Red Lake

  • Brittman
    Posts: 2008
    #2262724

    There is likely a difference between the Ojibwe taking land from the Dakota and the US government taking land from the Ojibwe.

    When the Ojibwe migrated into Minnesota and Western WI from parts north and east … they came in as warriors and took the land through warfare. The Dakota warriors were either killed or escaped west. Dakota elders were likely killed or escaped west. Dakota women of child bearing age were likely taken as wives as spoils of war.

    When the US government “took” the land from the Ojibwe via a variety of methods they unfortunately signed treaties and these documents remain in archived records. If treaties were broken than the Tribal Reservations have a legal basis … Casinos gave the tribes money which in turn allowed them to hire top shelf legal representation … the rest we all know.

    In the 2020s there is a progressive group of people that cannot stand to think each of us must be accountable for our own actions and decisions. It must all be because of racism, etc… This group believes all whites must repent for their evil ways by handing back land and $$.

    Some these progressive people are now lawmakers or even judges and thus decisions can be made based on their personal beliefs.

    Thing is you can give a group of people money and land, but if they do not change their ways or fix their broken cultural issues … that money and land will just cycle back to ____.

    Justin riegel
    Posts: 948
    #2262779

    Please excuse my ignorance, but my question is this.

    The Ojibwe signed treaties giving up the land in exchange for money. Did the US not pay them as agreed upon. If the US did make the payments what grounds would they have for breach of contract?

    Or are they just mad their forefathers made terrible deals?

    Brittman
    Posts: 2008
    #2262789

    I think the answer is extremely complex, but would be in the court proceedings. Many of us look at some press release on a court decision and say what ? or ask why ?

    Umy
    South Metro
    Posts: 1960
    #2262803

    I think Baitwaster was making the logical point that the land was taken from the Dakota, pioneers took it from the currant tribes of the area. Now those tribes want the land back. Unless I missed his point the land should go all the way back to the Dakota or we can just go with the point that the white man took the land the same way the tribes have been taking it forever.

    In the meantime, be sure to support all the casino’s and their related businesses. coffee

    Never have or will step foot in one. This has been Hypocrisy with a capital ‘H” from the start. Screw your own but blame me. yeah, that works for me……..

    blackbay
    mn
    Posts: 878
    #2262843

    Thing is you can give a group of people money and land, but if they do not change their ways or fix their broken cultural issues … that money and land will just cycle back to ____.

    That’s probably happening faster than they realize. The demographics show the number of births in MN declining for a decade and have been less than 1000 since 2019. The total population may be increasing but that is probably due to an increase in self identifying as native and/or people using 23 and me.

    10klakes
    Posts: 550
    #2263610

    I haven’t read through the bill, but saw this posted online.. does the bills language state the same?

    Attachments:
    1. FB_IMG_1711480741952.jpg

    Reef W
    Posts: 2806
    #2263618

    I haven’t read through the bill, but saw this posted online.. does the bills language state the same?

    About privately held land? Yeah, the bill is for “state-owned land and real property that the commissioner administers within one mile from the lakeshore of the portion of Upper Red Lake that is in state ownership”.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4780&type=bill&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0

Viewing 7 posts - 121 through 127 (of 127 total)

The topic ‘Red Lake’ is closed to new replies.