What If The U.S. Honored Its Native Treaties?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 дек 2021
- ▶ Go to curiositystream.thld.co/GENER... and use code GENERALKNOWLEDGE to save 25% off today, that’s only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
▶ In this video I talk about the various Treaties the US Government has, throughout history, entered with Native Nations and Tribes, and how most - if not all - were broken and unfulfilled.
▶ Alternative Sponsor Link: curiositystream.com/?coupon=g...
▶ Follow me on Twitter: / gkonyoutube
▶ Become a member on Patreon & get exclusive content! / generalknowledge
Special mention to my patrons: Richard, Jeseenya, Francis, Edward, Stephen, MiFE, Rpgkillerspace, Wilhelm, Roland, Rami, Juan, Bruno, Albert, Lastmatix, Kalvin, Francisco, Tom, 43rpak, Chet, Ryan Keith, ou_lyss, Borton, Ryan McMurry, Pete, Cesar, Hendrick.
▶ Join the Discord Server: / discord
▶ Business Contact: gilfamc@gmail.com
▶ Thanks for watching, remember to subscribe to catch future videos!
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.
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.
Kind of. Tribes were nations us why. Non tribal natives were citizens but now tribes are no longer nations . Understand ?
@@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.
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.
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
Non voting status ? Why bother .
@@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.
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
Please do one on if Canada honored their treaties and compare it to current population centers
I feel like even people who try to say the natives were mistreated are ignorant
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.
@@Goyim-phobic ??
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.
“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”
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
PLEASE make a playlist of the marches you use in the background!
Congrats! Very interesting video.
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! 👍
I'm about a quarter native because a few of my grandparents were full-blood, lived in the reservations and all. We also have a family friend, Ms. Ebony, who grew up in a reservation but whose children grew up in the city.
I've never been to the reservation either, despite such close ties.
Black Cherokee.
Thank you for posting this. It would be great if you include resources and reference material as well. Thank you!
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.
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.
America is basically a Europe DLC
Lmao
More like an Expansion pack gone wrong.
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 ( ruclips.net/video/bS9wg612lz8/видео.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.
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 RUclips.
@@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
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.
Can you do a part 2 about Canada please?
Would love to see q video like this for the indigenous people in Canada, central and south America
Said no one ,ever
Landback!!! Thank you. Perfect timing for my research to support that decision
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.
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.
@General Knowledge
You can make similar videos about each country in north and south america. All of these countries are guilty of breaking treaties.
Love this man
Great video, I've learned a lot. Thanks
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.
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
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
You reference 300+ treaties at the beginning. Is there a way you can link a list of those? And also some of those great maps.
Can you do one on modern city states?
Ojibwe here, greetings! If anyone has any native related questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Merry Christmas everyone.
merry xmas brah!!!! and happy new year as well.
You used a map of Iowa a couple of times. I have heard of but never seen it. Where can I find it?
Fun fact: Everyone skipped sponsor part lol
Facts
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"
Good video.
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.
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.
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
Thank you General Knowledge for honouring Native Americans social studies.
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.
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 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
I appreciate you 🐐
This video must be seen by a lot more people
What an important topic!
It would be interesting if NAI's were put on change of all these lands (again).
Im hoping to see a recognistion of these countrys as soon as possible
NOT A CORRECTION. Just to my kiwi ear when you say stripped it sounds like striped, so not like taking away but painted with alternating coloured lines. I love language.
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.
15 year old "patriots" would beg to differ
🤣
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 .
There's a dispute going on right now between the water rights of tribes and farmers in Southern Oregon/Northern California
Alt Title: The US except they respect their landlords
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?
I would love to see a video on the longest standing treaty between the US and native Americans of Morocco 1776
"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
"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.
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.
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.
