Would the concern be on what makes you more susceptible or concern whether there will there be available treatment?

This sounds like the model all tribes should follow, maybe not to the extent of having a specimen bank but needing researchers to present their proposals before diving into the research.

Researchers, if truly looking out for the best interests of the native populations they are studying, should have no difficulty in navigating through another review system before proceeding.

Is this the same manner in which we discuss organ donors? Once the organs leave the original body, with previous permission, the claim of those organs is now with the new holder.

It always appears that natives are threatening something that non-natives find to be of the utmost importance.

It can be helpful to know genetic differences to help with possible ailments but what is the actual likelihood that health relief will go to the natives after these discoveries? Will they be given proper care or still left without basic care?

How could the research be reasonably published without cries from an ethics review board?

This seems to break some researcher oath, taking samples without proper consent. If it's the case that researchers could take samples without consent, ethics would be thrown out the window.

The logic sounds pretty weak.

I wonder if they would also use samples of Europeans existing in remote villages with strong ties to their ancestry and clearer genomes.

This whole belief really reduces the natives to primitive creatures instead of the intellectuals that they were. Had they truly represented rungs on the evolutionary scale their ability to so quickly adapt too interacting with the foreigners would show that their intelligence is unmatched.

For anyone to even utter this thought, especially an intellectual is just absurd. It is as if all races on the road of evolution lead to white when they are at the ultimate level of civilization.

It is one thing to cultivate their lands for material gains but another to collect their DNA. It just sounds more invasive than any recent infingining on their other resources.

Is it really of value and use to all humans?

It still disturbing to hear how the Europeans described the natives. Upon seeing the resources this land had to offer they only saw money, where the natives saw it as so much more.

I do not see anything wrong with researching into human evolution but referring to it in the same manner as resources that natives use, their actual nature, seems incredibly odd and very unequal. Then again it is possible I misinterpreted the meaning here.

We have seen how people in the US have called for making natives equal in all matters under the law to wipe out "racism" against non-natives.

It is a fact that science often challenges people's faith in their stories and traditions.

It is strange to see someone acknowledge that both science and culture share the same level of truth of the route of ancestry.

With the numbers they were catching in the past it is safe to say they would be catching far below than the 50% they were allowed to.

This clause certainly was aimed at capping their fish intake relevant to their numbers, with the possibility their numbers would shrink in the future, lessening the amount they would be able to access.

It must have been an incredibly difficult decision to reach especially for tribes where there were more of those favoring environmental protection over industry.

So kind of the non-natives to worry about the values of natives.

It sounds like the natives were living the American way that was shoved down their throats since the beginning.

A case of the president trying to save face abroad while making conditions worse at home.

This paints the natives as nothing more than con artists, but to the extent that they were living in poverty this idea seems impossible.

Exceedingly idealistic.

Exactly the point that they always had their interests taken care of and that for once they should be generous and consider someone else struggle before their own.

How the tables have turned. But still no one was dying and be forced to move from their homeland over the new native presence of the time.

It's another case of politicians and media fueling a class of people to have hate for the impoverished they believe they are helping with their money rather than hate for people making money off of them.

Seeing this honestly makes me laugh. It simply represents time when some laws benefit people who aren't non-indians.

If non-indian fishers were banned altogether from fishing then there would never be an issue with shortages of fish.

You always have to follow where the money is flowing and where the lack of a specific resource is stifling the larger investors, there is where the backlash will be loudest.

This argument by anti-indian protesters makes the least sense, regulating sport fishing cannot be the only reason for troubles with tourism.

Couldn't agree more with this. ICERR would not have been founded if the natives remained silent in terms of not reclaiming their lands.

There was never a time when the natives were given a real choice in the matter of being conquered and removed from their lands. The committee is almost neglecting all that had been done to natives up until that point, everything that makes them a special case.

This resolution is almost laughable and nothing more than a legan tantrum in response to the gains some natives were making in regaining their ancestral lands and resources.

This headline sums up the opposition to the new native acquisitions, it is angering the whites of the nation and especially those who live close to all the tribes winning such grand battles in court.

I'm sure this is the exact same sentiment that natives had when they saw the white man chip away at their land from colonial times.

The larger population was unsatisfied with decision simply because they could have been making more money and saw that they could better utilize the resource better than the natives.

There was still such large disparity from tribe to tribe that while some may have been making gains in wealth others still resided in the impoverished conditions.

A true victory indeed.

Considering the state had not too long ago sent their game wardens to hinder the fishing of many natives, the tides literally turned against all those opposed to native fishers.

They were utilizing their resources to get what they wanted from the country, a smart move it seems.

It is astounding that the courts ruled so heavily in favor of the natives. I'm sure the politicians of the time really hated their predecessors for all the legal mishandlings.

I do find it surprising that they now had all these value enterprises at their disposal. It surprises me that the non-natives didn't just destroy the new structures they built to prevent their business from landing under native possession.

It is incredibly ironic that non-indians would have to find some long ancestral tie to the natives just to get a piece of the pie that they believed was theirs from the very start.

I think these matter are extremely complicated since the sales of land were occurred so long ago and the new structures and communities built are so diverse and grand that there would be no way to give the land back since it is not just land anymore but an ecosystem of new life.

Of the three things people believed the Natives to lack, experience is probably the only one that actually was true since they had been rejected f or so long on capitalizing on their own resources.

The US may have never paid an amount as exuberant as this before to lands owned by the Natives simply because any other time they wished to take land they would do so claiming a systematic legal basis.

It makes complete sense that when calling for the right to self govern, you need to know what lands you are able to govern.

It is very funny to see clout used here since nowadays it is term more associated with fame and money.

Protect but do not interfere is what it sounds like.

It also appears that maybe just the timing, with all other activism heightened, propelled the native Americans to see new ways to reach greater audiences.

Collective societies exist around the world where the group is more important than the self, yet they are not all societies riddled with poverty.

Even if the natives were averse to capitalism, it still does not mean they were content with poverty.

Nothing more needs be said about the sources of poverty for Natives except for this.

Maybe improving their transportation and providing funding and job opportunities and education on building infrastructure would have helped to alleviate some strain of the remoteness of reservations.

It is reasonable to assume that for some, these conditions would propel them into adulthood with similar results, but even in the most dire situations some resilient individuals find a way out.

It is easy to see that one glimpse of the past injustices against the Indians would all add up to their current situation, not one single instance alone.

Well if this statement wouldn't appeal to the people of this time to open their eyes and look at the true crisis facing this population of people, then i do not know what else would.

I do not believe alleviating their poverty would occur in a swift amount of time considering the decades of poverty they struggled with.

Termination advocates must have hated the idea that tribal governments were receiving so much power for their people.

If a president is going to acknowledge the need to put Natives first and help with their economic crisis but rely on old institutions to help and create a new one for non-indians, it's clear he does not understand the need of the natives.

Another decade meant another "task force" to help the natives.

It really was the time period when everything became a war on something.

It would appear that there was little escape from poverty for the natives.

They were forced to rely on new resolutions every couple of years, disrupting any sustainability they did have under one resolution.

The only thing limiting their freedom is the opposition they face when trying to use the money rich resources that they have a rightful claim on.

While it does suggest that the Indians will be treated the same as all other citizen, it neglects all the harm they have faced as a result of the government and at the hands of other citizens.

The need to appeal to world audiences by sending relief to other countries does backfire when one's own country has citizens in similar predicaments.

As i should have expected, WWII helped to stimulate the whole nation, even the native American population.

It would appear that he did stimulate growth for the Natives, but considering the state of things today, it seems it did not last.

While for some the valuable resources were plenty, many did not possess the tools to capitalize on the resources nor possessed the want to do so.

It seems that any amount, even if was a fair amount, could be deemed too generous by a non-Indian detractor.

I think that citing historical injustice is fair since years of progress cannot return all the lives lost and land stolen sinc ethe beginning of the new country.

Astounding that people saw them as greedy even though reports showed their overall extreme poverty.

If being able to see the one's own living conditions and understand that there is a better level of care that can be attained, there are few individuals who not desire better living conditions.

Clearly the government had been doing a poor job as guardian since taking on that role.

Is fairness measured simply by aquitting? I would want to know more about this case if the decision was in fact a fair one.

That is incredibly unjust towards native women considering there exists the possibility that their offender may have no ties to them.

I would go even further and say it was grounded in fear of l future prosecutions of their supporters and contributors.

