Thanks for letting a person involved in the project talk about it directly, giving the people a platform to say what they need instead of talking for them.
"How can indigenous people get it all back? There's so much of it." I heard and thought that at first but there was a small sentence that changed my perspective. An indigenous woman said "Landback is more possible now than it has ever been." That's 100% true. The fact that this is even a big and growing movement at all, which is uniting indigenous people across the continent and world, is amazing! It gives me complete faith in the movement and I am excited to see what happens next.
You'll get some back. But not even close to all of it. Lol you all don't have the numbers, intelligence, or fire power to reclaim it all. It will belong to the Chinese way before it would belong to you.
What do you think about Indigenous communities reclaiming management of National Parks? And heads up: we will remove any comments that spread fear, hate, or misinformation.
Please can we allow the indigenous to step in for NPS? The NPS is good people, but native tribes have whole cultures built around thriving *with* nature. Returning their land would breathe new life into national parks which seems like Win, Win, Win.
Native urban areas also worked with the ecosystem and the environment rather than spite of it or flat out declaring war on it, you can see the clear difference in what Tenochtitlán used to be when you compare it to modern day Mexico City or even a city as ancient and as populated with more than 125,000 inhabitants like Teotihuacan worked with the land it’s the biodiversity rather than apart. We have clear examples through the continents however our concept of progress is very destructive and far off.
I mean that was also a city of a few hundred thousand, as opposed to a city of a few million. With no heavy industry, and quite little that would cause high levels of unnatural pollution.
@@malcire they did have many production chains, specially teotihuacan, teotihuacan was a very corporative city. The Mayan’s did had factories where their icons were made from molds. Also all those were goods highly sought after different tribes and communities. Also I imagine it takes a different day perception in regards to waste or even how one produces. I don’t see monoculture for instance as a beneficial innovation nor an innovation even however it is what is used. Because how now everything is a product and not nature. What is nature for instance? Do you know nature as a term is a very modern term?
@@afrz4454 Good to know. I was thinking more like industrial revolution factories. Ya know the whole belching smoke, dumping chemicals, mechanizing, lubricated with orphan blood kind.
@@malcire I know, but what’s the point over producing if you can provide what people need locally on an environmental manner where not only is benefit some humans rather than a whole ecosystem. It is just a matter of what someone conceders as progress.
This was a very well made video and very calming as far as the "what's gonna happen to me?" angle. For any one that asks me about Land Back I'll be sure to send them this video. Ps. PBS Origins sent me. Shout out to them.
Very informative. With the current state of the world and pollution we need any and every helping hand we can get. Having the stewardship handled by people belonging to a culture that would rather maintain the land than squeeze everything from it would be a step in the right direction.
I love this video! The persepctive on "nature" (which is really just the world we all live in) which many indigenous North American nations have is incredibly practical and beautiful. These cultures created a magnificent way of interacting with their environment that acknowledged the interrelation of land health, peoples' health, animals, etc. and that humans were the most dependent on the "gifts" from the natural world for survival. Humility was at the center of all of this. I learned that the Ojibwe people have a teaching of love, which can mean "to take pity" in the sense that it's the natural world that takes pity on humans in offering parts of themselves to be used for human survival. It also means unconditional love, as the plants and medicine will feed and heal anyone, they don't discriminate. The implications are immense for human societies, especially combined with the attitude many of these nations had in regards to sustainability, that they had to plan for the future well-being of the generations to come after. People should think which of the worldviews are healthier and smarter ways to manage society, a European capitalistic one based on constant resource use for the profit of a few individuals or the ideas presented in this video about how everyone can live well for generations to come.
I feel like all the people asking "yes, but..." questions didn't fully understand the video. It's great that you agree and are curious enough to ask questions. Do more research (which will take time, not just reading one or two articles) and you'll understand more. The video was very informative, clear, and direct!
I have some questions that didn't really get answered by this video. First of all, what does "indigenous lands" mean in the first place? Is that not literally all of the US's lands (and other parts of the Americas but we'll limit ourselves to the US for now)? I also wonder how much of the "Native American as nature-lovers" is stereotype and how much is based in reality. This video seems to appeal to this trope, but I have no sense of how true it is in real day-to-day life. Although I'm sure it's true to at least some extent, especially if you're talking about it here, I thought one of the criticisms of Disney's Pocahontas was that it exaggerated the nature-loving culture to an excessive unrealistic degree, almost essentializing Native culture to be about nothing but nature - or is that real, that most aspects of Native life tie back to nature? I'm sure this also depends on which particular tribe of indigenous people we're talking about, as well; indigenous people in the Southwest must be very different in culture than those of the Northeast just because they're so physically distant from each other. The video also talks about land management/caretaking, and there was a brief example of using fire to create pastures, as well as a comparison/contrast of the underlying philosophy. But what would that look like today? How would that look different from current US management?
"Native American Nature-Lovers" is a stereotype, but as with many stereotypes, there is some basis in truth but it doesn't not apply equally to everyone. It is like saying "White Religious Zealots". There are many white people who are religious zealots, even more that are just ordinary religious, and others that are not religious at all. The European colonizers brought over strong religious views became a large part of American culture. Culturally, Indigenous people see themselves as equals with the land rather than dominators of the land. So we feel a certain cultural connection to the earth, the water, the trees, the wildlife, the plants. It does not mean I won't cut down some trees to build a home, or eat the tastiest animal that walks by. It just means that I am aware that I am cutting down a tree that may have existed before I did, that the animal I just killed for food was part of a family of animals, that the water I drink may have fallen from the sky as snow and landed atop a nearby mountain. There is a certain serenity and awe one feels, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, when in nature and aware of these things. Contrast that serenity with factory farms where animals are packed in so tightly they are unable to fall to the ground when they die from disease. Forests, and accompanying ecosystems, are completely destroyed to make room for a new factory which spews toxic material into the air and water. Sport hunters who kill animals to the brink of extinction, and only take home antlers. Just think about what it takes to get a glass of water from your kitchen sink. Although a technical marvel, and awe-striking in it's own right, it is hardly serene. I can't speak for all Indigenous individuals, but I can say that the majority of Indigenous cultures have similar views and connections with nature, just as the majority of European descended cultures have a connection with "God".
It's good to ask follow up questions, but that needs to come with intention to learn the answer. These are all asked and answered by indigenous leaders, scholars and many others. A true skeptic will follow the line of questioning and see where it leads. Stopping at the question is an excuse disguised as skepticism.
@@i9169345 also important is that there is an immense wealth of knowledge about the complexities of ecosystems embedded within the cultures respecting nature. This is knowledge that can be come by scientifically, but science is centuries behind and by design quite slow at processing the incredibly complex systems of nature. Given how crucial healthy ecosystems are to the humans surviving and thriving, it is downright dangerous to ignore this incredible source of value (before you even get to social and moral conversations).
Not even done watching this video, and have to pause cause I just broke down crying at what is shared at the 3 minute mark. I've never been taught that history so directly and detailed about the bounties for the murder of the original stewards of this land. This makes the generational trauma and presence of hungry ghosts that much more real. RUTHLESS.
I'm in support of native peoples having land returned to them. All of my questions about it pertain to the nuts and bolts of implementation. As an example, can I continue to hike and camp in a low-to-no impact method on public land? Some tribes do require an additional fee for doing that while others don't. Does that mean that management practices will be dissimilar? I don't expect an answer from AtN, but it is the kinds of things I think about with the movement. The analogy of the bike might make sense to a people that sees a long-term picture, but falls short in current USA culture. Case in point is that a majority of Americans are looking for short-term gain (especially those with money and power). With such a narrow focus, even looking back 50 years is a reach, not to mention 500. I genuinely am in support of this movement and want to learn. I think that addressing the implementation concerns people have in a meaningful way with a plan would go a long way in gaining support. Will AtN follow up with addressing the concerns or proposed action?
Land back is a big project and ideal so when looking for specific details you're just gonna have to wait for whenever that event happens because it's not gonna look the same everywhere. Best you can do is look at the land back work happening closest to you.
Makes complete sense to me, and seems like one of the only ways to right this wrong while also trying to heal from all the destruction to people and planet. We have so much to learn from Traditional Ecological Knowledge. It's very challenging to be alive during a time and in a culture where so many gifts from Pachamama get wasted, while so many go without. Not to mention all the pollution in the pursuit of "progress". The status quo has got to go. We are undermining our own existence. May the #LandBack movement flourish~
While I agree that Indigenous people got screwed out of their land (and shoved onto the worst land possible), which lands do they get back? And which tribes get it? I live in Northwest Nebraska, a couple hours south of the Black Hills. I realize that the gold rush in the 1880s caused many whites to settle in the Black Hills and push the Indians out. Most of them were Sioux, but some were from the Cheyenne tribe, the Rosebud tribe, and several others. The very town I live in was originally settled by homesteaders, but was probably land that was used by Indigenous tribes for hunting, foraging, and living off the land. Addressing these issues, while important, is much more difficult 150 years after the fact. Yes, the people in charge of the treaties were very racist and lied about the terms or just flatly refused to honor the treaties promised. But now that we are many years later, many people from all different areas of the world have settled down here, and Indigenous people now have the freedom to live and work anywhere they want, I don't understand exactly what they want and how they are going to get it from homeowners, farmers, and cities that own part of this land. Perhaps, someone can enlighten me on more details. I'm not trying to be mean, just realistic.
Hi Jenn, thanks for your question! (This is Chey, I'm the writer for this episode.) When talking about Land Back, a lot of people have questions centering around how the land will be "divided" and which lands will be given back. Within my work I've noticed that sometimes it's one tribe or a conglomerate of tribes that obtain their sovereign rights back to the land (like this example out of Mendocino (www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/california-redwoods-native-american-conservation.html). Indigenous people's face the brunt of environmental injustice, and are usually the ones on the frontlines combating it. Land Back, and "obtaining rights" over the land translates to having sovereignty over THEIR lands (like the struggles we saw with NODAPL and are currently seeing with Stop Line 3, where giant oil pipelines are desecrating sacred lands and creating environmental concerns). It means having key decision-making power (which we currently don't have, so we're often left out of these important conversations) over what is done to the land (like constructing pipelines versus protecting and conserving lands). I encourage you to visit landback.org to learn more about this movement and it's goals--there's great info on there! I hope this helped!!
I'm down with this but I would be concerned about the logistics. Like are there enough indigenous people to actually manage that much land? Seems like a big ask. It might be something that would need to be done slowly over generations as their populations grew larger. IDK but it seems like a win-win for everyone. Governments don't have to spend as much money to maintain that land, indigenous peoples get their land back, and the land will likely be better off for it. I don't really see a down side as long as it's handled well.
Indigenous communities across the globe are NOT experts at managing and protecting land. They just never created industrial societies capable of maintaining the population density required to impact the environment to the degree industrial societies are. Mexico City today has a population of 9,209,944 , approximately 61 times that of the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. If we were to hand Californian wildfire management over to "traditional stewards", millions upon millions of Californians would be displaced, because the native fire management amounted to "just migrate to an area unaffected by wildfire and wait a couple years for the environment to recover". And that was possible because of the low population density. I'm pretty sure that article at 6:03 talks, in part, about how native Americans burned down so much of inland America that it turned the midwest from forest land into the Great Plains, and caused the explosion of buffalo which eventually resulted in the specification of the plains and mountain buffalo. Mentioning the Standing Rock protests is hilarious in hindsight, as anyone who had to clean up the morass of environmental damage and pollution the PROTEST ITSELF caused could tell you. Looking to pre-industrial societies for environmental management of industrial societies is like looking to hunter-gatherer societies to solve food shortages in agricultural societies. Stop promoting noble savage narratives.
Why do you think the Clovis where "forced from their lands"? Considering that the majority of indigenous in North America today share DNA with the Clovis, why is your assumption not that the Clovis were ancestors of the indigenous, and the Clovis became what we call indigenous today.
@@i9169345 By that logic the people in the united states, "Native and non" share a lot of native DNA and European DNA. Why aren't they considered the "Natives"?
@@i9169345 holy shit, do you really think "indigenous people" are one monolithic group who never had conflicts with each other? Look at the well documented history of Eurasia with different nations constantly fighting, exploiting, expelling, and exterminating each other. You really think the history of North America pre 1492 is different?
@@joshkarpatkin2642 Of course they are not a monolithic group. And while there were conflicts, they also have many shared valued and cultural norms relative to European colonists who saw land as something to dominate and exploit. I speak of Indigenous North Americans the same way I speak of Europeans, a collection of people and cultures. I thought that was obvious. I didn't realize I needed to be pedantic.
Alot of question weren't answered here, Do who now government over that land, will Only natives run that government. How do you know who is a native? what happens to the other ppl living on those lands now? Not to mention taxes schooling n the justice system?
Thanks for teaching me about the origins of National Parks. It would be interesting to meet Indigenous people at multiple National Parks. I visited to Yosemite and Grand Canyon National Park for vacation.
So which indigenous people get the land back? Mount Rushmore was occupied by 6 different tribes in the 200 years before white man bad got there. The indigenous people constantly fought over it and it passed from one to another, what makes the white man different? Is it just because he's white? Yes the indigenous people were badly treated and that's wrong, but they weren't the saints your trying to make them out to be and all land everywhere in the entire world (virtually) has been stolen at one time, who should get it? It's ridiculous to think that certain people have this entitlement, when everyone else doesn't. Think there is a word for this.......maybe you can help me out?
The Woolly Mammoth's extinction, theorized as either being from over-hunting or being unable to adapt to Earth's warming climate, is not the same as the planned colonization and genocide of Indigenous Peoples.
I think it depends. I think that if land was taken from a person or culture that is still alive then it should be given back if that land still possesses the same cultural significance. However if the land was taken 300 years ago and a person who's a descendant of that culture who has never been a part of that land in their life time, I don't think the government should required to give it since that particular person(s) has never owned or lived on that land in the first place.
I've done some more thinking, and I think that if there is a cultural uprising of native people who want their and to use it in a way that is culturally relevant to the native life style, then land can been given back it it still carries the same cultural significance and if it is not being used by someone who had purchased the land legally. By cultural significance, I mean that the land could still be used for the same sacred ways of natives, for example if native land was stolen, and a city was built on top of it, then that can could no longer used in a way that is culturally significant, so it should not be given back. But national parks could be given back if vast number of people claim it's cultural significance. Or maybe there could be a way where it can still be a national park, but natives share the land, as the believed years ago.
@@Duraputer Doesn't "only if the culture and it's people remain" encourage genocide on top of colonialism? And, if you are allowed to tell them how the land must be used do they really own it? Because the implication is that violence will be used against them if they do not use their land "properly" (which was part of the justification of taking it in the first place).
@@tomcmustang I would like to understand your view point better. Can you explain how allowing people to live on certain land only if it holds cultural significance would encourage genocide and colonialism? Is there modern examples of this within the last 30 years? New York was partially once native American territory. How should people who live in apartment buildings on that land be dealt with, and in what way should the land be conditioned for native Americans? I mean these questions in a way that is respectful because I believe native American rights are very important, but the rights of other people matter too.
@@Duraputer I think you are thinking of this in an individual manner but Land Back acts in the manner of the state. Someone living in an Apartment in Native Lands would be the same as living in New York.
@@tomcmustang ok, maybe there is something I'm confused about. What does a manner of state mean? And how does that differ from how it effects individuals who may live or work on that land. Thanks
One aspect of this situation that's missing from the video, is the payments made to the survivors of these tribes. I'm not advocating that they weren't wrongfully removed from their lands, but generations of survivors have received regular payments per the treaties that were made. Might that not be considered 'compensation', which equates that the land wasn't 'Stolen'? Seems to be a big part of the situation, which never gets discussed in this dialogue. That, to me at least, discredits the topic by oversimplifying it to a 'they did this to us', without sharing the entire picture. Are casinos on Native Amerian lands mentioned? The tax exemption or fishing rights that have been honored? It seems to be a much more complicated issue than 'this is our land and we want it back because colonizers are bad. They were, that's not in question. Racism is bad, and we as a species need to work to repair our world, not nitpick on who owns or doesn't own the land. Are we to forget the work of generations that have worked on this land, put in the hard work to farm it and feed millions, because they received it from a previous generation that held different beliefs? If we look at returning the land as reparations to a previous 'owner', do we not need to make reparations to the species that were there before them, or the microbes that were there before them? Are we trying to change the past because a racially committed sins over a century ago? I really feel like this needs a more balanced view to make it a real discussion, and push this subject forward. If my grandfather had his land stolen, and I was forced to relocate at the end of a rifle and forced to change my language and culture, I would be angry, too. But I really truly believe we can't rebottle the lightning and reintroduce buffalo and wildlife to native lands AND feed the people of this era, provide them jobs to gainfully support the world we live in. Lets move this to a higher discussion of the species, and move past races and past sins.
I haven’t even finished reading this comment but the answer is no... as of today nothing has equated to the land not being stolen. You are one of many people who hold the misconception that natives are being generously compensated for the atrocities put against them. And to continue onto the questions you began to ask I would say that if those are what you have to be asking after watching this episode. Watch it again... because as you said ... it is a much more complicated issue.
Thank you for reading my comment, albeit incompletely. I watched this video twice before commenting, in the hopes I had missed something. I live rather close to this situation, and DO want what is right, and don't believe either side is willing to work toward it. Both sides seem to want to believe the other is wrong, that their cause is righteous, and that it is in the best interest for the other to concede. 'My way or the highway'. I just don't see that changing things. The people that set this in motion are long gone. My family has worked the land for 3 generations to feed MILLIONS. Literally. Is their hard work worth nothing?
@@centerededgedesignusa7957 the people who started “this” are most definitely not long gone. And I would like to say that I’m not trying to come out in an attacking manner but rather in a constructive understanding way. If you watched this video twice and still didn’t understand the #landback issues at hand I would recommend looking into the links and resources in the description. From your comments all I can see is a simple lack of understanding and mindset that it takes for an understanding to be made. I don’t have the time to explain what you can most definitely research yourself but what you are saying and asking is basic and skims the surface of the larger conversations we need to be having... dig deeper!
@@deziraej6977 by 'this', I was implying the people that murdered and forced indigenous peoples into terrible conditions, boarding schools and ripped their culture from them, thus causing this problem. NOT the people that are fighting for a solution. I want a solution. Not a fight.
I came to this channel after happening across a couple of well balanced episodes from 3-5 years ago. I liked that it seemed to fairly describe multiple sides of the issues. So I checked out this more recent issue. In this episode, the channel is just free advertising for a particular activist group, with zero journalism or balance. Somewhat interesting to hear the activists promoting their cause (I do read many partisan accounts to understand all sides), but not the kind of journalism which I might prioritize within the information overload. I may check out a few other more recent episodes, but if Above the Noise has become part of the noise, I can do without it. If this was like the earlier episodes which impressed me, there would be respectful presentation of the pro-LandBack movement, combined with summarizing the most cogent arguments on the other side - ie: decent journalism rather than partisan activism.
One group of people already has them, it is called "The Department of the Interior" which cooperates with various other groups such as "The Bureau of Land Management" and "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service".
@@beachboardfan9544 And Indigenous groups are caretakers, and servants to the land itself, not based on skin color, based on heritage. Not all Indigenous have the same skin tone.
@@beachboardfan9544 Currently the land "belongs" to the united states government, which allows people to use it. Traditionally much of that land held cultural and spiritual significance to the Indigenous people whom it was stolen from. What is wanted is for the united states government to relinquish management of the land back to Indigenous people so they have the decision making power over the land. Relinquishing "ownership" of the land back to Indigenous people would also be required as well for it work within the legal frameworks of modern society, however the concept of "land ownership" in many North American Indigenous cultures is not the same as the modern understanding of "ownership". Without going too deeply into it, traditionally land can't really be "owned", as we are part of, and equal to the land. Sort of like your nose owning your face. One can care for the land, use the land, or even exploit the land, but the owner-owned relationship doesn't make sense (traditionally).
can someone explain to me how you steal a land and what is the difference between stolen land and conquered land - which is every single square meter of the world? and is the status quo to give it to the last occupiers of the land or are they tracking down the oldest known tribe that was driven out by some other warring tribes?
The United States gives the control of the land back to who the United States (or its previous iteration) took it from. Conquered land is fundamentally invalid. There is no justification for colonialism and conquering land, only for defending your own land. Other conflicts are the problem of other people and not currently in discussion here.
@@tomcmustang OK. So the land is given to who US took it from. is there any discussion about land ownership changes before europeans arrived? any disputes between different tribes? And maybe because English is not my first language but I don't understand "Conquered land is fundamentally invalid". and "only for defending your own land" - describe "your own land". where do you get "your own land". why parks are not just "own land" of US now? there are timeline videos on YT of border changes all over the world. can you pick one and give me a time stamp of the point in time when it becomes "own land" for everyone in the world?
@@onelungg land disputes from before the American Colonies/the United States took the land are not part of the conversation here. By invalid what I mean is that there is no legal or moral justification for conquering land. On the other hand, for a people to defend the land they live on is perfectly justified. For example, if someone invaded the United States I would fight to defend it but, despite defending the physical space of stolen land, I still support returning control of the land from those it was stolen from. An imperfect analogy; if I stole a bike from you I should be expected to return the bike to you. But if that stolen bike is taken from me, I still need to return that bike to you. The fact that someone took it from me doesn't absolve my responsibility for stealing the bike in the first place.
One Question. Whose land is it? If we look far enough back into history, you will find that many tribes have gone out and conquered other tribes, taken the land for themselves, then were conquered years later. If you say, "The land belongs to the people that owned it first," then we have to find out who claimed the land first, before any of the conquerors that came before the British, French, and Spaniards. Which may be impossible. If you say, "The land belongs to the people who were here before the white man," then I have to ask, "why does the indigenous man get to kill and conquer other indigenous men, but the white man isn't allowed? Just because they were better at it? Or is it because they were, as the video said, 'old, White men.'" I have some problems with how the government treats the reservations and the people, but all in all, THIS LAND IS NOT STOLEN.
Beautiful video! You spoke so well! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! We need to get rid of this stupid notion that man is above nature instead of a part of nature. And I 100% believe that indigenous management systems foster biodiversity and life way better than most techniques used by conservationists. Let's bring back indigenous cultures, languages and knowledge so that we can regenerate the land and heal generational traumas. For those who would like to learn more about indigenous landmanagement, some interesting reads: - Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmer - The biggest Estate on Earth, How aborigines made Australia by Bill Gammage -Breakthrough in Agriculture, 1994 Ernst Götsch. (PART 2) Does anyone have some more literature for me on indigenous land management practices and culture (as interaction with nature / landmanagement is all interwoven in indigenous culture) These subjects really make my heart beat faster :) :) :) I'll get started on the material / links in the description bocks of this video of course, thanks again!
OK, so wars have consequences, particularly for the losers. The US Government has claimed most of the US west of the Mississippi. It owns 28% of the entire US, but you don't see much of that in the original 13 colonies. It's not a question of how to divide it up, it's about getting a majority of people to want to give it back.
Thanks for letting a person involved in the project talk about it directly, giving the people a platform to say what they need instead of talking for them.
Thank you for appreciating that! We aim to do that whenever possible in our videos.
Exactly!!
"How can indigenous people get it all back? There's so much of it." I heard and thought that at first but there was a small sentence that changed my perspective. An indigenous woman said "Landback is more possible now than it has ever been." That's 100% true. The fact that this is even a big and growing movement at all, which is uniting indigenous people across the continent and world, is amazing! It gives me complete faith in the movement and I am excited to see what happens next.
Every location on the planet has been conquered at least once, most hundreds of times. Except the South Pole.
You'll get some back. But not even close to all of it. Lol you all don't have the numbers, intelligence, or fire power to reclaim it all. It will belong to the Chinese way before it would belong to you.
What do you think about Indigenous communities reclaiming management of National Parks? And heads up: we will remove any comments that spread fear, hate, or misinformation.
It's for the better.
I hope that indigenous communities can reclaim back all that is rightfully theirs.
I think it's a great idea.
Please can we allow the indigenous to step in for NPS? The NPS is good people, but native tribes have whole cultures built around thriving *with* nature. Returning their land would breathe new life into national parks which seems like Win, Win, Win.
They already have their own casinos in bingo parlors and tobacco manufacturing plants.
Native urban areas also worked with the ecosystem and the environment rather than spite of it or flat out declaring war on it, you can see the clear difference in what Tenochtitlán used to be when you compare it to modern day Mexico City or even a city as ancient and as populated with more than 125,000 inhabitants like Teotihuacan worked with the land it’s the biodiversity rather than apart.
We have clear examples through the continents however our concept of progress is very destructive and far off.
I mean that was also a city of a few hundred thousand, as opposed to a city of a few million. With no heavy industry, and quite little that would cause high levels of unnatural pollution.
@@malcire they did have many production chains, specially teotihuacan, teotihuacan was a very corporative city.
The Mayan’s did had factories where their icons were made from molds.
Also all those were goods highly sought after different tribes and communities.
Also I imagine it takes a different day perception in regards to waste or even how one produces. I don’t see monoculture for instance as a beneficial innovation nor an innovation even however it is what is used. Because how now everything is a product and not nature. What is nature for instance? Do you know nature as a term is a very modern term?
@@afrz4454 Good to know. I was thinking more like industrial revolution factories. Ya know the whole belching smoke, dumping chemicals, mechanizing, lubricated with orphan blood kind.
@@malcire I know, but what’s the point over producing if you can provide what people need locally on an environmental manner where not only is benefit some humans rather than a whole ecosystem. It is just a matter of what someone conceders as progress.
@@afrz4454 oh absolutely. But it's helped quite a bit by not needing production on that scale for a population of that size.
This is so needed! Thanks to Danielle Bainbridge and PBS Origins for the link!
Thank you for coming over to watch! We love Danielle and @PBSOrigins
Really glad PBS Origins directed me here, really wish I had channels like yours when I was younger (but I'm glad to be learning now!)
Ben and Jerry's should return the native land that they built their factory on back to the indigenous people. Lead by example, right?
This was a very well made video and very calming as far as the "what's gonna happen to me?" angle. For any one that asks me about Land Back I'll be sure to send them this video.
Ps. PBS Origins sent me. Shout out to them.
Thanks so much for following PBS Origins’ advice! We are huge fans of that show.
Very informative. With the current state of the world and pollution we need any and every helping hand we can get. Having the stewardship handled by people belonging to a culture that would rather maintain the land than squeeze everything from it would be a step in the right direction.
I love this video! The persepctive on "nature" (which is really just the world we all live in) which many indigenous North American nations have is incredibly practical and beautiful. These cultures created a magnificent way of interacting with their environment that acknowledged the interrelation of land health, peoples' health, animals, etc. and that humans were the most dependent on the "gifts" from the natural world for survival. Humility was at the center of all of this. I learned that the Ojibwe people have a teaching of love, which can mean "to take pity" in the sense that it's the natural world that takes pity on humans in offering parts of themselves to be used for human survival. It also means unconditional love, as the plants and medicine will feed and heal anyone, they don't discriminate. The implications are immense for human societies, especially combined with the attitude many of these nations had in regards to sustainability, that they had to plan for the future well-being of the generations to come after. People should think which of the worldviews are healthier and smarter ways to manage society, a European capitalistic one based on constant resource use for the profit of a few individuals or the ideas presented in this video about how everyone can live well for generations to come.
Origins with PBS sent me over to watch your video. I'm Afro-Indigenous and I appreciate the dedicated research and awareness 🙏
Thank you for coming over to watch and leave this supportive feedback!
Beautifully said
I feel like all the people asking "yes, but..." questions didn't fully understand the video. It's great that you agree and are curious enough to ask questions. Do more research (which will take time, not just reading one or two articles) and you'll understand more.
The video was very informative, clear, and direct!
And one sided.
I have some questions that didn't really get answered by this video. First of all, what does "indigenous lands" mean in the first place? Is that not literally all of the US's lands (and other parts of the Americas but we'll limit ourselves to the US for now)?
I also wonder how much of the "Native American as nature-lovers" is stereotype and how much is based in reality. This video seems to appeal to this trope, but I have no sense of how true it is in real day-to-day life. Although I'm sure it's true to at least some extent, especially if you're talking about it here, I thought one of the criticisms of Disney's Pocahontas was that it exaggerated the nature-loving culture to an excessive unrealistic degree, almost essentializing Native culture to be about nothing but nature - or is that real, that most aspects of Native life tie back to nature? I'm sure this also depends on which particular tribe of indigenous people we're talking about, as well; indigenous people in the Southwest must be very different in culture than those of the Northeast just because they're so physically distant from each other.
The video also talks about land management/caretaking, and there was a brief example of using fire to create pastures, as well as a comparison/contrast of the underlying philosophy. But what would that look like today? How would that look different from current US management?
There is countless free research to answer every single one of these questions if you really want to know
Lol yes, all of the USA as well as the Americas are Indigenous land. They said in the video, "it literally means give ALL the land back"
"Native American Nature-Lovers" is a stereotype, but as with many stereotypes, there is some basis in truth but it doesn't not apply equally to everyone. It is like saying "White Religious Zealots". There are many white people who are religious zealots, even more that are just ordinary religious, and others that are not religious at all. The European colonizers brought over strong religious views became a large part of American culture.
Culturally, Indigenous people see themselves as equals with the land rather than dominators of the land. So we feel a certain cultural connection to the earth, the water, the trees, the wildlife, the plants. It does not mean I won't cut down some trees to build a home, or eat the tastiest animal that walks by. It just means that I am aware that I am cutting down a tree that may have existed before I did, that the animal I just killed for food was part of a family of animals, that the water I drink may have fallen from the sky as snow and landed atop a nearby mountain. There is a certain serenity and awe one feels, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, when in nature and aware of these things.
Contrast that serenity with factory farms where animals are packed in so tightly they are unable to fall to the ground when they die from disease. Forests, and accompanying ecosystems, are completely destroyed to make room for a new factory which spews toxic material into the air and water. Sport hunters who kill animals to the brink of extinction, and only take home antlers.
Just think about what it takes to get a glass of water from your kitchen sink. Although a technical marvel, and awe-striking in it's own right, it is hardly serene.
I can't speak for all Indigenous individuals, but I can say that the majority of Indigenous cultures have similar views and connections with nature, just as the majority of European descended cultures have a connection with "God".
It's good to ask follow up questions, but that needs to come with intention to learn the answer. These are all asked and answered by indigenous leaders, scholars and many others. A true skeptic will follow the line of questioning and see where it leads. Stopping at the question is an excuse disguised as skepticism.
@@i9169345 also important is that there is an immense wealth of knowledge about the complexities of ecosystems embedded within the cultures respecting nature. This is knowledge that can be come by scientifically, but science is centuries behind and by design quite slow at processing the incredibly complex systems of nature.
Given how crucial healthy ecosystems are to the humans surviving and thriving, it is downright dangerous to ignore this incredible source of value (before you even get to social and moral conversations).