Give back all Federally-owned land plus compensation for the assessed value of privately held land in regions where treaties would return territory to the relevant nation. Yeah it would cost a lot, but fair financial compensation is necessary, considering the immense wealth that has been derived by use of the land for agriculture, industry, and raising up a large population of economically-productive people. Under this scheme private land owners would still retain their holdings but be subject to a new set of rules, while retaining their USA citizenship while being free to live in the new nation by some agreed-upon terms (e.g. get kicked out of indigenous nation if committing a felony, while on the other hand an indigenous nation would lose recognition if they commit human rights abuses on non-indigenous inhabitants, hopefully ensuring that all parties adhere to ethical standards). Basically, make it so that it's like living with a permanent residency visa in a foreign country, with the option to naturalize under the rules of the "host nation" (e.g. Navajo, Cherokee, etc.).
I can already predict most arguments that will be made against this proposal, and I will address the good-faith ones here (bad-faith arguments do not merit discussion):
1. *What if the Indigenous Nations (IN's) try to purge non-indigenous people?* ---> USA will be entitled to re-occupy the territory if IN breaks certain international laws (e.g. UN rules that other countries agree upon, so as not to allow only the USA to re-invade at-will). After all, a shrunken USA is still way more powerful than a single tribal nation, so they wouldn't risk their autonomy by harming "non-citizens" who would be entitled to live there due to terms set out at IN's independence.
2. *What of resentment by non-indigenous residents of new IN's governments?* ---> If they try to violently overthrow a new IN government, they would be deported to the remaining USA. If they feel that they are being legally discriminated against, see point 1. Sanctions would be a powerful deterrent from mistreating non-citizens who are otherwise entitled to live on the land as set out by renewed, updated treaties.
3. *This sounds extremely expensive, why should the average person, who barely benefits from the centuries-old land theft, have to foot the bill?* ---> The vast majority of wealth derived from past land-theft is accrued by the ultra-wealthy class, past and present, they must foot most of the bill. Less wealthy Americans still derive a little wealth from the past land-grabs, hence would pay a little. The average immigrant to the USA was always just a useful worker to exploit for the ruling class anyway, so their descendants who are in a similar place economically should not have to pay much, if at all. Footing a reparations bill will have to be demographically-neutral, because even though the original land-theft was not, the current non-indigenous population of the country all benefits to some extent from it, proportional to their wealth.
4. *What about IN's with only a few dozen members, who could lord it over the millions of people who live in the new nations?* ---> This is the toughest question to answer, but the market as it currently stands already provides us clues: countries that are underpopulated today either seek immigrants or they languish until foreign business interests make them an offer they can't refuse, leading to industries that will demand life-long workers and hence citizens. If an IN is so insular that it leads to the disappearance of its citizenry, it reverts back to the USA (a big deterrent from IN's engaging in exclusionary policies). If an IN does not want to deal with a country of millions of non-citizens, they could retain core territory for their tribal nation and sell the rest of the majority-non-indigenous territory back to the USA for more money and less administrative burden.
5. *What about infrastructure the USA has already built?* ---> Subtract the cost of that infrastructure from the reparations payments for lands that will still be privately-held by non-indigenous people.
6. *What about the inevitable soft reconquest of IN's by the remaining USA via business interests and military dominance?* ---> There's no good answer for this, IN's would have to deal with this the way any other sovereign nation already deals with superpowers like the USA and China, on top of having large non-citizen populations with residency rights living within their borders. It's not a satisfying conclusion for IN's, but this whole framework I've proposed is a compromise that would hopefully rectify past wrongs while preventing future tragedies. Non-indigenous Americans would find themselves living in countries in which they hold residency but not citizenship, but they would also have the backing of the USA to protect against aggression and discrimination, hopefully assuring peaceful habitation of the land they found themselves in when this hypothetical "land-back" happens. IN's would have far more sovereignty than they do now (an automatic improvement) while having to balance their own potential cultural Renaissance with having many non-citizen residents living within their borders whom they mustn't mistreat, lest they risk their sovereignty.
Long-term, the compromise would hopefully lead to an American EU, with people of all the nations living and moving freely within each other's countries like the Schengen Area, but just not having citizenship everywhere, at least not automatically. This works well in Europe and could work even better in the post-USA, where sovereign indigenous nations and the treaty-guaranteed remaining USA would be even more economically dependent on each other due to past ties an integrated infrastructure, plus the English language, which will at least be a second language in IN's that revitalize their old languages, and will remain the primary language for nations that lost their original language during colonization. I'm willing to hear good-faith criticism from both indigenous and non-indigenous people (I am of the latter).