I think the way the system should operate should be based on the tribe land being a foreign entity. Canadian juries wouldn't ask US citizens to sit in on their juries even if the person they were prosecuting was from the US.

It is rather suspicious for there to be a turn of some of these politicians to this movement, but if you follow the money I'm sure their change of attitudes aren't so far fetched.

If they appear inferior it is only because of years and years of federal attempts to control or weaken their potential and ability to perform.

Seems entirely fair that someone committing a crime on "foreign soil" should have to face the court of that land.

It doesn't seem negligible at all considering, if anything a larger fine should be taken from the perpetrator.

Were these sentences strictly for tribal members or for outsider offenders as well? It would not make sense that they would only be able to incarcerate their own people for a limited amount of time based on what the federal government decreed if they are considered sovereign in these matters.

I find this to be most important considering many crimes against natives come from people outside their communities and having access to criminal info of the community would surely help in identifying people of interest.

Only when a piece hit the media and garnered attention did officials turn their focus to the issues at hand. It seems like an old game, but in some cases media popularity does help to facilitate change.

What is the purpose of having courts that have no ability to properly prosecute criminals? It seems like another method that makes the tribes rely on the state and federal government for prosecution of criminals, if they choose to turn over the crimes.

This definitely seems like a move in the right direction for native people, continued presence and physical representation would seem to be the best solution for fighting back at Congress and any new laws threatening sovereignty.

The mind may be our most powerful weapon but it is also the most vulnerable. The mind has the ability to cripple the body if the issues inside go unresolved.

It seems damning to say that people cannot effectively govern themselves when they are hurting, it implies that they need someone to come in and help them with the process while they grieve.

Saving through legislation?

It certainly does nothing if the foreign government has no bodies to donate to the cause or help train people within the community to effectively handle situations themselves.

I think the infrastructure and ability to enforce the regulations is the most pressing concern but the actual establishment of laws is not as difficult as taxing.

While the time frame may have been rushed on them developing a new system to satisfy the government, it seems like something they should have, at bare minimum, discussed for implementation. Even if they did not encounter cases of rape in their systems, what were they planning on doing when one came to them?

Would the implications be that the state would have more power to monitor and interfere with tribal laws and people in an unchecked manner?

The skepticism is one all should have of their government. Having blind faith in one's government seems to be naive.

It seems that any time a group arms themselves for a confrontation that they appear to be in the wrong when things eventually go awry. The need to protect oneself is understandable but it would seem like they were seeking out conflict.

I was unaware the governor could reject extradition like this, but the logic makes sense since he surely would have met a poor fate in a South Dakota prison for his history.

It seems odd that in a time when people wanted less war and criminalization that there would be so much support for someone who armed his organizers.

The AIM was a revolutionary group, but not an extremist one in the sense that the informant plays them out to be.

While there were those natives that supported the AIM, there seems to be the repeated theme of them only representing the militants within the group and not any tribe as a whole.

It is interesting that to appeal to the white audience they took on a facade of their movement being a religious on when it appears not to be.

Do the tribes receive such lavish donations now absent of any struggle they are currently in or do they only see money like this when they are directly in conflict with the government or in media headlines?

It would appear that this adds to the long list of people armed with the original backing of the US government.

Could it be that the drive to continue the militant parade through each reservation in need was for more ambitious gains for Banks?

There are many instances where the militants seem to be taking advantage, not that they don't have history to show the same treatment of their people. It takes away from the message for the bigger cause.

If anything, the movement possibly made officials more willing to negotiate with those attempting to secure change through legal means since they saw them as more reasonable than the militants.

While the intentions are there the actions are misguided.

This phrase seems like something completely made up for the sake of an ironic plot line in a movie rather than real life. It is a not typical scene to house militants in a church, especially armed ones.

These tactics would seem to hurt the overall intent of the movement. It paints them as ambitious for the wrong reason.

It appears that other natives were familiar with Banks and his tactics to play on emotion and strong imagery to pry on sentiment and support for his cause, but here amongst other natives they were well aware of their own struggles and did not need to have someone pitch them something they have known their whole life.

Considering he had a "trembling voice" earlier when introducing himself, this sentiment seems for show for the others, like his useless ammo, than actual personal stance.

This man, and possibly others, intended to intimidate with any object they could find, even objects absent of actual function.

