By Gale Courey Toensing
“Stossel, like many Americans, fails to fundamentally appreciate that tribes are governments, not ‘groups’ of individuals as he says,” he said, pointing that American Indians are the only Americans who are indigenous to the United States and the only peoples to whom the U.S. owes a trust responsibility.
“The United States has historically done a disservice to Native Americans, by and through genocidal and assimilationist federal policies. As a result of federal allotment, assimilation and termination policies, which remain in force to this day despite Congress’ repudiation of those policies, some tribal communities are in fact worse off socio-economically than most other American citizens,” Galanda said.
“Stossel fails to mention that the federal government has attempted to eliminate us, terminate us, remove us from our lands, cheat and steal from us and then created a paternalistic approach to civilize, and essentially convert and undo the Indian. Today federal programs do little to help tribes be more independent and self sufficient and current federal regulations and laws aren’t effective for enabling tribes to create sustainable economies and grow,” Porter said. “If anyone has been fleeced, it’s the Indians. Virtually every tribe has its own unique story in evidence of this.”
Comments by FOX personality John Stossel draw ire of Chief Allan
By David Cole
Allan accused FOX anchor John Stossel of insensitive on-air comments made about American Indians.
"The ignorance behind the statements made by John Stossel poured salt into the slowly healing wounds of Native Americans and added disgrace to an already shameful page in American History," Allan wrote in his letter Monday.
"This fiduciary duty arose from contractually binding promises made to tribes in exchange for the hundreds of millions of acres of land ceded to the United States government during the nation's movement westward," Allan wrote.
Allan continued by writing that Stossel "intentionally misleads viewers to believe that the 'help' tribes receive is some gratuitous benefit provided to one minority over another."
Allan said the benefits are a requirement under terms of treaties and executive orders.
That Indians receive less government healthcare funding than federal prisoners is a well-known statistic. I'm willing to bet that the same applies to education, law enforcement, and other areas of government. Between infrastructure spending, urban development grants, and job-creating federal contracts, I'm guessing most parts of the country get much more government aid than Indian country does.
I doubt Stossel has any statistics to refute this claim. As far as I can tell, he's spewing his dogmatic beliefs without regard to the facts. Like most conservatives, he thinks his ideology must work because he and his buddies are rich.
What about Indians' losses?
None of this accounts for the negative side of the government's "help." Stealing the Indians' land and natural resources, forcing their children into boarding schools, giving them substandard food and medical care, losing instead of paying their trust funds, etc. If you could put a price on this, it might be the biggest case of government robbery in history.
To sum it up, the US government has cost Indians money in countless ways. The compensation and support it provides is less than most Americans receive. In two-plus centuries of dealing with the US, Indians arguably have received less than anyone else, not more.
For more on the subject, see Trahant Agrees About Termination Agenda, Fox Special on Indian "Freeloaders," and Stossel: Indians Are Biggest Moochers.
Stossel would have much better luck arguing against universal healthcare from the indigenous perspective, considering that if you were an Indian woman, until about two decades ago, universal healthcare meant coerced sterilization.
ReplyDeleteJust one of many cautions of "universal health care" in the form of government control.
ReplyDeleteWhich is a monopoly by any other name. And unlike business monopolies, the government monopoly can shoot and kill you for not complying with their demands.
Anonymous, that is the only valid argument I have seen agaisnt universal health care. Here (NZ) we have universal health care. We do not have a history of sterilzing indigenous but for many years Maori did not have their culture and customs acknowledged or catered for by the Health system(this is changing slowly).
ReplyDeleteI disagree with all of you in your shortsighted and knee jerk reactionism towards healthcare as a service industry, which it is not.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that Americans should pay out of pocket for any healthcare received from doctors, clinics or hospitals.
The problem is that healthcare in a capitalist society is greed based. It makes no sense to have 90% of the American people unable to afford medical treatment, drugs and rehabilitative services.
Instead, conservatives have opened the loopholes and deregulation for the pharmeceutical, health treatment and medical practitioners to become profit oriented. I am not against wealth. I am against a system that discriminates on the basis of income levels, which is what we have today.
If you keep income and wealth exclusively for the few, then where do the masses go for health care? To another country, thats where.
Universal healthcare should be available for those whom need it.
