I'm in Canada- for our country I'd say no, since I can see no gain whatever for the titanically huge majority of Canadians who have no aboriginal ancestry and who all benefited massively from colonial settlement and subsequent immigration, insofar as our country exists, where it would not have, has tons of cool infrastructure and other stuff, which it would not have, and has us in it, which it would not have. This does not preclude a rather wide range of other positive approaches to our aboriginals including on their self-government, but if their self-government as separate nations in treaty relations with the Crown is to remain, I'm not hiving off huge tracts of the nation to other nations. Better arrangements for my aboriginal fellow citizens of Canada would be a better idea. I suppose I could always re-migrate back to the UK and try to kick out the English.
No and yes, giving back land would be highly impracticable now and leave a lot of non-native people within what is supposed to be native held land. However, giving back apportionments of land with investment from the federal and state governments would be a long way to overturn the poverty that we have pushed many native peoples into. Alongside giving native groups access or control over ancestral lands that are underdeveloped or federally owned. Imagine if Native American groups where co-custodians of national parks alongside the federal government.
As we speak, the Cherokee Nation is looking to have a non-voting delegate seated in the House of Representatives. A non-voting delegate in Congress is a right exclusive to the Cherokee and at least two other tribes, but is something the Cherokee had not acted upon until recently. The Delegate-Designate, Kimberly Teehee, was appointed by the Principal Chief and approved by the Tribal Council in 2019, but her seating has been delayed, particularly due to COVID.
@@RandomGuy-jo8ky Non voting delegates can still propose laws, participate in debates, and work in committees. All they can't do is the final vote. It's still better than not being able to participate at all.
Worth noting that American Indians weren't even given US citizenship until 1920, meaning, essentially, that they didn't even have the basic rights of anyone in the US. It was an awful system.
@@RandomGuy-jo8ky Except that these nations and their citizens were still treated as being subject to US law, laws that were passed by local and federal legislatures they had no say in. The US rarely treated members of other nations the way they treated Native Americans, refusing them the consideration due to members of a foreign state and the rights due to citizens of the United States.
That is one justification that was used, but regardless of how the behavior was defendwd in the eyes of the government, their treatment of these human beings was deplorable.
For the numbered treaties including treaties 1 through 9, stretching from northern Ontario through all of the prairie provinces to north-east British Columbia, there was no mention of ceding or surrendering the land in the spoken agreement, and the Indigenous peoples there could not speak English. The Indigenous peoples whose traditional territories were in Scarborough, Markham, the credit river, the Grand River (Haldimand Tract), the Robinson-Huron treaty area, and parts of western and eastern ontario did also not cede their land in these areas, either in their conception of treaties or not at all. Quebec, the maritime provinces, and almost all of British Columbia were also never ceded/surrendered by the Indigenous peoples living there.
@@xylonbanda Hopefully he means the people weren't mistreated; instead they were slaughtered, institutionalized and humiliated. Always has been, always will be.
One solution I saw from a Canadian land back advocate was just to let native governments exercise taxes on cities located in areas where treaties were broken. That way indigenous people could have a revenue stream to lift their communities from poverty and no one would have to be forcibly moved from land they were born on.
Are you high? Do you know how high income tax, property tax, gst, hst, carbon tax is in Canada? You really think it's a good idea to strap a middle class community with another tax when the revenue will inevitably be mismanaged either by the federal government or the tribal councils themselves
@@MU-ij8fy Hi, I'm in Canada I'll gladly pay a high income tax in return for a much better standard of living, free healthcare, etc... like in Scandinavian countries... You Yanks can't seem to put 2 and 2 together, that or everyone is completely corrupt over there... ....... or both 😂
@@walterbrunswick Hi, I'm Norwegian We don't have a tribal land tax, so it wouldn't be anything like Scandinavia, we try to help the poor irregardless of their ethnicity as long as they have a citizenship.
@@walterbrunswick Higher income taxes does not equate to a higher standard of living. It’s quite the contrary actually. When the working class is allowed to keep more of the money they earned they’re able to spend it on a per person basis on certain needs and wants that particular person needs to address at the time. There’s a reason why so many people are leaving higher taxes states for lower taxes ones. The only thing keeping people in certain states or cities is due to jobs and/or family.
"There can never be peace between nations until there is first known that true peace which is within the souls of men" - Black Elk (Native American Chief)
Love your content. So I just wanted to inform you that there are now 574 Federally Recognized Tribes in the US. As of Dec 20, 2019 the Little Shell Chippewa in Montana received federal recognition. As of Dec 10, 2021 they are now in talks with US Army Corp or Engineers about taking over Hell Creek State Park as a “reservation” for their tribe. Other than that, great job with the video.
This is just my opinion but I feel like the mistreatment of natives in places like Canada and Australia is overshadowed by the way the USA mistreated the natives in their territory.
Surprised you didnt mention the Treaty of New Echota. That fell into its own category. Signed by a minority Cherokee faction and not approved by the Cherokee Council or signed by the principal chief, but ratified by the US congress and enacted into law.
This sadly is not unique to the USA: Canada, much of Latin America and Carribbean, and Australia also ignored the rights of First Nations peoples. Note: Sioux is pronounced like sue. (As in: they should sue the government in court.)
The issue does exist in those places you mentioned. But the case of the US is the worst, due to actual existing agreements that were ignored by all the expansionism to the West. Plus you also have the case of Hawaii, Alaska. And also the 5 current colonies of the US: Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Mariana Islands, Samoa. Australia and Canada follow behind the US.. Cases in some countries in LatinAmerica /Caribbean are not to the level of US/Canada/AUS. Racism is not the main issue in those locations, and folks do not live in an incarceration style “Indian Reservation”.
Could you do a video on the hidden religions of the Middle East? These: Druzes, Copts, Manichaeism, Mandeism, Ali Ilahism, Samaritans, Yarsanism, Zoroastrianism, Yazidism, Alawites, Baha'is, Assyrians.
Concerning everything I heard of "Manifest Destiny" it might as well be called "opposite direction Lebensraum"... Think about it: Make treaties, just ignore them whenever pleasant and take over land where you have no right whatsoever to have it. It's strikingly similar.
The video made me think about something, what if the US functioned as a diarchy between the natives and federal governments? Seems like an interesting idea
For what it’s worth, I really hope that justice can be made. I have many friends who are of tribal ancestry. It gives me sadness to see that their people were treated so horrifically. I really hope the United States makes this right. And I really hope that each tribe still existing in America right now today, eventually gets the justice that they deserve to receive.
I would like to see new treaties negotiated to match the current needs and populations of native tribes. More important than redressing wrongs of the past, is to look to the present and future of the people who are alive today. I would like to see native people in all levels of government, educated and trained to manage national parks, management of water rights, environmental protection, etc. To have natives in charge of these government departments would honor their heritage and ensure that they have the power to make and enforce laws that protect the land of their ancestors.
i agree. plus it makes more sense then trying to uphold treaties that can't be upheld now due to neumarous factors. and only issue is for it to not be treaties but laws similar/same vain as those of National parks since they would be harder to ignore and disregard.
Thank you very much for making this video. People need to know about our nations and the history thereof. I'm Chickasaw and so much has been taken from us, but we are strong and we will stand despite the authority of the state. Let's stand together in solidarity. Yakkookay chimanhili.
@@night6724 ?? We currently live in Wichita territory, not Quapaw. Quapaws lived in eastern Arkansas. I'd love to see us work with the Wichita on co-governing in some ways, as it is their traditional land. We were given this land by the government though. Even though we didn't want it, it's been our home for almost 200 years and we won't give it all up. Id just like to see us work together on some things, particularly land management.
Yes, I would like to see the U.S. honor its obligations similar to how the U.S. values it when others honor their obligations as it relates to their (U.S.) interest. Quite often there's a double standard. Most Americans have been trained throughout the years to only focus on themselves and their families. Not realizing that what's done to one person can eventually be done to you.
@@night6724 that decision is between those two sovereign nations. It is not the American Peoples decision to make. The only interests American People should have is honoring what their constitution says, which is “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land and judges in every state are bound thereby.” (Article 6, Clause 2) and demanding their govt follow the laws explicitly written.
@@night6724 this is massively incorrect. The treaties are not void. Pick a treaty, any treaty and you’ll notice there is no statute of limitations nor is there any article or statute that says the treaties are void if/when a party breaks it. Just like when you get a mortgage on a property. The 500 treaties are the mortgage agreement that gives the legal right to non Indians to occupy this land. If you break the terms of your mortgage you don’t get to legally tell the bank “oh the contracts been broken/void, so now I get to keep this property now 😂😂”
I think you guys should hear the quote from the Greek who wrote the first history book. Basically, the point is "Moral doesn't matter unless you make it matter, while the strong do what they want, the weak suffer"
This is a really ignorant thing to say. To characterize the Native Americans as weak is such a classic white-savior mindset. They were not defeated because they were weak they were defeated because of the massive population decline wrought by exposure to disease they had no immunity to. It was a biological imperative that caused them to fall not "weakness." I know you probably think you're being a good guy by presenting natives this way but you arent. You're devaluing their history and making them nothing but victims.
My great grandfather was 50% Choctaw Indian. I'm still considered a federally recognized American Indian, eventhough I've never been to the reservation. The Jena Band of Choctaw. Most of that side of the family was born in Oklahoma. GREAT INFO! 👍
Just wondering how does a native American reservation works? In the Native American Reservation, were the native American language the second official language alongside English? Does the Native American Reservation allow for the Native American local government of the area more legislative rights?
Native American reservations are legally considered Federal land given to the Native Americans to live on. However, the Federal government can control who can live in the land. This means that often times Non-natives live in Reservations, but the Natives have no legal jurisdiction over them. Native American Tribes can pass laws, but these laws cannot supersede Federal law. Local police cannot go onto Reservations without permission from the Tribe. Yes, this has led to Native Americans committing crimes and fleeing to Reservations. State Police are allowed to go onto Reservations to apprehend criminals without permission from the Tribe. Tribes also cannot pass laws that affect Non-Natives that live on the Reservation. Tribes have a right to their own courts and states cannot prosecute Native Americans in state courts. They must be prosecuted in Tribal Courts (unless it's a felony or such, Native Americans can still go to a Federal Court). Tribes have their own police too
Louis XIV So essentially more states added to the Union? That could play out well for the Republicans if Washington, DC and Puerto Rico were to become states.
Louis XIV The current US states are essentially set up as “countries within a country”, since they are given vast amounts of leeway to draft their own laws without federal permission. The Republicans would benefit largely because it would mean having a vast increase in rural states represented in the Senate.
@@Cuteemogirl94 Germany would have won ww1 and 2 possible also the British would most likely then take the native land here’s no way I see native Americans controlling so much land without anyone taking it
Many of the natives attack and conquered each other all the time, the Aztec’s were an empire themselves with tribute states they use to provide slaves and sacrifice fodder.
@@brandonlyon730 Yeah but you can’t blame one native nation for imperialism. That’s like blaming Switzerland for the slave trade because France another European nation also did it too. You see the natives as a simple monolith. You wouldn’t like to be blame for Russia’s crimes but hey your all Europeans.
It’s hard to imagine an alternative outcome for the indigenous population of 40 to 50 million humans who had been effectively insulated from all other humans races for thousands of years, and had never developed natural immunities to the diseases that ultimately ravaged their population once the explorers arrived. That’s not to say that they were dealt with in good faith by the various colonizers and invading parties, who didn’t exactly deal with each other in good faith either. What’s happened since 1776 is a whole other exercise in resolving past violations of treaties. (Based upon world history it doesn’t seem like treaties have a very long shelf life anywhere.) Considering that the entire world population was less than 500 million back then, it is impossible to imagine that remaining isolated forever could be feasible in a globally interconnected world which now has over 15 times the population.
The idea that native peoples in the Americas were isolated for generations and finally brought to the "rest of humanity" by colonization is false. I'm sure it sounds good to colonizer ears though. Disease did have a huge impact on many native populations, but this was alongside war, mass murder, and deliberate economic and social disruption. It's interesting to note that in many places, natives had contact and trade relations with various Europeans for generations before any pandemic reared its head. In some of those places, there would have been no way for Europeans to conquer native polities had it not been for a pandemic. In other places, various European groups had significant help from native allies - the latter not perceiving that Europeans were going to take everything over. All of that said, nothing had to happen the way it did. It simply did.
@@hughanquetil2567 You shouldn't understate the amount of damage disease had on the population on the continent. 95% population loss is enough for complete and utter societal collapse- enough for many, many tribes and histories to be completely lost. This is one of the reasons the continent was so sparsely populated and "isolated". "Isolated" isn't really a good descriptor because even after this point, it is clear that tribes interacted, traded, and organized with each other and with Europeans. One aspect of this interaction not often discussed is the internal warping of society for some tribes that heavily relied on European trade. The Osage, for example, became so reliant on European material goods and controlling of the trade of said goods to other tribes that it slowly warped into a Hunter-Warrior society. This is not to contest anything you said, but to supplement it; heavy trade- even if beneficial to the Natives, eventually lead to inevitable dependence on the European colonizers.
@@hughanquetil2567 Historical illiteracy is not a good defense against the "evil colonizers" native Americans were excellent colonizers themselves. Ask the Comanche. Its not smart to dismiss the massive effect of disease here, because if so then there is really no excuse for the Native Americans failure to maintain control over their own territory other than being militarily and politically incompetent, which they were not. The entire basis of your argument devalues Native American history turning them from victims of a biological imperative to ignorant tribals gullible enough to have their lands stolen en masse (as opposed to simply unable to maintain control over it due to population loss) and militarily and technologically incompetent (despite the fact they adapted very quickly to European tech in many ways) this is not an argument you want to be using as a defense of native americans. The reality is that Native Americans were in the case of many tribes, extremely proficient warriors, the Sioux and Comanche were able to hold Europeans at bay despite a microscopic population. I dont like arguments that in an attempt to shift blame to Europeans also necessitate that Native Americans be incompetent and weak. Which they weren't. If it wasnt for the massive population decline caused by disease north america would be a very different place. It was not Wounded Knee or the trail of tears that ended Native dominance ffs. These were in the aftermath of their fall.
@@burtmacklin1208 Perhaps you should become historically literate then? Tell me which Native American nation or polity invaded and presently occupies a portion of Europe? The whole "some natives attacked/colonized/were mean to other natives" argument is the same worn out colonialist argument used to justify invasion and theft of other people's lands and resources - used by every colonizer polity.
@@TheKeksadler Nor should you understate the amount of damage that mass killing, terrorism, and economic destruction had on the population of the Americans during the European invasions.
3:55 Yes but mostly no, those are Indian nations rather then Indian reservations, that means they can only govern tribal citizens rather then governing the land itself
Yea this is what irked me too when he conflated that reservation jurisdiction = Indian nation claimed historic origin. It’s seemed a bit like he skimmed through some Wikipedia pages and conflated what independent nation states are like in the modern era.
As American power and population grew in the 19th century, the United States gradually rejected the main principle of treaty-making-that tribes were self-governing nations-and initiated policies that undermined tribal sovereignty. For Indian nations, these policies resulted in broken treaties, vast land loss, removal and relocation, population decline, and cultural decimation. We Are in the Midst of a Fascist Power Grab, But We the People Still Have Options. And soon they won't be there too! Then the inevitable! American “leaders” have reneged on American honor and dignity. Foreign policy is being dictated by our enemies. It’s unstated so far, but in my judgment, we’ve surrendered.
Well when the US stole/"bought" half of the territory of Mexico they took the land of the natives that where already Mexicans in Mexico where they where considered normal people and not called just "Native americans" and just got moved out of the way into reserves violating their rigths, that they had since they where servants of the spanish crown... I see a lot of anglophone documentaries negect this part of histoy and just generalize Europeans into one when the population of the US had a very different view of the world from the Spanish and Hispanic america. And it is still the case today.
dont know why i felt like doing this but given the fact that theres about 332,380,000 people living in the us and only about 5.2 mil natives as you said, that would mean thats roughly only 1.8-1.9% of the total US population being native…
Part of me does wonder that if the treaties were honored, and the lands looked like as seen in the thumbnail, if people from the United States (dominantly European and African) and Indigenous peoples from their nations would go into each other for work, land ownership, settlements, etc., thus intermarriages and transculturalism, forming new cultures, which could eventually lead to native nations joining the United States, and thus forming a similar map. Of course it'd be a lot more complicated, and many nations would likely not be interested, and our country would likely be more of a federation of various provinces, autonomous states, etc. rather then just 50 states.
Just as Russia granted many autochtonous peoples autonomy and their own republics, the USA should have done (or do) the same, naming a state after a tribe/people, having their language as official, and granting them their lands.
I just wonder to what extent that would have worked in the natives' favour. Due to forced relocation of people and russification programs on USSR's part, natives today find themselves as minority in their own republics, many drawing ever closer to cultural extinction. Can't see it having worked any better in native Americans' favour either. Greater powers always find a way to screw smaller peoples over.
@@jamesbernadette6216 yes there are many Russian Republics with small native populations that sway very little political power like in Karelia, but there are others where the natives still have large populations and in some hold a super majority of the population, particularly those that are not orthodox Christian such as Tatarstan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Yakutia, Tuva, Buryatia etc.
Been trying to find info like this for a few weeks and get a proper map of it. Would have been interesting if the US had honored its treaties yet have eventually incorporated tribal lands as states or similar entities into the Union.
No. Being called "American" is worse than being called "native". Indians want our Nations returned, no one would have to move or leave our Nations, you would be Americans in a foreign country, or you can give up your American citizenship o become part of an Indian Nation. We're the only group of people not allowed to exist in America
@@TannerWilliam07 That would work the way you think it does. It is a pipe dream. If the USA had honored the treaties there would be no USA and some other power would have conquered you. You lost America when Tecumseh failed to unite the tribes
@@TannerWilliam07 At the risk of coming across as a complete jackass, the word "Indian" shouldn't really apply either if you want to be that pedantic about it. I have friends from both the Choctaw Nation and South Asia, so I'm really not trying to offend. I just find sociolinguistics fascinating, and I think it's interesting that you use the term "Indian" even though you refuse the terms "American" and "native".
@@chazchoo99 When I speak Lakota, my ancestors hear my words. My ancestors don't recognize 'native' but they hear Indian. It's part of our history and treaties. My apologies to the people of Hindustan who were forced to rename their country to India after the English colonized it. But I respect their decision to own and adopt the name of India, please respect my people's decision as well: American Indian or Indian
While the internet has always good and bad effects, one that I really appreciate is the unbound presentation of this kind of content. As someone from outside the US, we were always taught in school and in media that the US were our "saviors" from our colonial masters and "the good guys" who have everyone's interest in mind. Videos like this shows that ultimately it is just like any other country, pursuing actions for their own self-interest. I understand that all countries have things they don't want to talk about. But if the US did not aggressively present themselves as the "good guys", they probably won't get as much criticism as they currently do.
The problem with taking land from others is, did they take it from someone else? Who is the original owner? How does one prove that? What is the most moral process to acknowledge owners? Does one ship every American back to where they came from? How do you determine which country that is? How far back do you go? Most English aren't original either. What about mixed natives with immigrants? How much determines they get to stay vs have to go? This would create a huge humanitarian crisis as well. Interesting topic. Thanks.
@@hugomartinez2387 Considering they aren’t even native to America as they crossed the Bering Strait during the Ice Age. If we want to play the original owner game then all human life should vacate the Americas and go back to Africa/Arabia.
"Do you believe Native tribes will now have the US government honour the treaties that they have now ignored for centuries? "- Is there a person who believes that?
That is not going to happen. There are other people living there now claiming that land, people with guns and they can vote. Also compensation cannot be paid to thease people since the federal state are broke. Look at the nation of Hawaii that saw this coming and did their best to assert itself and gain international recognition before being taken over. It didn't help...
Have you lost your mind? Why would they? You expect 2 million natives most of whom integrated into the broad US society to be able to maintain the vast amount of land promised to them hundreds of years ago and where would the other 298 million go? You after a minority rule situation aka apartheid south africa?
@@burtmacklin1208 Technically they are expected to land aquired legally, or migrate back to their ancestors homelands. Not saying that it would work but that is the general idea.
There’s a second side to this that I never hear discussed. In fact when I bring it up I’m just shouted down. But it’s the very real issue of Native culture having been wrapped into US culture for well over a century. I grew up next to a reservation and all the natives I knew thought, spoke, acted like and benefited from the US culture (yes, poverty is rampant, but a modern lifestyle is available on every reservation in the US). Many of the natives I grew up with served in the US military, voted in US elections, paid taxes and yes, some even collected financial benefits. No one ever needed a passport to cross the River. The dollar still buys goods and services on the reservation. Nothing feels like a different country. At this point it would be impossible to recognize the treaties that were signed 150 years ago and get “justice” because there’s been far too much intermingling of the US and native culture. And that’s benefited everyone. The very best this to do to make things right would give all native peoples full citizenship in the us, divide up all the remaining land among the remaining tribal individuals and make everything US soil.
Ask the native people if they want that. The ones I know would mostly say, "no"! Edit: I misread your comment. I thought you were saying Native people should assimilate. My apologies.
@@Catlily5 Ask if they want to be a completely separate nation? With their own borders, monetary system, military, etc? Every native person I know would not want that either.
I am all for the reclamation even as someone with no direct benefit as I have little connection my ancestral tribes. It may be a messy new frontier as were seeing with Oklahoma where major cities now lay entirely in native lands but I feel that people tend to be practical and so most day to day operations wont change much.
As someone who lives in eastern Oklahoma I can vouch for the fact that it's had very little effect on our day-to-day lives (unless you work in the legal profession, in which it's no doubt created a lot of headaches). The primary effect is that Tribal citizens are now subject to federal law, which means any legal proceedings involving a Tribal citizen is strictly under federal jurisdiction. So if a crime takes place involving a Tribal citizen, the FBI steps in and it's tried in federal court.
If the US honored its native treaties it would the first time they would honor a treaty. Anyway, it's a very good point even though it's a rethoric question
Some things I would like to add to perspective: Our modern view of time is... strange to me. Somewhere along the way, we became disconnected from our own history as a continuity, and we started seeing many events as though they are nearly completely separated, with single thread connections. But... that's not the way it works. We have become disconnected from our understanding of time, generational influence, and generational consequences... As an example of this. In 1754, 22 years prior to the start US Revolution - tensions were running high between the French and British powers back in Europe, and the American colonies were an area of "cold war" relations if you will. In May of that year, a young British military commander led out a scout troop, searching for French forces. In the early morning, the British encountered a small French contingent and attempted to capture them. The attempt led to a shooting skirmish, during which troops on both sides were wounded or killed. - The French declared they were a diplomatic mission, and should not have been attacked - presenting their documents. The young British officer did not believe the delegation, thinking them spies. In the immediate aftermath of the battle, Native American warriors who were sided with the British, began slaughtering the wounded French and scalping. This horrified both the British commander and French forces, of course. - Then it happened again, during movement of the French prisoners. Upon return to the French government, this skirmish would escalate into a global war, that eventually led to the American Revolution. The battle took place at Jumonville Glenn, and the young British, later American officer - was George Washington. And now you know... the *rest* of the story. Good Day! 😊
way less specific, but adding to that that iirc part of what made france so broke leading up to the revolution ... was having large amounts of funds go to the us war of independence (not that is the only reason that the french revolution happened, add a lot of socio-political and climate/weather factors but still)
@@wednes3day It is quite the tangled web - history. Especially the history of warfare - trace it back far enough, and you get to a single battle that centuries later, allowed for the rise of Hitler and National Socialists in Germany... It's just the way history works. Major events in our history - can be traced back to a single conversation gone wrong, and countless other misunderstandings. The life from a grandfather's birth to a his grandson's death covers about a century. It doesn't have to go back very deep, to see where things come from. Woodrow Wilson was 10 years old at the time of the US Civil War. It impacted him later in life, and his pursuit of a utopia without war, led to the deaths of 100 million people in the 20th century.
