Native Americans received land (a minimal reparation but still a reparation) that are not subject to many federal or state laws. An example would be casinos and another is the use of drugs for religious reasons.
So technically, PANCHA is correct.
2006-07-16 16:12:33 · 12 answers · asked by Made in America 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
MEXICAN MAFI...
1. How does your answer relate to the question.
2. When you ramble on and do not get to the point, people stop reading.
3. You appear to have some serious anger issues.
2006-07-16 16:21:18 · update #1
Thanks,Made_In_America.
2006-07-16 16:23:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did you know that Pancha and Made-in -America are both wrong?
Do some research. If you really want to find the truth. Reparations are monies paid for damages done, The United States Government created treaties with the various Native tribes in order to gain a peacable truce with some of the best guerrilla fighters in the world. My ancestors fought for what we have today. We recieve NOTHING even remotely like reparations. TRY ANOTHER LIE.
2006-07-16 17:53:46 · answer #2 · answered by renegadesho_ban 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two Native Americans have told her how things really are and yet, she wants to say they are not so. What does she, a non Native know about Native Americans...nothing. That's what. She is just mad because she got put in her place. Native Americans weren't given anything. Don't confuse them with your people. They fought and died for the small amount of THEIR land that they were allowed to keep. The U.S. government signed treaties with Native American leaders which were NEVER kept.
As usual, Pancha is wrong and so are you. You are trying to twist things around, that's all. Get the facts. I believe Native Americans know more about themselves than you know about them.
2006-07-16 16:41:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pancha is wrong. reparations are payments. they do not receive payments. and since the lands were theirs already and they're a nation within a nation capable of building their own casinos...pancha is very wrong.
2006-07-16 16:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by afrochocobbw 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lands were treaty lands not payment for abuse or some past suffering. The casinos reside on sovereign Indian nations and the US government has no interest in them. She is wrong.
This piece will tell you more than you want to know but unlike YA the material is researched and carefully documented.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/native14.htm
2006-07-16 16:22:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does this have to do with immigration? Native Americans as you call them were here legally since birth!. They have had to endure the white whine now I guess they can endure the pancha whine.
2006-07-16 16:22:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They got those casinos because they could show in court that land sold to the US was sold by people who didn't have the authority to sell. That's how they settled, and all other claims have been settled.
What about the Amish? Did you get started on them yet?
Now how about illegal immigration - not even close don't even go there.
2006-07-16 16:17:13 · answer #7 · answered by yars232c 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lucky2balive is absolutely correct...pancha is wrong.
2006-07-16 16:30:20 · answer #8 · answered by joeandhisguitar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lucky2balive is correct. It's amazing how much ignorance their is regarding Natives. What's even more amazing is people who basically tell us that we are ignorant for not listening to the ignorant banter of an ignorant racist.
2006-07-16 17:07:18 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Bojangles 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I knew that. She always makes a good point.
You go Pancha.
Mexican Mafia is at it again, and with good reason.
LSU
2006-07-16 16:19:41 · answer #10 · answered by Golosa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