussing the re-authorization of Violence Against Women Act:
Quote:
A Senate version, passed with broad bipartisan support, would grant new powers to tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians suspected of sexually assaulting their Indian spouses or domestic partners. But House Republicans, and some Senate Republicans, oppose the provision as a dangerous expansion of the tribal courts’ authority, and it was excluded from the version that the House passed last Wednesday. The House and Senate are seeking to negotiate a compromise.


We just keep piling laws on top of acts in an effort to treat Native Americans 'fairly', when the governments job is to treat everyone fairly.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#25 Apr 17 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
******
43,994 posts
trickybeck wrote:
From some articles I've read in the past, I've gathered that biological parents have really strong rights to their children, even in situations when you might think they've waived all such rights.
That's not so bad. People make mistakes, bad decisions, whatever. It shouldn't be used "for the tribe" as it's playing out here, though. Sounds entirely xenophobic. He wanted to get married, but the woman didn't want that, and then he pretty much fell off the radar until the mother gave up her right to an adoptive couple and then suddenly swooped back in to assert his right? Without all the details, that bit sounds skeevy. Doesn't sound like he gives two flips about the kid.

Edited, Apr 17th 2013 9:44am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#26 Apr 17 2013 at 7:57 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
From some articles I've read in the past, I've gathered that biological parents have really strong rights to their children, even in situations when you might think they've waived all such rights.
That's not so bad. People make mistakes, bad decisions, whatever. It shouldn't be used "for the tribe" as it's playing out here, though. Sounds entirely xenophobic. He wanted to get married, but the woman didn't want that, and then he pretty much fell off the radar until the mother gave up her right to an adoptive couple and then suddenly swooped back in to assert his right? Without all the details, that bit sounds skeevy. Doesn't sound like he gives two flips about the kid.

Edited, Apr 17th 2013 9:44am by lolgaxe
In this particular case, I do think the father has parental rights that were not simply voided out when he relinquished responsibility for the child. Certainly a bio-mom in a similar situation would be allowed to 'change her mind' about giving up her child - whether a contract had been signed or not. I think the father deserves the same treatment. I don't think the 'tribe' should have any rights in determining custody for a child.



Edited, Apr 17th 2013 3:58pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#27 Apr 17 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
...and really for what purpose?

To make us feel like we're letting the indigenous people of this land resume the lives that the white man interrupted a couple centuries ago?

No, to allow THEM to maintain some control and self-governance over lands that were originally theirs and were usually taken from them via force or some other shady circumstances.

The idea that it's just to let them live in teepees and hunt buffalo is a bit insulting. Rather, it allows them to decide for themselves how to administer their own lands and maintain whatever balance of tribal tradition and modern society they wish to hold. I'll agree that it hasn't always been successful for the tribes (although I haven't exactly researched everyone and only hear of the worst case scenarios). I disagree that that solution is to say "Nope, you guys blew it. Deal's off."

Edited, Apr 17th 2013 9:36am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Apr 17 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
******
43,994 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think the father deserves the same treatment.
I didn't say he shouldn't, as long as he shows intent throughout. I said it's questionable that he waited until the mother relinquished her right before he swept back in. Like his intentions all along were tribe related and had little to do with the well-being of the child. But, you know. Limited details and such. Maybe he did. This whole thing makes my skin crawl, like they're trying to breed Texas Hold 'Em dealers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Apr 17 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:


The idea that it's just to let them live in teepees and hunt buffalo is a bit insulting.
It's incredibly insulting. But that is precisely what we've done. by dissuading them from following the rest of the country into the 21st century.

Quote:
Rather, it allows them to decide for themselves how to administer their own lands and maintain whatever balance of tribal tradition and modern society they wish to hold. I'll agree that it hasn't always been successful for the tribes (although I haven't exactly researched everyone and only hear of the worst case scenarios). I disagree that that solution is to say "Nope, you guys blew it. Deal's off."

Edited, Apr 17th 2013 9:36am by Jophiel
I wouldn't call the deal off completely. Let them keep the paltry bit of property we gave them. Let them administer them as they see fit within the letter of the law. I think it's important to recognize that their was an indigenous people here that we treated like crap. Just like I think it's important to recognize that we stole human beings from far away foreign lands and enslaved them. But If we believe our democratic government is the best we can get it, or at least always working towards that goal, then I think we have to believe that holds true for all our countrymen.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#30 Apr 17 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
It's incredibly insulting. But that is precisely what we've done. by dissuading them from following the rest of the country into the 21st century.

By allowing them to make their own choices?

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Apr 17 2013 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,466 posts
I heard a story of an indigenous tribe in Brazil where the leader realized that they had two choices: Be traditional or die out, or exploit the exploitees and live on. He traveled the world, went to college in the US, speaks three languages, and has turned his own ancestral land into a tourist destination. Now the little tribe of a hundred or so people are all tech savvy and prospering again.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#32 Apr 17 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
Elinda, I read the other day that a guy in Maine was arrested for harvesting 50lbs of elvers without a license. At $2600/lb that's quite a haul. Not sure if it was part of the Passamaquoddy fight with the state.
____________________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
#33 Apr 17 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Marres wrote:
Elinda, I read the other day that a guy in Maine was arrested for harvesting 50lbs of elvers without a license. At $2600/lb that's quite a haul. Not sure if it was part of the Passamaquoddy fight with the state.
No it wasn't. This guy just had no license. The little buggers are very valuable. Also the species is pretty fragile and we harvest the spawn - so strict regulation is pretty important.

The Passamaquoddy thing really only made the news because it ****** off the Governor.

Are you still in Vermont?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#34 Apr 17 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
It's incredibly insulting. But that is precisely what we've done. by dissuading them from following the rest of the country into the 21st century.

By allowing them to make their own choices?

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.


Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.


I've not thought about Billy Jack in ages. I'm listening now.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#35 Apr 17 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
329 posts
Elinda, nope, Massachusetts. Haven't moved north just yet. Been looking at properties for about 2 years now and have yet to find the right place. Have started branching out further into NH and considering Maine again.
____________________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
#36 Apr 17 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
****
6,755 posts
Jophiel wrote:

You're not keeping them anything. If they all want to pick up and move to the big city and dissolve their tribe and way of life, nothing is keeping them from doing so. If they wish to remain on what little land still belongs to them and continue an existence for good or ill as a tribe, they have the right to do so.



This.

And breaking the existing treaty would be repeating history. We've broken enough treaties with these people. Having their sovereignty allows them to maintain their own form of government and allows them to control their future. Now, some people might argue they haven't done a very good job of this, but they still have that power. They also have the power to change. Someone mentioned the Brazilian tribal leader who got himself educated and went back to help his tribe adapt so they wouldn't become extinct. This is what many young Native Americans are trying to do these days.

As for the child custody case in the OP, I certainly feel sympathy for the adoptive parents and it's a sucky deal. There may have been other circumstances as some have mentioned, or it may have been a case of an Indian and lawyers taking advantage of the laws. Oddly, that happens all the time throughout the country regardless of who they are. As for the fish story, let them take advantage of it. It reminds me too much of the gold rushes on reservations in the 1800s where treaties were broken because the whites wanted to get rich, and ***** the dirt-worshiping heathens. COcksucker!
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#37 Apr 17 2013 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,265 posts
What is the standard for being considered Native American, anyway? Do you have to qualify in some way? Is there a blood test? Or is it just a matter of getting a tribal elder to vouch for you?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#38 Apr 17 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,965 posts
Samira wrote:
What is the standard for being considered Native American, anyway? Do you have to qualify in some way? Is there a blood test? Or is it just a matter of getting a tribal elder to vouch for you?


A man who is a member was talking to me one day at a business meeting. He looked as white as could be, but he pulled out a card that said he was a member. He was 1/4 or something like that. He also had a bunch of hunting permits issued by the Tribe. He was allowed considerably more than a non-tribe member could get from the DNR. He also said that his tribe wasn't currently accepting applications, but that you had to be at least 1/8th? and that if you were found to have a blood relative outside of your direct line, it automatically bump you up. Say you were 1/4 cause your grandfather was a Native, if you were found to have a member in a branch, it bumped you to 1/2. He said that's how his was set at 1/4, cause it was found. He was also happy because that bumped his children up to 1/8th.

I'm sure it probably varies by the Tribe though...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#39 Apr 17 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,994 posts
Samira wrote:
What is the standard for being considered Native American, anyway?
To prove you are truly a member of their tribe, you must go on a vision quest. A vision quest is a sacred spiritual journey. You must go out in the wilderness without food or water. Or shoes. You must remain there until you can communicate with nature. You must hear the wisdom of the rocks and trees. And then your guiding spirit must appear to you and reveal a great personal truth. And it's gotta be a real vision. They're Indians. They're gonna know if you're lying.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Apr 17 2013 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,965 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Samira wrote:
What is the standard for being considered Native American, anyway?
To prove you are truly a member of their tribe, you must go on a vision quest. A vision quest is a sacred spiritual journey. You must go out in the wilderness without food or water. Or shoes. You must remain there until you can communicate with nature. You must hear the wisdom of the rocks and trees. And then your guiding spirit must appear to you and reveal a great personal truth. And it's gotta be a real vision. They're Indians. They're gonna know if you're lying.
Then you get to call yourself Jeep Grand Cherokee.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#41 Apr 17 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,466 posts
It varies between tribes. For some it's 1/8, others 1/16, but for almost all of them it has to be documented evidence. My immigrant great great grandpa didn't even write down in the family bible that he married a Mandan; it was the family skeleton no one talked about until some years ago when suddenly it became "cool" to claim native heritage again. I found out from my sister, who found out from a cousin, who'd heard about it from her father, who had heard the confession from grandma that her own grandmother was "a Mandan woman." (Not that there were many actual Mandan left by that point. Thanks, smallpox.) That'd make me 1/16th, if I had any evidence besides family rumors, which was enough to claim membership in the modern Three Affiliated Tribes just a few years ago. They changed the rules in 2010 to require 1/8th for proper membership.