If the US is a federation of states, why not make the tibial lands states. This would work for larger territories, but some current "tribal lands" are quite small. What I'm saying is there is not a single solution for all.
I'd say that's up to the tribes themselves. My solution is to give them self governance the way Britain does with its crown dependencies with the permanently open option of statehood via a simple binding vote requiring either 60% vote, or a simple majority 3 times over 6 years.
@@thecomment9489 Only SPECIFIC whites back in those days: English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, Irish and the French, if we go by the first committee design for the great seal.
My honest opinion is that any all all tribes that have been able to hold onto ANY land as of today should feel incredibly lucky or fortunate. Generally speaking, if you cannot defend your land with force, you lose it - along with your life. That is reality.
Great story bro, except that your idea has no merit on the rule of law, right? It’s absurd to say today that I can legally steal your house in Jesus name, then kill your family in Jesus name and then get to keep your house because I successfully conquered you.
International Law renders that action illegal. Do you think the constitution is a joke? Do you think all the soldiers who died defending our constitution were a bunch of suckers? Because they died defending article 6, clause 2 which says “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.” Do you think the second amendment is shit and shouldn’t be complied with? The constitution says that treaties are to be honored.
If the native treaties were honored, the public would rebel, and we'd just end up going to war with the new native nations, conquering them and taking the land anyway. What we ultimately should have done is something like New Zealand's treaty of Waitanga, and worked the natives into the system from the start. Respect their property rights, eventually make them citizens.
@@unenthusiasticsalt2123 Europe is a small, densely populated continent that had periodic famines for almost a millennium. Seeing this giant, almost-empty landmass and not settling it was never going to happen.
@@unenthusiasticsalt2123 the pre-Columbian population of North America is estimated at 2-4 million people, of whom over half lived in the Mississippi delta.
You can easily tell North America was sparsely populated, because it has black people. Mexico, which was densely settled and likely had the population of France, does not.
@@SacredCowStockyards the black people in n. america were brought over in manacles as slaves. were no blacks here til then. unless youre counting the "indians" as black. which they are not. there were many factors as to why the land was so sparsely peopled. its not like they crossed over to here in droves.. they needed to stay a size that was workable with the resources available .
@@SacredCowStockyards It was actually upwards of 90 Million people across the continent before 1492. The global temperature actually cooled by .15°C because of the abandonment of indigenous agricultural areas following colonization.
The answer is LandBack and decolonization. “Numerous scholars have observed that Indigeneity prompts multiple forms of settler anxiety, even if only because the presence of Indigenous peoples - who make a priori claims to land and ways of being - is a constant reminder that the settler colonial project is incomplete” (Fanon, 1963; Vine Deloria, 1988; Grande, 2004; Bruyneel, 2007)
Only 2-3% of the entire nation is made up of Indians, how does giving land back make any sense right now 2.3% of all land is part of a reservation. That makes sense to me.
You live in a world ruled by these victors, and what history is this video detailing? You think this guy came up with this stuff on his own? You think he did all the research. There have been textbooks outlining this stuff for centuries. Its people who dont read history that say things like this.
As American power and population grew in the 19th century, the United States gradually rejected the main principle of treaty-making-that tribes were self-governing nations-and initiated policies that undermined tribal sovereignty. For Indian nations, these policies resulted in broken treaties, vast land loss, removal and relocation, population decline, and cultural decimation. We Are in the Midst of a Fascist Power Grab, But We the People Still Have Options. And soon they won't be there too! Then the inevitable! American “leaders” have reneged on American honor and dignity. Foreign policy is being dictated by our enemies. It’s unstated so far, but in my judgment, we’ve surrendered.
I like the idea theoretically. However, what do we do about tribes that have completely disappeared? Also, I know that I live on territory that was previously inhabited by native Americans, how would honoring our treaty rights affect me? What I have to move and leave everything I know?
In my region. There is extinct tribes but that does not mean that the entire region was theirs. We lived nearby many nations. We all lived and shared the land as well as defended it from people who are not from the region. The tribes that are extinct. Their land would go to their neighbours. It wouldn't go to any Americans.
Land back doesn't mean you move from the region. It means we are dismantling your governments and giving the power back to my fellow Indigenous tribes across the land. The only thing that will change. Is your lifestyle. Cities and towns stay the same. Just your governments are gone.
@@bizhiwnamadabi4537 I'm curious, how would you enforce that change in lifestyle? Of course it's likely many whites who disagree would just leave (likely after making a big show about it) but for the more stubborn ones, what do you do?
@@toontrooper4103 continue on with it. I am not worried about those people. Those are the ones who don't want to give the land back. Either way. Indigenous people are getting it back
I don't remember what year this happened but within the last 20 . The US Supreme Court ruled that ALL Treaties are valid and that with a few exceptions most of the land within The US Boarders are being held In Trust until The Treaties are fulfilled . Also no Amendments to any Treaty are valid unless the original Treaty is fulfilled .
@ White supremacist? Those same "poor oppressed native Americans" owned black slaves and sided with the Confederacy. Stand Watie, a Cherokee Confederate general, was the last Confederate general to surrender, after having a rather long and successful career of raiding Federal supplies in Oklahoma.
Unfortunately, centuries of genocide have reduced the number of people that would benefit from the US following some of these treaties. How many of the cultures that were once nations are extinct or in terminal decline?
@@Catlily5 That sounds like a healthy population. My concern was connected to the names of nations on a map of treaty areas that the General used in this presentation. Now, I'm nowhere near an expert in native American history, but there where a lot of names on that map that I haven't come across before. Maybe just a lack of knowledge on my part, but it definitely set the alarm bells going.
@@paulrobinson3649 There were a lot more tribes than most people have ever heard of even in the USA. I have heard of most of them. I have a map of tribal lands before the USA took over, though.
In my opinion the best thing to do is to turn the Native reservations into States of the US just like Texas, Arizona or Massachusetts, they would still be part of the USA but would have the exact same rights granted by the Constitution and would be free to rule themselves for the most part and use their lands like they want, hopefully this would be a win-win for both sides.
You do understand that reservations are functionally self-determined and soverign. Why would they want to become states subject to the federal government?
@@burtmacklin1208 Actually for what i heard reservations are owned by the US government and that's the main reasons why many of them live in horrible conditions. To better understand what i meant watch these videos: th-cam.com/video/ur0YWomy5YU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/pQ4lnDy2xnQ/w-d-xo.html
some tribes in my country still go to battle the goverment if they do some injustice to them, they gathered between 100+ to 700, and 1000+ natives sometimes and they rarely backoff
@@geno3911 and we’re still here. 😀 we can be outnumbered a million to one so long as Americans still believe their constitution is worth a damn. If the American People decided that they want to officially revoke the constitution, then we would have problems because there wouldn’t be a constitution that says “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
@@brianernstmusic i believe that the native americans will last for a long time, your culture is extremely resilient (like the jews and the armenians) especially in native americans which get out of reservations
Something that people seem to not understand when they get into arguments of "this is native land" and "this is American land" or "this is X land" with things like this is no treaty lasts forever, hell most treaties dont even last very long at all, like it or not you should always consider any and all treaties as temporary,
@@Apokalypse456 That is true yes but I think you missed my point is that treaties are eventually violated, no treaty is truly permanent in the long term.
@@cacamilis8477 A constitution is not a treaty between nations although constitutions also generally get rewritten eventually but tend to have longer livespans then a treaty. 200 years is a bit old for one though but the general Political system of the US means a constitutional convention is immensely unlikely to ever to occur short of in the aftermath of a civil war.
Given Britain's history of colonial exploitation, divide and conquer and the odd genocide, I was surprised to learn that one fo the main de-facto reasons for the Americna revolution was nothing to do with taxes or barracking, but because wealthy American speculators wanted to seize native land which was protected by treaties with Britain, which Britain had been honouring. That's why so many native groups fought with Britian during the revolution: it was their last chance to keep what was theirs.
The UK was fighting other colonial empires for trade/resources. Private companies were even the spearhead. The US did get involved with that too, such as in the far east. The US established it's own permanent empire. The Spanish empire also used large scale immigration/colonisation and like the US claimed 'independence' while in most places ignoring the natives.
Obviously, what happened to the Native American tribes is very tragic. But I do want to point out that western countries didn't treat treaties as particularly binding in the 1700s and 1800s. European countries would often write peace treaties saying they would honor them forever and ever, only to go to war again a few years later. It makes sense that people in the USA might think of their treaties with Natives in the same way.
That’s because Americans don’t read the constitution and have no idea that is says “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.” Treaties don’t have statutes of limitations (expiration dates) just like the bill of rights and the constitution. Americans believe that the constitution is still valid today even though it’s 243 years old. Treaties stated they’re as good as the “sun shines and the grass is green and the rivers flow.” If Americans don’t think treaties are legally binding then that means article 6, clause 2 of the constitution is not legally binding and I would bet every soldier who died defending the constitution would disagree.
@@brianernstmusic I think that part of the Constitution is just saying that treaties made by the federal government are binding for all the states. But I'll admit it's been awhile since I read that section. I could be wrong. Also, you're missing my point. Which is that flowery language was common in treaty-writing at the time. And it rarely meant anything in practice. For instance, here's a quote from a 18th century treaty between Britain and Spain. "The Most Serene King of Great Britain, his Heirs and Successors, shall have, hold, keep, and enjoy forever, with plenary right of Sovereignty, Dominion, Possession, and Propriety, all those Lands, Regions, Islands, Colonies, and places whatsoever, being situated in the West Indies, or in any part of America, which the said King of Great Britain and his Subjects do at present hold and possess, so as that in regard thereof or upon any color or pretense whatsoever, nothing more may or ought to be urged, nor any question or controversy be ever moved, etc" Surprise, surprise, they went to war within a few decades.
@@dasbubba841 yes that withstanding, when I think of native Americans I still feel sad. Oklahoma was in Southern territory so it would only be a pragmatic decision to support the Confederacy. And being slave owners were a sign of the times. It did not necessarily mean you were evil.
@@elibunches6044 not all. again slavery was not new. it had existed for centuries and in the U.S., it was economics. I am not defending slavery. only stating facts. slavery was a terrible institution and we are glad it no longer exists.
@@nathanielj.boston352 It effectively still exists, just not the the western world. If you take a look at certain asian of african regions, then you’ll see that it very much still exists, unfortunately.
@@nathanielj.boston352 Do you feel sad for the Greeks who lived in Constantinople and lost their city? What of the Kurds in the Middle East? Or the Armenians? History is ugly, and there are often losers, the natives were losers. They should be so lucky to have what they do.
The problem is there was no head of a single tribe. When a treaty was signed a tribe thought that just meant with that town or state and would raid other towns or states. It would never have worked anyway because, like the Comanche and Apache, their lifestyle was based on raiding. The US and Mexico would never be able to live with someone raiding them.
@MLKKK There has always been people living in North and south america before the Europeans started to show up. Maybe you should study Indigenous History before you try white wash history by saying no one was here.
The majority of the large tribes fought for the Confederacy and were some of the last hold outs of the civil war. The majority of US treaties pre 1866 are void because of this native push to keep their black slaves. Natives in Alaska are the last hold outs of Slavery in the US, not coming to an end until the 1900s.
