Preview

Why Do Native Americans Get Their Land Back

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
741 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why Do Native Americans Get Their Land Back
Are you religious? Do you think it is right to steal land away? Well the United States is not so innocent as they seem. For example, focusing on the Native Americans, their problem is that they have gotten their sacred land stolen from them. My first reason to why the Native Americans should have their land back is because in the United states Fast-forward. 1980: The longest-running court case in US history, the Sioux Nation versus the United States, was ruled upon by the US Supreme Court. The court determined that when the Sioux were resettled onto reservations and seven million acres of their land were opened up to prospectors and homesteaders, the terms of the second Fort Laramie Treaty had been violated. The court stated that the Black …show more content…
Still, American Indians have not really asked for reparations.” Which obviously states they don’t really think as native Americans as equal to us, like the real Americans. It is my sincere belief that the Native Americans would want their land back instead of money. The government was horrible back then and still is now. Some might argue and say that the native americans would prefer money but in my opinion I think it is the right choice to give them back their land.The bill, whose total price tag is $1.25 billion, passed by a vote of 257 to 156 and now goes to President Reagan, who has already promised to sign it and "close a sad chapter in American history."- Japanese article from team money ….This explains that one of the countries that got messed up by the united states got fixed up by paying with money and can maybe do the same with the native americans.However this isn’t true because in the ted talk video it said “ The court stated that the Black Hills were

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Soboba Tribe Case Study

    • 386 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In 1888, the California Supreme Court adjudicated the Soboba tribe’s aboriginal occupancy rights over certain Mexican grant lands. This case, known as Byrne v. Alas, 74 Cal. 628, 16 Pac. 523 (1888) , resolved a dispute between plaintiff Byrne and the defendant Alas (and several other Soboba Indians), who both claimed title to the lands under the Estadillo grant. This land grant was confirmed under the 1851 Act of Congress that required the filing of lands with the federal Land Claims Board. Alas and the Indians, like Rogerio Rocha, were living on the lands within the Estadillo grant. The plaintiff, however, succeeding in filing the land grant within the two year period and therefore…

    • 386 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Sioux have staunchly maintained that the treaty ratified by the 1877 Act is void for several reasons, among which are the insufficient number of signatures, the coercive nature of the negotiations, and, most importantly, because the Black Hills were never for sale. Despite creating a Court of Claims to allow non-Indians to sue the federal government, claims by Indians were expressly barred until 1920. The Lakota’s appeal for monetary compensation, filed in 1923 and asserting that the seizure of the Black Hills constituted an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment, represented the only legal avenue for any redress for the loss of their land, and for decades the Lakota pursued the claim despite the inadequacy of any monetary award (Lenane,…

    • 122 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Boldt Decision Analysis

    • 1199 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Ultimately the Boldt Decision created peace between the non-tribals and the tribals, this kept the individual rights that the Indians were in a gray area of having. Before the decision Indians didn’t have their rights as a U.S. citizen but when the ruling was passed it gave all the rights back to them and some more. Somethings are reported back to the state so there are number but not everything. Non-tribal people would say that Indians were only sharing fisheries for the money of the tribe. No matter what anyone says it was a huge part of the Native Americans to get their rights back from state. The early 1970’s is when “fish-ins” which was the tribes way of protesting eventually got the notice of the governments and made everything turn around for…

    • 1199 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    1980 Dbq

    • 3003 Words
    • 13 Pages

    "In examining the question how the disturbances on the frontiers are to be quieted, two modes present themselves, by which the object might perhaps be effected; the first of which is by raising an army, and (destroying the resisting] tribes entirely, or 2ndly by forming treaties of peace with them, in which their rights and limits should be explicitly defined, and the treaties observed on the part of the United States with the most rigid justice, by punishing the whites, who should violate the same. In considering the first mode, an inquiry would arise, whether, under the existing circumstances of affairs, the United States have a clear right, consistently with the principles of justice and the laws of nature, to proceed to the destruction or expulsion of the savages.... The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a. just war. To dispossess them on any other principle, would be a gross violation of the fundamental laws of nature, and of that distributive justice which is the glory of a nation. But if it should be decided, on an abstract view of the situation, to remove by force the ... Indians from the territory they occupy, the finances of the United States would not at present…

    • 3003 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In “Move the Cherokee to Indian Territory” by Jack Andrews, it states, “We should also remember that these Indians have waged war on America since 1775.” This quote shows that the Americans and the Indians have been enemies since 1775. The article also says, “In 1776 the Cherokees ravaged American settlements in North and South Carolina, killing men, women and children. In many cases their victims were scalped alive and even burned at the stake.” This shows that the Americans are justified for the seeing the Indians as enemies because of the way that the Indians have treated them in the past. It would be madness to invite someone who had kidnapped and murdered a friend to stay at one’s home. The opposing side might argue that Americans have treated the Indians badly as well by cheating them during trading and breaking agreements. However, if the Indians were to move away to the Indian Territory, they would be free to govern themselves and would not have to deal with any or all Americans ever…

    • 809 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1971 the Cherokee tribe was in the process of making treaties with United States. The state of Georgia recognized the Cherokee tribe as a nation allowing them to make their own laws and follow their native customs. In the late 1700’s their land started to be invaded by the white man. The Cherokee Indians began to move to Arkansas. (Historical Context) I believe the Indians were taken advantage of and had no option but to move when their land was taken away from them. Georgia and the United States had no regard for the treaties that were put in place. The treaties changed depending on who was in office at the time, the Indians had no choice but to move and give up their land. United States v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall, stated “the Cherokee nation was a domestic independent nation, and therefore Georgia state law applied to them.” When Georgia continued to press the tribe for their land the “Treaty Party” began to make treaties with the federal government to give up their land. The majority of the tribe disagreed with the New Echota treaty where their land was sold for $5 million dollars and the tribe had to move beyond the Mississippi River. Due to corrupt government and the demands of President Andrew Jackson and President Martin Van Buren in 1838, the Indians were “rounded up” and forced off their land and moved to other states.…

    • 1405 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Dawes Act

    • 377 Words
    • 2 Pages

    With farming, the Indians had to pay taxes. The land was not a choice to get and now they have to pay taxes on it. If the didn’t pay taxes, then the land would be taken away. The Indians shouldn’t have had to pay taxes because they were forced to take control of the land.…

    • 377 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    This time of history was very important because Indian’s needed their independence from the Americans. They needed their independence from the Americans because before the Americans even came to North America the Native Americans had already settled in the place. The Native Americans were furious when the American had forced them off their land.…

    • 54 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Euro-American Colonialism

    • 1118 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The nature of colonizers to occupy land during the development of the new world was extensive. In more ways the one, Euro-American explorers bound themselves to claim previously habituated lands. As the thirst for seizing lands grew, greed became a conditioned factor that often neglected moral principles and religious beliefs. By comparing accounts of North America in two books, A Land so Strange and Jacksonland, we can see that Euro-American colonizers often claimed indigenous lands and disregarded morality and their religious beliefs for greed, this is important being indigenous people can no longer sovereign over their own lands. Both A Land So Strange and Jacksonland reflect the arbitrary course of action taken by Euro-Americans to strip…

    • 1118 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sioux Nation Case Study

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians was a case that was decided in the Supreme Court in 1980, but really goes back to the events surrounding the Fort Laramine Treaty of 1868. The events that led up to the Sioux Nation pursuing legal action can pretty much be summarized as the United States government using their military power and governmental law as a means to wrongfully and/or immorally take away land that was promised to the Sioux Nation in the Fort Laramine Treaty of 1868. The treaty stated that the Great Sioux reservation, including the Black hills, would be “set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Sioux Nation (Sioux), and that no treaty for the cession of any part of the reservation would be valid…

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Reparations have been used before in many situations, and have both worked and failed. These slavery reparations should take a social policies form. If someone were to give individual checks to all the descendants of slaves there would be many issues, how would they find all the descendants of the millions of slaves born and brought into the United States , and where would the money needed come from? The most effective way is a “ financial reparation should be paid not to individuals but lumped together into a fund dedicated to improving the lives of African Americans today”. They should do this because they do not know what these individuals will spend the money on and if the goal is to help them, the most effective way is to have a fund.…

    • 245 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Reparations for African Americans was a projected idea that would help African Americans get a form of earnings that would make up for the severe punishing and sufferings they all faced as a culture, and as slaves. Robert L. Allen and The Economist both argue on reparations for African Americans and strongly oppose based on their views. Robert L. Allen, a professor strongly believes that reparations for African Americans is necessary in order to achieve economically in society within the United States, while opposing, the staff writers of The Economist question if the reparations policy for African Americans is appropriate. The Economist argues that it is pointless for African Americans to receive reparations because of the difficulty finding the past African American victims of slavery, as well as the past racial harassment's are no longer with today’s society, so they say.…

    • 865 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This may be true but, we can’t move people out of their own homes where they live and might be struggling in today. We shouldn’t make the same disaster that we did with the Natives but instead with ourselves this time. This is why if we give the money to Natives they can rebuilding their communities and current families can stay in their home and not have to suffer the bad times the Indians have suffered. Both groups Land and Money(Water) can agree that the Natives deserve something back. " At this Reservation, people have seen over time that the U.S. has taken more and more land, and they've lost huge territories.…

    • 848 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The debate over the proposal for reparations for African Americans has generated even more controversy than affirmative action policies. But since the African Americans that live in America today didn’t experience slavery. They also didn’t experience racial segregation. To the few who don’t know what reparations are? They are proposals for compensations that people like Robert L. Allen think should be provided to the descendants of enslaved people in the United States. This is in consideration of the unpaid labor their ancestors performed over centuries. The article says that Robert L. Allen favors reparations for African Americans. But The Economist is opposed to reparations. But in my personal opinion I would have to agree with The Economist. The reason I agree is because even though my ancestors may have been enslaved. It would take too much time and effort to find the descendants of former enslaved people, time that we don’t have now in the United States. Our economy is already at risk of another depression. So where would the money for reparation come from to pay the give to these people.…

    • 994 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    After reading manifest destiny i found myself thinking how many things has America and "Americans" done wrong through out the course of history. Taking away yet another piece of land that was not their to expand the nation for Americans due to two economic depressions in the span of twenty years and also to to the high rise of birth rate and people immigrating in to the country.Still i ask why do Americans have the mind state that everything is theirs to take or in this case to manifest its destiny and literally killing off people and cultures. additionally what does it say for or country as a whole if you can not buy take it since mexico was unable to colonize the Texas area i guess the U.S took it upon themselves to take over. Although in…

    • 174 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays