On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:27:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Dude, by most estimations less than 5% of the "Native American" tribes
> are still 100% Native American, and frankly, the one that has the most
> casinos, etc. right now, only has *1* Indian member, everyone else in
> the family being 50% or more white. So, logically, by any rational
> standard, we should let the 50 people in the US that are still more than
> 50% Indian keep their reservations and just label everyone else as,
> "They all came from some place else.", right? lol

Heh, well, don't get me started on the casino BS.  I think that's a 
travesty myself - a bastardization of the heritage that's just nothing 
more than crass commercialism/consumerism.

> OK, my numbers are off. I just guessed at them, but the fact remains
> that the number of "pure bloods" is shrinking rapidly, the first ones to
> build casinos (and who now own 80% of Indian gaming) barely qualify as
> Indians are all, and our continued claim that its relevant is reaching
> the point of being close to irrelevant for anyone. And that is without
> even pointing out the fact that most are not "pure blood" between
> individual tribes any more, or "native" to the Americas, in the long
> sense, any more than anyone else.

Well, it's shrinking, but I don't know how rapdily, particularly here in 
the intermountain west.  But to solve the "problem" of past conquest 
today isn't an easy one to answer, because you can't make things like 
they were in the 1400's - and I don't think current tribe members would 
think that was a solution.

I think there's a fine line between acknowledging the past and exploiting 
the sins of the past.  Is it appropriate to continue to pay reparations 
to the Native Americans today for something that started 700 years ago?  
I honestly can't say I know the answer to that question.  My instinct is 
to say "you have the same opportunities today as everyone else here", but 
at the same time, it doesn't feel right to not acknowledge the past and 
to do *something* that isn't pure tokenism but at the same time isn't an 
ongoing thing through the rest of time.  Is it enough just to ensure that 
the traditions and history doesn't die?  I don't know.

Jim

Post a reply to this message