Well, to be fair, it was actually a miss on my part. It was a choice my editor made that I didn't catch in the review, mostly cause I've been traveling for the last two weeks straight. I should have changed it. But I will say, to those who think that life under the Nazis was significantly different from Communist Controlled East Germany... Eh... Everything was still state-controlled, the Stasi were exceptionally repressive and virtually everywhere, and people suffered through immense poverty. As per usual, the communists had to build a wall to keep people imprisoned in their state. www.spiegel.de/international/germany/east-german-spies-new-study-finds-more-stasi-spooks-a-540771.html If you're interested in a personal account: ruclips.net/video/n0p3fyhyffI/видео.html
My father is a native. He was the first member of his tribe to become a physician. He worked for the IHS, (Indian health service) and always made sure we were as far from the reservation as possible. Things are so much worse than pictures can convey. He always said the reservations in the plains states were the worst off. He said none of us would never set foot on the Lakota res. Although that might be tribal rivalry, but he said it was the most dangerous place in the country.
My father did the same exact thing. As someone who lives in North Dakota (we’re known as the Great Plains) the reservation here has highest amount of missing people reports. You shouldn’t go anywhere there alone, man or woman it does not matter. And it’s sad because it’s a beautiful place helped out with a Pow Wow last week.
@@ASlickNamedPimpback it’s hard to compare such drastically different environments, but it is seriously unsafe to walk alone or even with one other person on certain res. You are so isolated so you can try and call for help but anyone that could would be too far away to be meaningfully helpful. There is also a crap ton of corruption on the res and there are a lot of repeat offenders who get away with the crimes there. If you read Sherman Alexie’s memoir, he shares horror stories.
@@ASlickNamedPimpback yeah honestly, not joking, the amount of missing people in reservations is scary, and the amount that unsolved is even worse. When someone goes missing the family is like “yeah I knew him, hope he’s better now” and we move on because it’s such a common occurrence
I wrote a paper on this in college, in a history of the American Indian course. Got an A on it. Professor said she'd "never thought about how the government did so much damage" and said she was going to research it further. One small step.
Such brownie points I’m jealous. The real monster is in the details. How was the sample you’re researching specifically affected by colonialism (Spanish/French/Other) and what specific form of government did the tribe adopt and what are the structures in place. Before even getting to the interpersonal level.
You want to know what's worse than an Indian reservation run by a government? Try an Indian reservation run by *three* governments: Akwesasne. There's the US half of the reservation, the Canadian half, and the Indian government. There's a lot of "import export trade" going on since the Indians are free to travel between Canada and the US.
I remember a video, I believe by John Stossel, several years ago that detailed a tribe that is flourishing by NOT taking the federal gov't money but by focusing on entrepreneurism. This tribe had 3% or so unemployment, low alcohol and drug use rates and its members were thriving.
@@katiek.8808 Yes they are the Lumbee Indians and they have thriving businesses, good schools, individual wealth and take care of their own. THEY DO NOT HAVE A RESERVATION and are NOT under government control. There are some sick leftie morons who want to make the Lumbee 'victims' give them a reservation and basically turn them into infantile welfare slaves.
@@Yal_Rathol No, I don't remember which video it was, I wish I did. I saw this several years ago and the video was how by refusing federal money and being entrepreneurial this tribe opened several banks and small businesses and is doing very well for itself, with no casino.
As a member of the Navajo people I want to point out that this is an accurate essay. Well done. A book I’ve recently read that does the subject much justice is called The New Trail of Tears. Great work
I spent two years on the Navajo reservation about a decade ago, and this is certainly what I remember seeing. Many good people, but completely ruined and controlled by the government. I haven't heard much since I left. Do you still have 88 chapter reps? Or did they cut it down to 24 like I heard was going to happen? And is the most common topic for chapter meetings still attempting to get electricity and running water to homes? do the reps still have their all expenses paid teen day "meeting" In Hawaii, and free PBR tickets? I recall a political cartoon I saw when I was there, had a line of people outside a taco bell. Said "one man can feed 100,000 but we still have 88 freeloaders.
Sadly, in Canada, this is still happening and the most common and pervasive way it's done, is through, CPS. Any complaint, and I do mean ANY, and the Kids can be taken and implanted into other families. The lucky ones, will see themselves re-implanted into related families judged "better" and that's the end of it. And the "better' ones, will often have to fight for it, HARD. And this, I know, by experience.
I've been saying for years that the reserves are communist and this is the problem. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians think more government is the solution. The Nisga'a in BC have been fighting to to have their collectively owned land turned over to individual ownership. I hope they're successful with that.
Sadly it seems like many of those on the reservation are so close to knowing the truth but end up asking for more of the problem. I'm an indian that was raised off of the reservation. So I find myself locked between two sinking ships and a desire to save both. It was nice to see this video...kinda uplifting...
From what I’ve seen, the Casinos don’t help. They provide just enough for bare subsistence but not enough to actually improve the lives of those on the dole. Too often I’ve seen it get spent on alcohol, which does just evil things to Indians.
@@thewiirocks Which was addressed in the video. They live in despair which leads to those problems. They don't own their own houses and aren't allowed to develop the land without government approval. They don't have the same rights simply because of where they live inside the US despite being citizens.
I actually grew up on the Wind River Indian Reservation in my stepdad's home (he was Arapahoe) and my grandmother is Shoshone. I definitely appreciated the movie for how realistic they actually portrayed Indian culture and the people. At least aside from mispronouncing Fort Washakie.
@@k1n6n07h1n6 No, your name, is that Native American? It was an ironic, sarcastic joke, and now that I've explained that, it ceases to be funny at all. We need to develop a way to effectively communicate irony in comment sections, because I'm tired of people misinterpreting my messages. I just wanna laugh.
I love the Futurama episode about the Native Martians (designed to resemble Native Americans) who were mad about trading their land for 1 giant "bead" which turns out to be a giant diamond. When someone points it out, they're like "Screw the land, we're RICH. We can go anywhere we want and buy new land".
I worked in education where native reservations were part of my job and even in the 2010s and 2020s this still has an effect. I begged a 13 year old who straight up could not read to focus on his schooling more and he pulled out a roll of 100 dollar bills and told me “why would I? Im going to drop out as soon as I can, they pay us just to live”. This if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears would have been one of those internet “and then everyone clapped” moments. Too many do drop out the moment they can and spend their whole lives doing not much of anything and suffering from substance abuse and crime.
I don’t disagree with you in principle but just remember that all of the horrors talked about in this video started with someone saying this exact same thing.
@@soulfuzz368 I know there are hypocrites. An I'm doing my best being careful with who's trustworthy or not. I'm only agreeing that we as a society don't treat Indigenous people with enough or the same level of care or respect. An that we should be better and do what we can.
my grandfather left the rez because he wanted better for his children. Their is a valid reason why natives don't trust the government so to be honest to help the rez is to teach people how to better themselves so they can better their families and not to rely on government programs.
Power needs to be moved from the BIA to the Reservations. It happened with Roe v Wade (power from the federal government to the states) and it can happen elsewhere.
Having relatives who are some percent Indian or married to someone who is some percentage according to the government I have been to several reservations in the south and west. The most successful "Indians" I have known are the ones who have left the "Reservation" life which is the ghetto of the backwoods or rural areas. They chose to abandon the "handout" culture of res-life, like living off "commodities" (powdered everything, canned everything), living in run down cheap housing that no one is willing to renovate since they don't "own" it personally but is "free", working jobs that provide better health insurance than going to an "Indian clinic", and finding work that pays better than the scraps handed out by tribal governments or welfare checks. They did not abandon their heritage, but they don't put trot it out in every aspect of daily life.
But yet it's OK that when we do get off the Rez where do most people wind up? Oh yes the Housing Project in our local cities. Are these places not the Same as the Rez. back home? Yes it is. And if you look at it closer as to the hard times we're having now this whole country is a Rez. So how does it feel to be apart of the program. The host fell to talk about the Native People that live on the Rez's that are highly successful. It's like any where else in this country you do have a choice if you want to stay or not. The main reason most stay on the land (Rez) it to hold on to what is left. If you leave and Don't return your the one that's turning your back on the people. By holding on this country is still Indian Country. This year alone there have been more Native Americans (women) put in the place of power then ever before with in the white man's government. So who's to say that we are not here. We're Still Here..
@@Kate-yb5ig In my experience the "highly successful" Native people who live on the Rez are the ones in power who dole out money and jobs to friends and family. They are even more political/financially motivated than anyone in Washington. A couple of my cousins are from the Creek tribe and when they were older their parents took them to a nearby Rez as a sort of "Scared Straight" experience. Seeing how "traditional" members lived, they redoubled their efforts at school, becoming successful white collar executives, both are women (although I'm not a biologist).
@@jonathanenglish9146 They stick their fingers in their ears when they're told the truth. Nobody wants to take any responsibility for the way they live. It's always somebody else's fault.
I can sympathize with your interest in Indians. Growing up in Kansas and having a grandfather with roots with the Potawatomi in Oklahoma, I spent a lot of time learning and observing native culture. Also had friends who went to Haskell Indian Nation University in Lawrence, KS. Great video as always
I know some of those people. They are good people, but they have to stop accepting these handouts, or they will always be prisoners of the government that enslaved them to begin with.
@@Alte.Kameraden Yes. They are American citizens as well and can move and work in the US. My area has a lot of native Americans that refused to move to the reservation. They're just Americans, live and work same as everyone else.
I'm a Kansan as well. I have Injun blood from both sides, Apache and Melungeon. I don't see things ending well. All the new immigrants don't give a DAMN about Native Americans. I fear for Native Americans when things fall apart. Legacy Americans actually tend to respect Native Americans. Definitely so in rural America. Punjabis and Somalis couldn't give a damn.
RDR2 of all things have really shown me the despair of Indian relations with the Government without a skewed SJW lense on it, and to see that it basically didn't get any better is disheartening.
I know that I comment the same thing on every one of these videos, but I cant help myself. Out of Frame is the single best thing on RUclips and EXACTLY what the internet at its best represents! It breaks my hear to see OoF going away. Also, my dad has had a life-long fascination with US history, especially with the plight of American Indians. I cant agree more, having heard & had the same discussions at our own family dinner table growing up. Indians are treated by our government as little more than children or zoo animals to be pitted and have scraps tossed to, rather than the complex, intelligent, fully human people they have always been. We should let the tribes own the land they are on and use it how they wish, within the laws of the US, like any other American does.
As a person of (well documented) Indian lineage, I appreciate this discussion. I now think it was a blessing in disguise that my tribe never received federal recognition and thus was never granted a reservation. My ancestors were forced to assimilate and fend for themselves.
@@messagesystem333 its what humanity has done for eons. Setting apart the tribes as "other" instead of assimilating them right from the beginning was a mistake. Like any other civilization, you take the best of the conquered civilization, leave the rest and move onward.
My tribe also never got federal recognition. My aunt who has many friends in different reservations always tells us how mismanaged it is because they rely so heavily on federal aid that just never comes
@@sarasunshinemt4444 Well said. Truly the only option for true prosperity of the Natives is integration, but morons can't wrap their head around it and think its some form of evil. They never should have been given their enclaves, and unfortunately, they will probably never lose them.
I live in Florida and from what I know, the Seminole Tribe here actually is self governing. They proudly announce they're the only tribe to never surrender to the US Govt and currently owns tons of land in the state. Our governor had signed an agreement with the Tribe to give them rights to sports betting and gambling. Essentially, any sports betting has to go through the Tribe, so a massive source of leverage for them as well as obvious earnings. Since the servers will be on Indian land, recognized as sovereign by our state, our gambling isn't determined by federal laws. As always, my state does things best lol
American Indians: Can we please have advocacy for autonomy, infrastructure, independent law enforcement, and economic opportunity? The Left: Best we can do is changing a football team's name.
That is also how the left treats black people. They persist in calling "black on black crime" an "alt right myth" and not solving any of the real issues present in the black communities. But hey, that ginger comic book character is now black, I am sure this will somehow fix gang violence.
Canada has a similar problem, although we've gone a lot further into the "Noble Savage" route. My experience is from growing up in BC and my observations largely involve groups in that area. I grew up being taught about at least certain tribes in BC (Haida, Salish) as well as having historical lessons on some of the notable eastern tribes (Huron, Iroquois, Blackfoot, Inuit). Had some local elders come in and give speeches and the like. Learnt about the Residential school systems, etc. No problems for the most part, except looking back I found myself unable to name any of the tribal wars (except Huron vs Iroquois), or much talk about slavery which I know was practised. It's actually funny because I remember being taught most tribesmen were considered warriors, and of slaves being sacrificed when their owner died, but it was never talked about how prevalent the practice of slavery nor war was, for example. Almost all warfare talked about was Natives against the white man. While we have reservations, most of my experience has been with those living in the cities. Basically jobs are guaranteed for them, they get free housing and vehicles from the government, and they generally live in the worst parts of town. The reservations are dirt poor, but many of the band leaders are very well off. We're talking millionaires if not more. Much of the wealth goes to chieftain families rather than other band members. Even there, they get free housing and vehicles from the gov. It's quite common to see brand new trucks in the driveway of houses built in the 90s beat to shit. That's been my experience driving through reservations. Corruption continues into most aspects. Since they generally get most things for free they don't take care of it. It'll get replaced once it falls apart. Being a band member basically gets you free use of the land, and they don't need to follow environmental restrictions on fish and game. Where we used to fish, gill-netting and snagging were both pretty common. We'd see hundreds of fish being pulled out of the waters in order to be smoked and (often) sold illegally to tourists. This is with natural fish stocks already being endangered and there being limits put in place for those without status. Basically the same with game but I don't hunt and never personally experienced. Legally with the new level of Woke we've been seeing, there's been a push to have minor crimes handled by band healing circles and similar instead of leading to incarceration. We've also seen a push to creating aboriginal-only schools which teach their own language and history. While good in theory, like most things progressives there's a lot of down sides that aren't being talked about. First, it's creating a parallel group of people who aren't bound to laws in the same way as the rest of us. Second, it's leading to a divergent understanding of history which we all know will boil down to why you should hate the white man. Third, it leaves door open for much more egregious crimes from being properly prosecuted. UK is seeing something like this with groomers of a certain "Asian" descent being allowed to get away with statutory crimes by apologizing. I don't think it'll be long until we see this ourselves. Lastly, BC legally acknowledges aboriginal rights to the land, to the point that companies which plan to develop natural resources requires the different bands to sign off on the project. Look up Peace River Site C dam if you want to see what happens. Basically bands claim some environmental damage will occur until companies are willing to pay them off. Then they approve of it until there's some renewed call for environmental activism which can lead to physical damage and assault. Yet, even with all of this money most reservations are still incredibly poor. The rest of Canada seems a bit more sane than BC. Regardless while we've provided a lot more opportunity than what may be available in the US, the outcome has largely been the same. The coddling is similar, but the outcome seems closer to the US Black community than the Reservations.
Very well said even though it may piss off some. I lived for 8 yrs near N Mn reservations and can concur with many of your comments. There is good and bad on every res, it depends on where you stand in the tribal power level
@H J No, but with the same reasoning I can't blame other Canadians from hating them right back. Others pay a status native's way through their life only to get contempt and racial prejudice back. Canada has also put a lot of effort into trying to reconcile as much as possible, but with little improvement for a major cost. A lot of the hate is justified, although much less so than with the US or almost any other nation with an aboriginal population. Question if you are native: do you hate Chinese, Blacks, or Indians as much as you do Europeans? Why or why not?
@@arthurbrumagem3844 Some are definitely better than others, the recent "mass graves" "scandal" is a good example. Separate scare quotes because those are two separate lies/issues. The Kamloops band chieftain pushed hard into the progressive ideology stating how horrible it is even though no actual graves have been found, and exhumation is being blocked. Other bands like Cowessess in Saskatchewan stated that the graves were known, just the markers removed/rotted over time. They also weren't all child graves, it was a general Catholic graveyard. Not arguing against the impact Residential schools did have on the population, but specifically showing how willing some are to use their status in a divisive manner. In Kamloops' case it'll be new leverage for more funding.
I thank my parents everyday for giving me the opportunity to go to a private school where we went through a lot of what was talked about in this video. Less centralized government always seems to be better for people, No matter who or where you are.
@@AcornScorn what? Mom and dad sacrificed a lot to put me and my siblings there. They had awful experiences at the schools they had gone through so they wanted something different for us. What do you mean by horde?
I have some friends and family who are native. My e boyfriend’s family is from the Lakota tribe and their mother left the res because there was no future-girls got pregnant and boys joined gangs. It was so sad to hear her stories but loved how strongly bonded they are to their family. I been to a few powwows but had to stop because I wasn’t really welcomed. I still am fascinated by their culture and mythology especially about Raven (there are tons of stories about him) and is one of the reasons I picked him as my mascot for my company. Glad you made this video because their situation and history is heartbreaking and I agree with the virtue signaling. By the way the Redskin football team was designed by a Native of a real native, and many tribal people didn’t care because it doesn’t help their plight anyway.
You can't possibly put the ideas of Bernie Sanders on the same level of East Germany. Many Americans seem to not be able to grasp the difference between social policies and a socialist state with a planned market economy. America is also a prime example of why unchecked capitalism often does not work, see health care, public transport and education in the US.
Another great episode! You bring light to so many topics that I was not aware of before. Connecting cinema to political thought and law is so inspiring. I have loved every since one of your videos and will watch them multiple times. They are so well done and a joy to watch again and again. I can't wait to for the next one.
Out of Frame had to be the best film review series on this platform. Shame to see it leave, but knowing how brutal copyright enforcement is getting, I'm not surprised.
It really doesn't have anything to do with that. I just don't work for FEE anymore and have other projects I need to put my attention towards. But I really appreciate the kind words. - Sean
From what I've learned. The few exceptions to reservation poverty is dependent on the very founding of the reservation itself, which tend to have unchanging rules that go back to the time of the American Civil War. With the most economically successful tribes also being the few that don't even have a reservation system in the first place.
Yup. Get off the rez and your quality of life and overall longevity increases. The problem is, most reservations are basically section 8 housing with a population that has grown dependent on government handouts... ya know, like poor neighborhoods in large cities.
@@sarasunshinemt4444 Why should they have to leave what's rightfully their's by treaties with the government? Why should they be punished with losing what little they have because the government believes they are too stupid to take care of themselves? Get rid of Indian Affairs and leave them alone sounds preferable. They are dependent on the government because the government doesn't allow them to work or own the land. It's a violation of their rights as US citizens.
@@debanydoombringer1385 Why should anyone have to love Tom improve their lot in life? It just is. Go where the work is and make a better life. They don't have to do it. They can languish in poverty and despair, like you seem to want.
@@debanydoombringer1385 As the video states, the govt treats Indians as children. Children can't work. They can't sign contracts. They can't make their own decisions. Any land you buy is rightfully yours. It's best to go somewhere better, do something better, buy some land, and create a future for your descendants. Then it's truly yours (and theirs), not just because a treaty (that only goes back ~150 yr) says so. Other comments that reservations are nothing more than Section 8 housing is correct. Section 8 housing is so destructive to people in it that one has to believe it was actually designed that way. The problem with the "too stupid to take care of yourself" viewpoint is that if you don't actually take care of yourself, what reason is there for someone else to believe you aren't too stupid to take care of yourself? But, when someone else takes care of you, you never develop the muscles to do it yourself, so it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Yes, the tough love approach of letting people stand or fall on their own is almost always the better option, despite the fact that it allows people to fail.
One form of reservation that I do agree with, are small religious reservations. There's a few small ones in various places that are nothing but a traditional holy site, preventing the area from being developed, while being small enough that it's not worth the struggle of doing so.
They go hand in hand though. Capitalism and lobbyist that is. Capitalism’s unavoidable grasp on power in society will always find its way into governance to undermine society
@@josiahmccallister3150 That's more of a general problem that also occured in socialist countries. I'd say it is an issue that appears whenever people interact with the government. The issue is also, imho, that most people leave government to the governments instead of making their own interest clear. That way, lobbying becomes increasinly onesided for companies but generally, it is not a bad thing to be able to lobby for something. Banning company lobbying would be a good thing if there wasn't mechanisms that most people are too lazy to use. People don't participate in democracy, they vote once every few years and then go back working their job. That has created a large gap between politicians and people and allowed them to be mislead by larger lobbying groups (at best) or at worst, simply allows them to do whatever they want since most people don't care once elections are over.
Crazy, "Socialism is when the Capitalists government does stuff to Native Americans at the behest of the private colonial settlers and their descendants."
My grandmother left the rez for the first time when she was in her early twenties. That was in the thirties and her segment of our family has done objectively better than the cousins that still live on the rez.
I remember indian reservations coming up in a documentary, Dinosaur 13, about the largest and most complete, probably the most famous, Tyrannosaurus skeleton nick-named "Sue" that was found in the badlands near Faith, South Dakota. The skeleton was seized from the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research by the federal government, followed by a 10-year-long battle with the FBI, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Maurice Williams, the landowner on whose property the bones were discovered. My point being is that; the man who discovered the fossil got screw due to in no small part by these top-down policies.
How did the Reservation come into it? Was William's ranch on the reservation? My mom was recently relaying what she knew about the incident to me. Her and my dad were amataeur fossil and paleontology enthusiasts at the time, as in yearly trips to the Black Hills for fossil hunting. I understood Sue was seized by the FEDs after the rancher tried suing the "Hill City" boys for breaching their agreement. It sounded like both sides were at fault.
@@erichardzz it was awhile since I've seen I've seen the doc but if memory serves, the fossil was on the boarder of the ranch and the reservation. Like I said I don't quite remember the all the details.
John Stossel did an eye opening video to support this take on Indian reservations. It is about a tribe(sorry I don't remember which) that has rejected the so called help from the US government. They run their tribe in a capitalist style and are a wealthy tribe. The proof of the difference between capitalism and socialism has been shown time and time again but people keep trying to latch on to socialism because they think that utopia is possible. The thing about utopia is that there are over 7 billion people in the world who all have different notions of what utopia is
I completely agree.... I was a hard Bernie guy... and I'm feeling more capitalist than ever, but I also feel like free-reign capitalism isn't the best option ever... Afterall, the struggle in the market is as simple as follows... Businesses want as much work for as little pay possible and employees want as much pay for as little work as possible... I'm leaning capitalist, but I can see why some aspects of control on base rules would help us to ensure capitalism works well for those who work hard and deserve it.
A free market with strong antimonopoly laws and no corporate personhood could solve many of the issues of today's economy without falling into the trap of socialism.
I lived in Nebraska for a few years, right near a reservation. Knew a few Lakota people, liked them well enough. And if you want your spirit destroyed, you'd just drive through that. Because it's what happens when the federal government gets absolutely everything wrong.
Greetings...Great video on Federal recognized reservation land. Your video did not include how trust land and private ownership are handled in Oklahoma. In this state it is handled differently that was provided in the video. The government during the removal gave allotments to the tribe (and family) based on size and allocation. To this day some of the original allottees still have their own land given to them passed down by family. Currently, the fastest growing businesses in Oklahoma are tribally owned and operated (not just gaming). These tribes in most cases have these land on Trust Land that the tribe owns and is protected by their own police department.
As someone who grew up right next to an Indian Reservation, practically lived on it. I can tell you everything he said is pretty much true, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal government which makes it impossible for any Indian to take his Destiny within his own hands. At least as long as he's living on the reservation. And this situation should have been done cluster f***** a long time ago, but now everyone who says they care about quote on quote Native Americans were too busy trying to force that Washington baseball team to change their name(an issue that no Indian that has lived on a reservation has actually cared about) instead of giving Native American tribes actual Independence or fullly incorporating them into the American state.
I’m a member of one of the Central American tribes and, this video made me realize how out of the loop I am on my own tribe’s issues and such. If it’s bad, I’m glad my dad got me out of there but, I suddenly realize how neglected I’ve been to them. : / Very powerful quote to end on btw, and one that more people then just my own should take to heart.
This was one hell of a note to end on. I'll miss this series. It makes very proud to see Russell Means brought up. He doesn't get enough credit as a Libertarian thinker.
I’ve been noticing that many young adults answers to modern problems involves completely replacing capitalism with socialism. Their answer never involves ‘fixing’ the economic system, but replacing it entirely. They view socialism as the logical next step to replace capitalism in spite of its numerous attempts and deadly results. You have a point, they don’t seem to care about the people who actually lived under those systems and want to run away from it. Our economy has problems but they don’t want to fix it, but replace it.
They're middle class, and have lived their whole lives off their parent's credit cards. Now they want to keep doing that, but they want government to be their parents. Time for millennials to grow up, like every generation before them.
@@joshuarichardson6529 I've noticed something strange in just the last year or so. Workers from all varieties of businesses appear to be better than I've seen in recent memory. I don't understand it. Very courteous, friendly, conscientious and competent employees have been increasing. This is perhaps just in the area in which I live but it has been very noticeable. Whatever it is I hope it spreads all over the place
What would dissolving the US government control over the reservation lands look like? Would they become independent Nation States, or incorporated (individuals granted the land & property deeds), or with thier own self-contained and controlled governance (think like the agreement Disney had with Florida) that would then report to the larger local, State, and Federal Government?
At this point, it's really hard to say. I think independent nations could make sense. Or they could just become separate US states and operate under the same Constitutional rules (and get congressional representation) like the rest of the states.
Hand the land over to the people who live on it and let them decide where to go from there. Sure, there's a lot of practical difficulties that would need to get ironed out, but I think the whole point of the video is that these people need to be in control of their own lives and currently they're not. Let's quit falling into the trap of thinking we have to solve their problems for them. Let them decide how to proceed. Give them back the decision making.
I think at most they would function in a similar fashion to European microstates. Economically and militarily, they would be entirely dependant on the stronger neighbour. They would probably not use their own currency or anything like that. You have to remember even the biggest reservations in the US have populations only in the tens of thousands. That's less than places like San Marino or Andorra. They just wouldn't be big enough or isolated enough to be like anything else.
depends on the rez( I just know the ones near me)... some have sovereign rights like a state does and only under federal law/jurisdiction...in a way we have way more then 50 states
Can I offer a idea for a video. You and second thought should do a video debate. Your content is very similar but opposite ends of the political spectrum
Uhh so where did the Navajo and hopi come from? Why did they get moved to norther Arizona? Why did the Lacota get moved to south Dakota? And the crow to Montana? Who moved the Tillamook, shahalish, Quinault to the Pacific Northwest? Who would have thought it would be good to put reservations in those places?
@@somethinsomethin7243 That's exactly my point. Indian reservations are a terrible thing, and need to be dissolved. It's made a the people on them, who our my people because they're Americans, dependant upon the government, and left them in blight, poverty, and hunger. Reservations create a separate society within the United States, and that just doesn't work.
@@MichaelMiller-xj1ti reservations are just a way to take out a native nation. NAtion-States have a tendency to do this as native Nations challenge the nation-state's claim to the land, happens all over the globe Europe, Africa, Asia, South America. It is fucked up and it is not about Socialism or Capitalism (tho capitalism has caused more harm in this sense to nations)
@@mateolopez2099 I don't think you want to get into how socialist nations treat ethnic minorities. There are no "first nations", the first nation here was America, and native means all of us who are not foreign born. Dissolve reservations, they don't work, and they're black holes economically, socially because they separate Americans from other Americans, and morally because Indian women and girls go missing like crazy because no one cares what disappears on the reservation. That includes many tribal leaders.
I've always been fascinated with Indian culture, but I never got this much perspective on the situation in modern times. Some of those shows and films look interesting too, might have to check them out.
Shows like Yellowstone don't interest me at all. But the prequel series 1883 is phenomenal. Ostensibly it's about the Dutton family traveling to Montana and founding the ranch. But it's actually about so much more. And I think goes a long way to fixing the terribly cliche Hollywood portrayal of the West.
My first girlfriend was a member of a tribe and related to me the stories of the res. Horror stories like children being left in the “care” of abusive parents rather than getting a chance at adoption outside the res. My girlfriend was lucky enough that she was adopted by a family outside the res, and was able to discover her tribe and its culture as an adult. But many in her situation don’t get this opportunity. Furthermore, the social ills plaguing reservations are enabled by never-ending interference from the federal government. These people have been victimized enough, time to get the hell out of their way so they can live the way they please.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but your point directly contradicts the point of the video (he is arguing for *less* government interference). It just shows you how complex this problem truly is - because I believe your girlfriend was lucky to be adopted by that family. Unfortunately, these problems are very individual. Each tribe is in a different situation now (some are even getting rich just because of their location and gambling), and each person in each tribe is in a different situation. Some would benefit from less government interference (becoming more self-reliant), some would suffer (as your girlfriend points out). It's always like this...
@@geoffhart As am I. You see, the BIA determined that it was racismos and evil/bad/awful to have native children adopted by non-native people. Even if the child was abused. Instead, they were left in the hands of indifferent parents or even their abusers. My girlfriend was fortunate because she was adopted by a family that could and wanted to care for her. I agree with the notion that tribal children should be cared for by the tribe if they prefer it, and they have the resources to do so. But if not, whatever gives the child the best opportunity is the goal, not the ideals of a government bureaucracy.
@@eduj Well, then you don't understand the point of Socialism. It's a question of: who decides? Put simply, if you think the government should decide, then you are in favor of Socialism. If you think the people should decide for themselves, you are against Socialism. FEE is arguing in favor of the latter (he is saying that most of the current problems the tribes face today are the result of government action/interference). That said, Jordan did clarify his point just now, explaining the BIA is also partially to blame. But I don't think he is saying they should not be involved, rather that they were wrong in their policy. FEE's point, the Libertarian's perspective, is that they should not be involved at all. The parents (mother) should be able to decide who adopts the child. Of course, if the parents are abusive, then you have a problem. Back to the question: who decides? Who really is guided by the child's best interest? The BIA has incentive for the tribe's best interest, which is reflected in the policy to exclude non-native adoptive parents. I can even understand that. However, I don't think the child (especially a baby) really cares about that: his/her best interest is just to have wonderful parents (of any color or culture).
I don't think you can blame everything wrong/bad with reservations on one thing. Probably more a combination of things. Personally i see the geographical division as such a hard part to overcome, especially for any central type of planning
Who put them in those geographical areas? You could say they could move, but they have nothing to sell because nothing belongs to them. If the population on the reservation reaches a certain point, they lose what little they have because the government will take it back. They also lose their cultural centers and their heritage will die. We have no problem with Chinatowns, Little Italys, or other people from similar cultures living together, but people seem to object to it only for Indians. You also fail to understand this is the situation for most reservations. Even the ones near large population cities. Oklahoma is one of the few exceptions and it's because the tribes are some of the largest and have spent years filing lawsuits and working within the political system using lobbying and other tools to better their conditions. A lot of people were upset about the recent Supreme Court decision that gave most of Oklahoma back to them. Living here I can say it's been fine as the two populations work together to figure it out. I'm hopeful this goes smoothly and can be an example to how it can be done so other tribes can get their freedom.
Another show that seems to fit into this newer category of exploring Indian Reservations is Longmire. While there is some exotification (not sure if that's a word) of native culture, the characters presented are very human and three-dimensional. Ultimately I think it does some justice to the realities of the world simply by having a story grounded in very human motivations
I remember driving through a reservation once and thinking it was such a shame to see people basically forced to live that way. For all i hear about how horribly the US government treated natives in the past it isn't much better now. But for some reason people, especially those of a certain political party, seem to think that just giving people monthly payments and stipends is the best the government could ever do. And it's very clearly not working.
Socialism in the Marxist sense is supposed to be the transition stage from capitalism to communism. He also thought it would happen in the most developed nations like Britain, which had the capital needed for the transition and the strength not to be crushed by outside capitalist nations. He was obviously wrong about this, because it happened in very poor nations that had neither the capital nor the strength. And there are various models of socialism, many of which are mixed into various capitalist economies around the world. Also, everything being owned by the state or everything being owned by a few capitalists isn't really a choice lol Individual freedom sounds great, but freedom is just an abstract concept without context. It should always be justified as "freedom for who" and "freedom to do what" Having the "individual freedom" to "choose" to work in a mine, or "choose" to beg in order to find the basic human needs, is not a freedom I want. In fact, I don't think choices you make due to your biological drive to find food and shelter can be classified as a freedom or a real choice. The only reason people do what most people consider "bad jobs" is due to biological coercion. PS. Most jobs are "bad jobs" lol
The Hispanics and Latinos that come to or were in us states and lands that used to be a part of Spain or Mexico mainly definitely have some native blood mixed with the Spanish. And yet we’re able to go around their territories and such.
I am a native from the Pima rez outside scottsdale az...You don't get it, it isn't socialism, it's living in an open air prison, it is what it has always been. It's working as intended. Sadly there is a real issue with people getting their butts off the rez and actually joining society. Also some of your points here are the same as the virtue signaling sjws, not only are they wrong but they are fairly demeaning and insulting, do better. This country has no intentions of living up to the myriad of broken promises made to the native peoples, and nothing will ever be done about that. The best anyone can do for themselves is to get an education get off the rez and in many cases, never look back.
Its not an open air prison they can leave whenever they like. The only part that is relevant is as you say "people getting off their butts". The idea that promises broken past the lifetimes of the people the promises were made to as why things are the way they are in 2022 is a weak cope.
You mention socialism as the collective ownership of the means of production. Then spend the entire time talking about the Indians who don’t own their own land or production, the us gov does. How are the Indians socialist if they don’t own the means of production? Edit I listened again to see if I missed something and I see the bait and switch. Beginning talks about the collective control of their production but then later you define socialism as both collective control AND government control. Yet if you dig into it, these Indians didn’t chose the government so how did they ever collectively give power to the government? Would the reservation be more like an authoritarian occupied land than a socialist government? I agree they are terrible, I live within half a mile of one.
There is no bait and switch. This is socialism as it actually plays out in reality all over the world. You think the Ukrainians, the Kulaks, or Siberians controlled their own ancestral lands in the USSR? Was it somehow not socialism when the Kremlin ran Poland or when the Maoist regime controlled Taiwan? Was Hugo Chavez not really imposing socialism on Venezuela because he was supported by Cuba? Socialism -- in practice -- inevitably involves the displacement of tons of people who don't agree with the central plan. In this case, we're talking about an imperial socialism, in the vein of the USSR's control over Lithuania or Estonia, but that doesn't change what it is and why it's a disaster. Another way to look at this is to think about what happened in Africa in the 1960s. Tons of nations (ie. Zimbabwe) fought for independence against imperialist colonial powers like the UK, France, or Belgium and traded foreign control of resources for homegrown socialist dictatorships. The problem with all of this is the central planning, not even necessarily who is in charge of those decisions.
@@FEEonline please educate yourself on socialism, there are three forms and the only one you state is ... Of course the third. The one born from the third international in the late 19th century, which is the opposite of the 2nd international or the form of socialism that exist in Europe but that weirdly everyone forgets to state in the US because its far more easy to use the know example of autocratic regimes (not socialist) and even then you dont give the reason why it ended up that way. U use theory from ultra liberalism to explain why as always central planning must be the evil and not the people doing it. What is a monopole like railroads and oil in the US if not central planning or the united fruit company. Your views are narrow enough to allow you to occult all the other forms of ideology, which means of course that individualism and capitalism was the answer...
yea the form of the video is great, raw info on the reservations too, when it comes to political concepts and understanding of them it is quite lacking tho. Socialism should of been removed from this debate and it would of worked way better, as it has really nothing to do with what he is talking about
@@mateolopez2099 I think showing that people given a bunch of free things from government creates a lazy society with no moral foundation so crime and drugs get worse too. Showing you care by giving stuff can sometimes be bad because tough times create good times good times create tough times. I think that’s what Socialism is.
@@micktheman6 giving free things for no reason behind it is bad yea. Tho that is not socialism. The core of idea of socialism is based on each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Meaning that you get what you need to do your job (as in pay) and you get what you need. It's a form of collectivism. Just giving things away is not collectivism and it is not socialism, it is just a political stunt of a liberal economic system
@@mateolopez2099 right I think Spain does a socialist system like that where they give you exactly what you need but you work and you don’t get ahead your job pays for exactly your food clothing and place to live etc and you don’t get much options job wise. Doesn’t sound very good either sense no Capital to allow a person to grow and expand. These are just different types of socialism though. Like Venezuela where people are starving because they kicked out business.
@@mateolopez2099 which granted socialism is technically like you said a economic system where the go vehement controls more and you don’t really have rich people. It’s still not good and negatively effects people it seems no matter what.
No joke, I’ve been thinking about American Indians for a couple of months *heavily*. I’ve been thinking about the socialism in their tribes and how badly it’s affected them. I’ve even, for some reason, started learning the Cherokee syllabary. I’m SO glad you made this video. I’m SO glad it popped up on my homepage. It’s so well done! Shows how government doesn’t actually fix anything, but instead makes it WORSE.
It's interesting to note that in Indian Territory (the area of Oklahoma where the Cherokee, Creek, and Choctaw live, among others) the economy is doing quite well. According to a family friend who used to be a Cherokee tribal official, it's for two reasons. First, government agencies like the Dept. of Indian Affairs no longer have much jurisdiction in those areas. Ditto with the State of Oklahoma, which has been causing some _cough_ “issues” lately. As a result, the tribes are free to rule themselves as they see fit. Second, unlike tribes on the reservations, money from tribal casinos generally doesn't go to the people. It's instead used to fund tribal government projects (in the Cherokees' case, top-notch medical, educational, and social services programs). Individuals are responsible for earning their own living. This staves off the rampant doleism of the reservations. Recently (i.e., in the past few months) I happened to drive through Indian Territory on my way to something. The only sign of depression I saw was that roads in the Cherokee lands often weren't very good. Furthermore, from what I can tell, it's due to a lack of interest (“why work on roads when we can focus on our top-notch education and social services?”) rather than funds. Interestingly, despite being a staunch Democrat (e.g., thinks Trump is on par with Andrew Jackson) the aforementioned family friend is very against a lot of “woke” dogma relating to American Indians. For example, she refers to the native tribes as a whole as “Indians” (without even prefixing it with “American”, being very much in favor of tribal autonomy), and is actually in favor of cultural appropriation so long as it doesn't cause harm (her example was young white guys waving the Confederate flag around whilst storming the Capitol).
As a Choctaw, I agree with this. Our roads are crap, but the tribe is pretty much single-handedly keeping the economy afloat in our corner of the state via construction, education, tourism (funding Main Street revitalization, incentivizing hunting/fishing/etc), and yes, the casinos. The McGirt decision has helped somewhat by emboldening the tribes to flex their power a bit, but those gains are tenuous unless the tribes can leverage economic power to force lasting reforms.
Absolutely fantastic video. You spoke about a difficult topic with clarity and insight. Thank you so much for making this and all the other Out of Frame episodes (which are also exceptional).
Thanks, appreciate your interest in Native American culture and history including the Lakota. Sad that they have been mistreated and marginalised. Maori in New Zealand have also gotten a raw deal from colonialism. Like how well researched and thoughtful your videos are. I liked Wind River. It was well made and humanised indigenous peoples. Thanks for shedding light on the disturbing Land tenure policies in Indian reservations. While NZ doesn’t have the same problem with Land reservations for indigenous people, Maori home ownership is low compared to other ethnic groups.
What I really like about this video is that Sean calls out the horrible injustices done to American Indians without stooping to the level of the "woke" leftists and accusing America as an inherently racist nation from it's very beginning. I support the idea of the government releasing their grip on the Indians, and letting them have control over their own lives. Just as Indians are allowed to stay on their ancestral land, they should also be allowed to venture out into the broader world and assimilate with the rest of American culture, if they so desire. No more forced reeducation; if the Indians want to learn new things, let them do so of their own volition. At the same time, trade with the rest of the country should be opened way up, in order to increase the chances that the Indians will have to learn new things.
A powerful video and nearly all of it is directly relevant to the plight of Aboriginal people in my own country, Australia. Prior generations of Aboriginal people were treated appallingly and a great deal of money has been spent by government agencies to right the wrongs. What has been the result? Absolutely no improvement in the lives of those people and in a lot of cases, regression. There are remote communities where conditions are appalling and violence, substance abuse and a litany of other social problems are rife. I don't pretend to have the answers, but what is in place currently sure as hell isn't working.
As a Native, sorry but you can blame socialism all you like. But it what was done to our culture, our language our way of life, that has lead to what we are today. A broken people, with a lose connection to our past.
He acknowledged all of that in the beginning. Atrocities and oppression are what broke the people, and that’s a problem. I think his point was that progressives (maybe even well intentioned progressives) turned to the government, i.e. “socialism” as the solution to this problem. Socialism is clearly not working on the Reservations and he explained some of the reasons why it is not working. The better solution is to get the government out of the way and allow people/local communities to take full control of their own land and their own lives. That doesn’t mean that we don’t acknowledge the sins of the past, given back what was taken, or try to help people that need help. However, we must not cross the line where we treat people as if they are of lesser ability. It’s wrong to rob people of the opportunity to take responsibility and it’s dangerous to take away somebody’s ability to provide for themselves. It’s terrible that white people took the land and attempted to destroy the native languages, cultures, and tradition. We can acknowledge that atrocity while at the same time acknowledge that Native people are just as capable as white people in terms of well, everything (from managing communities to building a business, to restoring an oppressed culture). An analogy I once herd is that Government is like “punching you in the arm”. Whenever somebody is punched in the arm there is going to be a bruise, but in time that bruise will heal so long as you don’t continue to be punched in the arm. The “Libertarian” solution is to stop punching you in the arm and let your body heal naturally. Our solution is to stop the fist and acknowledge that the our past is full of sins, the world is imperfect, government is imperfect, and while the bruise is painful, the best thing to do is to leave it alone and let it heal instead of continually interfering with Native affairs and making the bruise worse. The “leftists” solution is to focus on the bruise instead of the fist. Socialist have an irrational utopian faith in government. They believe we can leverage government power (i.e. “the fist”) to achieve “equity” despite the fact that this solution has literally never worked. The “socialist” solution to oppression is to attempt to eliminate the bruise with the punching fist (which is counterproductive) rather than eliminating the punching fist and letting the bruise heal. (Also, I lived on a Tribal Nation at one point and I very much sympathize with the struggles that people go through and understand just how badly Tribal Nations/people have been screwed over by the Federal and State government’s in America. It’s not OK, but as a current government employee I can assure you that government is NOT the solution.)
@@CrayOutoors socialists do not have an irrational faith in government. you seem to not know that the poem, because "first they came for the socialists..."
@@Yal_Rathol "First they came for the socialists..." who came? the National Socialists, the Marxists or the Imperialists who believe in state funded, state controlled everything?
That doesn't make any sense. The Irish had their "culture, language, and way of life" erased by colonizers, yet they are the most prosperous country in Europe right now.
@@codyraugh6599 wow, so you have no idea what any of those words mean. it's the governments post-revolution who come for the socialists, because they want to establish themselves as the new monarchy, not improve the lives of the citizens.
Using the real plight of Indigenous people to disingenuously refute Socialism is gross. You are under the impression that Socialism is simply "when the government owns stuff or spends money". Any push for Socialism in America would both need to fundamentally change the way we organize our government at its roots to allow for more public energy to flow upwards, and also provide Indigenous communities and peoples the resources they need to build their own structures! Describing the horrors of neocolonialism of Native Peoples in the US and Canada as Socialism is silly, as they're fundamentally alienated from the imposing systems, as well as the systems they're oppressed by being capitalist ones! Native people need sovereignty and autonomy to develop ways of flourishing into the future. The current Governments are only interested in furthering genocidal intent through total assimilation to their economic systems. The job then should be to build a new system where that isn't the case. I don't know if that new system would be called Socialism even, but the current system is CAPITALISM. Just because they spend some money neoliberalizing reservations doesn't mean it's socialist.
Really happy to have your channel and this video recommended to me. I enjoy when people call out unpleasant truths, like how many democrats look down on many races and poor people but say they help. Also cool to see you are from Nebraska,so am I. I wonder if you made it out 🤣
I’ve always said if you wanna see socialism at work drive through Browning Montana. Drove through it a few times when I lived in Montana a few years back. Dilapidated houses, beggars on the streets, and junk everywhere. Oh but they got a nice big casino at the edge of town though. The US government has done nothing to help any of these people through their socialist policies and let’s not forget the rampant corruption of the tribal elders as well. It’s easier to steal money and resources when the people are too poor and hungry to ask questions. Straight out of the socialist playbook. Good video sir, I salute you.
I think the purpose of reservations is to look good to the U.S. public (which is arguably successful) while pressuring Tribe members to leave the reservations (i.e. conform and become "Americans") via the bad conditions. If the Tribes thrived and became wealthy, they could become a problem for the US government by renegotiating the terms Tribes are subject to. Imagine a world where Tribes were actually sovereign nations, members owned their land outright, had a booming self sufficent economy, and a military. That would scare D.C. shitless. If relations ever fell apart, the U.S. would have to fight an enemy who is already within their borders and is far more sympathetic. It would be a P.R. nightmare.
That worked out real well for the Confederates. The Germans tried that not once but twice. Iraq tried to expand their territory and look where they are now. It remains to be seen how Russia makes out with Ukraine but Ukraine can't stand on its own. How many other nations are going to support the Indian nations? Especially when they are landlocked and impossible to get aid to them.
No one was safe from the democrat party.. Blacks and Indians alike should know more than anyone, unfortunately they have been duped to vote for the same perpetrators, I will never understand that.
@@mateolopez2099 socialism [ soh-shuh-liz-uhm ] noun a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, *usually through a centralized government.* procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Most of their economy is under control of the US government.
American Indians mostly refer to themselves (and each other) as Indians. IIRC, Indians are prevented from owning specific plots of land so they don't wind up selling every square foot of the reservation to the highest bidder, which is typically _not_ going to be an Indian bidder. Yes, Indian reservations are mostly destitute ghettos. Anyone with the slightest bit of ambition leaves them.
My father is a traveling evangelist who travels around the country doing church revivals. We spent months on Apache and Navajo Indian reservations. The poverty was shocking to me, but despite that, they were the kindest people who gave and were so hospitable to us. I was able to sit around a fire at night listening to the local pastor tell ghost stories in the Apache language (I was sad I couldn’t understand it but the experience was still thrilling), I experienced riding on a horse with the tribe and was taught how to cook with the native women of the tribe. It was both a heartbreaking and unforgettably wonderful experience.
This is the same reason (One of the reasons) why materials are going up in prices. The government been buying land and Stealing it from farmers, Ranchers. Where even zinc for pennies is so high that it cost two cents to make those pennies, heard half of Arizona is government owned.
One thing you forgot to mention is the fact that Natives are still US Citizens. Thus, I don't know if just cutting the reservations loose would work out too well. I mean, are we going to just deny citizenship to native people? I think the larger reservations could become states, while the smaller reservations could become a type of autonomous republic like Russia has.
The reservations are already their own state, allowed to make their own laws. They don't control enough territory or resources to be self sufficient and would have to heavily rely an all the other states. The problem is that their way of life is no longer conducive to long term survivability of the community. They need to assimilate with the rest of society if they want to progress.
funny because i live on holy native land but its not a reservation, so there's a pow wow every year across the street. even tho im a third native indian ive never gone. i do believe natives deserve a fair shot at capitalism for once and should adamantly fight for there constitutional rights that were denied for our ancestors . because for a document that says "all men are created equal and have unalienable right endowed by the creator", we were denied those right and called savages. "Rights for me but, not for thee, now disarm you savages and give us ur property" if i was on a reservation the first thing i would wanna do is build a go-cart track, or a water park, a cheese making factory. anything to generate money and attract people towards the res to spend money. simple entertainment and goods. then when you get steady visitors then you can have the trades-men make a decent living. a lot of reservations have excellent crafts-man but no business traffic.
You need more. You don’t even have Medicare. I was in hospital for 9 days curing appendicitis. Cost: $0. If I were in America the same trip would leave me in debt for life.
Look at the handiwork of capitalism in places like Haiti and Bangladesh. Capitalism's stolen wealth has come with the blood of imperialism, and it is not a Marxist concept to say so, British statesman Edmund Burke spoke of the "drain of wealth" that Britain was stealing from colonies like India to start the industrial revolution. Public ownership of the means of production does work, how do you think the satellites I'm using right now to post this we're created? Sputnik was the world's first satellite and NASA was neither privately owned nor dictated by market forces but by a central plan. To prevent global heating cataclysm no amount of incentivizing the market will save the planet from extinction when privately-owned fossil fuel companies are owned by 60, 70 and 80 year old billionaires who don't give a crap about what happens to the world in 40 years, find me one example of a market without protections and regulations that didn't have a private company poison the environment to cut costs and up quarterly earnings. To save the planet, just like going in space or developing a vaccine, it isn't going to be the market which will save the planet. Saving the planet in the long haul is not what drives the quarterly earnings, profit-motive does. Profit-motive got us into this mess. Only an energy economy based on social need, that is keeping the planet alive, will get out of this crisis. Nationalization of energy to rehaul our entire energy sector is the only way to prevent global extinction.
Agreed, and privately owned companies will definitely not get us out of this mess, but that doesn't say anything about how government will make change happen. Governments can and will also do what they can to stay in power just like corporations, so when it is beneficial for a government to harm the environment for its own gain it will do so like the many governments around the world dependent on fossil fuel power do today. So while you're right in that we got here through profit-motive, I would actually expand that and say that we got here through a desire for more power through multiple avenues, or greed. The solution lies in making government realize that the best way to preserve itself is to future proof itself and the country over which it rules from climate change which involves many aspects such as cutting emissions, implementing resource recycling, and improving health standards for the population. This is how it should be done, where the people's needs and wants are exercised through government in democracy + rational and benevolent oversight from govt officials if you're lucky. Edit: And you're also right about the immense capacity for success in public projects. All the space race stuff, vaccines, the internet, massive infrastructure projects, you name it.
@@victorandrei02 I would add that the overhaul must also include switching our society towards public transportation. I agree with much of what you said, we see in companies like Enron and Sears that greed does not have to take the form of profits, it can be theft of pensions and ripping off the shareholders because although the shareholders are the owners it is the managers who control and run. Corruption is any issue in any system, and I think the punishment needs to be harsh. Instead of getting tax dollars bailouts which they gave themselves bonuses from, Wall Street should have been jailed, and I would have no problem giving them life sentences of hard labor to reeducate these corrupt fraudsters in the meaning of labor and this would hopefully increase their understanding of what hard earned assets mean and why not to gamble them. For corrupt government officials I don't think executions are out of line in those who betray their oath of office. This is an important way to maintain checks and balances. If a particular bureaucrat or politician has betrayed the people, they should not only be able to remove them but see them charged and put on trial (for their life if need be). But what is key is what is meant by democracy. For a democracy to actually exist it can't be "one man, one vote". The billionaires are not content to get merely 1% representation which is their size in the general population, they want to use their wealth to control 100% of the political process and will bribe the officials. There for the only way to truly represent the 99% majority is to completely ban the 1% of millionaires and billionaires from government entirely. No vote, no representation, no money in politics. This is the only way the 99% can keep the 1% out of control of our society and lives. That and taking ownership of the economy away from them and making it public through nationalizations like I said of the energy sector. Think of it. If the government doesn't control the banks then the banks will control government.
Capitalism is private ownership, imperialism is done by the government, so capitalism and imperialism have nothing to do with each other. Actually, imperialism is often anti-capitalist because it has the government plan a foreign nation's economy. Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland are some of the most prosperous nations in Europe. Where were their colonial empires? Portugal, which started colonizing Africa centuries before Britian, France, and Germany, is the poorest country in Western Europe today.
@@Dennis-nc3vw There are different forms of imperialism. Military, political, cultural and economic. Look at Africa, since that was your example. Africa has riches, gold, diamonds, oil, rare earth minerals. Stands to reason that Africans should be very rich then. But they are not. Why? Who owns the oil? British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, etc. Same across the board, where their economy is foreign owned. In this way the richest countries extract wealth out of the colonies/neo-colonies. Africa and the rest of the third world see much more of capital leave their lands than retain capital. Regardless if that is done by conquest, covert coups or rip-off trade deals that is imperialism. The government in any society is a tool for the ruling class against other classes. In a feudal system the ruling class is the landed nobility who hold titles. The state allows them the titles and disciplines the peasants to work for these lords. In a slave state the government recognizes the ownership of slaves and sets up their courts and laws to uphold that system and the means (ownership of slaves) to that system. In capitalism the state recognizes private property of capitalists, protects the interests of the minority of haves against the majority of ain't gots. James Madison, author of the US constitution said as much in Federalist Paper 10. And as far as what imperialism does it does it in service of capital and finance. The whole point of having colonies is to extract wealth, resources and cheap labor but it is also to capture markets and force the colony/neocolony to buy your economy's products. Countries like Finland may not have a robust military, but when a Nokia cell phone is built they are getting Coltan from Congo for the microchips, they are getting cheap labor from the third world, etc, so that is extracting wealth through imperialism too, and I'm sure if NATO has something to gain from intervention to help Finland The will do so like they did in toppling Libya to get their gold from a puppet government they'll set up again. Look into the "Banana Wars" and "Banana Republics" to better understand the link between the gov't, imperialism and capitalism. Or take the words of General Smedley Butler: "I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Also, I referenced James Madison, author of the Constitution and 4th president. He doesn't use the word "class" he uses the word "faction" but it means the same thing. "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens" That means classes and class interests (or public versus special interests if you will). "But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views." He admits the interests is between haves and have nots (the latter being "lesser interests"). "Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression." Who is he talking about? Well we know the have nots are the majority, so when he speaks of the majority 's schemes of oppression, he isn't talking about the oppression of slaves by their owners or the exploitation of business owners of workers, he is talk about the idea of abolishing their means of exploiting others because that means to exploit others, ownership, is what he views as liberty, he is not concerned with the tyranny the underclass experiences from the ruling classes when they are able to order them around and exploit them. "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy," Here he makes it clear he doesn't want real democracy that works for the interest of the majority. Makes sense considering less than five percent of the public could even vote by the time the US held its first elections for president. The fear keeps coming up that if you let the have nots have their say in a pure democracy, the majority are not going to let the haves go one being so powerful, and why should any minority be more powerful than the majority?
@@AdanALW If Africans were really getting their resources sucked out of them, they would have very high GDPs but very low GNPs, but no such countries exist. If you want to know why Africa is failing, watch John Stossel's "lessons from Africa."
The main problem with your argument is poverty in the case of the indigenous Americans is due to the lack of private land ownership. Your focus has been on some of the poorest indigenous groups in America and ignores the tribes which are successful and also have tribal land. The black feet have reservations of oil and gas and have collected over 30 million dollars leases and bonus payments. The Sun Ute tribe operates and own five energy companies with an estimated worth of 4 billion dollars. What makes these 'socialist' tribes successful is ownership of their assets and the means of production. I could point to any of the most deprived cities in America and say all the issues they face are due to capitalism and ignore all successful regions to prove my point. It seems to me that totalitarianism is the real issue. If countries have a blending of capitalism and socialism you get universal healthcare and the private businesses.
Socialism is the worker ownership over the means of production. The means of production are what material things are needed for the production of commodities necessary for the functioning of society. Examples include natural recourses, land, factories, machinery, tools etc. Under capitalism the workers do not own the means of production, instead the capitalist class does. The capitalist class uses their ownership over the means of production (which their private ownership is ultimately backed up with state monopolized violence) to exploit workers for their labor because everyone needs to do labor with the means of production to produce all the things needed for society to function and so people can live their lives how they want. This exploitation happens through workers doing work with the means of production, so taking the material stuff, adding labor to turn it into something more useful, and thereby adding value to it. The product is owned by the capitalist (owners of the company) and then sold for a price that represents the value of the material stuff used to produce it and also the value of the labor used to produce it. Some of the money goes to covering the cost of the material stuff, and the rest, which again is the value of the labor, is appropriated by the capitalist and a small portion of it is paid back to workers as a wage. Capitalists want to suppress wages, and control more of the workers time and energy in order to accumulate more value for themselves so they can own more of the means of production (or more of the market basically). The capitalist class will also use the state to strip or withhold labor rights, to allow them to engage in environmentally destructive( but very profitable) practices, suppress worker strikes, produce intentionally inferior products that break down faster, get away with cutting back on safety measures in production, and also enforce neoliberal capitalism ideology, etc.
Many Americans do not know about the govt-created deprivation and suppression on American Indian reservations. Actually some of us see the Indian care-taking system totally run by govt operatives as a free ride for American Indians. They should live under the system to really know it. The totalitarian dominance of reservation residents is an in-humane tragedy for Western Indian-Americans and also a huge loss for the rest of us who lose their abundant creativity, intelligence and spirituality. This country has a long way to go to be a decent place for humans to live. Those who believe socialism is right for all people don't really care if it is right for all people.
The guilt-tripping in public school on this issue is real. My English teacher (a Danish immigrant, so she doesn't feel the ancestral regret that she seemingly tried to drill into us) spent months of lessons on native Americans and their struggles, past and present. Most of the lessons on modern natives boil down to "we need to give the reservations more money because living conditions are squalid". It's so frustrating that things could be so much better if that wasn't the prevailing narrative in academia and social discourse.
the danes have a long history of colonizing many countries throughout the world, up until relatively recently, she has plenty of material to develop "ancestral regret".
Isn't imperialism and colonialism literally the opposite of what socialism stands for? I mean, the colonial projects that wrecked 90% of the world, including with the Native Americans, are a result of imperialism, which, in and of itself, is often motivated by capitalism. In fact, us socialists in North America are often very against this settler colonialism promoted by the United States through its native population. But, I guess you can't really trust a libertarian think tank when it comes to actually defining socialism.
@@AllAboutMMA Don't you know what the word "often" means? And, yes, a lot of the colonialism of the past 200-300 years were definitely motivated by Capitalism, as the colonial powers would often take resources (and even people) out of the region and sell them to other regions for profit. Like that's kinda Capitalist isn't it?
Imperialism was mainly driven by mercantilism and type of early controlled market And still many imperial adventures were run by government owned companies and agencies such as the British east India company
I realized a couple of years ago that I knew nothing about how the federal, state, and the american territory systems actually worked. Thank you for a little insight. I still know nothing, but it is more than what I had before.
hi! long time follower and I have a few questions. i have very limited knowledge about American policies, but from the video how can you claim that this is socialism when the government that resides over the American Indians is the same capitalist and imperialist American Government? It has been stated that the government in charge of these lands and people is a government under America, not one independent from them. I think a better viewpoint to look at modern day, or what modern day socialism may look like is Porto Alegre of Brazil. They have practiced participatory democracy. Hoping to invite a healthy discussion for my genuine query.
So first off, the idea the Fed gov't is ever going to just "step out of the way and let the American Indians control themselves" is highly laughable. Right now roughly 50% of the US citizen population is begging for their very own constitutionality guaranteed rights to be stripped and to be governed harder. Secondly, unpopular opinion here. I honestly don't know a whole lot of Indian history, but what I do know I find interesting and admirable. That said what I would argue is in all of known human history only a handful of times have a conquered people been given "parts of they're former land and a handshake promise of protection" by their conquerors, and it has never benefited those people. Instead, those conquered people were almost 100% of the time either told to get out or assimilate, and I would argue both of those arrangements worked out far better than being nannied by your oppressors. The grave injustice here was not in the conquering of the American Indians themselves, as human history, including native history, is chock full of one group of people overwhelming another group for resources, but instead the injustice was not assimilating the American Indian into what is America citizenry today. Assimilation is not an erasure of your ancestry it is part of human evolution. I would be willing to bet a vast majority of the population of three reservations would rather be a part of the US economical workforce and citizenry than wards of the federal gov't living in poverty.
Then there needs to be no Chinatowns, Little Italys, Little Mexicos, etc. No cultural or ethnic group should be allowed to live in large communities with each other. What you're failing to grasp is many of them weren't "conquered". You're treating them like a homogeneous hive mind and they aren't. The Cherokee were not as an example. Most of the tribes that were moved to Oklahoma weren't conquered. The government said, we'll give you this land in exchange for that land because we need it for the growing population. They were moved, some forcibly so. Then the government breaks that agreement without a new one and starts seizing the land they had signed (not a handshake) an agreement/treaty for. This happened over and over. This idea that every tribe physically fought and resisted is completely false. Edit: The Roman's conquered many people and didn't remove them from the land. They made them citizens with all the rights and privileges that entailed and it was successful. When did Germany replace the French, Polish, etc populations with Germans? You are poorly educated on history. The populations that lived there before are not usually displaced at all and only the government system they live under is changed, not the entire population. The Americas are a completely unique situation.
Some indian tribes assimilated, "westernized" or better said got "Civilized". However it was never about assimilation but about grabbing as much land or resources whenever it was needed. The Massachusett tribe (This was pre-indepedance) converted to christianism, their good farming land and fishing spots were taken away regardless. They became "Praying Indians" confined to "Praying towns", remaining neutral in King's Philip war (An indian that adopted the name Philip before tensions escalated). They were so keen into remaining neutral that they surrendered their weapons to the english colonist. However even though they were neutral both English settlers (due to being overwhelmed with panic, hysteria, and anti-Indian sentiment) and Philip's raiding parties (due to them not joining the war against settlers) would attack and kill Massachisett indians in the Praying towns. Lakota tribe were given the "Black Hills" as an arrangement to keep the peace, until gold was discovered in those hills. Which lead to the Great Sioux War. And yes, it is blalantly stated it was because of the gold. Cherokee were "civilized", would dress like "white people" and have government. They have sovereignty over their land which was supported by the supreme court... until Andrew Jackson decided they shouldn't have sovereignty over their land. This was the time that the Indian removal act was ennacted and the trail of tears happened. And the official removal was put into effect when gold was discovered near Dahlonega, Georgia. I could go on and on about it but the point is clear. Assimilation was not what they wanted on the contrary, assimilated Indians were a thorn in their side because not only would they know how to use guns but would require more legal paperwork to remove them from their land which is the solid evidence we have now of what happened back then.
@@debanydoombringer1385 you just literally said "not all were conquered", and then said they were moved to other lands "forcibly", i don't know your definition of conquered, but forcible relocation i would argue fits in that narrative. Then you go on about the Roman empire taking over cities and countries and making them citizens instead of removing them for their land and our worked out better for them, which is how assimilation works. And you called me uneducated even though your argument against mine is everything I just claimed? I never claimed the American Indian to be "one group", and I also said "generally" assimilation works. But only if assimilation is done in good faith by all parties involved. Relocating a tribe from one area to another another is not assimilating, it's exactly the same as is going on now, it's a reservation, relegating one group of people to their own land with each other, not within. And the idea that a group of people willingly took this option in lieu of having a war with another group that already defeated other groups with a carrot superior fighting power means they weren't conquered is nothing more than lying to yourself. If someone threatens to burn my house down, murder me and r*pe my wife and children if I don't move out, and I take that deal, I was defeated whether i fought or not. Lastly, your assertion that it is uniquely "America" is 100% false. It's the most recent recorded account, yes, but the idea every country/tribe in the world right now is in the exact location they've always been in since the dawn of time is the most ignorant argument I've ever heard. There's always been "first settlers", and almost none of them are still in their safe geographical location today as they've been wiped out or assimilated by another group. I mean he literally gives you another example of this happening in Australia with the Aborigines.
@@debanydoombringer1385 Your comment is mostly wrong. You contradict yourself and you made a comparison that is not at all the same. You should delete your comment and re write it to where it makes some consistent sense
Manifest Destiny is a real thing, and it doesn't even get mentioned here. Also overlooked, is even if we wanted to give lands back to Indian tribes, good luck sorting out which tribe actually owned what land. There were dozens of tribes all with claims over the same land. Doing so would trigger civil war among the tribes. Imagine turning on the news "Today, 38 people were killed and scalped over the battle of Tom's Pond" - Even for 1800, these people were still behind 200 years. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but lets not act like native indians were a group of peace loving pacifists that didn't have issues of their own. Issues that flat out weren't and aren't compatible with modern society.
I am glad someone with half a brain thinks about this, history isn't all black and white. If the shoe was on the other foot, and our ancestors in Europe were colonized instead, we'd have "advocates" today who claim that these tribes and their institutions are nothing but evil and racist, and Europe was filled with nothing but pacifists who didn't want to do any harm, and all wanted to work together. It's ridiculous. I saw another comment that said we are actually one of the few nations to give any sort of reparations to the natives here, so I suppose that makes the U.S better than all of Europe by the left's logic, but they absolutely hate the U.S still.
I think it's incorrect to imply nationalized resources are always bad, there are cases where it's necessary and done right. Some control over natural resources is necessary and even positive if done correctly. The fish/ocean come to mind as one such natural resource, where the government had to step in and take ownership to protect it from overfishing and destruction, saving a national resource. But this has evolved into a system where it prevents over exploitation, predicts ocean life populations over time, and even provides services to the businesses (ex: keeping track of alloted quotas, trading of quotas) rather than actively impeding them. This is the only issue I had with the video, otherwise it was great and definitely has an important message!
Fishing is an awkward case because so much of it is done in a context where establishing a singular property right is difficult/impossible. But state control is at best a necessary evil, and the incentives still aren't very well aligned. Take as a comparison, private ownership over cattle or bison vs. state-owned animal husbandry. In the private version, ranchers actively try to take care of their animals, breed them to increase the population, and carefully maintain their land because it's an investment and they want to be able to get value from their herds for decades to come. But when people just hunt on state-owned land, everyone tends to just maximize what they extract and/or just evade regulators (ie. poach) whenever they can get away with it. I get the sense that fishermen are fairly law abiding in the US and Europe, but from previous work I've done I know that there's a lot of graft in fishing around Africa -- countries like Senegal will give licenses to European fishing companies who then extract basically everything they're allowed to, leaving little to nothing for local folks. What would be better is to find a way to actually give property rights over territory in the ocean, but admittedly doing that might be really hard.
Wind River was a surprisingly fantastic movie - we went in not really knowing what to expect and were blown away by it. A great movie but it is one of those movies you remember very vividly but don't want to watch again because of the darkness of what takes place in it.
So-called capitalist economies has been controlled by the Central Banking system which according to Karl Marx himself in his Communist Manifesto is one of the key institutions required to achieve Communism i.e. centralisation of banking system in the hands of the state. Most laissez-faire fans tend to ignore this institution's role in stopping capitalist countries from becoming truly free market economies.
Thank you for this video! My child went to a reservation as part of a volunteer group from our church. It was very eye-opening for him to see some of these differences. This video will make fantastic supplement to his experience.
I also think another major reason people still love Socialism, is because they're using a new definition of the word. True socialism as defined in the dictionary and history is something most people (even lefties) don't support. Every time you ask for a good example, they point to Norway, capitalist democracies with heavy social safety nets added. But they call that "Socialism" or "Democratic Socialism". But what has happened is, they want to use the 'rebellious' and 'revolutionary' word Socialism without its baggage and only the good things that they _want_ it to mean. There's almost a religious zeal in insist on calling yourself a Socialist (and not what they actually mean: *a mixed economic system with a combination of free-market activity and government intervention* ) because it makes you feel like you're fighting for a "cause" and "fighting the system".
" mixed economic system with a combination of free-market activity and government intervention" and that is why social democrats are usually criticized in socialist circles. When they called themselves socialists they are correct, they just use the umbrella term. Same as a fascist might call themselves conservative even if most conservatives might not share their beliefs. I would not normalise social democracy as real socialism, as in its current state it is just a form of liberal socialism (imo)
East Germany. 😉
I saw what you did and I approve 100%. 😏
Well, to be fair, it was actually a miss on my part. It was a choice my editor made that I didn't catch in the review, mostly cause I've been traveling for the last two weeks straight. I should have changed it.
But I will say, to those who think that life under the Nazis was significantly different from Communist Controlled East Germany... Eh...
Everything was still state-controlled, the Stasi were exceptionally repressive and virtually everywhere, and people suffered through immense poverty. As per usual, the communists had to build a wall to keep people imprisoned in their state.
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/east-german-spies-new-study-finds-more-stasi-spooks-a-540771.html
If you're interested in a personal account:
ruclips.net/video/n0p3fyhyffI/видео.html
@@FEEonline Besides, if the horseshoe fits...
@@HeIsAnAli Alas, yes.
@@FEEonline well still I would more appreciate if the editor put Erich Honecker or Walter Ulbricht instead. Great episode tho.
@@FEEonline Well there are reasons the West German government called the Communist Party in East Germany Red Nazis.
My father is a native. He was the first member of his tribe to become a physician. He worked for the IHS, (Indian health service) and always made sure we were as far from the reservation as possible. Things are so much worse than pictures can convey. He always said the reservations in the plains states were the worst off. He said none of us would never set foot on the Lakota res. Although that might be tribal rivalry, but he said it was the most dangerous place in the country.
My father did the same exact thing. As someone who lives in North Dakota (we’re known as the Great Plains) the reservation here has highest amount of missing people reports. You shouldn’t go anywhere there alone, man or woman it does not matter. And it’s sad because it’s a beautiful place helped out with a Pow Wow last week.
Even worse than Detroit?
@@ASlickNamedPimpback or new orleans?
@@ASlickNamedPimpback it’s hard to compare such drastically different environments, but it is seriously unsafe to walk alone or even with one other person on certain res. You are so isolated so you can try and call for help but anyone that could would be too far away to be meaningfully helpful. There is also a crap ton of corruption on the res and there are a lot of repeat offenders who get away with the crimes there. If you read Sherman Alexie’s memoir, he shares horror stories.
@@ASlickNamedPimpback yeah honestly, not joking, the amount of missing people in reservations is scary, and the amount that unsolved is even worse. When someone goes missing the family is like “yeah I knew him, hope he’s better now” and we move on because it’s such a common occurrence
I wrote a paper on this in college, in a history of the American Indian course. Got an A on it. Professor said she'd "never thought about how the government did so much damage" and said she was going to research it further.
One small step.
She never thought about how much damage the Us government did to the native people? Did she never read a book?
Such brownie points I’m jealous. The real monster is in the details. How was the sample you’re researching specifically affected by colonialism (Spanish/French/Other) and what specific form of government did the tribe adopt and what are the structures in place. Before even getting to the interpersonal level.
Workers of the world, unite! ruclips.net/video/UDuSGWJKp0E/видео.html
You want to know what's worse than an Indian reservation run by a government? Try an Indian reservation run by *three* governments: Akwesasne. There's the US half of the reservation, the Canadian half, and the Indian government. There's a lot of "import export trade" going on since the Indians are free to travel between Canada and the US.
That must be a nightmare. One government messing I my business is one too many. I can't even imagine.
Geeeez.
Indians are free to travel period between the 2 countries as long as they have a card from the government that recognizes them as Indian.
Made all the worse by prohibitions on either side I'm sure; guns in Canada and drugs into America. What a mess.
How else are we supposed to get pistols in Canada anymore?
I remember a video, I believe by John Stossel, several years ago that detailed a tribe that is flourishing by NOT taking the federal gov't money but by focusing on entrepreneurism. This tribe had 3% or so unemployment, low alcohol and drug use rates and its members were thriving.
Federalism is killing America
I saw that too. I think they are in NC.
@@katiek.8808 Yes they are the Lumbee Indians and they have thriving businesses, good schools, individual wealth and take care of their own. THEY DO NOT HAVE A RESERVATION and are NOT under government control. There are some sick leftie morons who want to make the Lumbee 'victims' give them a reservation and basically turn them into infantile welfare slaves.
i can't find anything online about them not taking government money, do you know which video said that?
@@Yal_Rathol No, I don't remember which video it was, I wish I did. I saw this several years ago and the video was how by refusing federal money and being entrepreneurial this tribe opened several banks and small businesses and is doing very well for itself, with no casino.
As a member of the Navajo people I want to point out that this is an accurate essay. Well done. A book I’ve recently read that does the subject much justice is called The New Trail of Tears.
Great work
I spent two years on the Navajo reservation about a decade ago, and this is certainly what I remember seeing. Many good people, but completely ruined and controlled by the government.
I haven't heard much since I left. Do you still have 88 chapter reps? Or did they cut it down to 24 like I heard was going to happen? And is the most common topic for chapter meetings still attempting to get electricity and running water to homes? do the reps still have their all expenses paid teen day "meeting" In Hawaii, and free PBR tickets?
I recall a political cartoon I saw when I was there, had a line of people outside a taco bell. Said "one man can feed 100,000 but we still have 88 freeloaders.
I’m not google. Just an alcoholic Indian.
Good to hear you are grateful for corporations and groups like FEE looking out for your best interests!
Sadly, in Canada, this is still happening and the most common and pervasive way it's done, is through, CPS. Any complaint, and I do mean ANY, and the Kids can be taken and implanted into other families. The lucky ones, will see themselves re-implanted into related families judged "better" and that's the end of it.
And the "better' ones, will often have to fight for it, HARD. And this, I know, by experience.
Shockingly, the First People's lot in Canada has been worse than in the US.
@@RussellNelson That's not shocking in the slightest.
@@RussellNelson 'But but but, US Bad! Every other country Good!'
@@xenn4985 I mean, what would you expect from a country that elects Justidel "Blackface Funny Mustache Man" Castrudeau?
I've been saying for years that the reserves are communist and this is the problem. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians think more government is the solution. The Nisga'a in BC have been fighting to to have their collectively owned land turned over to individual ownership. I hope they're successful with that.
Sadly it seems like many of those on the reservation are so close to knowing the truth but end up asking for more of the problem. I'm an indian that was raised off of the reservation. So I find myself locked between two sinking ships and a desire to save both.
It was nice to see this video...kinda uplifting...
Don't try to save a sinking ship get the passengers on life boats
@@pattonramming1988 right, but what are the lifeboats? I haven't figured that out yet.
From what I’ve seen, the Casinos don’t help. They provide just enough for bare subsistence but not enough to actually improve the lives of those on the dole. Too often I’ve seen it get spent on alcohol, which does just evil things to Indians.
@@mythonousblue3211 what's even more essential is having a safe harbor
@@thewiirocks Which was addressed in the video. They live in despair which leads to those problems. They don't own their own houses and aren't allowed to develop the land without government approval. They don't have the same rights simply because of where they live inside the US despite being citizens.
I actually grew up on the Wind River Indian Reservation in my stepdad's home (he was Arapahoe) and my grandmother is Shoshone. I definitely appreciated the movie for how realistic they actually portrayed Indian culture and the people. At least aside from mispronouncing Fort Washakie.
Hey, that's where I grew up and live now. Never thought I'd encounter someone from here in a youtube comment.
@@spracketskooch Way cool! I moved away a few years ago, but I still have family in that area.
Bishpants McGee, is that Arapahoe?
@@timdolinger1352 is what Arapahoe? Washakie? They named the fort after the Shoshone chief that first signed the reservation agreement.
@@k1n6n07h1n6 No, your name, is that Native American?
It was an ironic, sarcastic joke, and now that I've explained that, it ceases to be funny at all. We need to develop a way to effectively communicate irony in comment sections, because I'm tired of people misinterpreting my messages. I just wanna laugh.
I love the Futurama episode about the Native Martians (designed to resemble Native Americans) who were mad about trading their land for 1 giant "bead" which turns out to be a giant diamond. When someone points it out, they're like "Screw the land, we're RICH. We can go anywhere we want and buy new land".
I worked in education where native reservations were part of my job and even in the 2010s and 2020s this still has an effect. I begged a 13 year old who straight up could not read to focus on his schooling more and he pulled out a roll of 100 dollar bills and told me “why would I? Im going to drop out as soon as I can, they pay us just to live”.
This if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears would have been one of those internet “and then everyone clapped” moments. Too many do drop out the moment they can and spend their whole lives doing not much of anything and suffering from substance abuse and crime.
I knew indigenous people had it bad, but shit it's a lot worse than I thought. Thanks for the heads up. Something truly needs to be done about this
I don’t disagree with you in principle but just remember that all of the horrors talked about in this video started with someone saying this exact same thing.
@@soulfuzz368 I know there are hypocrites. An I'm doing my best being careful with who's trustworthy or not. I'm only agreeing that we as a society don't treat Indigenous people with enough or the same level of care or respect. An that we should be better and do what we can.
my grandfather left the rez because he wanted better for his children. Their is a valid reason why natives don't trust the government so to be honest to help the rez is to teach people how to better themselves so they can better their families and not to rely on government programs.
@@jesshorn257 exactly
Power needs to be moved from the BIA to the Reservations. It happened with Roe v Wade (power from the federal government to the states) and it can happen elsewhere.
Having relatives who are some percent Indian or married to someone who is some percentage according to the government I have been to several reservations in the south and west. The most successful "Indians" I have known are the ones who have left the "Reservation" life which is the ghetto of the backwoods or rural areas. They chose to abandon the "handout" culture of res-life, like living off "commodities" (powdered everything, canned everything), living in run down cheap housing that no one is willing to renovate since they don't "own" it personally but is "free", working jobs that provide better health insurance than going to an "Indian clinic", and finding work that pays better than the scraps handed out by tribal governments or welfare checks. They did not abandon their heritage, but they don't put trot it out in every aspect of daily life.
But yet it's OK that when we do get off the Rez where do most people wind up? Oh yes the Housing Project in our local cities. Are these places not the Same as the Rez. back home? Yes it is. And if you look at it closer as to the hard times we're having now this whole country is a Rez. So how does it feel to be apart of the program. The host fell to talk about the Native People that live on the Rez's that are highly successful. It's like any where else in this country you do have a choice if you want to stay or not. The main reason most stay on the land (Rez) it to hold on to what is left. If you leave and Don't return your the one that's turning your back on the people. By holding on this country is still Indian Country. This year alone there have been more Native Americans (women) put in the place of power then ever before with in the white man's government. So who's to say that we are not here. We're Still Here..
@@Kate-yb5ig In my experience the "highly successful" Native people who live on the Rez are the ones in power who dole out money and jobs to friends and family. They are even more political/financially motivated than anyone in Washington. A couple of my cousins are from the Creek tribe and when they were older their parents took them to a nearby Rez as a sort of "Scared Straight" experience. Seeing how "traditional" members lived, they redoubled their efforts at school, becoming successful white collar executives, both are women (although I'm not a biologist).
@@jonathanenglish9146 They stick their fingers in their ears when they're told the truth. Nobody wants to take any responsibility for the way they live. It's always somebody else's fault.
I can sympathize with your interest in Indians. Growing up in Kansas and having a grandfather with roots with the Potawatomi in Oklahoma, I spent a lot of time learning and observing native culture. Also had friends who went to Haskell Indian Nation University in Lawrence, KS. Great video as always
I know some of those people. They are good people, but they have to stop accepting these handouts, or they will always be prisoners of the government that enslaved them to begin with.
@@connernickerson5509 Do they have a choice that's the important question.
@@Alte.Kameraden Yes. They are American citizens as well and can move and work in the US. My area has a lot of native Americans that refused to move to the reservation. They're just Americans, live and work same as everyone else.
No
I'm a Kansan as well. I have Injun blood from both sides, Apache and Melungeon. I don't see things ending well. All the new immigrants don't give a DAMN about Native Americans. I fear for Native Americans when things fall apart. Legacy Americans actually tend to respect Native Americans. Definitely so in rural America. Punjabis and Somalis couldn't give a damn.
When you run into someone who, "made it off the res", be happy for them. Also, never call a native "chief."
RDR2 of all things have really shown me the despair of Indian relations with the Government without a skewed SJW lense on it, and to see that it basically didn't get any better is disheartening.
As soon as he said "What if I told you..." I knew he was talking about reservations
Likewise
I know that I comment the same thing on every one of these videos, but I cant help myself.
Out of Frame is the single best thing on RUclips and EXACTLY what the internet at its best represents! It breaks my hear to see OoF going away.
Also, my dad has had a life-long fascination with US history, especially with the plight of American Indians. I cant agree more, having heard & had the same discussions at our own family dinner table growing up. Indians are treated by our government as little more than children or zoo animals to be pitted and have scraps tossed to, rather than the complex, intelligent, fully human people they have always been. We should let the tribes own the land they are on and use it how they wish, within the laws of the US, like any other American does.
As a person of (well documented) Indian lineage, I appreciate this discussion. I now think it was a blessing in disguise that my tribe never received federal recognition and thus was never granted a reservation. My ancestors were forced to assimilate and fend for themselves.
That's why a lot of Indians have left the rez behind them.
That's what happens when a more powerful tribe conquers another. It sucks but it's what has been for eons.
@@messagesystem333 its what humanity has done for eons. Setting apart the tribes as "other" instead of assimilating them right from the beginning was a mistake.
Like any other civilization, you take the best of the conquered civilization, leave the rest and move onward.
My tribe also never got federal recognition. My aunt who has many friends in different reservations always tells us how mismanaged it is because they rely so heavily on federal aid that just never comes
@@sarasunshinemt4444
Well said. Truly the only option for true prosperity of the Natives is integration, but morons can't wrap their head around it and think its some form of evil. They never should have been given their enclaves, and unfortunately, they will probably never lose them.
I live in Florida and from what I know, the Seminole Tribe here actually is self governing. They proudly announce they're the only tribe to never surrender to the US Govt and currently owns tons of land in the state. Our governor had signed an agreement with the Tribe to give them rights to sports betting and gambling. Essentially, any sports betting has to go through the Tribe, so a massive source of leverage for them as well as obvious earnings. Since the servers will be on Indian land, recognized as sovereign by our state, our gambling isn't determined by federal laws.
As always, my state does things best lol
American Indians: Can we please have advocacy for autonomy, infrastructure, independent law enforcement, and economic opportunity?
The Left: Best we can do is changing a football team's name.
You are a bigot.
That is also how the left treats black people. They persist in calling "black on black crime" an "alt right myth" and not solving any of the real issues present in the black communities. But hey, that ginger comic book character is now black, I am sure this will somehow fix gang violence.
well, no. that's not the left's stance.
that's the center's stance. the liberal stance.
@@oneandonlysound3453 your comment is pretty garbled, and i'm not an american, so i have no idea what you're trying to say.
The left are wrong americas land isn't stolen
Honestly this channel isn't gonna be the same without the well researched and thoughtful commentary you bring Sean.
Is he leaving?
Wait what? What's going on with sean?
@@RealLifeIronMan Yes, he is
😢
I unequivocally agree. Mr. Malone *is* Out of Frame. I will miss him quite a bit.
Canada has a similar problem, although we've gone a lot further into the "Noble Savage" route. My experience is from growing up in BC and my observations largely involve groups in that area.
I grew up being taught about at least certain tribes in BC (Haida, Salish) as well as having historical lessons on some of the notable eastern tribes (Huron, Iroquois, Blackfoot, Inuit). Had some local elders come in and give speeches and the like. Learnt about the Residential school systems, etc. No problems for the most part, except looking back I found myself unable to name any of the tribal wars (except Huron vs Iroquois), or much talk about slavery which I know was practised. It's actually funny because I remember being taught most tribesmen were considered warriors, and of slaves being sacrificed when their owner died, but it was never talked about how prevalent the practice of slavery nor war was, for example. Almost all warfare talked about was Natives against the white man.
While we have reservations, most of my experience has been with those living in the cities. Basically jobs are guaranteed for them, they get free housing and vehicles from the government, and they generally live in the worst parts of town. The reservations are dirt poor, but many of the band leaders are very well off. We're talking millionaires if not more. Much of the wealth goes to chieftain families rather than other band members. Even there, they get free housing and vehicles from the gov. It's quite common to see brand new trucks in the driveway of houses built in the 90s beat to shit. That's been my experience driving through reservations.
Corruption continues into most aspects. Since they generally get most things for free they don't take care of it. It'll get replaced once it falls apart. Being a band member basically gets you free use of the land, and they don't need to follow environmental restrictions on fish and game. Where we used to fish, gill-netting and snagging were both pretty common. We'd see hundreds of fish being pulled out of the waters in order to be smoked and (often) sold illegally to tourists. This is with natural fish stocks already being endangered and there being limits put in place for those without status. Basically the same with game but I don't hunt and never personally experienced.
Legally with the new level of Woke we've been seeing, there's been a push to have minor crimes handled by band healing circles and similar instead of leading to incarceration. We've also seen a push to creating aboriginal-only schools which teach their own language and history. While good in theory, like most things progressives there's a lot of down sides that aren't being talked about. First, it's creating a parallel group of people who aren't bound to laws in the same way as the rest of us. Second, it's leading to a divergent understanding of history which we all know will boil down to why you should hate the white man. Third, it leaves door open for much more egregious crimes from being properly prosecuted. UK is seeing something like this with groomers of a certain "Asian" descent being allowed to get away with statutory crimes by apologizing. I don't think it'll be long until we see this ourselves.
Lastly, BC legally acknowledges aboriginal rights to the land, to the point that companies which plan to develop natural resources requires the different bands to sign off on the project. Look up Peace River Site C dam if you want to see what happens. Basically bands claim some environmental damage will occur until companies are willing to pay them off. Then they approve of it until there's some renewed call for environmental activism which can lead to physical damage and assault. Yet, even with all of this money most reservations are still incredibly poor.
The rest of Canada seems a bit more sane than BC. Regardless while we've provided a lot more opportunity than what may be available in the US, the outcome has largely been the same. The coddling is similar, but the outcome seems closer to the US Black community than the Reservations.
As a Canadian I must say this is a well-written, very true and underrated comment
Very well said even though it may piss off some. I lived for 8 yrs near N Mn reservations and can concur with many of your comments. There is good and bad on every res, it depends on where you stand in the tribal power level
@H J No, but with the same reasoning I can't blame other Canadians from hating them right back. Others pay a status native's way through their life only to get contempt and racial prejudice back.
Canada has also put a lot of effort into trying to reconcile as much as possible, but with little improvement for a major cost. A lot of the hate is justified, although much less so than with the US or almost any other nation with an aboriginal population.
Question if you are native: do you hate Chinese, Blacks, or Indians as much as you do Europeans? Why or why not?
@@arthurbrumagem3844 Some are definitely better than others, the recent "mass graves" "scandal" is a good example. Separate scare quotes because those are two separate lies/issues.
The Kamloops band chieftain pushed hard into the progressive ideology stating how horrible it is even though no actual graves have been found, and exhumation is being blocked. Other bands like Cowessess in Saskatchewan stated that the graves were known, just the markers removed/rotted over time. They also weren't all child graves, it was a general Catholic graveyard.
Not arguing against the impact Residential schools did have on the population, but specifically showing how willing some are to use their status in a divisive manner. In Kamloops' case it'll be new leverage for more funding.
I thank my parents everyday for giving me the opportunity to go to a private school where we went through a lot of what was talked about in this video. Less centralized government always seems to be better for people, No matter who or where you are.
Big facts. Private schools are where it’s at! Wish all schools were private.
@@twentysecondcenturywoman is this a joke or serious
That’s what I’d expect from a family that can afford private school lmao. Horde horde horde
@@AcornScorn what? Mom and dad sacrificed a lot to put me and my siblings there. They had awful experiences at the schools they had gone through so they wanted something different for us. What do you mean by horde?
I have some friends and family who are native. My e boyfriend’s family is from the Lakota tribe and their mother left the res because there was no future-girls got pregnant and boys joined gangs. It was so sad to hear her stories but loved how strongly bonded they are to their family. I been to a few powwows but had to stop because I wasn’t really welcomed. I still am fascinated by their culture and mythology especially about Raven (there are tons of stories about him) and is one of the reasons I picked him as my mascot for my company. Glad you made this video because their situation and history is heartbreaking and I agree with the virtue signaling. By the way the Redskin football team was designed by a Native of a real native, and many tribal people didn’t care because it doesn’t help their plight anyway.
I thought it was the Indians made by a native not the redskins?
You can't possibly put the ideas of Bernie Sanders on the same level of East Germany. Many Americans seem to not be able to grasp the difference between social policies and a socialist state with a planned market economy. America is also a prime example of why unchecked capitalism often does not work, see health care, public transport and education in the US.
Another great episode! You bring light to so many topics that I was not aware of before. Connecting cinema to political thought and law is so inspiring. I have loved every since one of your videos and will watch them multiple times. They are so well done and a joy to watch again and again. I can't wait to for the next one.
Out of Frame had to be the best film review series on this platform.
Shame to see it leave, but knowing how brutal copyright enforcement is getting, I'm not surprised.
It really doesn't have anything to do with that. I just don't work for FEE anymore and have other projects I need to put my attention towards. But I really appreciate the kind words.
- Sean
@@FEEonline well, RUclips is much better off now.
From what I've learned. The few exceptions to reservation poverty is dependent on the very founding of the reservation itself, which tend to have unchanging rules that go back to the time of the American Civil War. With the most economically successful tribes also being the few that don't even have a reservation system in the first place.
Yup. Get off the rez and your quality of life and overall longevity increases.
The problem is, most reservations are basically section 8 housing with a population that has grown dependent on government handouts... ya know, like poor neighborhoods in large cities.
@@sarasunshinemt4444 Why should they have to leave what's rightfully their's by treaties with the government? Why should they be punished with losing what little they have because the government believes they are too stupid to take care of themselves? Get rid of Indian Affairs and leave them alone sounds preferable. They are dependent on the government because the government doesn't allow them to work or own the land. It's a violation of their rights as US citizens.
@@debanydoombringer1385 Why should anyone have to love Tom improve their lot in life? It just is. Go where the work is and make a better life. They don't have to do it. They can languish in poverty and despair, like you seem to want.
@@debanydoombringer1385 As the video states, the govt treats Indians as children. Children can't work. They can't sign contracts. They can't make their own decisions.
Any land you buy is rightfully yours. It's best to go somewhere better, do something better, buy some land, and create a future for your descendants. Then it's truly yours (and theirs), not just because a treaty (that only goes back ~150 yr) says so. Other comments that reservations are nothing more than Section 8 housing is correct. Section 8 housing is so destructive to people in it that one has to believe it was actually designed that way.
The problem with the "too stupid to take care of yourself" viewpoint is that if you don't actually take care of yourself, what reason is there for someone else to believe you aren't too stupid to take care of yourself? But, when someone else takes care of you, you never develop the muscles to do it yourself, so it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Yes, the tough love approach of letting people stand or fall on their own is almost always the better option, despite the fact that it allows people to fail.
One form of reservation that I do agree with, are small religious reservations. There's a few small ones in various places that are nothing but a traditional holy site, preventing the area from being developed, while being small enough that it's not worth the struggle of doing so.
Capitalism isn‘t the problem, the problem is lobbyism, which undermines democracy.
They go hand in hand though. Capitalism and lobbyist that is. Capitalism’s unavoidable grasp on power in society will always find its way into governance to undermine society
@@josiahmccallister3150 That's more of a general problem that also occured in socialist countries. I'd say it is an issue that appears whenever people interact with the government. The issue is also, imho, that most people leave government to the governments instead of making their own interest clear. That way, lobbying becomes increasinly onesided for companies but generally, it is not a bad thing to be able to lobby for something. Banning company lobbying would be a good thing if there wasn't mechanisms that most people are too lazy to use. People don't participate in democracy, they vote once every few years and then go back working their job. That has created a large gap between politicians and people and allowed them to be mislead by larger lobbying groups (at best) or at worst, simply allows them to do whatever they want since most people don't care once elections are over.
Capitalism, democracy and lobbyism all go hand in hand. Best option is to do away with all 3.
@@tamnickyle what do you propose?
@@bruhinator5756 Probably socialism 😆
“Socialism is when colonial government does stuff”
Crazy, "Socialism is when the Capitalists government does stuff to Native Americans at the behest of the private colonial settlers and their descendants."
My grandmother left the rez for the first time when she was in her early twenties. That was in the thirties and her segment of our family has done objectively better than the cousins that still live on the rez.
I remember indian reservations coming up in a documentary, Dinosaur 13, about the largest and most complete, probably the most famous, Tyrannosaurus skeleton nick-named "Sue" that was found in the badlands near Faith, South Dakota. The skeleton was seized from the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research by the federal government, followed by a 10-year-long battle with the FBI, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Maurice Williams, the landowner on whose property the bones were discovered.
My point being is that; the man who discovered the fossil got screw due to in no small part by these top-down policies.
How did the Reservation come into it? Was William's ranch on the reservation? My mom was recently relaying what she knew about the incident to me. Her and my dad were amataeur fossil and paleontology enthusiasts at the time, as in yearly trips to the Black Hills for fossil hunting. I understood Sue was seized by the FEDs after the rancher tried suing the "Hill City" boys for breaching their agreement. It sounded like both sides were at fault.
@@erichardzz it was awhile since I've seen I've seen the doc but if memory serves, the fossil was on the boarder of the ranch and the reservation. Like I said I don't quite remember the all the details.
AMAZING as always! This channel deserves WAY more attention!!
John Stossel did an eye opening video to support this take on Indian reservations. It is about a tribe(sorry I don't remember which) that has rejected the so called help from the US government. They run their tribe in a capitalist style and are a wealthy tribe. The proof of the difference between capitalism and socialism has been shown time and time again but people keep trying to latch on to socialism because they think that utopia is possible. The thing about utopia is that there are over 7 billion people in the world who all have different notions of what utopia is
I completely agree.... I was a hard Bernie guy... and I'm feeling more capitalist than ever, but I also feel like free-reign capitalism isn't the best option ever... Afterall, the struggle in the market is as simple as follows...
Businesses want as much work for as little pay possible
and employees want as much pay for as little work as possible...
I'm leaning capitalist, but I can see why some aspects of control on base rules would help us to ensure capitalism works well for those who work hard and deserve it.
The tribe is the called the Lumbee. That video also opened my eyes to what Indian reservations are like.
A free market with strong antimonopoly laws and no corporate personhood could solve many of the issues of today's economy without falling into the trap of socialism.
I lived in Nebraska for a few years, right near a reservation. Knew a few Lakota people, liked them well enough. And if you want your spirit destroyed, you'd just drive through that. Because it's what happens when the federal government gets absolutely everything wrong.
Greetings...Great video on Federal recognized reservation land. Your video did not include how trust land and private ownership are handled in Oklahoma. In this state it is handled differently that was provided in the video. The government during the removal gave allotments to the tribe (and family) based on size and allocation. To this day some of the original allottees still have their own land given to them passed down by family.
Currently, the fastest growing businesses in Oklahoma are tribally owned and operated (not just gaming). These tribes in most cases have these land on Trust Land that the tribe owns and is protected by their own police department.
As someone who grew up right next to an Indian Reservation, practically lived on it. I can tell you everything he said is pretty much true, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal government which makes it impossible for any Indian to take his Destiny within his own hands. At least as long as he's living on the reservation. And this situation should have been done cluster f***** a long time ago, but now everyone who says they care about quote on quote Native Americans were too busy trying to force that Washington baseball team to change their name(an issue that no Indian that has lived on a reservation has actually cared about) instead of giving Native American tribes actual Independence or fullly incorporating them into the American state.
I’m a member of one of the Central American tribes and, this video made me realize how out of the loop I am on my own tribe’s issues and such.
If it’s bad, I’m glad my dad got me out of there but, I suddenly realize how neglected I’ve been to them. : /
Very powerful quote to end on btw, and one that more people then just my own should take to heart.
This was one hell of a note to end on. I'll miss this series. It makes very proud to see Russell Means brought up. He doesn't get enough credit as a Libertarian thinker.
Socialist kid: mom can we have socialism at home?
Mom: we have socialism at home
Socialism at home:
" this isn't real socialism! "
@@iwannahavearockstar2994 it's literally not even an attempt at socialism.
@@jbingart3009 its not labeled "socialism", but it is de facto socialism.
@@Prince_Az_Myr explain what exactly is de facto socialism here in the US
@@davidr2299 Did you even watch the video? Thats what i mean. Government control, communal Property, etc
I’ve been noticing that many young adults answers to modern problems involves completely replacing capitalism with socialism. Their answer never involves ‘fixing’ the economic system, but replacing it entirely. They view socialism as the logical next step to replace capitalism in spite of its numerous attempts and deadly results. You have a point, they don’t seem to care about the people who actually lived under those systems and want to run away from it. Our economy has problems but they don’t want to fix it, but replace it.
Yes, well said
They're middle class, and have lived their whole lives off their parent's credit cards. Now they want to keep doing that, but they want government to be their parents. Time for millennials to grow up, like every generation before them.
@@joshuarichardson6529 I've noticed something strange in just the last year or so. Workers from all varieties of businesses appear to be better than I've seen in recent memory. I don't understand it. Very courteous, friendly, conscientious and competent employees have been increasing. This is perhaps just in the area in which I live but it has been very noticeable. Whatever it is I hope it spreads all over the place
It’s a change in view, capitalism has done mad bad in the world, maybe it’s not socialism or capitalism that’s the solution.
capitalism is terminal, you can't "fix" it,
it has to be replaced
What would dissolving the US government control over the reservation lands look like? Would they become independent Nation States, or incorporated (individuals granted the land & property deeds), or with thier own self-contained and controlled governance (think like the agreement Disney had with Florida) that would then report to the larger local, State, and Federal Government?
At this point, it's really hard to say. I think independent nations could make sense.
Or they could just become separate US states and operate under the same Constitutional rules (and get congressional representation) like the rest of the states.
@@FEEonline The state idea would probably have the best outcomes for tribe members. However, there are so many tribes it would be infeasible.
Hand the land over to the people who live on it and let them decide where to go from there. Sure, there's a lot of practical difficulties that would need to get ironed out, but I think the whole point of the video is that these people need to be in control of their own lives and currently they're not. Let's quit falling into the trap of thinking we have to solve their problems for them. Let them decide how to proceed. Give them back the decision making.
I think at most they would function in a similar fashion to European microstates. Economically and militarily, they would be entirely dependant on the stronger neighbour. They would probably not use their own currency or anything like that. You have to remember even the biggest reservations in the US have populations only in the tens of thousands. That's less than places like San Marino or Andorra. They just wouldn't be big enough or isolated enough to be like anything else.
depends on the rez( I just know the ones near me)... some have sovereign rights like a state does and only under federal law/jurisdiction...in a way we have way more then 50 states
Can I offer a idea for a video. You and second thought should do a video debate. Your content is very similar but opposite ends of the political spectrum
20:57 Fractination. This is how the British Government kept Ireland poor - by requiring the split of land leases amongst all heirs.
If the people who put the Indians on reservations thought it was good for them, they wouldn't have done it.
Ya. That.
Uhh so where did the Navajo and hopi come from? Why did they get moved to norther Arizona? Why did the Lacota get moved to south Dakota? And the crow to Montana? Who moved the Tillamook, shahalish, Quinault to the Pacific Northwest? Who would have thought it would be good to put reservations in those places?
@@somethinsomethin7243 That's exactly my point. Indian reservations are a terrible thing, and need to be dissolved. It's made a the people on them, who our my people because they're Americans, dependant upon the government, and left them in blight, poverty, and hunger. Reservations create a separate society within the United States, and that just doesn't work.
@@MichaelMiller-xj1ti reservations are just a way to take out a native nation. NAtion-States have a tendency to do this as native Nations challenge the nation-state's claim to the land, happens all over the globe Europe, Africa, Asia, South America. It is fucked up and it is not about Socialism or Capitalism (tho capitalism has caused more harm in this sense to nations)
@@mateolopez2099 I don't think you want to get into how socialist nations treat ethnic minorities. There are no "first nations", the first nation here was America, and native means all of us who are not foreign born. Dissolve reservations, they don't work, and they're black holes economically, socially because they separate Americans from other Americans, and morally because Indian women and girls go missing like crazy because no one cares what disappears on the reservation. That includes many tribal leaders.
I've always been fascinated with Indian culture, but I never got this much perspective on the situation in modern times. Some of those shows and films look interesting too, might have to check them out.
Shows like Yellowstone don't interest me at all. But the prequel series 1883 is phenomenal. Ostensibly it's about the Dutton family traveling to Montana and founding the ranch. But it's actually about so much more. And I think goes a long way to fixing the terribly cliche Hollywood portrayal of the West.
I am a tribal member. I broke my leg, and the tribal health care system made me wait a month to get in. Thanks to that I am now semi-crippled.
Yikes, sorry about that.
My first girlfriend was a member of a tribe and related to me the stories of the res. Horror stories like children being left in the “care” of abusive parents rather than getting a chance at adoption outside the res.
My girlfriend was lucky enough that she was adopted by a family outside the res, and was able to discover her tribe and its culture as an adult. But many in her situation don’t get this opportunity. Furthermore, the social ills plaguing reservations are enabled by never-ending interference from the federal government. These people have been victimized enough, time to get the hell out of their way so they can live the way they please.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but your point directly contradicts the point of the video (he is arguing for *less* government interference). It just shows you how complex this problem truly is - because I believe your girlfriend was lucky to be adopted by that family.
Unfortunately, these problems are very individual. Each tribe is in a different situation now (some are even getting rich just because of their location and gambling), and each person in each tribe is in a different situation. Some would benefit from less government interference (becoming more self-reliant), some would suffer (as your girlfriend points out). It's always like this...
@@geoffhart he didn't say anything contradictory
@@geoffhart As am I. You see, the BIA determined that it was racismos and evil/bad/awful to have native children adopted by non-native people. Even if the child was abused. Instead, they were left in the hands of indifferent parents or even their abusers. My girlfriend was fortunate because she was adopted by a family that could and wanted to care for her.
I agree with the notion that tribal children should be cared for by the tribe if they prefer it, and they have the resources to do so. But if not, whatever gives the child the best opportunity is the goal, not the ideals of a government bureaucracy.
@@eduj Well, then you don't understand the point of Socialism. It's a question of: who decides? Put simply, if you think the government should decide, then you are in favor of Socialism. If you think the people should decide for themselves, you are against Socialism. FEE is arguing in favor of the latter (he is saying that most of the current problems the tribes face today are the result of government action/interference).
That said, Jordan did clarify his point just now, explaining the BIA is also partially to blame. But I don't think he is saying they should not be involved, rather that they were wrong in their policy. FEE's point, the Libertarian's perspective, is that they should not be involved at all. The parents (mother) should be able to decide who adopts the child. Of course, if the parents are abusive, then you have a problem. Back to the question: who decides? Who really is guided by the child's best interest? The BIA has incentive for the tribe's best interest, which is reflected in the policy to exclude non-native adoptive parents. I can even understand that. However, I don't think the child (especially a baby) really cares about that: his/her best interest is just to have wonderful parents (of any color or culture).
@@geoffhart since you didnt read the op's comment properly i wont read this. he said nothing in favour of government intervention
Love to the First Nations people of Canada and America.
I don't think you can blame everything wrong/bad with reservations on one thing. Probably more a combination of things. Personally i see the geographical division as such a hard part to overcome, especially for any central type of planning
Who put them in those geographical areas? You could say they could move, but they have nothing to sell because nothing belongs to them. If the population on the reservation reaches a certain point, they lose what little they have because the government will take it back. They also lose their cultural centers and their heritage will die. We have no problem with Chinatowns, Little Italys, or other people from similar cultures living together, but people seem to object to it only for Indians. You also fail to understand this is the situation for most reservations. Even the ones near large population cities. Oklahoma is one of the few exceptions and it's because the tribes are some of the largest and have spent years filing lawsuits and working within the political system using lobbying and other tools to better their conditions. A lot of people were upset about the recent Supreme Court decision that gave most of Oklahoma back to them. Living here I can say it's been fine as the two populations work together to figure it out. I'm hopeful this goes smoothly and can be an example to how it can be done so other tribes can get their freedom.
Another show that seems to fit into this newer category of exploring Indian Reservations is Longmire. While there is some exotification (not sure if that's a word) of native culture, the characters presented are very human and three-dimensional. Ultimately I think it does some justice to the realities of the world simply by having a story grounded in very human motivations
exoticfication is not a word. I would use "romanticization." My browser doesn't think this is a real word but the dictionary does.
I remember driving through a reservation once and thinking it was such a shame to see people basically forced to live that way. For all i hear about how horribly the US government treated natives in the past it isn't much better now. But for some reason people, especially those of a certain political party, seem to think that just giving people monthly payments and stipends is the best the government could ever do. And it's very clearly not working.
You can leave if you want. No one's forced to live on a reservation
Socialism in the Marxist sense is supposed to be the transition stage from capitalism to communism.
He also thought it would happen in the most developed nations like Britain, which had the capital needed for the transition and the strength not to be crushed by outside capitalist nations.
He was obviously wrong about this, because it happened in very poor nations that had neither the capital nor the strength.
And there are various models of socialism, many of which are mixed into various capitalist economies around the world.
Also, everything being owned by the state or everything being owned by a few capitalists isn't really a choice lol
Individual freedom sounds great, but freedom is just an abstract concept without context.
It should always be justified as "freedom for who" and "freedom to do what"
Having the "individual freedom" to "choose" to work in a mine, or "choose" to beg in order to find the basic human needs, is not a freedom I want.
In fact, I don't think choices you make due to your biological drive to find food and shelter can be classified as a freedom or a real choice.
The only reason people do what most people consider "bad jobs" is due to biological coercion.
PS.
Most jobs are "bad jobs" lol
The Hispanics and Latinos that come to or were in us states and lands that used to be a part of Spain or Mexico mainly definitely have some native blood mixed with the Spanish. And yet we’re able to go around their territories and such.
I am a native from the Pima rez outside scottsdale az...You don't get it, it isn't socialism, it's living in an open air prison, it is what it has always been. It's working as intended. Sadly there is a real issue with people getting their butts off the rez and actually joining society. Also some of your points here are the same as the virtue signaling sjws, not only are they wrong but they are fairly demeaning and insulting, do better. This country has no intentions of living up to the myriad of broken promises made to the native peoples, and nothing will ever be done about that. The best anyone can do for themselves is to get an education get off the rez and in many cases, never look back.
Wikwat
So basically "It's not socialism because I don't call it that."
@@Dennis-nc3vw No, it's not socialism because it's not socialism.
Its not an open air prison they can leave whenever they like.
The only part that is relevant is as you say "people getting off their butts".
The idea that promises broken past the lifetimes of the people the promises were made to as why things are the way they are in 2022 is a weak cope.
@@ericfisher1360 Thanks for the 90 IQ take mate. I suggest you learn some actual history.
You mention socialism as the collective ownership of the means of production. Then spend the entire time talking about the Indians who don’t own their own land or production, the us gov does. How are the Indians socialist if they don’t own the means of production?
Edit
I listened again to see if I missed something and I see the bait and switch. Beginning talks about the collective control of their production but then later you define socialism as both collective control AND government control. Yet if you dig into it, these Indians didn’t chose the government so how did they ever collectively give power to the government? Would the reservation be more like an authoritarian occupied land than a socialist government? I agree they are terrible, I live within half a mile of one.
There is no bait and switch. This is socialism as it actually plays out in reality all over the world.
You think the Ukrainians, the Kulaks, or Siberians controlled their own ancestral lands in the USSR? Was it somehow not socialism when the Kremlin ran Poland or when the Maoist regime controlled Taiwan? Was Hugo Chavez not really imposing socialism on Venezuela because he was supported by Cuba?
Socialism -- in practice -- inevitably involves the displacement of tons of people who don't agree with the central plan. In this case, we're talking about an imperial socialism, in the vein of the USSR's control over Lithuania or Estonia, but that doesn't change what it is and why it's a disaster.
Another way to look at this is to think about what happened in Africa in the 1960s.
Tons of nations (ie. Zimbabwe) fought for independence against imperialist colonial powers like the UK, France, or Belgium and traded foreign control of resources for homegrown socialist dictatorships.
The problem with all of this is the central planning, not even necessarily who is in charge of those decisions.
@@FEEonline please educate yourself on socialism, there are three forms and the only one you state is ... Of course the third. The one born from the third international in the late 19th century, which is the opposite of the 2nd international or the form of socialism that exist in Europe but that weirdly everyone forgets to state in the US because its far more easy to use the know example of autocratic regimes (not socialist) and even then you dont give the reason why it ended up that way. U use theory from ultra liberalism to explain why as always central planning must be the evil and not the people doing it. What is a monopole like railroads and oil in the US if not central planning or the united fruit company. Your views are narrow enough to allow you to occult all the other forms of ideology, which means of course that individualism and capitalism was the answer...
I love that you make videoes about this in such a nice commentary way. Every time I drive through New Mexico you can see how bad it is.
yea the form of the video is great, raw info on the reservations too, when it comes to political concepts and understanding of them it is quite lacking tho. Socialism should of been removed from this debate and it would of worked way better, as it has really nothing to do with what he is talking about
@@mateolopez2099 I think showing that people given a bunch of free things from government creates a lazy society with no moral foundation so crime and drugs get worse too. Showing you care by giving stuff can sometimes be bad because tough times create good times good times create tough times. I think that’s what Socialism is.
@@micktheman6 giving free things for no reason behind it is bad yea. Tho that is not socialism. The core of idea of socialism is based on each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Meaning that you get what you need to do your job (as in pay) and you get what you need. It's a form of collectivism. Just giving things away is not collectivism and it is not socialism, it is just a political stunt of a liberal economic system
@@mateolopez2099 right I think Spain does a socialist system like that where they give you exactly what you need but you work and you don’t get ahead your job pays for exactly your food clothing and place to live etc and you don’t get much options job wise. Doesn’t sound very good either sense no Capital to allow a person to grow and expand. These are just different types of socialism though. Like Venezuela where people are starving because they kicked out business.
@@mateolopez2099 which granted socialism is technically like you said a economic system where the go vehement controls more and you don’t really have rich people. It’s still not good and negatively effects people it seems no matter what.
No joke, I’ve been thinking about American Indians for a couple of months *heavily*. I’ve been thinking about the socialism in their tribes and how badly it’s affected them. I’ve even, for some reason, started learning the Cherokee syllabary. I’m SO glad you made this video. I’m SO glad it popped up on my homepage. It’s so well done! Shows how government doesn’t actually fix anything, but instead makes it WORSE.
Socialism for the rich and cold hard capitalism for everyone else.
It's interesting to note that in Indian Territory (the area of Oklahoma where the Cherokee, Creek, and Choctaw live, among others) the economy is doing quite well. According to a family friend who used to be a Cherokee tribal official, it's for two reasons.
First, government agencies like the Dept. of Indian Affairs no longer have much jurisdiction in those areas. Ditto with the State of Oklahoma, which has been causing some _cough_ “issues” lately. As a result, the tribes are free to rule themselves as they see fit.
Second, unlike tribes on the reservations, money from tribal casinos generally doesn't go to the people. It's instead used to fund tribal government projects (in the Cherokees' case, top-notch medical, educational, and social services programs). Individuals are responsible for earning their own living. This staves off the rampant doleism of the reservations.
Recently (i.e., in the past few months) I happened to drive through Indian Territory on my way to something. The only sign of depression I saw was that roads in the Cherokee lands often weren't very good. Furthermore, from what I can tell, it's due to a lack of interest (“why work on roads when we can focus on our top-notch education and social services?”) rather than funds.
Interestingly, despite being a staunch Democrat (e.g., thinks Trump is on par with Andrew Jackson) the aforementioned family friend is very against a lot of “woke” dogma relating to American Indians. For example, she refers to the native tribes as a whole as “Indians” (without even prefixing it with “American”, being very much in favor of tribal autonomy), and is actually in favor of cultural appropriation so long as it doesn't cause harm (her example was young white guys waving the Confederate flag around whilst storming the Capitol).
We don't have good roads anywhere in oklahoma, some of the worst rated in the country
As a Choctaw, I agree with this. Our roads are crap, but the tribe is pretty much single-handedly keeping the economy afloat in our corner of the state via construction, education, tourism (funding Main Street revitalization, incentivizing hunting/fishing/etc), and yes, the casinos. The McGirt decision has helped somewhat by emboldening the tribes to flex their power a bit, but those gains are tenuous unless the tribes can leverage economic power to force lasting reforms.
Absolutely fantastic video. You spoke about a difficult topic with clarity and insight. Thank you so much for making this and all the other Out of Frame episodes (which are also exceptional).
Thanks, appreciate your interest in Native American culture and history including the Lakota. Sad that they have been mistreated and marginalised. Maori in New Zealand have also gotten a raw deal from colonialism. Like how well researched and thoughtful your videos are.
I liked Wind River. It was well made and humanised indigenous peoples. Thanks for shedding light on the disturbing Land tenure policies in Indian reservations. While NZ doesn’t have the same problem with Land reservations for indigenous people, Maori home ownership is low compared to other ethnic groups.
What I really like about this video is that Sean calls out the horrible injustices done to American Indians without stooping to the level of the "woke" leftists and accusing America as an inherently racist nation from it's very beginning.
I support the idea of the government releasing their grip on the Indians, and letting them have control over their own lives.
Just as Indians are allowed to stay on their ancestral land, they should also be allowed to venture out into the broader world and assimilate with the rest of American culture, if they so desire. No more forced reeducation; if the Indians want to learn new things, let them do so of their own volition.
At the same time, trade with the rest of the country should be opened way up, in order to increase the chances that the Indians will have to learn new things.
A powerful video and nearly all of it is directly relevant to the plight of Aboriginal people in my own country, Australia. Prior generations of Aboriginal people were treated appallingly and a great deal of money has been spent by government agencies to right the wrongs. What has been the result? Absolutely no improvement in the lives of those people and in a lot of cases, regression. There are remote communities where conditions are appalling and violence, substance abuse and a litany of other social problems are rife. I don't pretend to have the answers, but what is in place currently sure as hell isn't working.
As a Native, sorry but you can blame socialism all you like. But it what was done to our culture, our language our way of life, that has lead to what we are today. A broken people, with a lose connection to our past.
He acknowledged all of that in the beginning. Atrocities and oppression are what broke the people, and that’s a problem. I think his point was that progressives (maybe even well intentioned progressives) turned to the government, i.e. “socialism” as the solution to this problem. Socialism is clearly not working on the Reservations and he explained some of the reasons why it is not working. The better solution is to get the government out of the way and allow people/local communities to take full control of their own land and their own lives. That doesn’t mean that we don’t acknowledge the sins of the past, given back what was taken, or try to help people that need help. However, we must not cross the line where we treat people as if they are of lesser ability. It’s wrong to rob people of the opportunity to take responsibility and it’s dangerous to take away somebody’s ability to provide for themselves. It’s terrible that white people took the land and attempted to destroy the native languages, cultures, and tradition. We can acknowledge that atrocity while at the same time acknowledge that Native people are just as capable as white people in terms of well, everything (from managing communities to building a business, to restoring an oppressed culture). An analogy I once herd is that Government is like “punching you in the arm”. Whenever somebody is punched in the arm there is going to be a bruise, but in time that bruise will heal so long as you don’t continue to be punched in the arm. The “Libertarian” solution is to stop punching you in the arm and let your body heal naturally. Our solution is to stop the fist and acknowledge that the our past is full of sins, the world is imperfect, government is imperfect, and while the bruise is painful, the best thing to do is to leave it alone and let it heal instead of continually interfering with Native affairs and making the bruise worse. The “leftists” solution is to focus on the bruise instead of the fist. Socialist have an irrational utopian faith in government. They believe we can leverage government power (i.e. “the fist”) to achieve “equity” despite the fact that this solution has literally never worked. The “socialist” solution to oppression is to attempt to eliminate the bruise with the punching fist (which is counterproductive) rather than eliminating the punching fist and letting the bruise heal.
(Also, I lived on a Tribal Nation at one point and I very much sympathize with the struggles that people go through and understand just how badly Tribal Nations/people have been screwed over by the Federal and State government’s in America. It’s not OK, but as a current government employee I can assure you that government is NOT the solution.)
@@CrayOutoors socialists do not have an irrational faith in government.
you seem to not know that the poem, because "first they came for the socialists..."
@@Yal_Rathol "First they came for the socialists..." who came? the National Socialists, the Marxists or the Imperialists who believe in state funded, state controlled everything?
That doesn't make any sense. The Irish had their "culture, language, and way of life" erased by colonizers, yet they are the most prosperous country in Europe right now.
@@codyraugh6599 wow, so you have no idea what any of those words mean.
it's the governments post-revolution who come for the socialists, because they want to establish themselves as the new monarchy, not improve the lives of the citizens.
Using the real plight of Indigenous people to disingenuously refute Socialism is gross. You are under the impression that Socialism is simply "when the government owns stuff or spends money". Any push for Socialism in America would both need to fundamentally change the way we organize our government at its roots to allow for more public energy to flow upwards, and also provide Indigenous communities and peoples the resources they need to build their own structures! Describing the horrors of neocolonialism of Native Peoples in the US and Canada as Socialism is silly, as they're fundamentally alienated from the imposing systems, as well as the systems they're oppressed by being capitalist ones! Native people need sovereignty and autonomy to develop ways of flourishing into the future. The current Governments are only interested in furthering genocidal intent through total assimilation to their economic systems. The job then should be to build a new system where that isn't the case. I don't know if that new system would be called Socialism even, but the current system is CAPITALISM. Just because they spend some money neoliberalizing reservations doesn't mean it's socialist.
Socialism is gross.
Well said. This is completely true.
Really happy to have your channel and this video recommended to me. I enjoy when people call out unpleasant truths, like how many democrats look down on many races and poor people but say they help. Also cool to see you are from Nebraska,so am I. I wonder if you made it out 🤣
I’ve always said if you wanna see socialism at work drive through Browning Montana. Drove through it a few times when I lived in Montana a few years back. Dilapidated houses, beggars on the streets, and junk everywhere. Oh but they got a nice big casino at the edge of town though. The US government has done nothing to help any of these people through their socialist policies and let’s not forget the rampant corruption of the tribal elders as well. It’s easier to steal money and resources when the people are too poor and hungry to ask questions. Straight out of the socialist playbook. Good video sir, I salute you.
I think the purpose of reservations is to look good to the U.S. public (which is arguably successful) while pressuring Tribe members to leave the reservations (i.e. conform and become "Americans") via the bad conditions. If the Tribes thrived and became wealthy, they could become a problem for the US government by renegotiating the terms Tribes are subject to. Imagine a world where Tribes were actually sovereign nations, members owned their land outright, had a booming self sufficent economy, and a military. That would scare D.C. shitless. If relations ever fell apart, the U.S. would have to fight an enemy who is already within their borders and is far more sympathetic. It would be a P.R. nightmare.
Any lands thats productive or has Oil and Natural Resources will be acquired by the WHITE MAN immediately #UhmeriKKKanExceptionalizm
That worked out real well for the Confederates. The Germans tried that not once but twice. Iraq tried to expand their territory and look where they are now. It remains to be seen how Russia makes out with Ukraine but Ukraine can't stand on its own. How many other nations are going to support the Indian nations? Especially when they are landlocked and impossible to get aid to them.
Not really. Even if they formed "booming economies" they still are only about 1% of the population.
So glad your talking about this, no one likes to talk about what the democratic party did to American Indians.
No one was safe from the democrat party.. Blacks and Indians alike should know more than anyone, unfortunately they have been duped to vote for the same perpetrators, I will never understand that.
Lool
what does this have to do with socialism tho?
*does
@@mateolopez2099 socialism
[ soh-shuh-liz-uhm ]
noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, *usually through a centralized government.*
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Most of their economy is under control of the US government.
American Indians mostly refer to themselves (and each other) as Indians.
IIRC, Indians are prevented from owning specific plots of land so they don't wind up selling every square foot of the reservation to the highest bidder, which is typically _not_ going to be an Indian bidder. Yes, Indian reservations are mostly destitute ghettos. Anyone with the slightest bit of ambition leaves them.
My father is a traveling evangelist who travels around the country doing church revivals. We spent months on Apache and Navajo Indian reservations.
The poverty was shocking to me, but despite that, they were the kindest people who gave and were so hospitable to us. I was able to sit around a fire at night listening to the local pastor tell ghost stories in the Apache language (I was sad I couldn’t understand it but the experience was still thrilling), I experienced riding on a horse with the tribe and was taught how to cook with the native women of the tribe.
It was both a heartbreaking and unforgettably wonderful experience.
This is the same reason (One of the reasons) why materials are going up in prices. The government been buying land and Stealing it from farmers, Ranchers. Where even zinc for pennies is so high that it cost two cents to make those pennies, heard half of Arizona is government owned.
One thing you forgot to mention is the fact that Natives are still US Citizens.
Thus, I don't know if just cutting the reservations loose would work out too well. I mean, are we going to just deny citizenship to native people?
I think the larger reservations could become states, while the smaller reservations could become a type of autonomous republic like Russia has.
The reservations are already their own state, allowed to make their own laws. They don't control enough territory or resources to be self sufficient and would have to heavily rely an all the other states. The problem is that their way of life is no longer conducive to long term survivability of the community. They need to assimilate with the rest of society if they want to progress.
At 5:33 I want to add and Canada till 1992 my country has a record just as bad as Americas
Worse?
funny because i live on holy native land but its not a reservation, so there's a pow wow every year across the street. even tho im a third native indian ive never gone.
i do believe natives deserve a fair shot at capitalism for once and should adamantly fight for there constitutional rights that were denied for our ancestors . because for a document that says "all men are created equal and have unalienable right endowed by the creator", we were denied those right and called savages. "Rights for me but, not for thee, now disarm you savages and give us ur property"
if i was on a reservation the first thing i would wanna do is build a go-cart track, or a water park, a cheese making factory. anything to generate money and attract people towards the res to spend money. simple entertainment and goods. then when you get steady visitors then you can have the trades-men make a decent living. a lot of reservations have excellent crafts-man but no business traffic.
You need more. You don’t even have Medicare. I was in hospital for 9 days curing appendicitis. Cost: $0. If I were in America the same trip would leave me in debt for life.
I did not know we had collective ownership of the means of production
Thank you for putting Rosa María Payá on the video, she's done a lot for our community and the international victims of communism.
Look at the handiwork of capitalism in places like Haiti and Bangladesh. Capitalism's stolen wealth has come with the blood of imperialism, and it is not a Marxist concept to say so, British statesman Edmund Burke spoke of the "drain of wealth" that Britain was stealing from colonies like India to start the industrial revolution. Public ownership of the means of production does work, how do you think the satellites I'm using right now to post this we're created? Sputnik was the world's first satellite and NASA was neither privately owned nor dictated by market forces but by a central plan. To prevent global heating cataclysm no amount of incentivizing the market will save the planet from extinction when privately-owned fossil fuel companies are owned by 60, 70 and 80 year old billionaires who don't give a crap about what happens to the world in 40 years, find me one example of a market without protections and regulations that didn't have a private company poison the environment to cut costs and up quarterly earnings. To save the planet, just like going in space or developing a vaccine, it isn't going to be the market which will save the planet. Saving the planet in the long haul is not what drives the quarterly earnings, profit-motive does. Profit-motive got us into this mess. Only an energy economy based on social need, that is keeping the planet alive, will get out of this crisis. Nationalization of energy to rehaul our entire energy sector is the only way to prevent global extinction.
Agreed, and privately owned companies will definitely not get us out of this mess, but that doesn't say anything about how government will make change happen. Governments can and will also do what they can to stay in power just like corporations, so when it is beneficial for a government to harm the environment for its own gain it will do so like the many governments around the world dependent on fossil fuel power do today. So while you're right in that we got here through profit-motive, I would actually expand that and say that we got here through a desire for more power through multiple avenues, or greed.
The solution lies in making government realize that the best way to preserve itself is to future proof itself and the country over which it rules from climate change which involves many aspects such as cutting emissions, implementing resource recycling, and improving health standards for the population. This is how it should be done, where the people's needs and wants are exercised through government in democracy + rational and benevolent oversight from govt officials if you're lucky.
Edit: And you're also right about the immense capacity for success in public projects. All the space race stuff, vaccines, the internet, massive infrastructure projects, you name it.
@@victorandrei02 I would add that the overhaul must also include switching our society towards public transportation.
I agree with much of what you said, we see in companies like Enron and Sears that greed does not have to take the form of profits, it can be theft of pensions and ripping off the shareholders because although the shareholders are the owners it is the managers who control and run. Corruption is any issue in any system, and I think the punishment needs to be harsh. Instead of getting tax dollars bailouts which they gave themselves bonuses from, Wall Street should have been jailed, and I would have no problem giving them life sentences of hard labor to reeducate these corrupt fraudsters in the meaning of labor and this would hopefully increase their understanding of what hard earned assets mean and why not to gamble them. For corrupt government officials I don't think executions are out of line in those who betray their oath of office. This is an important way to maintain checks and balances. If a particular bureaucrat or politician has betrayed the people, they should not only be able to remove them but see them charged and put on trial (for their life if need be).