I'm just as Native as I am Jewish, which means, none really at all. My square face is a dead ringer for my primary ancestry, Volga German. ****, my entire family tree is a history of displaced peoples -_-
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#42 Apr 17 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
I had written a great post in reply to this thread. It was incredible. It would have brought tears to your eyes due to its brilliance. It was the best post in the world. Sadly, our entire data center took a dump and it was lost. This is not that post. It's just a tribute.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Apr 17 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is not that post. It's just a tribute.


It's not a good tribute either, too short compared to your normal work.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#44 Apr 17 2013 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,965 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is not that post. It's just a tribute.


Yet, I refuse to believe you. No matter your opinion
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#45 Apr 17 2013 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,586 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is not that post. It's just a tribute.


It's not a good tribute either, too short compared to your normal work.


I thought that his posts brevity was it's best attribute by far. Thumbs up.

ETA "thought"

Edited, Apr 18th 2013 12:35am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#46 Apr 17 2013 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Catwho wrote:
It varies between tribes. For some it's 1/8, others 1/16, but for almost all of them it has to be documented evidence.

Yeah, tribes get to decide for themselves. Most are between 1/4-1/8th. Some allow anyone who can trace a lineage to count no matter how diluted the bloodline is. Cherokee is the big one which allows this which is why everyone and their dog claims Cherokee ancestry.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Apr 18 2013 at 6:05 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,434 posts
we'd essentially be breaking a treaty with those people

Perish the thought! If we were to do that, no one would take us seriously as a nation state.

The SCOTUS hears a case today about a little Native American girl that was adopted by a loving

Couldn't get past this, the bias was too much. It doesn't matter to the law how "loving" the adopting family is beyond the basic idea that it would be suitable for a child to live with them. In this particular case, this group of people suffered so much trauma at the hands of Pete's Dragon that we should probably let them take all the white children they want.


You're not keeping them anything. If they all want to pick up and move to the big city and dissolve their tribe and way of life, nothing is keeping them from doing so.


Right, because social pressure and stigma don't exist. You're not keeping the poor disenfranchised. If they want to pick up and move to the suburbs and give up they way of life of Cabrini-Green nothing is stopping them from doing so.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 Apr 18 2013 at 6:56 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,994 posts
Pete's Dragon was a great documentary of why hillbillies shouldn't be allowed to adopt.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Apr 18 2013 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
I wrote:
You're not keeping them anything. If they all want to pick up and move to the big city and dissolve their tribe and way of life, nothing is keeping them from doing so.
Right, because social pressure and stigma don't exist. You're not keeping the poor disenfranchised. If they want to pick up and move to the suburbs and give up they way of life of Cabrini-Green nothing is stopping them from doing so.

More accurately I should have said nothing is keeping them there any more than any other impoverished group of people. But the primary reason why those areas are impoverished is because they're real estate no one else wanted because it's shitty land with few resources. Eliminating their tribal or sovereign status won't change that. It'll likely just make it worse because some of the few opportunities the people there have (gambling, tax free cigarettes, salable items culled from wildlife) are only available because of their status. Taking sovereign status from some crappy South Dakota reservation will just make it another crappy South Dakota town only now with less to offer.

But the OP wasn't even about the relative economic state of many reservations anyway so much as it was about them getting special treatment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Apr 18 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,434 posts

More accurately I should have said nothing is keeping them there any more than any other impoverished group of people. But the primary reason why those areas are impoverished is because they're real estate no one else wanted because it's ****** land with few resources. Eliminating their tribal or sovereign status won't change that. It'll likely just make it worse because some of the few opportunities the people there have (gambling, tax free cigarettes, salable items culled from wildlife) are only available because of their status. Taking sovereign status from some crappy South Dakota reservation will just make it another crappy South Dakota town only now with less to offer.


I agree, there should be a big bag of money also handed out to each individual member. Sure, they'll waste it on beads and firewater, but then we'd be done with all the pseudo nation silliness. The current situation generates almost inescapable stereotypes, both positive and negative. I imagine it being assumed that you're a fall down drunk is only marginally more annoying than it being assumed that you're a magical warrior shaman mystic.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#51 Apr 18 2013 at 12:01 PM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
we'd essentially be breaking a treaty with those people

Perish the thought! If we were to do that, no one would take us seriously as a nation state.

The SCOTUS hears a case today about a little Native American girl that was adopted by a loving

Couldn't get past this, the bias was too much.
It was intentionally biased. So happy that came through (though only you got it)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help