Not even done watching this video, and have to pause cause I just broke down crying at what is shared at the 3 minute mark. I've never been taught that history so directly and detailed about the bounties for the murder of the original stewards of this land. This makes the generational trauma and presence of hungry ghosts that much more real. RUTHLESS.
I'm in support of native peoples having land returned to them. All of my questions about it pertain to the nuts and bolts of implementation. As an example, can I continue to hike and camp in a low-to-no impact method on public land? Some tribes do require an additional fee for doing that while others don't. Does that mean that management practices will be dissimilar? I don't expect an answer from AtN, but it is the kinds of things I think about with the movement.
The analogy of the bike might make sense to a people that sees a long-term picture, but falls short in current USA culture. Case in point is that a majority of Americans are looking for short-term gain (especially those with money and power). With such a narrow focus, even looking back 50 years is a reach, not to mention 500.
I genuinely am in support of this movement and want to learn. I think that addressing the implementation concerns people have in a meaningful way with a plan would go a long way in gaining support. Will AtN follow up with addressing the concerns or proposed action?
Land back is a big project and ideal so when looking for specific details you're just gonna have to wait for whenever that event happens because it's not gonna look the same everywhere. Best you can do is look at the land back work happening closest to you.
Makes complete sense to me, and seems like one of the only ways to right this wrong while also trying to heal from all the destruction to people and planet. We have so much to learn from Traditional Ecological Knowledge. It's very challenging to be alive during a time and in a culture where so many gifts from Pachamama get wasted, while so many go without. Not to mention all the pollution in the pursuit of "progress". The status quo has got to go. We are undermining our own existence. May the #LandBack movement flourish~
I love this!!!! LAND BACK
live, laugh, land back ❄️♥️✊
While I agree that Indigenous people got screwed out of their land (and shoved onto the worst land possible), which lands do they get back? And which tribes get it?
I live in Northwest Nebraska, a couple hours south of the Black Hills. I realize that the gold rush in the 1880s caused many whites to settle in the Black Hills and push the Indians out. Most of them were Sioux, but some were from the Cheyenne tribe, the Rosebud tribe, and several others. The very town I live in was originally settled by homesteaders, but was probably land that was used by Indigenous tribes for hunting, foraging, and living off the land.
Addressing these issues, while important, is much more difficult 150 years after the fact. Yes, the people in charge of the treaties were very racist and lied about the terms or just flatly refused to honor the treaties promised. But now that we are many years later, many people from all different areas of the world have settled down here, and Indigenous people now have the freedom to live and work anywhere they want, I don't understand exactly what they want and how they are going to get it from homeowners, farmers, and cities that own part of this land. Perhaps, someone can enlighten me on more details. I'm not trying to be mean, just realistic.
Hi Jenn, thanks for your question! (This is Chey, I'm the writer for this episode.) When talking about Land Back, a lot of people have questions centering around how the land will be "divided" and which lands will be given back. Within my work I've noticed that sometimes it's one tribe or a conglomerate of tribes that obtain their sovereign rights back to the land (like this example out of Mendocino (www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/california-redwoods-native-american-conservation.html). Indigenous people's face the brunt of environmental injustice, and are usually the ones on the frontlines combating it. Land Back, and "obtaining rights" over the land translates to having sovereignty over THEIR lands (like the struggles we saw with NODAPL and are currently seeing with Stop Line 3, where giant oil pipelines are desecrating sacred lands and creating environmental concerns). It means having key decision-making power (which we currently don't have, so we're often left out of these important conversations) over what is done to the land (like constructing pipelines versus protecting and conserving lands). I encourage you to visit landback.org to learn more about this movement and it's goals--there's great info on there! I hope this helped!!
Alaskan Native here. I’m here for this
Thank you for being here!
I'm down with this but I would be concerned about the logistics. Like are there enough indigenous people to actually manage that much land? Seems like a big ask. It might be something that would need to be done slowly over generations as their populations grew larger. IDK but it seems like a win-win for everyone. Governments don't have to spend as much money to maintain that land, indigenous peoples get their land back, and the land will likely be better off for it. I don't really see a down side as long as it's handled well.
I think it would be a boon to the US going forward.
Indigenous communities across the globe are NOT experts at managing and protecting land. They just never created industrial societies capable of maintaining the population density required to impact the environment to the degree industrial societies are. Mexico City today has a population of 9,209,944
, approximately 61 times that of the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan.
If we were to hand Californian wildfire management over to "traditional stewards", millions upon millions of Californians would be displaced, because the native fire management amounted to "just migrate to an area unaffected by wildfire and wait a couple years for the environment to recover". And that was possible because of the low population density.
I'm pretty sure that article at 6:03 talks, in part, about how native Americans burned down so much of inland America that it turned the midwest from forest land into the Great Plains, and caused the explosion of buffalo which eventually resulted in the specification of the plains and mountain buffalo.
Mentioning the Standing Rock protests is hilarious in hindsight, as anyone who had to clean up the morass of environmental damage and pollution the PROTEST ITSELF caused could tell you.
Looking to pre-industrial societies for environmental management of industrial societies is like looking to hunter-gatherer societies to solve food shortages in agricultural societies.
Stop promoting noble savage narratives.
The circle of life, kept Australia prosperous and is a view shared by the Sami.
What about the Clovis People, who were forced from their lands by current native Americans 15,000 and 20,000 years ago?
Why do you think the Clovis where "forced from their lands"? Considering that the majority of indigenous in North America today share DNA with the Clovis, why is your assumption not that the Clovis were ancestors of the indigenous, and the Clovis became what we call indigenous today.
@@i9169345 By that logic the people in the united states, "Native and non" share a lot of native DNA and European DNA. Why aren't they considered the "Natives"?
@@i9169345 holy shit, do you really think "indigenous people" are one monolithic group who never had conflicts with each other?
Look at the well documented history of Eurasia with different nations constantly fighting, exploiting, expelling, and exterminating each other. You really think the history of North America pre 1492 is different?
@@joshkarpatkin2642 Of course they are not a monolithic group. And while there were conflicts, they also have many shared valued and cultural norms relative to European colonists who saw land as something to dominate and exploit. I speak of Indigenous North Americans the same way I speak of Europeans, a collection of people and cultures. I thought that was obvious. I didn't realize I needed to be pedantic.
PBS origins got me here!! Awesome segment!