Capitalism is all about monopoly folks, I find you naive and outright stupid if you think our system of justice and laws, educational institutions, military industrial complex, religions and tax free churches and of course, our healthcare industry and its doctors are not all out to profit.
Professionals that do value profession over profit are considered mentally ill or are not of the majority, but they are out there.
What is happening to the rest of America has already been played out through America's original people, its just that the Tea Party are considered REAL Americans and Indians are not, ever have been, or ever will be when a nation worships money as its god, or intelligent design.
"Capitalism is all about monopoly folks,"
ReplyDeleteActually, that is what socialism is all about. Monopoly.
Also, skepticism over complete government control of healthcare is not short sighted, or kneejerk. It takes the long view, with a healthy skeptical eye at the idea of the powerful in society getting even more power over us.
ReplyDeleteThere are far worse things than profit in money, such as the profit in power. That is what socialism is all about.
For more on the subject of this posting, see:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/apr/01/colville-tribe-joins-coeur-dalenes-protesting-fox-/
Colville Tribes joins Coeur d’Alenes in protesting Fox commentator
P.S. As for your healthcare digression, see Healthcare Protests Are Race-Based.
socialism is nothing of the sort dmarks
ReplyDeleteIf capitalism is not a monopoly and socialism is Dmarks, what happened to the "power" of socialism with regards to the former Soviet Republic?
ReplyDeleteSeems you want it both ways, which is a conservative trait.
On one hand capitalism has made the US a strong economic power in the world while socialism failed Russia, but for some reason you cannot explain that China has surpassed the US in jobs, infrastructure and industry. You have to admit, the poverty seen in rural China is no different than some of the poverty we have here in the US in inner citys, barrios and Indian reservations.
If socialism is so bad, who's idea was it to put so much effort in seeing socialist Russia fall, just so that China would be our greatest economic benefactor for the worlds largest and US based retailer Wal-Mart?
You cannot be that shallow and thin brained to not see that capitalism in the US consolidates wealth and power while other world powers smartly expand wealth and power.
You (Dmarks) said, "unlike business monopolies, the government monopoly can shoot and kill you for not complying with their demands."
American history is full of corporate capitalists and industrialist that did exactly that to American workers and still do that today to Americans and in foreign lands where big business comes in and pushes communities and villages off their lands by force using CIA and mercenaries.
You can't be that naive and pretentious! Every war since Vietnam has been about profit for American corporations.
"American history is full of corporate capitalists and industrialist that did exactly that to American workers and still do that today to Americans..."
ReplyDelete"Still do" is not a fact. Check the police brutality records: it's the government doing this predominantly.
"You can't be that naive and pretentious! Every war since Vietnam has been about profit for American corporations."
Now, that is a naive brain-dead conspiracy theory. Vietnam was nothing more than the failed attempt to stop the Soviet conquest of South Vietnam. No war since has been about profits for American corporations. Learn the facts: actual history has been going on, and it is nothing like your simplistic fairy-tales.
"If socialism is so bad..."
Do you have any doubt? The list of mass murdering genocidal tyrants is a list of socialists, with just a few exceptions. To be the most current, ask the Libyan people who fight to overthrow a socialist regime if socialism is bad or not.
"just so that China would be our greatest economic benefactor for the worlds largest and US based retailer Wal-Mart?"
ReplyDeleteWalmart sells products from exporters and companies that are best at making them. If it weren't China, it would be someone else. And a large proportion of the goods are from the US. If China started overcharging, the China proportion would go down.
Back to the first point, Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"Stossel would have much better luck arguing against universal healthcare from the indigenous perspective"
Yes, generally, centrally controlled national monopolies that force "one size fits few" decisions on everyone are even worse for indigenous societies. The megalomania is not favorable to diversity.
Fairy tales Dmarks, really?
ReplyDeleteChina makes and manufactures the products and therefore, has jobs. Which part of that do you not understand? It is a socialist nation Dmarks with jobs that create products Americans consume daily and America is a capitalist nation without jobs that create products neither we nor the world uses.
Which part of that is a fairy tale Dmarks?
And it was the US and China acting as allies to prevent Japan from taking over Vietnam, which most western countries viewed as a French nation but the Chinese got involved and then, Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Viet Minh, declared an independent nation.
Where you get your Soviet facts is inaccurate since France, China, Japan and the US actually supplied the war in Vietnam. Russia supplied few arms, the influence and socialist thought only, unequal and minimal cost in lives and weaponry compared to the US.
My dad fought in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam Dmarks, so it is you that seems ignorant of this war.
You need to be more precise and specific about history instead of painting broad and ambiguous personal philosophies about what you wished and think happened in history versus what actually did happen, a consistent, misinformed and conservative flaw you share with Stosssel.
dmarks said
ReplyDelete"Do you have any doubt? The list of mass murdering genocidal tyrants is a list of socialists, with just a few exceptions. To be the most current, ask the Libyan people who fight to overthrow a socialist regime if socialism is bad or not."
do not confuse socialism with facism. Some of those 'tyrants' are not socialist. Hitler called his party the National Socialist Party because socialism was popular in Germany at the time. He was not a socialist, infact his views were anti-socialist. He was no more a socialist than Idi Amin was the last king of Scotland.
New Zealand has a history of socialist governments. No tyrants though.
"China makes and manufactures the products and therefore, has jobs"
ReplyDeleteChina is a hybrid which defies pure generalizations. It has a lot of capitalism, but at the top it is socialist (the interests of the rulers come first). For something much more purely socialist look to North Korea and Cuba. How many of their products do you see on the shelves?
"Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Viet Minh, declared an independent nation."
Ho quickly took North Vietnam into the Soviet camp. Hardly something to do to make a nation independent.
"Russia supplied few arms, the influence and socialist thought only, unequal and minimal cost in lives and weaponry compared to the US."
A low cost in Russian lives, but a very high cost in Vietnamese lives, starting in the late 1950s when Ho Chi Minh ordered tens of thousands of farmers slaughtered as part of Marxist "land reform" (see Stanley Kernow), through the war, and after when Russia extracted hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese slaves to toil in Siberia.
"My dad fought in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam Dmarks, so it is you that seems ignorant of this war."
You should be proud of his service. He should be. But he wasn't in the halls of power in Moscow or Hanoi, and he wasn't there in the 1950s or during the holocaust North Vietnam visited on South Vietnam after it won. Nor was he a general.
After all, the best auto worker in the world does not know a lot of what goes on in the boardroom, nor is he very good at making an advertising campaign. This does not make him any less of a great autoworker, but he is only good at what is he good at, and not qualified to be an authority in other areas just due to his limited field.
"You need to be more precise and specific about history instead of painting broad and ambiguous personal philosophies "
The latter was exactly what you did with the nutty "American corporations and war" conspiracy theory, which at least you have dropped.
"do not confuse socialism with fascism."
ReplyDeleteI don't. They do not mean exactly the same thing. Socialism is mrely the economic manifestation of fascism, but there are of course other aspects of fascist rule that do not involve the socialist aspects of the ruling elites controlling the means of production.
Hitler's ideology is indeed a branch of socialism, as are the Ba'ath parties, and Gaddafi's "green" movement. Just because it is not the exact same thing as the Marx/Stalin variety does not mean it is not socialism.
"[Hitler] was not a socialist, infact his views were anti-socialist."
No, he was pro-socialist as long as it was his own branch. He opposed other branches of socialism, such as communism.
But he was as strongly fascist as the other socialists he opposed.
In regards to one major branch of socialism not being socialist, lets look at this statement:
ReplyDelete"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.""
Where did this come from, do you think? the socialist Hitler?
Nope. This was a quote from Karl Marx, who founded the other major branch of socialism. And the vicious antisemitic streak has persisted in most branches of socialism to this day, through Stalin and his "doctors plot" to Hugo Chavez blaming Jews ("Christ Killers") for all the evil in the world. The branches of socialism (economic fascism) have major commonalities.
socialism is not economic facism - "elites controlling production" is actually a very good way of describing capitalism. Socialism does have many branches, in it's purest form it's simply about looking after the vulnerable in society. All systems are prone to corruption so quoting the racism or inanity of those who claim to be socialist is scraping the barrell, it's the same as quoting the stupidity and racism of George W Bush in an argument against capitalism.
ReplyDeleteIn capitalism, the people control the wealth. In socialism, it is the rulers.
