English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

7 answers

Ownership of lands wherein the Native Americans should be entitled to occupy their ancestral lands.

2006-12-08 16:58:40 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 0

A Big Issue that is current is that there are American Indian Tribes that live and work on both sides of the Mexican/American border in the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. There are also tribes that live on both sides of the Canadian/American borders. Since after 911, they are being kept from crossing the borders except at recognized Ports Of Entry rather than at the informal crossing points they have used for hundreds of years. Many don't have formal crossing documents and are unable to visit family and friends. Currently there is no good answer to this dilemma . The legal answer is the obvious....They can't cross, however the moral answer is still at issue. An American by definition is : Anyone born in and subject to the laws of the United States.

2006-12-08 16:49:31 · answer #2 · answered by Dumb Dave 4 · 0 0

It in basic terms relies upon on what tribe you're conversing approximately. The jap tribes (around long island and such) are extra self-based on themselves and run their reservations with some course, as adversarial to the Western tribes, such because of fact the Navajo, who be counted on thousands and thousands of dollars of the federal governments money to run their shambly economic device rather of employing the money to get their human beings out of poverty. in the experience that your searching for something extra interesting and a extra "wealthy-adverse" concern, i might concentration on the Navajo united states government. wish this facilitates!

2016-10-14 07:55:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

only one? how about, Cobell v. Kempthorne? Treaty rights, economic dispare in the Northern Tribes of South & North Dakota, the Sacred Black Hills, Leonard Peltier, Mascots, discrimination, the BIA, I could go on and on!

2006-12-08 23:27:21 · answer #4 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0 0

THE CHIEF ILLIWEK IS OUT AS MASCOT OF ILLINI: BUT THE SEMINOLE INDIANS BOUGHT THE 124 HARD ROCK CAFES AND ALL THE AMERICANA ROCK ASSOCIATED WITH IT NOW IS THIS SOMETHING STRANGE OR WHAT HOW DOES INDIAN LAND FOR THEM SET ASIDE GIVE THEM THE MONEY FROM IT TO BUY OUR COUNTRY'S STUFF WE CAN'T SAY THEY PEOPLE CONTROL THE LAND THAT THE INDIANS LIVE ON BUT THEY GET TO TAKE THE PROFITS AND SELL IT AND THAT WE NOT IN THE THOUGHTS OF THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ALLOWED THEM TO LIVE ON IT

2006-12-08 18:28:02 · answer #5 · answered by bev 5 · 0 0

Casinos were started by private investors,not Indians.Most Indians are not benefiting from the profits of Casinos. The investors are making the profits, therefore they should be taxed.

2006-12-08 17:10:06 · answer #6 · answered by 2004 Champs 2 · 0 0

300 years of intentional and unintentional genocide... but other than that, it's all good. Oh... except for stealing the land thing.

2006-12-08 16:42:09 · answer #7 · answered by pastrbuzz 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers