- Mar 11, 2015
- 79,755
- 42,292
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #21
Treaty obligations. Not the same thing. Where's your black treaty?From your first link: "The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners)."I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.
Personally I feel the awarded amount was not enough. But I'm using YOUR rhetoric so that you understand.
Cobell v. Salazar - Wikipedia
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website.
How the Cobell Case Impacted Indian Land Policies
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website
Cobell v. Salazar
cobell v. salazar - Yahoo Search Results
So it had nothing to do with reparations. Please try again.
You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.
It is the same thing.