Don’t try to twist this around the Buffalo Soldier Brigade look it up. You need to research history a bit. Those slaves you speak of went to the white mans side and did what they were told and granted land and money to do so.
This is something people ignore a lot when talking about natives. White people like to fetishize them as victims, this entire video could have popped up right after a showing of Dances with Wolves. Many Native American tribes were slave holders and very expansionistic.
@@JM-ys5vx Oh it changes a lot you can deny it but history matters. Buffalo soldier brigade matters, your foolishness to not research it changes a lot.
Britain is an interesting case. In 1066 the Normans conquered it, displacing the Anglo Saxons. They, in turn, displaced the Celts. I'm not sure who the Celts displaced, but I know that they came there from central Europe. Okay, then to whom should Britain belong, and where should the current residents go?
The "celts" were a mix of indoeuropeans. The people before them were pre-Indoeuropeans. The only pre-Indoeuropeans left in Europe are the Basques, so clearly Spain should own the british isles.
@@cevinzeke5110 so what if they didn't have wheel, did that make them less humans ? Did that make them a savage that couldn't speak? Not have any emotion or intelligence? If not what's the problem? Oh you so call civilized person you don't have human emphaty
Enjoyed the video! Subscribed. It’s very possible to do an entire Playlist on this subject. Not only in US but other Lands as well. Also, interviewing tribal leaders and or authorities. I saw on 60 Minutes I think that some native people are slowly repurchasing lands lost in treaties.
As American power and population grew in the 19th century, the United States gradually rejected the main principle of treaty-making-that tribes were self-governing nations-and initiated policies that undermined tribal sovereignty. For Indian nations, these policies resulted in broken treaties, vast land loss, removal and relocation, population decline, and cultural decimation. We Are in the Midst of a Fascist Power Grab, But We the People Still Have Options. And soon they won't be there too! Then the inevitable! American “leaders” have reneged on American honor and dignity. Foreign policy is being dictated by our enemies. It’s unstated so far, but in my judgment, we’ve surrendered.
Problem is the hundreds to thousands of tribes throughout the continent all despised each other, never interacted and ached at the thought of unity. To respect treaties would imply every tribe had to agree on what they signed, which they did not. Realistically speaking not a single treaty could have been upheld even if America was the “good guys” in this scenario due to all the native infighting
The fact that, to this very day, they're still officially referred to as "Indians" tells you everything you need to know about the level of respect that native tribes are accorded by the US government.
The US did honor the treaties, until they were renegotiated. It's like worrying about what Europe would look like if the largest borders of the Roman Empire were still intact. Borders change over time and are subject to one's ability to enforce them.
Can you provide evidence that show which treaties the US honored exactly? Also, please show me when/where/which treaties were negotiated because this appears to be completely made up.
@@brianernstmusic Basically the treaties were followed until there was a reason to change the terms, in which case, the terms changed. I mean in the same time that America spread across the continent, the borders of European countries shifted dozens of times. Geography being a fairly static thing is a relatively recent invention.
Everytime i see these type vids i try to think of where could i go if the land was given back. Due to my family having never known any other home since the 1600s. I would love to see the Natives be treated as the treaties instructed though. Its just a curious thought
It's easy, Indians want our Nations returned with membership in the United Nations. No one would have to leave or move off, but you would be Americans in a foreign country. We'd also have an alliance with the United States most likely, but people make wrong assumptions about what landback is. Indians are not Americans, we are forced to be Americans against our will. Let's heal the genocide together and let go of the past by returning the land. We're the only group of people with an inherit right to Sovereignty
@@TannerWilliam07 if that happens tho would non natives living on those lands automatically gain citizenship? Because if so then the "independent native nation" will become majority non native from the start. If we are not given citizenship then we would become secound class citizens, which will be simply unacceptable to the vast majority of us. By this point just giving the land back is not really a feasible solution. Personally I'm a fan of having the government give the tribes money for the land in instead of returning it.
“It would be of benefit to all” … not the tens of millions of non-natives that have lived here since the late 1800s. Yeah it was an injustice, the but the solution is not in the past. Now, we need to work to increase access to healthcare/education/jobs on the tribal areas.
Are you sure? What we have now is a system of federal bureaucracy and inefficiently run land with higher poverty rates and a lower standard of living in general compared to the rest of the country on Indian reservations. Allowing the people on them at least the same resources of any other local government and getting the feds off of their land would create a system that is more efficiently run and it would allow them to become as successful as any other Americans who don’t live on these reservations.
All treaties should be honored, thankfully I live in British Columbia Canada and we are unceded. But that also means I am not legally a Canadian citizen and am permitted to live on the lands of my ancestors. Yet I am able to vote in both federal and provincial elections and carry a Canadian passport, get identification and hold a driver's license. But that isn't the case for all my people, if you are under treaties two through four you have Canadian citizenship. One thing you could have mentioned is that Canada, the United States of America and Mexico are under a NATO agreement with the Indigenous people and can legally cross either of the three border's to attain employment without having to get a green card and to reside in either country.
Would you like to see Native Americans recover part of their land? *Why / Why not* ?
Yes! It was their land from the start
Only if Germany recovers "their" land taken after WWII
@@giannimaccagnan7454 Really? Based on what?
I'm in Canada- for our country I'd say no, since I can see no gain whatever for the titanically huge majority of Canadians who have no aboriginal ancestry and who all benefited massively from colonial settlement and subsequent immigration, insofar as our country exists, where it would not have, has tons of cool infrastructure and other stuff, which it would not have, and has us in it, which it would not have. This does not preclude a rather wide range of other positive approaches to our aboriginals including on their self-government, but if their self-government as separate nations in treaty relations with the Crown is to remain, I'm not hiving off huge tracts of the nation to other nations. Better arrangements for my aboriginal fellow citizens of Canada would be a better idea. I suppose I could always re-migrate back to the UK and try to kick out the English.
No and yes, giving back land would be highly impracticable now and leave a lot of non-native people within what is supposed to be native held land. However, giving back apportionments of land with investment from the federal and state governments would be a long way to overturn the poverty that we have pushed many native peoples into. Alongside giving native groups access or control over ancestral lands that are underdeveloped or federally owned. Imagine if Native American groups where co-custodians of national parks alongside the federal government.
As we speak, the Cherokee Nation is looking to have a non-voting delegate seated in the House of Representatives. A non-voting delegate in Congress is a right exclusive to the Cherokee and at least two other tribes, but is something the Cherokee had not acted upon until recently. The Delegate-Designate, Kimberly Teehee, was appointed by the Principal Chief and approved by the Tribal Council in 2019, but her seating has been delayed, particularly due to COVID.
I hope this happens soon
@@RandomGuy-jo8ky Non voting delegates can still propose laws, participate in debates, and work in committees. All they can't do is the final vote. It's still better than not being able to participate at all.
It's like giving a man food he's not allowed to eat. 🙄
@@Sofus. Actually, in a way, it's elevating the Cherokee Nation to the status of a US territory, who also have non-voting delegates.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel dude, Puerto Rico is trying to get statehood partly because having 1 non voting delegate is crappy.
Curiosity Stream is DEFINITELY a better sponsor than those stupid mobile games nobody wants to play anyway
Hey, have you heard about Raid: Shadow Legends?
I am sort of allergic to free games anyway, they are too expensive.
@@Tounushi no.
@@Tounushi They made a mobile game for an insecticide brand?
Play as the vikings so you can get a huge raiding buff and conquer your enemies in Rise of Kingdoms.
Worth noting that American Indians weren't even given US citizenship until 1920, meaning, essentially, that they didn't even have the basic rights of anyone in the US. It was an awful system.
@@RandomGuy-jo8ky Dude you have no clue what your talking about
@@RandomGuy-jo8ky Except that these nations and their citizens were still treated as being subject to US law, laws that were passed by local and federal legislatures they had no say in. The US rarely treated members of other nations the way they treated Native Americans, refusing them the consideration due to members of a foreign state and the rights due to citizens of the United States.
That is one justification that was used, but regardless of how the behavior was defendwd in the eyes of the government, their treatment of these human beings was deplorable.
was actually a great system.
Wow, such a horrible and awful system. In China all 56 ethnicities are equal citizens of PRC from the day one.
Please do one on if Canada honored their treaties and compare it to current population centers
For the numbered treaties including treaties 1 through 9, stretching from northern Ontario through all of the prairie provinces to north-east British Columbia, there was no mention of ceding or surrendering the land in the spoken agreement, and the Indigenous peoples there could not speak English.
The Indigenous peoples whose traditional territories were in Scarborough, Markham, the credit river, the Grand River (Haldimand Tract), the Robinson-Huron treaty area, and parts of western and eastern ontario did also not cede their land in these areas, either in their conception of treaties or not at all.
Quebec, the maritime provinces, and almost all of British Columbia were also never ceded/surrendered by the Indigenous peoples living there.
@hiOOxkr magkis ??
there would be no canada
@@xylonbanda Hopefully he means the people weren't mistreated; instead they were slaughtered, institutionalized and humiliated. Always has been, always will be.
@@rampantmutt9119 Okay, so they have no right to cry about them.
One solution I saw from a Canadian land back advocate was just to let native governments exercise taxes on cities located in areas where treaties were broken. That way indigenous people could have a revenue stream to lift their communities from poverty and no one would have to be forcibly moved from land they were born on.
Are you high? Do you know how high income tax, property tax, gst, hst, carbon tax is in Canada? You really think it's a good idea to strap a middle class community with another tax when the revenue will inevitably be mismanaged either by the federal government or the tribal councils themselves
@@MU-ij8fy Hi, I'm in Canada
I'll gladly pay a high income tax in return for a much better standard of living, free healthcare, etc... like in Scandinavian countries...
You Yanks can't seem to put 2 and 2 together, that or everyone is completely corrupt over there...
.......
or both 😂
@@walterbrunswick Hi, I'm Norwegian
We don't have a tribal land tax, so it wouldn't be anything like Scandinavia, we try to help the poor irregardless of their ethnicity as long as they have a citizenship.
@@maxh19991 that's the idea, "helping the poor"... the fabric of socialism
not the "me me me" capitalism mentality of the great USA
@@walterbrunswick Higher income taxes does not equate to a higher standard of living. It’s quite the contrary actually. When the working class is allowed to keep more of the money they earned they’re able to spend it on a per person basis on certain needs and wants that particular person needs to address at the time. There’s a reason why so many people are leaving higher taxes states for lower taxes ones. The only thing keeping people in certain states or cities is due to jobs and/or family.
"There can never be peace between nations until there is first known that true peace which is within the souls of men"
- Black Elk (Native American Chief)
Go find your purpose in god.
@Leo the British-Filipino Lot of good that did him
Black elk was a shaman not a chief
Waaa we want peace waaaa, you have [peace dummies'
Great.
Wonder if it can stop bullets.
The main question is "Has the USA ever honored any treaty?"
Or promises to it's own citizens like the freed Blacks after the civil war? 😓
only with the brits. the one they couldent fight
Like most of the treaties were honored
@@cakeyummy5285 True but in the strange case of the treaties involving the USA it's allways the same one who breaks it.
yes only the european ones
“Hey, you need to leave these lands because of rules we literally just made up. Oh, and we’re not going to follow the rules”
Love your content. So I just wanted to inform you that there are now 574 Federally Recognized Tribes in the US. As of Dec 20, 2019 the Little Shell Chippewa in Montana received federal recognition. As of Dec 10, 2021 they are now in talks with US Army Corp or Engineers about taking over Hell Creek State Park as a “reservation” for their tribe. Other than that, great job with the video.
that “reservation” was ancestral native land taken over by the US Army as a “state park” for their tribe.
other than that, great work with your comment.