I think the emphasis that they were not chosen to speak for the people highlights the discrepancies that existed amongst the older generations and the newer ones.

The prisons of this time were bound to be filled with other protestors arrested for similar reason of stirring up unrest in the communities, each eager to lend their ear and hand in any civil rights movement.

The outspoken radicals of any organization always receive more media attention than those operating behind the scenes fighting for negotiations within the bounds of legal walls instead of on the streets with the people' emotions.

I wonder if the movement as a whole decided on the convertible or if a few pulled off this tailing without the expected satire.

It seems that it takes one circumstance, in a long chain of witnessed injustice, to empower someone to movements that they previously objected to.

This line of questioning definitely sought to play on the emotions of every native present, almost implying that they are flawed and not Indian enough to act to help their people.

The details of the ritual surely reaffirmed any stereotypes of savagery that the jurors may have had before the trial.

I cannot think of any other religion where one sacrifices to share in the burden of pain that the female creatures of the Earth suffer through.

It must have been striking for the jury to hear that their country is perceived as genocidal.

This is an interesting belief considering other animals and creatures simply live and exist with what seems like nothing more than innate drive to continue living, but humans have infinite possibilities to choose from instead of simply being driven by their basic needs.

One would think that people of the jury would be well aware, at this point in US history, of many of the injustices dealt to the Natives and the extent to which they have been countlessly forced to assimilate and terminate their cultural practices.

Vizenor's descriptions are very powerful as they encapsulate the vigor and strength that the men possessed while in the courtroom that day.

The "cultural frown" really adds to the image of Banks in the court. It signifies so much more than his clothing could alone. That phrase sums up the attitude of this man and many others towards the whole court affair.

It must have been very satisfying to see these statistics considering the sportfishers were not receiving any f the blame in this matter beforehand.

One would think that the answer would be obvious.

But at what cost to their culture, alnd, and families were they given these rights and more?

Insane that they would blame a" very small number" of Native fishermen when they had been fishing these rivers for generations with no impact on the fish population.

It has so often been stated how the whites though the natives to be lazy and hungry for handouts, yet here is a perfect example where they wish to survive on their own without welfare but are restricted from doing so.

It would seem that the only means to secure change would be with the backing of a collective of tribes across the country standing in solidarity rather than one tribe alone.

He is simply interpreting the treaty in a manner that complies with his and †he council's position.

The changes in the society are always in direct conflict with their standards of living.

Reminding them of these services does little considering it is in their land that their culture is so heavily intertwined with and they are being prohibited from using a resource that has been a part fo the tribe for generations.

Really appealing to the sentiments of the time, considering the US would not want to be called out by one of the other powers of the time for the neglect of their indigenous.

This seemed like something that should have happened before the blame was placed on Natives for the fishing deficits.

This image really brings a smile to me considering that among all the commotion they are still able to have a good time.

The issue seems that both groups do not understand the complexity of both situations and that both demonstrations could co-exist without the other hindering one.

Smart tactic considering Brando would surely be released promptly considering his star status.

I think it is almost wrong to not accept help from people fighting a very similar battle because both battles are ones where the people want to be heard and hold the government to some accountability for the travesties that they have faced and how the government has done little to help them as a people based on their skin color or heritage.

This perfectly sums up what the government was doing when they allowed some states to take control of Indian affairs.

This shows that the younger generations were motivated to change the previous motto that to be heard they were simply to remain polite.

It doesn't seem like they had any alternative to be heard but to protest.

I do not believe the courts understood that they were simply building a stronger case for native unrest and that at some point they would face a larger demonstration of anger towards the disregard for past treaties.

Doesn't this directly nullify the Point Treaty?

Were the Natives also selling their fish commercially from these catches that were deemed illegal? I wonder if that also played into some of the rationale to crack down on them since they would be competing with the white fishermen.

A powerful punch to be dealt to the Natives at the time, since the implications extend beyond just fishing.

It really sounds like the federal government was tired of handling, what at the time they saw as minute affairs, compared to foreign affairs of the time and decided this was the solution to relieve the burden.

This solution only sounds like a solution because it would be convenient for the council and others and harbors zero empathy for the Natives.

Insane that even at this time the easier solution for officials was to resort back to assimilationists ideals rather than handle the situation with any regard for the cultural identity of the Natives.

Remarkable that the Natives would be to blame when there are "mass fisheries" built on these waters.

