[at-l] Taking land in the name of the AT or the NA?

[Bror8588 at aol.com (Bror8588@aol.com)]

In a message dated 7/6/04 15:05:02 Eastern Daylight Time, RoksnRoots@aol.com 
writes:


> In a message dated 7/6/04 5:11:44 AM, lorac4491@linkamerica.net writes:
> 
> 
> > The loser here is the Preston Mountain Club and maybe the entire State of  
> > Connecticut -- or someone wish to debate that?  Looks like the AT wins all 
> > the way around from the article.
> 

Is there a treaty with this tribe that gives them guarantees for this land?  
Can the Manhattan Indians who sold Manhattan to the Dutch in the 1600s claim 
that they were cheated on its value and put in a claim?  Is the fact that there 
are reservations for the Native Americans enough to put to rest all of this 
21st century land grabbing?

And the biggest question of all:  Since Native Americans believed that they 
did not own any of the land (and thought that the selling of it to the 
Europeans was the best deal ever) why are their descendants now reclaiming what was 
originally not thought to be owned in the first place?  

Perhaps the ancient peoples had the right idea.  If a nation won a battle 
then to the victor went the spoils.  When the Chinese conquered Mongolia did they 
give those people tribute?  I don't think so.  In fact, they extracted taxes 
from them.  Of course, the Mongolians did conquer China and did the same.  
Those Khans conquered most of the Asian World from China, Korea, Japan, and east 
to Turkey and most of Eastern Russia but I haven't heard of any reparations 
being asked for.  Perhaps the philosophy was that if you lost a war then you 
lost and losing meant that you lost everything including freedom.  

Some nations subsumed those cultures that they conquered and freedom was not 
lost but dominance was.  In the U.S.A. there were a few cultures conquered: 
Native Americans, Mexicans, Southerners, etc., but the result was subsumation 
except in the case of the Native Americans where the result was isolation on 
Reservations.  

The AT has been established by the U.S.A. and more than a few geographical 
areas were taken to preserve the trail that so many love.  I understand that 
payment was rendered even though there were bitter feelings among those who 
"lost" their property.  While I am glad that the policy of Eminent Domain has 
provided for good hiking (and in other instances good projects of various 
dimensions) should not this policy extend to areas claimed by descendants of Native 
Americans from centuries past?  There are several "tribes" which have dubious 
origins but the Bureau of Indian Affairs (and just who is it that qualifies for 
having these affairs?) has an ongoing program of recognition even when the 
evidence is scanty.

Well, this is something to ponder on the trail and as you sit by the camp 
fire circle trying to think of a topic that will unify all who sit and play 
"Indians."

Skylander