But what is key is what is meant by democracy. For a democracy to actually exist it can't be "one man, one vote". The billionaires are not content to get merely 1% representation which is their size in the general population, they want to use their wealth to control 100% of the political process and will bribe the officials. There for the only way to truly represent the 99% majority is to completely ban the 1% of millionaires and billionaires from government entirely. No vote, no representation, no money in politics. This is the only way the 99% can keep the 1% out of control of our society and lives. That and taking ownership of the economy away from them and making it public through nationalizations like I said of the energy sector. Think of it. If the government doesn't control the banks then the banks will control government.
Capitalism is private ownership, imperialism is done by the government, so capitalism and imperialism have nothing to do with each other. Actually, imperialism is often anti-capitalist because it has the government plan a foreign nation's economy. Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland are some of the most prosperous nations in Europe. Where were their colonial empires? Portugal, which started colonizing Africa centuries before Britian, France, and Germany, is the poorest country in Western Europe today.
@@Dennis-nc3vw There are different forms of imperialism. Military, political, cultural and economic. Look at Africa, since that was your example. Africa has riches, gold, diamonds, oil, rare earth minerals. Stands to reason that Africans should be very rich then. But they are not. Why? Who owns the oil? British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, etc. Same across the board, where their economy is foreign owned. In this way the richest countries extract wealth out of the colonies/neo-colonies. Africa and the rest of the third world see much more of capital leave their lands than retain capital. Regardless if that is done by conquest, covert coups or rip-off trade deals that is imperialism. The government in any society is a tool for the ruling class against other classes. In a feudal system the ruling class is the landed nobility who hold titles. The state allows them the titles and disciplines the peasants to work for these lords. In a slave state the government recognizes the ownership of slaves and sets up their courts and laws to uphold that system and the means (ownership of slaves) to that system. In capitalism the state recognizes private property of capitalists, protects the interests of the minority of haves against the majority of ain't gots. James Madison, author of the US constitution said as much in Federalist Paper 10. And as far as what imperialism does it does it in service of capital and finance. The whole point of having colonies is to extract wealth, resources and cheap labor but it is also to capture markets and force the colony/neocolony to buy your economy's products. Countries like Finland may not have a robust military, but when a Nokia cell phone is built they are getting Coltan from Congo for the microchips, they are getting cheap labor from the third world, etc, so that is extracting wealth through imperialism too, and I'm sure if NATO has something to gain from intervention to help Finland The will do so like they did in toppling Libya to get their gold from a puppet government they'll set up again. Look into the "Banana Wars" and "Banana Republics" to better understand the link between the gov't, imperialism and capitalism. Or take the words of General Smedley Butler:
"I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Also, I referenced James Madison, author of the Constitution and 4th president. He doesn't use the word "class" he uses the word "faction" but it means the same thing.
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens"
That means classes and class interests (or public versus special interests if you will).
"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views."
He admits the interests is between haves and have nots (the latter being "lesser interests").
"Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression."
Who is he talking about? Well we know the have nots are the majority, so when he speaks of the majority 's schemes of oppression, he isn't talking about the oppression of slaves by their owners or the exploitation of business owners of workers, he is talk about the idea of abolishing their means of exploiting others because that means to exploit others, ownership, is what he views as liberty, he is not concerned with the tyranny the underclass experiences from the ruling classes when they are able to order them around and exploit them.
"democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy,"
Here he makes it clear he doesn't want real democracy that works for the interest of the majority. Makes sense considering less than five percent of the public could even vote by the time the US held its first elections for president. The fear keeps coming up that if you let the have nots have their say in a pure democracy, the majority are not going to let the haves go one being so powerful, and why should any minority be more powerful than the majority?
@@AdanALW If Africans were really getting their resources sucked out of them, they would have very high GDPs but very low GNPs, but no such countries exist. If you want to know why Africa is failing, watch John Stossel's "lessons from Africa."
The main problem with your argument is poverty in the case of the indigenous Americans is due to the lack of private land ownership. Your focus has been on some of the poorest indigenous groups in America and ignores the tribes which are successful and also have tribal land. The black feet have reservations of oil and gas and have collected over 30 million dollars leases and bonus payments. The Sun Ute tribe operates and own five energy companies with an estimated worth of 4 billion dollars. What makes these 'socialist' tribes successful is ownership of their assets and the means of production. I could point to any of the most deprived cities in America and say all the issues they face are due to capitalism and ignore all successful regions to prove my point.
It seems to me that totalitarianism is the real issue. If countries have a blending of capitalism and socialism you get universal healthcare and the private businesses.
Very true. This is exactly what leaders like Pandit Nehru of India wanted.
Socialism is the worker ownership over the means of production. The means of production are what material things are needed for the production of commodities necessary for the functioning of society. Examples include natural recourses, land, factories, machinery, tools etc. Under capitalism the workers do not own the means of production, instead the capitalist class does. The capitalist class uses their ownership over the means of production (which their private ownership is ultimately backed up with state monopolized violence) to exploit workers for their labor because everyone needs to do labor with the means of production to produce all the things needed for society to function and so people can live their lives how they want. This exploitation happens through workers doing work with the means of production, so taking the material stuff, adding labor to turn it into something more useful, and thereby adding value to it. The product is owned by the capitalist (owners of the company) and then sold for a price that represents the value of the material stuff used to produce it and also the value of the labor used to produce it. Some of the money goes to covering the cost of the material stuff, and the rest, which again is the value of the labor, is appropriated by the capitalist and a small portion of it is paid back to workers as a wage. Capitalists want to suppress wages, and control more of the workers time and energy in order to accumulate more value for themselves so they can own more of the means of production (or more of the market basically). The capitalist class will also use the state to strip or withhold labor rights, to allow them to engage in environmentally destructive( but very profitable) practices, suppress worker strikes, produce intentionally inferior products that break down faster, get away with cutting back on safety measures in production, and also enforce neoliberal capitalism ideology, etc.
Wait, I missed this Marvel movie where Scarlet Witch pretends to be Hulk's relative and teams up with Hawkeye.
Many Americans do not know about the govt-created deprivation and suppression on American Indian reservations. Actually some of us see the Indian care-taking system totally run by govt operatives as a free ride for American Indians. They should live under the system to really know it. The totalitarian dominance of reservation residents is an in-humane tragedy for Western Indian-Americans and also a huge loss for the rest of us who lose their abundant creativity, intelligence and spirituality. This country has a long way to go to be a decent place for humans to live. Those who believe socialism is right for all people
don't really care if it is right for all people.
Socialism only seems to be a good fit for sociopaths and losers.
The guilt-tripping in public school on this issue is real. My English teacher (a Danish immigrant, so she doesn't feel the ancestral regret that she seemingly tried to drill into us) spent months of lessons on native Americans and their struggles, past and present. Most of the lessons on modern natives boil down to "we need to give the reservations more money because living conditions are squalid". It's so frustrating that things could be so much better if that wasn't the prevailing narrative in academia and social discourse.
the danes have a long history of colonizing many countries throughout the world, up until relatively recently, she has plenty of material to develop "ancestral regret".
Isn't imperialism and colonialism literally the opposite of what socialism stands for? I mean, the colonial projects that wrecked 90% of the world, including with the Native Americans, are a result of imperialism, which, in and of itself, is often motivated by capitalism. In fact, us socialists in North America are often very against this settler colonialism promoted by the United States through its native population. But, I guess you can't really trust a libertarian think tank when it comes to actually defining socialism.
Was the mongols capitalist?
Learn history man
@@AllAboutMMA Don't you know what the word "often" means? And, yes, a lot of the colonialism of the past 200-300 years were definitely motivated by Capitalism, as the colonial powers would often take resources (and even people) out of the region and sell them to other regions for profit. Like that's kinda Capitalist isn't it?
Imperialism was mainly driven by mercantilism and type of early controlled market
And still many imperial adventures were run by government owned companies and agencies such as the British east India company
He used the dictionary to define it.
I realized a couple of years ago that I knew nothing about how the federal, state, and the american territory systems actually worked. Thank you for a little insight. I still know nothing, but it is more than what I had before.
hi! long time follower and I have a few questions. i have very limited knowledge about American policies, but from the video how can you claim that this is socialism when the government that resides over the American Indians is the same capitalist and imperialist American Government? It has been stated that the government in charge of these lands and people is a government under America, not one independent from them. I think a better viewpoint to look at modern day, or what modern day socialism may look like is Porto Alegre of Brazil. They have practiced participatory democracy. Hoping to invite a healthy discussion for my genuine query.
So first off, the idea the Fed gov't is ever going to just "step out of the way and let the American Indians control themselves" is highly laughable. Right now roughly 50% of the US citizen population is begging for their very own constitutionality guaranteed rights to be stripped and to be governed harder. Secondly, unpopular opinion here. I honestly don't know a whole lot of Indian history, but what I do know I find interesting and admirable. That said what I would argue is in all of known human history only a handful of times have a conquered people been given "parts of they're former land and a handshake promise of protection" by their conquerors, and it has never benefited those people. Instead, those conquered people were almost 100% of the time either told to get out or assimilate, and I would argue both of those arrangements worked out far better than being nannied by your oppressors. The grave injustice here was not in the conquering of the American Indians themselves, as human history, including native history, is chock full of one group of people overwhelming another group for resources, but instead the injustice was not assimilating the American Indian into what is America citizenry today. Assimilation is not an erasure of your ancestry it is part of human evolution. I would be willing to bet a vast majority of the population of three reservations would rather be a part of the US economical workforce and citizenry than wards of the federal gov't living in poverty.
Then there needs to be no Chinatowns, Little Italys, Little Mexicos, etc. No cultural or ethnic group should be allowed to live in large communities with each other. What you're failing to grasp is many of them weren't "conquered". You're treating them like a homogeneous hive mind and they aren't. The Cherokee were not as an example. Most of the tribes that were moved to Oklahoma weren't conquered. The government said, we'll give you this land in exchange for that land because we need it for the growing population. They were moved, some forcibly so. Then the government breaks that agreement without a new one and starts seizing the land they had signed (not a handshake) an agreement/treaty for. This happened over and over. This idea that every tribe physically fought and resisted is completely false.
Edit: The Roman's conquered many people and didn't remove them from the land. They made them citizens with all the rights and privileges that entailed and it was successful. When did Germany replace the French, Polish, etc populations with Germans? You are poorly educated on history. The populations that lived there before are not usually displaced at all and only the government system they live under is changed, not the entire population. The Americas are a completely unique situation.
Some indian tribes assimilated, "westernized" or better said got "Civilized". However it was never about assimilation but about grabbing as much land or resources whenever it was needed.
The Massachusett tribe (This was pre-indepedance) converted to christianism, their good farming land and fishing spots were taken away regardless. They became "Praying Indians" confined to "Praying towns", remaining neutral in King's Philip war (An indian that adopted the name Philip before tensions escalated). They were so keen into remaining neutral that they surrendered their weapons to the english colonist. However even though they were neutral both English settlers (due to being overwhelmed with panic, hysteria, and anti-Indian sentiment) and Philip's raiding parties (due to them not joining the war against settlers) would attack and kill Massachisett indians in the Praying towns.
Lakota tribe were given the "Black Hills" as an arrangement to keep the peace, until gold was discovered in those hills. Which lead to the Great Sioux War. And yes, it is blalantly stated it was because of the gold.
Cherokee were "civilized", would dress like "white people" and have government. They have sovereignty over their land which was supported by the supreme court... until Andrew Jackson decided they shouldn't have sovereignty over their land. This was the time that the Indian removal act was ennacted and the trail of tears happened. And the official removal was put into effect when gold was discovered near Dahlonega, Georgia.
I could go on and on about it but the point is clear. Assimilation was not what they wanted on the contrary, assimilated Indians were a thorn in their side because not only would they know how to use guns but would require more legal paperwork to remove them from their land which is the solid evidence we have now of what happened back then.
@@debanydoombringer1385 you just literally said "not all were conquered", and then said they were moved to other lands "forcibly", i don't know your definition of conquered, but forcible relocation i would argue fits in that narrative. Then you go on about the Roman empire taking over cities and countries and making them citizens instead of removing them for their land and our worked out better for them, which is how assimilation works. And you called me uneducated even though your argument against mine is everything I just claimed? I never claimed the American Indian to be "one group", and I also said "generally" assimilation works. But only if assimilation is done in good faith by all parties involved. Relocating a tribe from one area to another another is not assimilating, it's exactly the same as is going on now, it's a reservation, relegating one group of people to their own land with each other, not within. And the idea that a group of people willingly took this option in lieu of having a war with another group that already defeated other groups with a carrot superior fighting power means they weren't conquered is nothing more than lying to yourself. If someone threatens to burn my house down, murder me and r*pe my wife and children if I don't move out, and I take that deal, I was defeated whether i fought or not. Lastly, your assertion that it is uniquely "America" is 100% false. It's the most recent recorded account, yes, but the idea every country/tribe in the world right now is in the exact location they've always been in since the dawn of time is the most ignorant argument I've ever heard. There's always been "first settlers", and almost none of them are still in their safe geographical location today as they've been wiped out or assimilated by another group. I mean he literally gives you another example of this happening in Australia with the Aborigines.
@@debanydoombringer1385 Your comment is mostly wrong. You contradict yourself and you made a comparison that is not at all the same. You should delete your comment and re write it to where it makes some consistent sense
@@debanydoombringer1385 by the way it did't work out for the romans, the giving away of citizenship is one of the main causes of the roman empire
Manifest Destiny is a real thing, and it doesn't even get mentioned here. Also overlooked, is even if we wanted to give lands back to Indian tribes, good luck sorting out which tribe actually owned what land. There were dozens of tribes all with claims over the same land. Doing so would trigger civil war among the tribes. Imagine turning on the news "Today, 38 people were killed and scalped over the battle of Tom's Pond" - Even for 1800, these people were still behind 200 years. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but lets not act like native indians were a group of peace loving pacifists that didn't have issues of their own. Issues that flat out weren't and aren't compatible with modern society.
I am glad someone with half a brain thinks about this, history isn't all black and white. If the shoe was on the other foot, and our ancestors in Europe were colonized instead, we'd have "advocates" today who claim that these tribes and their institutions are nothing but evil and racist, and Europe was filled with nothing but pacifists who didn't want to do any harm, and all wanted to work together. It's ridiculous. I saw another comment that said we are actually one of the few nations to give any sort of reparations to the natives here, so I suppose that makes the U.S better than all of Europe by the left's logic, but they absolutely hate the U.S still.
I think it's incorrect to imply nationalized resources are always bad, there are cases where it's necessary and done right. Some control over natural resources is necessary and even positive if done correctly. The fish/ocean come to mind as one such natural resource, where the government had to step in and take ownership to protect it from overfishing and destruction, saving a national resource. But this has evolved into a system where it prevents over exploitation, predicts ocean life populations over time, and even provides services to the businesses (ex: keeping track of alloted quotas, trading of quotas) rather than actively impeding them.
This is the only issue I had with the video, otherwise it was great and definitely has an important message!
Fishing is an awkward case because so much of it is done in a context where establishing a singular property right is difficult/impossible.
But state control is at best a necessary evil, and the incentives still aren't very well aligned.
Take as a comparison, private ownership over cattle or bison vs. state-owned animal husbandry.
In the private version, ranchers actively try to take care of their animals, breed them to increase the population, and carefully maintain their land because it's an investment and they want to be able to get value from their herds for decades to come.
But when people just hunt on state-owned land, everyone tends to just maximize what they extract and/or just evade regulators (ie. poach) whenever they can get away with it. I get the sense that fishermen are fairly law abiding in the US and Europe, but from previous work I've done I know that there's a lot of graft in fishing around Africa -- countries like Senegal will give licenses to European fishing companies who then extract basically everything they're allowed to, leaving little to nothing for local folks.
What would be better is to find a way to actually give property rights over territory in the ocean, but admittedly doing that might be really hard.
Wind River was a surprisingly fantastic movie - we went in not really knowing what to expect and were blown away by it. A great movie but it is one of those movies you remember very vividly but don't want to watch again because of the darkness of what takes place in it.
We werent declining We were thriving living life before the trespassers came
You have socialism in the US?!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
That was a good one, can you tell me another?
So-called capitalist economies has been controlled by the Central Banking system which according to Karl Marx himself in his Communist Manifesto is one of the key institutions required to achieve Communism i.e. centralisation of banking system in the hands of the state. Most laissez-faire fans tend to ignore this institution's role in stopping capitalist countries from becoming truly free market economies.
Indeed. Most American`s do not actually know what socialism actually is. It`s NOT Communism , as believed by most.
"-better off with no government at all."
*anarchists enter the chat*
Thank you for this video! My child went to a reservation as part of a volunteer group from our church. It was very eye-opening for him to see some of these differences. This video will make fantastic supplement to his experience.
I also think another major reason people still love Socialism, is because they're using a new definition of the word. True socialism as defined in the dictionary and history is something most people (even lefties) don't support. Every time you ask for a good example, they point to Norway, capitalist democracies with heavy social safety nets added. But they call that "Socialism" or "Democratic Socialism".
But what has happened is, they want to use the 'rebellious' and 'revolutionary' word Socialism without its baggage and only the good things that they _want_ it to mean. There's almost a religious zeal in insist on calling yourself a Socialist (and not what they actually mean: *a mixed economic system with a combination of free-market activity and government intervention* ) because it makes you feel like you're fighting for a "cause" and "fighting the system".
" mixed economic system with a combination of free-market activity and government intervention" and that is why social democrats are usually criticized in socialist circles. When they called themselves socialists they are correct, they just use the umbrella term. Same as a fascist might call themselves conservative even if most conservatives might not share their beliefs.
I would not normalise social democracy as real socialism, as in its current state it is just a form of liberal socialism (imo)