Maybe u can give them state, like republics in Russia
All those tribes réservations should be géographically extended at least 5 Times. It would even still be little justice in regards of the past
In Brazil, Indigenous lands are 2x the size of Texas
This is just my opinion but I feel like the mistreatment of natives in places like Canada and Australia is overshadowed by the way the USA mistreated the natives in their territory.
Honestly I hear more about Canada’s mistreatment of natives more than the US but yeah I never even hear about Australia.
No such thing as natives.
@@jb894 bro what
@@ChronoCartographer they weren't natives
@@jb894 why do you think this way has it something to do with the fact that they came from asia to the americas
Surprised you didnt mention the Treaty of New Echota. That fell into its own category. Signed by a minority Cherokee faction and not approved by the Cherokee Council or signed by the principal chief, but ratified by the US congress and enacted into law.
Yes and after SCOTUS sided with Cherokee Nation, POTUS Andrew Jackson ignored it.
This sadly is not unique to the USA: Canada, much of Latin America and Carribbean, and Australia also ignored the rights of First Nations peoples.
Note: Sioux is pronounced like sue. (As in: they should sue the government in court.)
No doubt
That why indgedous people in the us canada latin amerca and australia and new zeland are fighting back against the oppressors
The issue does exist in those places you mentioned.
But the case of the US is the worst, due to actual existing agreements that were ignored by all the expansionism to the West.
Plus you also have the case of Hawaii, Alaska.
And also the 5 current colonies of the US:
Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Mariana Islands, Samoa.
Australia and Canada follow behind the US..
Cases in some countries in LatinAmerica /Caribbean are not to the level of US/Canada/AUS.
Racism is not the main issue in those locations, and folks do not live in an incarceration style “Indian Reservation”.
@@Dangic23 "But the case of the US is the worst," you are so uneducated every single native in Tasmania and Uruguay is dead.
@@Dangic23 mapuche people in chille and soutjern argentina are severley discrmnated against
Could you do a video on the hidden religions of the Middle East? These: Druzes, Copts, Manichaeism, Mandeism, Ali Ilahism, Samaritans, Yarsanism, Zoroastrianism, Yazidism, Alawites, Baha'is, Assyrians.
Assyrian is a culture/language, not really a religion anymore. Unless you can show me people who are worshipping Ishtar, Abzu, Tiamat, Gilgamesh etc.
Wiped out by Islamists.
@@usernamenotfound200 just like European Paganism is wipeout by crusade
The Sioux nation is pronounced "sue." Like, "I'm going to sue you."
French pronunciation indeed~
you mean 'im gonna Sioux you in court'
The Sioux should sue the US government.
@@Jose-xh5qb I think they did.
Like “general Custer committed siouxicide?”
As a Creek living in Oklahoma some people seem to misunderstand the mcgirt ruling and think we are above some laws now.
Concerning everything I heard of "Manifest Destiny" it might as well be called "opposite direction Lebensraum"...
Think about it: Make treaties, just ignore them whenever pleasant and take over land where you have no right whatsoever to have it. It's strikingly similar.
Almost like the Nazis took inspiration or something from the US.
I mean didn't Lebensraum technically include the rest of the world eventually? I've not studied it in a bit.
@@razier5299 No
Hitler himself said that they wanted to do on eastern europe what the whites did on north america.
The Nazi's and Hitler were directly inspired by America yes.
The video made me think about something, what if the US functioned as a diarchy between the natives and federal governments? Seems like an interesting idea
It wouldn't be a diarchy because the natives are not a monolith
@@jameslongstaff2762 true, however they could all function under a state-like council that will form the federal entity
@@itspugsley8203 little chance the tribes will ever unanimously agree on anything or get anything done since they’re so different
@@arlyham5328 they would be forced to due to their population being very low
@@arlyham5328 And? The rest of America is very different also but there’s still a somewhat unified government.
For what it’s worth, I really hope that justice can be made. I have many friends who are of tribal ancestry. It gives me sadness to see that their people were treated so horrifically. I really hope the United States makes this right. And I really hope that each tribe still existing in America right now today, eventually gets the justice that they deserve to receive.
Virtue signaling at its finest
@@calypso How do you know?
@@calypso for sure. Is pretty easy to be the good Samaritan sitting his ass in a confotable Chair. With his iPhone.
Cringe
@@calypso No? Nothing? Lol scared now?
I would like to see new treaties negotiated to match the current needs and populations of native tribes. More important than redressing wrongs of the past, is to look to the present and future of the people who are alive today. I would like to see native people in all levels of government, educated and trained to manage national parks, management of water rights, environmental protection, etc. To have natives in charge of these government departments would honor their heritage and ensure that they have the power to make and enforce laws that protect the land of their ancestors.
i agree. plus it makes more sense then trying to uphold treaties that can't be upheld now due to neumarous factors. and only issue is for it to not be treaties but laws similar/same vain as those of National parks since they would be harder to ignore and disregard.
Thank you very much for making this video. People need to know about our nations and the history thereof. I'm Chickasaw and so much has been taken from us, but we are strong and we will stand despite the authority of the state. Let's stand together in solidarity. Yakkookay chimanhili.
Y’all lost. I’m sorry but you are lucky you have what you do. Conquered people rarely have anything to show after they are conquered.
@@cevinzeke5110 I was a mistake done in history, which we need to be aware off and not do it again
@@francovargaslopez795 it’s no mistake. We did exactly what we had to do.
@@francovargaslopez795 it was the natural process
@@night6724 ?? We currently live in Wichita territory, not Quapaw. Quapaws lived in eastern Arkansas. I'd love to see us work with the Wichita on co-governing in some ways, as it is their traditional land. We were given this land by the government though. Even though we didn't want it, it's been our home for almost 200 years and we won't give it all up. Id just like to see us work together on some things, particularly land management.
Yes, I would like to see the U.S. honor its obligations similar to how the U.S. values it when others honor their obligations as it relates to their (U.S.) interest. Quite often there's a double standard. Most Americans have been trained throughout the years to only focus on themselves and their families. Not realizing that what's done to one person can eventually be done to you.
@@night6724 so you are saying we shouldn’t honor our legal obligations?
@@night6724 that decision is between those two sovereign nations. It is not the American Peoples decision to make. The only interests American People should have is honoring what their constitution says, which is “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land and judges in every state are bound thereby.” (Article 6, Clause 2) and demanding their govt follow the laws explicitly written.
@@night6724 this is massively incorrect. The treaties are not void. Pick a treaty, any treaty and you’ll notice there is no statute of limitations nor is there any article or statute that says the treaties are void if/when a party breaks it.
Just like when you get a mortgage on a property. The 500 treaties are the mortgage agreement that gives the legal right to non Indians to occupy this land. If you break the terms of your mortgage you don’t get to legally tell the bank “oh the contracts been broken/void, so now I get to keep this property now 😂😂”
We gave money, guns, and other awards in return for this land. That’s what this video leaves out.
Not realizing that what's done to one person can eventually be done to you. LOL thats why were heavily armed. You can take my land over my dead body.
I think you guys should hear the quote from the Greek who wrote the first history book. Basically, the point is
"Moral doesn't matter unless you make it matter, while the strong do what they want, the weak suffer"
while your message is awesome, I would have liked to see the quote and the author.
@@Apokalypse456 I believe it was Thusidedies, (didn't spell that right), and it was made (the quote) when the island of Delos rebelled from Greece
here is the video ( th-cam.com/video/bS9wg612lz8/w-d-xo.html ), go to around the 6 minute mark
@@Apokalypse456 Did you see it yet?
This is a really ignorant thing to say. To characterize the Native Americans as weak is such a classic white-savior mindset. They were not defeated because they were weak they were defeated because of the massive population decline wrought by exposure to disease they had no immunity to. It was a biological imperative that caused them to fall not "weakness." I know you probably think you're being a good guy by presenting natives this way but you arent. You're devaluing their history and making them nothing but victims.
I just finished teaching this a week ago! I'll be sure to show this video next year!
Beware of the CRT police!
@@geraldmeehan8942 "CRT is important! MLK ideas of judging a person by his merit and character is wrong!" - average leftist CRT pusher.
@@edwartvonfectonia4362 Say those who judge MLK by one sentence of his years of oratory.
@@edwartvonfectonia4362 And this would be the treatment of natives also not a white European love fest
@@geraldmeehan8942 CRT is pure evil
My great grandfather was 50% Choctaw Indian. I'm still considered a federally recognized American Indian, eventhough I've never been to the reservation. The Jena Band of Choctaw. Most of that side of the family was born in Oklahoma. GREAT INFO! 👍
Just wondering how does a native American reservation works? In the Native American Reservation, were the native American language the second official language alongside English? Does the Native American Reservation allow for the Native American local government of the area more legislative rights?
Native American reservations are legally considered Federal land given to the Native Americans to live on. However, the Federal government can control who can live in the land. This means that often times Non-natives live in Reservations, but the Natives have no legal jurisdiction over them. Native American Tribes can pass laws, but these laws cannot supersede Federal law. Local police cannot go onto Reservations without permission from the Tribe. Yes, this has led to Native Americans committing crimes and fleeing to Reservations. State Police are allowed to go onto Reservations to apprehend criminals without permission from the Tribe. Tribes also cannot pass laws that affect Non-Natives that live on the Reservation. Tribes have a right to their own courts and states cannot prosecute Native Americans in state courts. They must be prosecuted in Tribal Courts (unless it's a felony or such, Native Americans can still go to a Federal Court). Tribes have their own police too
Louis XIV So essentially more states added to the Union? That could play out well for the Republicans if Washington, DC and Puerto Rico were to become states.
Louis XIV The current US states are essentially set up as “countries within a country”, since they are given vast amounts of leeway to draft their own laws without federal permission. The Republicans would benefit largely because it would mean having a vast increase in rural states represented in the Senate.
@@night6724 They are. That's why the US has a whole government agency dedicated to working with them
@@night6724 Keep in mind, one of those “republics” in Russia is Crimea.
How much more beautiful would our country be, if those treaties were still honored through to today?
The US would be a lot smaller, that's for sure.
No, your nation would be part of the Third World and many citizens wouldn't enjoy things like TH-cam.
@@occam7382 that would be much better
@@Cuteemogirl94, would it really be, though?
@@Cuteemogirl94 Germany would have won ww1 and 2 possible also the British would most likely then take the native land here’s no way I see native Americans controlling so much land without anyone taking it
Americans wanted to free themselves from British imperialism... and IMMEDIATELY after became imperialist themsleves !
🤔
They were always imperialist, it’s just that they wanted to decide how to do it themselves instead of having the British tell them how to do it.
look up the american-philiphin war
Many of the natives attack and conquered each other all the time, the Aztec’s were an empire themselves with tribute states they use to provide slaves and sacrifice fodder.
@@brandonlyon730 Yeah but you can’t blame one native nation for imperialism. That’s like blaming Switzerland for the slave trade because France another European nation also did it too.
You see the natives as a simple monolith. You wouldn’t like to be blame for Russia’s crimes but hey your all Europeans.
That's what happens in apartheid nations, both former and current.
It’s hard to imagine an alternative outcome for the indigenous population of 40 to 50 million humans who had been effectively insulated from all other humans races for thousands of years, and had never developed natural immunities to the diseases that ultimately ravaged their population once the explorers arrived.
That’s not to say that they were dealt with in good faith by the various colonizers and invading parties, who didn’t exactly deal with each other in good faith either. What’s happened since 1776 is a whole other exercise in resolving past violations of treaties. (Based upon world history it doesn’t seem like treaties have a very long shelf life anywhere.)
Considering that the entire world population was less than 500 million back then, it is impossible to imagine that remaining isolated forever could be feasible in a globally interconnected world which now has over 15 times the population.