So glad you came and checked out our video!
Alot of question weren't answered here, Do who now government over that land, will Only natives run that government. How do you know who is a native? what happens to the other ppl living on those lands now? Not to mention taxes schooling n the justice system?
Thanks for teaching me about the origins of National Parks. It would be interesting to meet Indigenous people at multiple National Parks.
I visited to Yosemite and Grand Canyon National Park for vacation.
Native Americans or American Indians ? Know who you are !! Yet this will be a great way to get our land back and our reparations .
Excellent video, completely agree. LAND BACK NOW
best landback presentation i've seen on youtube so far. thank you Shy & Corrina.
Thanks for watching!
Thank you! This is meaningful.
Thank you for watching!
Land back 🔑🌈🍄💚
#landback
So which indigenous people get the land back? Mount Rushmore was occupied by 6 different tribes in the 200 years before white man bad got there. The indigenous people constantly fought over it and it passed from one to another, what makes the white man different? Is it just because he's white?
Yes the indigenous people were badly treated and that's wrong, but they weren't the saints your trying to make them out to be and all land everywhere in the entire world (virtually) has been stolen at one time, who should get it? It's ridiculous to think that certain people have this entitlement, when everyone else doesn't. Think there is a word for this.......maybe you can help me out?
Wut this is powerful. Definitely going to share this with my family that gets confused about land back initiatives. (Came here from origins)
Thanks for watching and sharing the content with your family!
Dan SImmons "Black Hills"
Thank you for this
Land Back 🖤🐾🌹🐺🐺👊👊
What about the poor mammoths that had their land stolen by the Siberian settlers that became the indigenous peoples of the Americas?
The Woolly Mammoth's extinction, theorized as either being from over-hunting or being unable to adapt to Earth's warming climate, is not the same as the planned colonization and genocide of Indigenous Peoples.
i love everything in this video, and have no good excuse for my ignorance
Thank you for watching and being open to learning something new
Indigenous people stole those lands from someone too.
Pretty sweeping statement. Do you have some examples of Indigenous communities stealing lands to share?
I think it depends. I think that if land was taken from a person or culture that is still alive then it should be given back if that land still possesses the same cultural significance. However if the land was taken 300 years ago and a person who's a descendant of that culture who has never been a part of that land in their life time, I don't think the government should required to give it since that particular person(s) has never owned or lived on that land in the first place.
I've done some more thinking, and I think that if there is a cultural uprising of native people who want their and to use it in a way that is culturally relevant to the native life style, then land can been given back it it still carries the same cultural significance and if it is not being used by someone who had purchased the land legally. By cultural significance, I mean that the land could still be used for the same sacred ways of natives, for example if native land was stolen, and a city was built on top of it, then that can could no longer used in a way that is culturally significant, so it should not be given back. But national parks could be given back if vast number of people claim it's cultural significance. Or maybe there could be a way where it can still be a national park, but natives share the land, as the believed years ago.
@@Duraputer Doesn't "only if the culture and it's people remain" encourage genocide on top of colonialism?
And, if you are allowed to tell them how the land must be used do they really own it? Because the implication is that violence will be used against them if they do not use their land "properly" (which was part of the justification of taking it in the first place).
@@tomcmustang I would like to understand your view point better. Can you explain how allowing people to live on certain land only if it holds cultural significance would encourage genocide and colonialism? Is there modern examples of this within the last 30 years? New York was partially once native American territory. How should people who live in apartment buildings on that land be dealt with, and in what way should the land be conditioned for native Americans? I mean these questions in a way that is respectful because I believe native American rights are very important, but the rights of other people matter too.
@@Duraputer I think you are thinking of this in an individual manner but Land Back acts in the manner of the state. Someone living in an Apartment in Native Lands would be the same as living in New York.
@@tomcmustang ok, maybe there is something I'm confused about. What does a manner of state mean? And how does that differ from how it effects individuals who may live or work on that land. Thanks
Th US government owns WAY too much land. Thy need to make it public again so people can buy parcels as they please at a very reasonable price..
One aspect of this situation that's missing from the video, is the payments made to the survivors of these tribes. I'm not advocating that they weren't wrongfully removed from their lands, but generations of survivors have received regular payments per the treaties that were made. Might that not be considered 'compensation', which equates that the land wasn't 'Stolen'? Seems to be a big part of the situation, which never gets discussed in this dialogue. That, to me at least, discredits the topic by oversimplifying it to a 'they did this to us', without sharing the entire picture. Are casinos on Native Amerian lands mentioned? The tax exemption or fishing rights that have been honored? It seems to be a much more complicated issue than 'this is our land and we want it back because colonizers are bad. They were, that's not in question. Racism is bad, and we as a species need to work to repair our world, not nitpick on who owns or doesn't own the land. Are we to forget the work of generations that have worked on this land, put in the hard work to farm it and feed millions, because they received it from a previous generation that held different beliefs?
If we look at returning the land as reparations to a previous 'owner', do we not need to make reparations to the species that were there before them, or the microbes that were there before them? Are we trying to change the past because a racially committed sins over a century ago? I really feel like this needs a more balanced view to make it a real discussion, and push this subject forward. If my grandfather had his land stolen, and I was forced to relocate at the end of a rifle and forced to change my language and culture, I would be angry, too. But I really truly believe we can't rebottle the lightning and reintroduce buffalo and wildlife to native lands AND feed the people of this era, provide them jobs to gainfully support the world we live in. Lets move this to a higher discussion of the species, and move past races and past sins.
I haven’t even finished reading this comment but the answer is no... as of today nothing has equated to the land not being stolen. You are one of many people who hold the misconception that natives are being generously compensated for the atrocities put against them. And to continue onto the questions you began to ask I would say that if those are what you have to be asking after watching this episode. Watch it again... because as you said ... it is a much more complicated issue.
skipped to the end of this comment.. please watch this video again, you missed key parts of what they were trying to explain ...
Thank you for reading my comment, albeit incompletely. I watched this video twice before commenting, in the hopes I had missed something. I live rather close to this situation, and DO want what is right, and don't believe either side is willing to work toward it. Both sides seem to want to believe the other is wrong, that their cause is righteous, and that it is in the best interest for the other to concede. 'My way or the highway'. I just don't see that changing things.
The people that set this in motion are long gone. My family has worked the land for 3 generations to feed MILLIONS. Literally. Is their hard work worth nothing?
