Why is there so much hostility towards First Nations in Washington state? (casino, to live in)

[PS90]

Originally Posted by bad apples

I don't think the First Nations have a smoldering hatred of Washingtonians, it's the other way around. I wouldn't call it smoldering though, it is more of a simmering type distain based on tribal hunting and fishing rights. I wasn't commenting on Washingtonians being mean to me, I get attacked in every forum for my outsider opinions. I can't help that, but I will defend myself from these accusations.

I think you read my post wrong. I said that I haven't known any Colville members to harbor hatred of Washingtonians BECAUSE the Washingtonians have been hostile to them.

Also, of course I can't speak for anyone or any group, but concerning the "First Nations" label - it seems very insulting to me for some random, non-Native-American to give a group of people an inappropriate label, just because that single person finds the term "more appropriate".

I don't see how that's any different than calling a Hispanic person a "Mexican", even if he happens to be from Costa Rica (for example).

Did you happen to ask a significant majority of Native Americans if they prefer the term "First Nations"?

[bad apples]

First Nations is just a general term for tribal people native to the Americas. It's not offensive. I didn't feel like listing every tribe in Washington separetly.

[PrincessoftheCape]

First Nations is what the Canadians call them. I seriously hope that isn't going to become common practice here in the states.

With regards to Native Americans, I've always found the entire status quo rather perplexing. Since the dawn of humanity, groups of people have conquered less advanced cultures. The defeated peoples were wiped out or assimilated and life moved on. Only in the last century have we become obsessed over preserving the heritage of these fallen societies. Honestly, I think it's rather hypocritical of us as a species to go to special lengths to prop up one group when we ignore hundreds upon hundreds of others that have faded into history. Why does the special status exist at all?

[509]

Originally Posted by PrincessoftheCape

First Nations is what the Canadians call them. I seriously hope that isn't going to become common practice here in the states.

With regards to Native Americans, I've always found the entire status quo rather perplexing. Since the dawn of humanity, groups of people have conquered less advanced cultures. The defeated peoples were wiped out or assimilated and life moved on. Only in the last century have we become obsessed over preserving the heritage of these fallen societies. Honestly, I think it's rather hypocritical of us as a species to go to special lengths to prop up one group when we ignore hundreds upon hundreds of others that have faded into history. Why does the special status exist at all?

My friends prefer the term Indian.

As for: " Since the dawn of humanity, groups of people have conquered less advanced cultures. The defeated peoples were wiped out or assimilated and life moved on. "

Read the book 1491. I am not sure I would call the European culture "advanced". The diversity of Indian cultures mirrored that of Europe. Some good cultures, and lots of cultures that were just as dreadful as the European culture. The only reason the Europeans "won" was due to germs.

As for: Why does the special status exist at all?

Because we signed treaties with them on a nation to nation basis. Check the constitution for foreign treaties and the legal rights that came with those treaties.

As to why Washingtonians have a problem with tribes......Boldt decision and casinos. An Indian lawyer that represented the tribes said about casinos.....it is payback for what we ripped them off in the past.

One comment having worked with tribes on a nation to nation basis. Indian culture is different than American culture. It can drive you nuts at times. However, we cut slack for Muslims, Mexicans, and other cultures in the interest of diversity. They were here first and we signed treaties with them. Respect their culture and decision making processes.

Really.....I EXPECT that Muslims, Mexicans and other immigrants to this country SHOULD become Americans. Even an immigrant like me needs to become an American.

The Indians have done a better job of assimilating into this country.....and really if you think about it......they have NO REASON to assimilate. They were here first.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by 509

My friends prefer the term Indian.

As for: " Since the dawn of humanity, groups of people have conquered less advanced cultures. The defeated peoples were wiped out or assimilated and life moved on. "

Read the book 1491. I am not sure I would call the European culture "advanced". The diversity of Indian cultures mirrored that of Europe. Some good cultures, and lots of cultures that were just as dreadful as the European culture. The only reason the Europeans "won" was due to germs.

As for: Why does the special status exist at all?

Because we signed treaties with them on a nation to nation basis. Check the constitution for foreign treaties and the legal rights that came with those treaties.

As to why Washingtonians have a problem with tribes......Boldt decision and casinos. An Indian lawyer that represented the tribes said about casinos.....it is payback for what we ripped them off in the past.

One comment having worked with tribes on a nation to nation basis. Indian culture is different than American culture. It can drive you nuts at times. However, we cut slack for Muslims, Mexicans, and other cultures in the interest of diversity. They were here first and we signed treaties with them. Respect their culture and decision making processes.

Really.....I EXPECT that Muslims, Mexicans and other immigrants to this country SHOULD become Americans. Even an immigrant like me needs to become an American.

The Indians have done a better job of assimilating into this country.....and really if you think about it......they have NO REASON to assimilate. They were here first.

All of that is well and good, but none of that makes Washingtonians any more antagonistic to Native Americans than any other American from any other state - as "bad apples" keeps trying to imply.

[509]

Originally Posted by PS90

All of that is well and good, but none of that makes Washingtonians any more antagonistic to Native Americans than any other American from any other state - as "bad apples" keeps trying to imply.

Bad Apples probably has not lived in other states with a large Indian population.

The Boldt Decision is unique to Washington. However, Boldt was NOT an Indian....just a JUDGE interpreting the treaty both parties signed.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by 509

Bad Apples probably has not lived in other states with a large Indian population.

The Boldt Decision is unique to Washington. However, Boldt was NOT an Indian....just a JUDGE interpreting the treaty both parties signed.

I agree.

But speaking as a Washingtonian, I know about the Boldt decision, but I don't understand the difference between that and any of the other Indian Casino laws in many other states - and I would be willing to bet that few other people understand the difference either. Thus, it seems doubtful that Washingtonians are any more hostile toward Native Americans than anyone else.

[bad apples]

Originally Posted by PS90

I agree.

But speaking as a Washingtonian, I know about the Boldt decision, but I don't understand the difference between that and any of the other Indian Casino laws in many other states - and I would be willing to bet that few other people understand the difference either. Thus, it seems doubtful that Washingtonians are any more hostile toward Native Americans than anyone else.

Bad apples found that most of the hostility wasn't the result of the Boldt decision but a result of "Native Americans" being able to fish and hunt when they want. Bad apples heard respectable members of the community making foolish statements about natives because they were allowed to fish below dams and earlier in the season with no restrictive rules. Bad apples thinks that Native Americans should be able to fish with dynamite if they want to.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by PS90

All of that is well and good, but none of that makes Washingtonians any more antagonistic to Native Americans than any other American from any other state - as "bad apples" keeps trying to imply.

Yep.... Least that is my experience... No more "hostility" than elsewhere... In my little corner of the Oly Pen. now, matter of fact their is significantly less than where I was in Northern Wisconsin.

IMO, until you have lived in an semi integrated community... one can not have a clue as to how deep and complex the issues run.

On a side note, I like how many tribes are taking some of their casino money and building/staffing real high quality health care facilities that serve the general public...

[PrincessoftheCape]

Originally Posted by 509

They were here first.

But that doesn't mean anything. The Gauls and Celts were 'there first' before the Romans arrived. But the Romans defeated both handily, and their land became part of the Empire. People these days may recoil in horror at the entire idea of it, but the old adage still holds true: might makes right. It's difficult to point to a location on Earth whose peoples haven't been displaced dozens of times over the course of history. Thus, I think treating the native populace of North America as some kind of special flower is duplicitous.