Posted by Danalee Lavelle-Burroughs on March 22, 2000 at 09:19:54:
In Reply to: Re: Well said, Danalee posted by Rich on March 22, 2000 at 04:20:31:
I don't entirely agree with the statement that Indian people don't have to live in reservations. If every generation before you during modern times has been on the rez; which is usually located out in the boonies hundreds of miles from stable employment, fresh produce, meat, etc.; you have no car and no public transit to get you to a town or city it is pretty difficult to break out of the cycle. Even the Crow Agency located within 40 miles of Billings MT experiences an unemployment rate of over 50%. Rich makes an excellent point about tribes with no land. This is also true in California where our indigenous people have been wandering for years after the government decided to 'mainstream' the Indian population. Sovreignty issues are complex. If the reader wants to read more on the subject please see the link I've included. Thanks.
: : But I would like to point out one thing to Enrique: Indian people don't HAVE to live in reservations today, those lands are just the last little spots left to them where they still have some sovereignty.
: Good point about the reservations, Petra. Though many of the counties that contain large reservations rank among the very lowest in the Nation as far as poverty levels go, the ironic flip side is, as you say, those Tribes at least have a portion of their homelands to call their own. They serve as a place to foster cultural identity. Many tribes, particularly east of the Mississippi, have no such place to call home.
Post a Followup