@@centerededgedesignusa7957 the people who started “this” are most definitely not long gone. And I would like to say that I’m not trying to come out in an attacking manner but rather in a constructive understanding way. If you watched this video twice and still didn’t understand the #landback issues at hand I would recommend looking into the links and resources in the description. From your comments all I can see is a simple lack of understanding and mindset that it takes for an understanding to be made. I don’t have the time to explain what you can most definitely research yourself but what you are saying and asking is basic and skims the surface of the larger conversations we need to be having... dig deeper!
@@deziraej6977 by 'this', I was implying the people that murdered and forced indigenous peoples into terrible conditions, boarding schools and ripped their culture from them, thus causing this problem. NOT the people that are fighting for a solution. I want a solution. Not a fight.
I came to this channel after happening across a couple of well balanced episodes from 3-5 years ago. I liked that it seemed to fairly describe multiple sides of the issues. So I checked out this more recent issue.
In this episode, the channel is just free advertising for a particular activist group, with zero journalism or balance. Somewhat interesting to hear the activists promoting their cause (I do read many partisan accounts to understand all sides), but not the kind of journalism which I might prioritize within the information overload. I may check out a few other more recent episodes, but if Above the Noise has become part of the noise, I can do without it.
If this was like the earlier episodes which impressed me, there would be respectful presentation of the pro-LandBack movement, combined with summarizing the most cogent arguments on the other side - ie: decent journalism rather than partisan activism.
Does this group believe in carbon tax as land stewardship as well?
Arent national parks already for everyone? Why should any one group of ppl have them?
One group of people already has them, it is called "The Department of the Interior" which cooperates with various other groups such as "The Bureau of Land Management" and "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service".
@@i9169345 Those are public servants not a group of owners based on their skin color...
@@beachboardfan9544 And Indigenous groups are caretakers, and servants to the land itself, not based on skin color, based on heritage. Not all Indigenous have the same skin tone.
@@i9169345 So whats the value in one group taking ownership of what is currently everyones land?
@@beachboardfan9544 Currently the land "belongs" to the united states government, which allows people to use it. Traditionally much of that land held cultural and spiritual significance to the Indigenous people whom it was stolen from. What is wanted is for the united states government to relinquish management of the land back to Indigenous people so they have the decision making power over the land.
Relinquishing "ownership" of the land back to Indigenous people would also be required as well for it work within the legal frameworks of modern society, however the concept of "land ownership" in many North American Indigenous cultures is not the same as the modern understanding of "ownership". Without going too deeply into it, traditionally land can't really be "owned", as we are part of, and equal to the land. Sort of like your nose owning your face. One can care for the land, use the land, or even exploit the land, but the owner-owned relationship doesn't make sense (traditionally).
hard truths that most people don't want to hear.
If they want to reclaim anything, they either need to beg or fight.
#CHIEFGANG
can someone explain to me how you steal a land and what is the difference between stolen land and conquered land - which is every single square meter of the world? and is the status quo to give it to the last occupiers of the land or are they tracking down the oldest known tribe that was driven out by some other warring tribes?
The United States gives the control of the land back to who the United States (or its previous iteration) took it from.
Conquered land is fundamentally invalid. There is no justification for colonialism and conquering land, only for defending your own land.
Other conflicts are the problem of other people and not currently in discussion here.
@@tomcmustang OK. So the land is given to who US took it from. is there any discussion about land ownership changes before europeans arrived? any disputes between different tribes?
And maybe because English is not my first language but I don't understand "Conquered land is fundamentally invalid". and "only for defending your own land" - describe "your own land". where do you get "your own land". why parks are not just "own land" of US now? there are timeline videos on YT of border changes all over the world. can you pick one and give me a time stamp of the point in time when it becomes "own land" for everyone in the world?
@@onelungg land disputes from before the American Colonies/the United States took the land are not part of the conversation here.
By invalid what I mean is that there is no legal or moral justification for conquering land. On the other hand, for a people to defend the land they live on is perfectly justified.
For example, if someone invaded the United States I would fight to defend it but, despite defending the physical space of stolen land, I still support returning control of the land from those it was stolen from.
An imperfect analogy; if I stole a bike from you I should be expected to return the bike to you. But if that stolen bike is taken from me, I still need to return that bike to you. The fact that someone took it from me doesn't absolve my responsibility for stealing the bike in the first place.
One Question. Whose land is it? If we look far enough back into history, you will find that many tribes have gone out and conquered other tribes, taken the land for themselves, then were conquered years later.
If you say, "The land belongs to the people that owned it first," then we have to find out who claimed the land first, before any of the conquerors that came before the British, French, and Spaniards. Which may be impossible. If you say, "The land belongs to the people who were here before the white man," then I have to ask, "why does the indigenous man get to kill and conquer other indigenous men, but the white man isn't allowed? Just because they were better at it? Or is it because they were, as the video said, 'old, White men.'" I have some problems with how the government treats the reservations and the people, but all in all, THIS LAND IS NOT STOLEN.
Take your lands back and do not ever let another settler or settler descendants on it ever again.
AP2P
Win the war next time
Yes they said the original american founders are the Indians. The whites only drove them out. Indian Pana Kakana Kana.
Beautiful video! You spoke so well! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
We need to get rid of this stupid notion that man is above nature instead of a part of nature.
And I 100% believe that indigenous management systems foster biodiversity and life way better than most techniques used by conservationists. Let's bring back indigenous cultures, languages and knowledge so that we can regenerate the land and heal generational traumas.
For those who would like to learn more about indigenous landmanagement, some interesting reads:
- Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmer
- The biggest Estate on Earth, How aborigines made Australia by Bill Gammage
-Breakthrough in Agriculture, 1994 Ernst Götsch. (PART 2)
Does anyone have some more literature for me on indigenous land management practices and culture (as interaction with nature / landmanagement is all interwoven in indigenous culture) These subjects really make my heart beat faster :) :) :) I'll get started on the material / links in the description bocks of this video of course, thanks again!
OK, so wars have consequences, particularly for the losers. The US Government has claimed most of the US west of the Mississippi. It owns 28% of the entire US, but you don't see much of that in the original 13 colonies. It's not a question of how to divide it up, it's about getting a majority of people to want to give it back.
Okay settler!
Climate change bahahahahahahhaha
#landback
#landback