The idea that native peoples in the Americas were isolated for generations and finally brought to the "rest of humanity" by colonization is false. I'm sure it sounds good to colonizer ears though. Disease did have a huge impact on many native populations, but this was alongside war, mass murder, and deliberate economic and social disruption. It's interesting to note that in many places, natives had contact and trade relations with various Europeans for generations before any pandemic reared its head. In some of those places, there would have been no way for Europeans to conquer native polities had it not been for a pandemic. In other places, various European groups had significant help from native allies - the latter not perceiving that Europeans were going to take everything over. All of that said, nothing had to happen the way it did. It simply did.
@@hughanquetil2567 You shouldn't understate the amount of damage disease had on the population on the continent. 95% population loss is enough for complete and utter societal collapse- enough for many, many tribes and histories to be completely lost. This is one of the reasons the continent was so sparsely populated and "isolated". "Isolated" isn't really a good descriptor because even after this point, it is clear that tribes interacted, traded, and organized with each other and with Europeans. One aspect of this interaction not often discussed is the internal warping of society for some tribes that heavily relied on European trade. The Osage, for example, became so reliant on European material goods and controlling of the trade of said goods to other tribes that it slowly warped into a Hunter-Warrior society. This is not to contest anything you said, but to supplement it; heavy trade- even if beneficial to the Natives, eventually lead to inevitable dependence on the European colonizers.
@@hughanquetil2567 Historical illiteracy is not a good defense against the "evil colonizers" native Americans were excellent colonizers themselves. Ask the Comanche.
Its not smart to dismiss the massive effect of disease here, because if so then there is really no excuse for the Native Americans failure to maintain control over their own territory other than being militarily and politically incompetent, which they were not. The entire basis of your argument devalues Native American history turning them from victims of a biological imperative to ignorant tribals gullible enough to have their lands stolen en masse (as opposed to simply unable to maintain control over it due to population loss) and militarily and technologically incompetent (despite the fact they adapted very quickly to European tech in many ways) this is not an argument you want to be using as a defense of native americans. The reality is that Native Americans were in the case of many tribes, extremely proficient warriors, the Sioux and Comanche were able to hold Europeans at bay despite a microscopic population. I dont like arguments that in an attempt to shift blame to Europeans also necessitate that Native Americans be incompetent and weak. Which they weren't. If it wasnt for the massive population decline caused by disease north america would be a very different place. It was not Wounded Knee or the trail of tears that ended Native dominance ffs. These were in the aftermath of their fall.
@@burtmacklin1208 Perhaps you should become historically literate then? Tell me which Native American nation or polity invaded and presently occupies a portion of Europe? The whole "some natives attacked/colonized/were mean to other natives" argument is the same worn out colonialist argument used to justify invasion and theft of other people's lands and resources - used by every colonizer polity.
@@TheKeksadler Nor should you understate the amount of damage that mass killing, terrorism, and economic destruction had on the population of the Americans during the European invasions.
3:55 Yes but mostly no, those are Indian nations rather then Indian reservations, that means they can only govern tribal citizens rather then governing the land itself
Yea this is what irked me too when he conflated that reservation jurisdiction = Indian nation claimed historic origin. It’s seemed a bit like he skimmed through some Wikipedia pages and conflated what independent nation states are like in the modern era.
I have been looking for information like this forEVER... Thank you.
As American power and population grew in the 19th century, the United States gradually rejected the main principle of treaty-making-that tribes were self-governing nations-and initiated policies that undermined tribal sovereignty. For Indian nations, these policies resulted in broken treaties, vast land loss, removal and relocation, population decline, and cultural decimation.
We Are in the Midst of a Fascist Power Grab, But We the People Still Have Options. And soon they won't be there too! Then the inevitable!
American “leaders” have reneged on American honor and dignity. Foreign policy is being dictated by our enemies. It’s unstated so far, but in my judgment, we’ve surrendered.
@@TimDavisShow You are misguided. I hope you see it one day.
America is basically a Europe DLC
Lmao
More like an Expansion pack gone wrong.
We could have shared this land but no our European Ancestors had to have it all for that I am sorry it was criminal.
You go on Twitter to hate white people, don’t you?
Funny for you to think all the Europeans wanted too do was to "steal it all". A lot of them came to get fed and flee wars. Don't be selfish.
Americans had to have it all, Europeans once they leave Europe are no longer European. The depopulation damaged Europe.
Well when the US stole/"bought" half of the territory of Mexico they took the land of the natives that where already Mexicans in Mexico where they where considered normal people and not called just "Native americans" and just got moved out of the way into reserves violating their rigths, that they had since they where servants of the spanish crown... I see a lot of anglophone documentaries negect this part of histoy and just generalize Europeans into one when the population of the US had a very different view of the world from the Spanish and Hispanic america. And it is still the case today.
Well to be honest the land was taken by conquest, and the mexican/spanish control did not really extend much past the modern border and the coasts
manifest destiny lol, cry about it.
It's not like the Natives were treated better in Mexico anyway.
They didn’t have “rights.”
@@deepspire they had the right to be used as slave labor by the church wait I meant "educated in priests"
Landback!!! Thank you. Perfect timing for my research to support that decision
Would love to see q video like this for the indigenous people in Canada, central and south America
Said no one ,ever
dont know why i felt like doing this but given the fact that theres about 332,380,000 people living in the us and only about 5.2 mil natives as you said, that would mean thats roughly only 1.8-1.9% of the total US population being native…
That’s about right on census I believe
Part of me does wonder that if the treaties were honored, and the lands looked like as seen in the thumbnail, if people from the United States (dominantly European and African) and Indigenous peoples from their nations would go into each other for work, land ownership, settlements, etc., thus intermarriages and transculturalism, forming new cultures, which could eventually lead to native nations joining the United States, and thus forming a similar map. Of course it'd be a lot more complicated, and many nations would likely not be interested, and our country would likely be more of a federation of various provinces, autonomous states, etc. rather then just 50 states.
PLEASE make a playlist of the marches you use in the background!
Thank you for creating this video. 🙏🏾💚
Thank you for posting this. It would be great if you include resources and reference material as well. Thank you!
Just as Russia granted many autochtonous peoples autonomy and their own republics, the USA should have done (or do) the same, naming a state after a tribe/people, having their language as official, and granting them their lands.
I just wonder to what extent that would have worked in the natives' favour. Due to forced relocation of people and russification programs on USSR's part, natives today find themselves as minority in their own republics, many drawing ever closer to cultural extinction. Can't see it having worked any better in native Americans' favour either. Greater powers always find a way to screw smaller peoples over.
That is already the case.
@@jamesbernadette6216 yes there are many Russian Republics with small native populations that sway very little political power like in Karelia, but there are others where the natives still have large populations and in some hold a super majority of the population, particularly those that are not orthodox Christian such as Tatarstan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Yakutia, Tuva, Buryatia etc.
You do know reservations are a thing, right?
Ever hear of Oklahoma?
Fun fact: Everyone skipped sponsor part lol
Facts
Thank you General Knowledge for honouring Native Americans social studies.
THANK YOU YOU MAY HAVE JUST HELPED ME FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE NATIVE AMERICAN PROBLEMS AND THIS MAY BE THE BIGGEST COMEBACK IN HISTORY
Been trying to find info like this for a few weeks and get a proper map of it. Would have been interesting if the US had honored its treaties yet have eventually incorporated tribal lands as states or similar entities into the Union.
No. Being called "American" is worse than being called "native". Indians want our Nations returned, no one would have to move or leave our Nations, you would be Americans in a foreign country, or you can give up your American citizenship o become part of an Indian Nation.
We're the only group of people not allowed to exist in America
@@TannerWilliam07 That would work the way you think it does. It is a pipe dream. If the USA had honored the treaties there would be no USA and some other power would have conquered you. You lost America when Tecumseh failed to unite the tribes
@@TannerWilliam07 At the risk of coming across as a complete jackass, the word "Indian" shouldn't really apply either if you want to be that pedantic about it. I have friends from both the Choctaw Nation and South Asia, so I'm really not trying to offend. I just find sociolinguistics fascinating, and I think it's interesting that you use the term "Indian" even though you refuse the terms "American" and "native".
@@chazchoo99 When I speak Lakota, my ancestors hear my words. My ancestors don't recognize 'native' but they hear Indian. It's part of our history and treaties. My apologies to the people of Hindustan who were forced to rename their country to India after the English colonized it. But I respect their decision to own and adopt the name of India, please respect my people's decision as well: American Indian or Indian
@@Me-yq1fl India name was forced on the people Bharat by Greek and then English colonizers in the 1700s. The Persians renamed Bharat to Hindustan
While the internet has always good and bad effects, one that I really appreciate is the unbound presentation of this kind of content. As someone from outside the US, we were always taught in school and in media that the US were our "saviors" from our colonial masters and "the good guys" who have everyone's interest in mind. Videos like this shows that ultimately it is just like any other country, pursuing actions for their own self-interest.
I understand that all countries have things they don't want to talk about. But if the US did not aggressively present themselves as the "good guys", they probably won't get as much criticism as they currently do.
wow your account is old
Have you ever heard of toaster bath
Guest User What does making cheesecake have to do with this?
Are you Filipino?
This man has watched too much woke propaganda
Can you do a part 2 about Canada please?
@General Knowledge
You can make similar videos about each country in north and south america. All of these countries are guilty of breaking treaties.
The problem with taking land from others is, did they take it from someone else? Who is the original owner? How does one prove that? What is the most moral process to acknowledge owners? Does one ship every American back to where they came from? How do you determine which country that is? How far back do you go? Most English aren't original either. What about mixed natives with immigrants? How much determines they get to stay vs have to go? This would create a huge humanitarian crisis as well. Interesting topic. Thanks.
i think is really easy to solve if you understand the word "NATIVE"
this just feels like arguing semantics to distract from the issue at hand
@@Vitorruy1 Sounds to me like you don’t have an answer to their questions.
@@hugomartinez2387 Define it.
@@hugomartinez2387 Considering they aren’t even native to America as they crossed the Bering Strait during the Ice Age. If we want to play the original owner game then all human life should vacate the Americas and go back to Africa/Arabia.
"Do you believe Native tribes will now have the US government honour the treaties that they have now ignored for centuries? "-
Is there a person who believes that?
That is not going to happen. There are other people living there now claiming that land, people with guns and they can vote. Also compensation cannot be paid to thease people since the federal state are broke. Look at the nation of Hawaii that saw this coming and did their best to assert itself and gain international recognition before being taken over. It didn't help...
Have you lost your mind? Why would they? You expect 2 million natives most of whom integrated into the broad US society to be able to maintain the vast amount of land promised to them hundreds of years ago and where would the other 298 million go? You after a minority rule situation aka apartheid south africa?
@@burtmacklin1208 Technically they are expected to land aquired legally, or migrate back to their ancestors homelands. Not saying that it would work but that is the general idea.
I believe that, my people never ceded out lands.
@@letkwu no, you weren't strong enough so you lost them.
There’s a second side to this that I never hear discussed. In fact when I bring it up I’m just shouted down. But it’s the very real issue of Native culture having been wrapped into US culture for well over a century. I grew up next to a reservation and all the natives I knew thought, spoke, acted like and benefited from the US culture (yes, poverty is rampant, but a modern lifestyle is available on every reservation in the US). Many of the natives I grew up with served in the US military, voted in US elections, paid taxes and yes, some even collected financial benefits. No one ever needed a passport to cross the River. The dollar still buys goods and services on the reservation. Nothing feels like a different country. At this point it would be impossible to recognize the treaties that were signed 150 years ago and get “justice” because there’s been far too much intermingling of the US and native culture. And that’s benefited everyone. The very best this to do to make things right would give all native peoples full citizenship in the us, divide up all the remaining land among the remaining tribal individuals and make everything US soil.
Ask the native people if they want that. The ones I know would mostly say, "no"!
Edit: I misread your comment. I thought you were saying Native people should assimilate. My apologies.