It is tragic how Natives lost this resource and cultural connection by the overfishing of people who came without regard for anything but profit.

I could see the trouble in permitting natives to fish on land that was no longer theirs.

Since they didn't have a larger group to report back to, they had the ability to take action when they saw fit.

I find it even more compelling that they did not have help from elders or others.

Did they prepare them for participation or for fallout from what was likely to occur?

I think that view of activism is quite astonishing considering the tide of protests and civil rights marches that followed in the 1960s.

In some sense they created their own tribe with a new culture.

The community was created despite the initial attempts of relocation to fully segrate these people from each other.

It does seem like a difficult challenge considering that some of these people lived their whole lives on the reservation then went away for three years to train or study and now live somewhere where the employment potential is better. Does that erase their initial connection to the tribe?

I didn't think that leadership potential would be hindered with relocation but now it seems all too obvious.

Is it undermining in the sense they want to hurt their tribe or gain more rights related to the tribe?

It would make sense that helping fund and establish sound structures where a majority of the Natives live would be given more importance than on relocation.

It makes little sense for bureaus to be structured with the management outsourcing to other bureaus for approval on budgets and other affairs.

Glad that he acknowledges this simple fact that has been seen in every community.

In theory, this sounds like one of the best things proposed for the Natives from any administration.

Finally it seems like a commissioner was implemented in this new era with actual sense of the predicament the Indians have been placed into.

We don't often have a quote from the president acknowledging the difficulty with the BIA. It seems like a sentiment repeated through the ages, that this group of Americans simply were not the focus of this administration.

Sounds like the curse of the commissioner.

It is an incredible shame that he went out this way considering he did attempt to help the Indians a great deal and was actually interested in their growth and well being.

There could not be a sentiment I agree with more.

It is remarkable how the time during WWII and after influenced the way some Americans dealt with minorities as threatening to their way fo life and looking at them with immense skepticism in their relation to the nation.

This sounds like the worst person tp put incharge of relocation for Natives.

This sounds like the opposite situation described above the male seeking a mechanic vocational work or higher education. He would be granted more benefits taking the vocational route rather than the educational one.

Here it would seem they are telling the lady it's worth more for her to stay home. This just shows that even when they seek to make a living wage, they are not given the compensation necessary to live. And since she is not choosing employment over her children it would only seem, in the extreme stance, to highlight the laziness of Natives.

It sounds like the government shuttled the Indians onto reservations without thoroughly providing them resources that other Americans expected from the government.

Was it that they did not take care of garbage or there were no systems in place for them to suitably dispose of the trash within the lands that belonged to them?

These sales people were more aware of the cultural aspects that guide respectful engagement of strangers and it suited their game.

If anything they should have made it a job for those returning to inform those about to be relocated about the potential difficulties they would face.

Were they ever grouped together when relocated or just relocated individually?

I'm curious to know what specific jobs they were and if they were overly catered to Indian people or just jobs that were closer to them than other non-Indians.

It seems that the possible explanation for this would be the results of their education funneling directly into a service that supplied Americans with labor, while their college education was more ambiguous benefit to the society they were relocated to.

I didn't know this meant cure-all/solution

The relocation sounds decent enough, but only if the relocation can come with ability to return home to the same circumstances one left.

I don't believe they want allotment, they simply don not understand either case fully.

Taking a jab a the the Navajo people.

This is the direct message that the commissioner is trying to convey to all the navajo present at the meeting. He must have been happy to hear someone correctly understand his intentions.

Her view is more i favor of the act while Howard Gorman believes it to more suspect than what it appears to be.

There is an air that he knows best for them and is surprised by their lack of awareness of something they themselves did not draft.

Mr. Faris does not sound as pleased to be spending his time explaining something he sees so plainly to these people who do not.

They just want an honest and fair election. It's justified that they are wary of the white men.

This sounds incredibly belittling even though it is his attempt to say they can learn to use the new ballot.

the confusion makes sense, since even i was just confused with their old method. It would be easy for some mistakes to occur in this new voting method if the rules were not explicitly and repeatedly explained.

In this sense, only 100 Indians would have an impact on the fate of the whole tribe?

Would the land be bought from the government? If so then this seems like a very sly plan to make people feel they have power when in fact the money lent and spent is coming and going to the same people.