ReplyDeleteI looked up New Zealand socialism in Wikipedia. Unless it is inaccurate, it portrays socialism in the country as being mostly on the fringe.
"Socialism in it's purest form it's simply about looking after the vulnerable in society."
Actually, the main definitions have nothing to do with this, and speak of who owns the means of production.
There are also better ways to look after the vulnerable than to give the rulers even more power, or to give them control over the means of production. You can have, for example, taxation money going to welfare payments without one bit of socialism (government controlling industries, etc).
"it's the same as quoting the stupidity and racism of George W Bush in an argument against capitalism."
Racism? Assuming for a moment this is true, this would be an argument against big government (more associated with socialism). Without a big oppressive government, Bush could do little.
As a capitalist, he was a baseball businessman, and a poor one, and could have little impact.
Aside from this, it remains true that the vast majority of these tyrants are socialists, and the more a society impliments the ideals of most branches of socialism (rulers control the means of production), the more hellish they get. So you have nearly pure socialist states like North Korea and Cuba. Want to live there? In its purest form the rulers have the most power.
I disagree dmarks - socialism can operate in a democratic society. You are basing your views on undemocratic societies. I don't know what constitutes a 'fringe socialist' country but the UN reported a couple of years back that we were too socialist.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess money is not power, right Dmarks?
ReplyDeleteAnd Cuba and North Korea are the same in every aspect since you group them together, right?
You don't know a damn thing about life outside of this contintent, so maybe you should just limit your comments to just the myths you know about this country!
jaine said:
ReplyDelete"I disagree dmarks - socialism can operate in a democratic society."
But only in a very limited fashion. You really don't tend to find very socialist countries that are democratic. Are the grocery stores, mines, factories in New Zealand all government-controlled? I doubt it, but am asking since I am wondering what the answer is.
and the other writer:
"And Cuba and North Korea are the same in every aspect since you group them together, right?"
No, but they are both very socialist, with very little of the economy being controlled by the people. They are in fact alike in the aspect that is being discussed. Next subject....
"You don't know a damn thing about life outside of this contintent,"
Anon, not only are you not able to spell continent, you are lying, pure and simple. If you had thought a bit before this comment, you would not have made it.
"so maybe you should just limit your comments to just the myths you know about this country!"
I do like to cut through the myths. true.
dmarks you have a very narrow definition of socialism - one I disagree with. Perhaps that's why NZ is labelled 'fringe socialist' because some people only see socialism in such narrow terms and we don't fit the narrow view.
ReplyDeleteJaine: Mine is actually rather broad. As for the NZ fringe socialist thing, it comes from the Wikipedia description of the NZ socialist parties, which included a bunch of unpopular Stalinist groups on the fringe of NZ politics. Hence my mention of "Fringe'.
ReplyDeleteDoes NZ have a pm from of these parties, or is there a major presence in the parliament?
The plain fact is that this country had its beginnings as a socialist nation in the economy of the colonies and capitalism was at its strongest in the south until the Civil War because slaves made it so.
ReplyDeleteIt was only when the colonies did not want to pay Britain and the monarch taxes that the colonies set up a campaign for independence, but today, most Americans like Dmarks here equate taxation with patriotism, until they question where the taxes are really going. Then, they categorize which spending is socialist, and which is a free market system.
Truth is, socialist programs continue today with Medicare, social security, public schools, libraries, postal service, police and fire departments, etc., but the biggest and most costly socialist program is the military spending and you'd be hard pressed to find conservatives moaning about waste and incompetence in that area, even though its as socialist spending as the former Soviet build-up, and moreso.
Socialism should not be viewed only as a philosophy or rehtorical explanantion Dmarks, because in that sense, capitalism and socialism are very much the same, but if you define it in terms of economic policies, there is a greater difference with free market systems.
It is laughable and you embarrass yourself as naive to think there are no tyrants or dictators in American history as capitalism expanded its interests and profits to small nations as it does in the middle east for oil. You really can't be that dumb to think its all about freedom and ridding with world of tyrants. America has set tyrants and dictators up for capitalism. Where do you think Saddam Hussein came from?
Historically though in America, only free market systems were never allowed for anglos, and not any other culture or race.