@@Catlily5 Ask if they want to be a completely separate nation? With their own borders, monetary system, military, etc? Every native person I know would not want that either.
@@johnepavek I don't know how many natives want a separate nation. That would be difficult.
@@elibunches6044 I misread the original poster's message. I thought he was telling native people to assimilate.
The US should at least try to give compensation to the natives and help them from poverty . Maybe also helped them preserve their language
I am all for the reclamation even as someone with no direct benefit as I have little connection my ancestral tribes. It may be a messy new frontier as were seeing with Oklahoma where major cities now lay entirely in native lands but I feel that people tend to be practical and so most day to day operations wont change much.
As someone who lives in eastern Oklahoma I can vouch for the fact that it's had very little effect on our day-to-day lives (unless you work in the legal profession, in which it's no doubt created a lot of headaches). The primary effect is that Tribal citizens are now subject to federal law, which means any legal proceedings involving a Tribal citizen is strictly under federal jurisdiction. So if a crime takes place involving a Tribal citizen, the FBI steps in and it's tried in federal court.
@@Baalek1 Is that a good thing or bad thing
If the US honored its native treaties it would the first time they would honor a treaty. Anyway, it's a very good point even though it's a rethoric question
Some things I would like to add to perspective:
Our modern view of time is... strange to me. Somewhere along the way, we became disconnected from our own history as a continuity, and we started seeing many events as though they are nearly completely separated, with single thread connections. But... that's not the way it works.
We have become disconnected from our understanding of time, generational influence, and generational consequences...
As an example of this.
In 1754, 22 years prior to the start US Revolution - tensions were running high between the French and British powers back in Europe, and the American colonies were an area of "cold war" relations if you will.
In May of that year, a young British military commander led out a scout troop, searching for French forces. In the early morning, the British encountered a small French contingent and attempted to capture them. The attempt led to a shooting skirmish, during which troops on both sides were wounded or killed. - The French declared they were a diplomatic mission, and should not have been attacked - presenting their documents.
The young British officer did not believe the delegation, thinking them spies. In the immediate aftermath of the battle, Native American warriors who were sided with the British, began slaughtering the wounded French and scalping.
This horrified both the British commander and French forces, of course. - Then it happened again, during movement of the French prisoners.
Upon return to the French government, this skirmish would escalate into a global war, that eventually led to the American Revolution.
The battle took place at Jumonville Glenn, and the young British, later American officer - was George Washington.
And now you know... the *rest* of the story.
Good Day! 😊
way less specific, but adding to that that iirc part of what made france so broke leading up to the revolution ... was having large amounts of funds go to the us war of independence (not that is the only reason that the french revolution happened, add a lot of socio-political and climate/weather factors but still)
@@wednes3day It is quite the tangled web - history.
Especially the history of warfare - trace it back far enough, and you get to a single battle that centuries later, allowed for the rise of Hitler and National Socialists in Germany... It's just the way history works.
Major events in our history - can be traced back to a single conversation gone wrong, and countless other misunderstandings.
The life from a grandfather's birth to a his grandson's death covers about a century. It doesn't have to go back very deep, to see where things come from. Woodrow Wilson was 10 years old at the time of the US Civil War. It impacted him later in life, and his pursuit of a utopia without war, led to the deaths of 100 million people in the 20th century.
If the US is a federation of states, why not make the tibial lands states. This would work for larger territories, but some current "tribal lands" are quite small. What I'm saying is there is not a single solution for all.
I'd say that's up to the tribes themselves. My solution is to give them self governance the way Britain does with its crown dependencies with the permanently open option of statehood via a simple binding vote requiring either 60% vote, or a simple majority 3 times over 6 years.
I can clearly tell your not American
It is only for Whites. All non-Whites are second, third and fourth class citizens.
We'd have to amalgamate quite a few otherwise there'd be over 1140 Indian senators
@@thecomment9489 Only SPECIFIC whites back in those days:
English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, Irish and the French, if we go by the first committee design for the great seal.
Ojibwe here, greetings! If anyone has any native related questions I'd be happy to answer them.
My honest opinion is that any all all tribes that have been able to hold onto ANY land as of today should feel incredibly lucky or fortunate. Generally speaking, if you cannot defend your land with force, you lose it - along with your life. That is reality.
Yep
Great story bro, except that your idea has no merit on the rule of law, right? It’s absurd to say today that I can legally steal your house in Jesus name, then kill your family in Jesus name and then get to keep your house because I successfully conquered you.
International Law renders that action illegal. Do you think the constitution is a joke? Do you think all the soldiers who died defending our constitution were a bunch of suckers? Because they died defending article 6, clause 2 which says “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.” Do you think the second amendment is shit and shouldn’t be complied with? The constitution says that treaties are to be honored.
Merry Christmas everyone.
merry xmas brah!!!! and happy new year as well.
"Sovereignty is a gun.Treaties,Constitutions,and all other laws can be worthless as soiled toilet paper if you can't defend them". Dj O-Bey
If the native treaties were honored, the public would rebel, and we'd just end up going to war with the new native nations, conquering them and taking the land anyway.
What we ultimately should have done is something like New Zealand's treaty of Waitanga, and worked the natives into the system from the start. Respect their property rights, eventually make them citizens.
@@unenthusiasticsalt2123 Europe is a small, densely populated continent that had periodic famines for almost a millennium. Seeing this giant, almost-empty landmass and not settling it was never going to happen.
@@unenthusiasticsalt2123 the pre-Columbian population of North America is estimated at 2-4 million people, of whom over half lived in the Mississippi delta.
You can easily tell North America was sparsely populated, because it has black people. Mexico, which was densely settled and likely had the population of France, does not.
@@SacredCowStockyards the black people in n. america were brought over in manacles as slaves. were no blacks here til then. unless youre counting the "indians" as black. which they are not. there were many factors as to why the land was so sparsely peopled. its not like they crossed over to here in droves.. they needed to stay a size that was workable with the resources available .
@@SacredCowStockyards It was actually upwards of 90 Million people across the continent before 1492. The global temperature actually cooled by .15°C because of the abandonment of indigenous agricultural areas following colonization.
The answer is LandBack and decolonization.
“Numerous scholars have observed that Indigeneity prompts multiple forms of settler anxiety, even if only because the presence of Indigenous peoples - who make a priori claims to land and ways of being - is a constant reminder that the settler colonial project is incomplete” (Fanon, 1963; Vine Deloria, 1988; Grande, 2004; Bruyneel, 2007)
You can lead by example for the rest of us.
L bozo thanks for the land
Only 2-3% of the entire nation is made up of Indians, how does giving land back make any sense right now 2.3% of all land is part of a reservation. That makes sense to me.
@@ΣοομΜελλιορΚυαμΟμνια I can steal your house when you go on vacation then right? 0% of you is there so it's basically free real estate for me
Na
Another example of the adage "History is written by the victors"
You live in a world ruled by these victors, and what history is this video detailing? You think this guy came up with this stuff on his own? You think he did all the research. There have been textbooks outlining this stuff for centuries. Its people who dont read history that say things like this.
Which is false
Very interesting and good video. Thanks go to General Knowledge for covering this topic. Will share onward.
As American power and population grew in the 19th century, the United States gradually rejected the main principle of treaty-making-that tribes were self-governing nations-and initiated policies that undermined tribal sovereignty. For Indian nations, these policies resulted in broken treaties, vast land loss, removal and relocation, population decline, and cultural decimation.
We Are in the Midst of a Fascist Power Grab, But We the People Still Have Options. And soon they won't be there too! Then the inevitable!
American “leaders” have reneged on American honor and dignity. Foreign policy is being dictated by our enemies. It’s unstated so far, but in my judgment, we’ve surrendered.
Bet we would not be in Water Wars. I can only imagine how absolutely loved and beautiful Mother Earth would be!
It would be interesting if NAI's were put on change of all these lands (again).
I like the idea theoretically. However, what do we do about tribes that have completely disappeared? Also, I know that I live on territory that was previously inhabited by native Americans, how would honoring our treaty rights affect me? What I have to move and leave everything I know?
In my region. There is extinct tribes but that does not mean that the entire region was theirs. We lived nearby many nations. We all lived and shared the land as well as defended it from people who are not from the region.
The tribes that are extinct. Their land would go to their neighbours. It wouldn't go to any Americans.
Land back doesn't mean you move from the region. It means we are dismantling your governments and giving the power back to my fellow Indigenous tribes across the land.
The only thing that will change. Is your lifestyle. Cities and towns stay the same. Just your governments are gone.
@@bizhiwnamadabi4537 I'm curious, how would you enforce that change in lifestyle? Of course it's likely many whites who disagree would just leave (likely after making a big show about it) but for the more stubborn ones, what do you do?
@@toontrooper4103 continue on with it. I am not worried about those people. Those are the ones who don't want to give the land back. Either way. Indigenous people are getting it back
@@bizhiwnamadabi4537 I love that attitude! I just hope y'all got your guns packed. Just in case.
Alt Title: The US except they respect their landlords
I don't remember what year this happened but within the last 20 . The US Supreme Court ruled that ALL Treaties are valid and that with a few exceptions most of the land within The US Boarders are being held In Trust until The Treaties are fulfilled . Also no Amendments to any Treaty are valid unless the original Treaty is fulfilled .
If African Americans got their 40 acres and a mule, that would be all the land. You got to do a video on that!
I'm a descendant of Freedmen who did receive 40 acres.
funny how "savages" stuck to treaties which they didnt even know before. and a european style government broke them.
Sadly, greed is more powerful than treaties.
They didn't stick to treaties. Many of them broke them regularly.
@@spiffygonzales5160 sounds like white supremacist to me
@@spiffygonzales5160 Some examples? I’m genuinely curious.
@ White supremacist? Those same "poor oppressed native Americans" owned black slaves and sided with the Confederacy. Stand Watie, a Cherokee Confederate general, was the last Confederate general to surrender, after having a rather long and successful career of raiding Federal supplies in Oklahoma.
Unfortunately, centuries of genocide have reduced the number of people that would benefit from the US following some of these treaties. How many of the cultures that were once nations are extinct or in terminal decline?
Not all native people are gone. They make up 10% of the population in my state.
@@Catlily5 That sounds like a healthy population. My concern was connected to the names of nations on a map of treaty areas that the General used in this presentation. Now, I'm nowhere near an expert in native American history, but there where a lot of names on that map that I haven't come across before. Maybe just a lack of knowledge on my part, but it definitely set the alarm bells going.
@@paulrobinson3649 There were a lot more tribes than most people have ever heard of even in the USA. I have heard of most of them. I have a map of tribal lands before the USA took over, though.
@@Catlily5 Thank you for understanding the gaps in my education.
I’ve met quite a few natives in just my hometown of Duncan, British Columbia alone.
In my opinion the best thing to do is to turn the Native reservations into States of the US just like Texas, Arizona or Massachusetts, they would still be part of the USA but would have the exact same rights granted by the Constitution and would be free to rule themselves for the most part and use their lands like they want, hopefully this would be a win-win for both sides.
I think they should have full sovereignty, but have a special treaty with the U.S. in order for them to receive support.
You do understand that reservations are functionally self-determined and soverign. Why would they want to become states subject to the federal government?
@@burtmacklin1208 Actually for what i heard reservations are owned by the US government and that's the main reasons why many of them live in horrible conditions. To better understand what i meant watch these videos: th-cam.com/video/ur0YWomy5YU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/pQ4lnDy2xnQ/w-d-xo.html
@@burtmacklin1208 how many have a UN seat?
That is a starting point
2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55
Contracts signed under duress are Null and Void.