Anyone else notice that in the percentage map Alabama and Mississippi were in the wrong spots lmao
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
You should do a video alike but for canadian first nation !
Bet we would not be in Water Wars. I can only imagine how absolutely loved and beautiful Mother Earth would be!
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: ruclips.net/video/ur0YWomy5YU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/pQ4lnDy2xnQ/видео.html
@@burtmacklin1208 how many have a UN seat?
That is a starting point
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.
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.
People who are not Native do not care about right & wrong. Even today, where Natives are diminished in numbers and/or non existing, " Americans " do not care, and " Don't want to hear about the Indians ". Live in Hopkinton, mass. USA. Harvard Divinity School was given the Hopkinton Plantation. Congregational Puritans from the Boston, Area. Unlike most British Crown Land Grants in the Colonies, Massachusetts had more of a Legal Power in legislating laws. Well, Hopkinton (including parts of Ashland, Upton & Mendon) was given to be specifically settled by the " Praying Indians ". Under Crown Law the British Colonials were obligated to provide & protect those Native Americans that became Christian. Well, the Congregational Church - John Elliot purchased this land from the local Natives in 1715. Gradually, Anglo settlers went form renting parcels to owning land. A much smaller Plantation was set aside for the Christian Indians. Things went well until King Philip's War. The confiscation of Land Grant Parcels under British Law was totally disregarded and not enforced. The Courts & Militia were controlled by the Local Colonials. They targeted the " Praying Indians " and the killing, confiscation and removal policies were established and expanded from that time until the " Americans " dominated the entire continent. Disdain is expressed constantly whenever I mention this travesty. Most of the Christian Indians were targeted by fellow white Christians, Churches & Local Militia. Whenever the British Courts tried to reverse seizure and enact convictions of British Laws that were broken against the " Praying Indians " the Juries refused to convict. Only the most heinous crimes were punished by hanging or firing squad. Even promised return of Native Lands for those who worked as Scouts for the Militia were quickly ignored. Most of the remaining Christian Indians were exiled from Massachusetts. Major General Gookin, British head of the Militia was a staunch advocate for return of all Lands confiscated from the " Praying Indians " but to no avail. Even his life was in danger. He wrote some 5 to 7 books on the true story of the Native Americans in New England. Most have been lost. Two books survive and were found in an attic in North Hampton Ma. This is a small portion of real US American History, but many descendants of the Anglos do not want to hear the truth. Thank you for the Video.
Whatif Oklahoma was 90% Native American
what if texas was 90% mexican
@@okaywhatevernevermind I mean lowkey is especially Houston. Same w new Mexico.
I think the best option is giving them what federal land is available that they have claims on and can be done. Because tons of people already live there for decades or even centuries. And concerning treaties they didn’t understand what they were signing I don’t know how those would hold up
We don’t have claims. It’s our land. It’s the American People who have land claims, not us.
Thankfully, the way of the white msn is not the way of the indian. So non Indians wouldn’t have to worry about having indian do to them what was done to us. Russell Means talks about this during his movement to see a Lakota State.we don’t dominate people without their consent. That is the way of the white man, not us
@@brianernstmusic exactly, so tired of non-indians calling us "native" and not realizing no non-Indians would have to move or leave, and can own property if they respect our people.
I wonder how much people seen this an dislike the video because it was talking some real history.
I’m not even Native American. But did anybody else get more and more pissed as the video went on? This is no shit to the creators. In fact, I enjoyed the video thoroughly. It’s just the facts that were pissing me off. Lol but I’m glad that I know them now.
When you show us the map at 3:57-4:07, you have Alabama and Mississippi labeled wrong. Just sayin 🤷🏻♂️
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.
A very controversial topic ... but also timely. Good video!
Woman Walks Ahead is a good movie about this subject, people should watch it.
they US would haven been a poor country, there is your answer
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.
just so you know, sioux is pronounced "soo" almost as if french, the x and i are silent, cool video!
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.