There's a dispute going on right now between the water rights of tribes and farmers in Southern Oregon/Northern California
some tribes in my country still go to battle the goverment if they do some injustice to them, they gathered between 100+ to 700, and 1000+ natives sometimes and they rarely backoff
Thing is native Americans are like outnumbered 1000 to 1 in almost eveyr state
@@geno3911 and we’re still here. 😀 we can be outnumbered a million to one so long as Americans still believe their constitution is worth a damn. If the American People decided that they want to officially revoke the constitution, then we would have problems because there wouldn’t be a constitution that says “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
@@brianernstmusic i believe that the native americans will last for a long time, your culture is extremely resilient (like the jews and the armenians) especially in native americans which get out of reservations
@@geno3911 More like 100,000 to one.
Can you do one on modern city states?
Something that people seem to not understand when they get into arguments of "this is native land" and "this is American land" or "this is X land" with things like this is no treaty lasts forever, hell most treaties dont even last very long at all, like it or not you should always consider any and all treaties as temporary,
unless a time limit was incorporated or the treaty was formally dissolved, it is technically still in effect.
So the US Constitution should be considered null and void now too?
@@Apokalypse456 That is true yes but I think you missed my point is that treaties are eventually violated, no treaty is truly permanent in the long term.
@@cacamilis8477 A constitution is not a treaty between nations although constitutions also generally get rewritten eventually but tend to have longer livespans then a treaty. 200 years is a bit old for one though but the general Political system of the US means a constitutional convention is immensely unlikely to ever to occur short of in the aftermath of a civil war.
@@seamusfinnegan1164 So? Why should treaties have a timeframe?
Congrats! Very interesting video.
Given Britain's history of colonial exploitation, divide and conquer and the odd genocide, I was surprised to learn that one fo the main de-facto reasons for the Americna revolution was nothing to do with taxes or barracking, but because wealthy American speculators wanted to seize native land which was protected by treaties with Britain, which Britain had been honouring. That's why so many native groups fought with Britian during the revolution: it was their last chance to keep what was theirs.
The UK was fighting other colonial empires for trade/resources. Private companies were even the spearhead. The US did get involved with that too, such as in the far east.
The US established it's own permanent empire. The Spanish empire also used large scale immigration/colonisation and like the US claimed 'independence' while in most places ignoring the natives.
Obviously, what happened to the Native American tribes is very tragic.
But I do want to point out that western countries didn't treat treaties as particularly binding in the 1700s and 1800s. European countries would often write peace treaties saying they would honor them forever and ever, only to go to war again a few years later.
It makes sense that people in the USA might think of their treaties with Natives in the same way.
That’s because Americans don’t read the constitution and have no idea that is says “all treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.” Treaties don’t have statutes of limitations (expiration dates) just like the bill of rights and the constitution. Americans believe that the constitution is still valid today even though it’s 243 years old. Treaties stated they’re as good as the “sun shines and the grass is green and the rivers flow.” If Americans don’t think treaties are legally binding then that means article 6, clause 2 of the constitution is not legally binding and I would bet every soldier who died defending the constitution would disagree.
@@brianernstmusic I think that part of the Constitution is just saying that treaties made by the federal government are binding for all the states. But I'll admit it's been awhile since I read that section. I could be wrong.
Also, you're missing my point. Which is that flowery language was common in treaty-writing at the time. And it rarely meant anything in practice.
For instance, here's a quote from a 18th century treaty between Britain and Spain.
"The Most Serene King of Great Britain, his Heirs and Successors, shall have, hold, keep, and enjoy
forever, with plenary right of Sovereignty, Dominion, Possession, and Propriety, all those Lands,
Regions, Islands, Colonies, and places whatsoever, being situated in the West Indies, or in any part
of America, which the said King of Great Britain and his Subjects do at present hold and possess,
so as that in regard thereof or upon any color or pretense whatsoever, nothing more may or ought to
be urged, nor any question or controversy be ever moved, etc"
Surprise, surprise, they went to war within a few decades.
It just makes me sad to think about what happened to Native Americans.
Even though the tribes of Oklahoma owned slaves and supported the Confederacy?
@@dasbubba841 yes that withstanding, when I think of native Americans I still feel sad. Oklahoma was in Southern territory so it would only be a pragmatic decision to support the Confederacy. And being slave owners were a sign of the times. It did not necessarily mean you were evil.
@@elibunches6044 not all. again slavery was not new. it had existed for centuries and in the U.S., it was economics. I am not defending slavery. only stating facts. slavery was a terrible institution and we are glad it no longer exists.
@@nathanielj.boston352 It effectively still exists, just not the the western world.
If you take a look at certain asian of african regions, then you’ll see that it very much still exists, unfortunately.
@@nathanielj.boston352 Do you feel sad for the Greeks who lived in Constantinople and lost their city? What of the Kurds in the Middle East? Or the Armenians? History is ugly, and there are often losers, the natives were losers. They should be so lucky to have what they do.
15 year old "patriots" would beg to differ
🤣
The problem is there was no head of a single tribe. When a treaty was signed a tribe thought that just meant with that town or state and would raid other towns or states. It would never have worked anyway because, like the Comanche and Apache, their lifestyle was based on raiding. The US and Mexico would never be able to live with someone raiding them.
This video must be seen by a lot more people
Undiscovered Land = Always Native Land
@@night6724 your comment is total BS. There has always been people living here.
@MLKKK There has always been people living in North and south america before the Europeans started to show up.
Maybe you should study Indigenous History before you try white wash history by saying no one was here.
@MLKKK be more clear with your sentences then. I can't read minds.
The majority of the large tribes fought for the Confederacy and were some of the last hold outs of the civil war. The majority of US treaties pre 1866 are void because of this native push to keep their black slaves. Natives in Alaska are the last hold outs of Slavery in the US, not coming to an end until the 1900s.
Don’t try to twist this around the Buffalo Soldier Brigade look it up. You need to research history a bit. Those slaves you speak of went to the white mans side and did what they were told and granted land and money to do so.
@@zachariah1990 That doesn't change anything I said.
This is something people ignore a lot when talking about natives. White people like to fetishize them as victims, this entire video could have popped up right after a showing of Dances with Wolves. Many Native American tribes were slave holders and very expansionistic.
The truth is always ignored, people like to pretend that the natives were always the victim.
@@JM-ys5vx Oh it changes a lot you can deny it but history matters. Buffalo soldier brigade matters, your foolishness to not research it changes a lot.
Britain is an interesting case. In 1066 the Normans conquered it, displacing the Anglo Saxons. They, in turn, displaced the Celts. I'm not sure who the Celts displaced, but I know that they came there from central Europe. Okay, then to whom should Britain belong, and where should the current residents go?
the brytonic people no longer exist and so does the saxons. Unlike them, those native tribes still exist. And "celts" are not a real ethnic group btw.
@@Vitorruy1 European ethnic erasure? Interesting. Natives didn’t have the wheel.
The "celts" were a mix of indoeuropeans. The people before them were pre-Indoeuropeans. The only pre-Indoeuropeans left in Europe are the Basques, so clearly Spain should own the british isles.
@@cevinzeke5110 so what if they didn't have wheel, did that make them less humans ? Did that make them a savage that couldn't speak? Not have any emotion or intelligence? If not what's the problem? Oh you so call civilized person you don't have human emphaty
@@cevinzeke5110 Not every single place on the planet needs the wheel to get around.
Nicely done!
Enjoyed the video! Subscribed. It’s very possible to do an entire Playlist on this subject. Not only in US but other Lands as well. Also, interviewing tribal leaders and or authorities. I saw on 60 Minutes I think that some native people are slowly repurchasing lands lost in treaties.
As American power and population grew in the 19th century, the United States gradually rejected the main principle of treaty-making-that tribes were self-governing nations-and initiated policies that undermined tribal sovereignty. For Indian nations, these policies resulted in broken treaties, vast land loss, removal and relocation, population decline, and cultural decimation.
We Are in the Midst of a Fascist Power Grab, But We the People Still Have Options. And soon they won't be there too! Then the inevitable!
American “leaders” have reneged on American honor and dignity. Foreign policy is being dictated by our enemies. It’s unstated so far, but in my judgment, we’ve surrendered.
Anyone else notice that in the percentage map Alabama and Mississippi were in the wrong spots lmao
Now do Canada
Soviet Canuckistan is a socialist hell.
And I wish the comment section of that video will be like this.. oh no everyone likes Canada
@@email5023 far from it. Canadas history is the history of genocide
This comment section kinda cursed ngl
True but this video is unbiased
@@thecreepers3478 It is insanely bias.
Problem is the hundreds to thousands of tribes throughout the continent all despised each other, never interacted and ached at the thought of unity. To respect treaties would imply every tribe had to agree on what they signed, which they did not. Realistically speaking not a single treaty could have been upheld even if America was the “good guys” in this scenario due to all the native infighting
The fact that, to this very day, they're still officially referred to as "Indians" tells you everything you need to know about the level of respect that native tribes are accorded by the US government.
The US did honor the treaties, until they were renegotiated. It's like worrying about what Europe would look like if the largest borders of the Roman Empire were still intact. Borders change over time and are subject to one's ability to enforce them.
Can you provide evidence that show which treaties the US honored exactly? Also, please show me when/where/which treaties were negotiated because this appears to be completely made up.
@@brianernstmusic I think by renegotiated, he means via a peace treaty after the conclusion of one of the many Indian wars.
@@brianernstmusic Basically the treaties were followed until there was a reason to change the terms, in which case, the terms changed. I mean in the same time that America spread across the continent, the borders of European countries shifted dozens of times. Geography being a fairly static thing is a relatively recent invention.
@@Seirra72 the United States never declared one single war with Indian Tribes...
@@brianernstmusic What are you talking about? The West was in near constant conflict until the 1890s: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
Everytime i see these type vids i try to think of where could i go if the land was given back. Due to my family having never known any other home since the 1600s. I would love to see the Natives be treated as the treaties instructed though. Its just a curious thought
It's easy, Indians want our Nations returned with membership in the United Nations. No one would have to leave or move off, but you would be Americans in a foreign country. We'd also have an alliance with the United States most likely, but people make wrong assumptions about what landback is.
Indians are not Americans, we are forced to be Americans against our will. Let's heal the genocide together and let go of the past by returning the land. We're the only group of people with an inherit right to Sovereignty
@@TannerWilliam07 if that happens tho would non natives living on those lands automatically gain citizenship? Because if so then the "independent native nation" will become majority non native from the start. If we are not given citizenship then we would become secound class citizens, which will be simply unacceptable to the vast majority of us. By this point just giving the land back is not really a feasible solution. Personally I'm a fan of having the government give the tribes money for the land in instead of returning it.
“It would be of benefit to all” … not the tens of millions of non-natives that have lived here since the late 1800s. Yeah it was an injustice, the but the solution is not in the past. Now, we need to work to increase access to healthcare/education/jobs on the tribal areas.
Those Natives needs their independent countries.
@@thecomment9489 They can try, and they as they always have, will fail.
@@cevinzeke5110 Well they all need to convert to Islam. Then it will be possible very much.
@Federal Bureau of Investigation US economy is already in doldrums.
Are you sure? What we have now is a system of federal bureaucracy and inefficiently run land with higher poverty rates and a lower standard of living in general compared to the rest of the country on Indian reservations. Allowing the people on them at least the same resources of any other local government and getting the feds off of their land would create a system that is more efficiently run and it would allow them to become as successful as any other Americans who don’t live on these reservations.
I wonder how much people seen this an dislike the video because it was talking some real history.
All treaties should be honored, thankfully I live in British Columbia Canada and we are unceded. But that also means I am not legally a Canadian citizen and am permitted to live on the lands of my ancestors. Yet I am able to vote in both federal and provincial elections and carry a Canadian passport, get identification and hold a driver's license. But that isn't the case for all my people, if you are under treaties two through four you have Canadian citizenship. One thing you could have mentioned is that Canada, the United States of America and Mexico are under a NATO agreement with the Indigenous people and can legally cross either of the three border's to attain employment without having to get a green card and to reside in either country.