Barometer for The Future

[stebo0728]

Ive been putting alot of thought into this topic since I saw a John Stossel special about "Freeloaders". Say what you like about Fox News, but John Stossel hits home, and he hits it hard. The special covered many areas, from pan-handlers, to corporate welfare, and "strategic" foreclosures. But one area in particular caught my interest. The handling of native americans. I believe native americans, or their current status, to be a barometer for our future, a future with unbridled government interference and control. The native americans have become a "ward of the state" so to speak. Now dont get me wrong, the native americans were done wrong, no doubt, buy lets look at how we've rectified it. They model the very type of government "nanny-ism" that we are headed for. They receive the most aid from the government of any group in our nation, yet they are the most poverish. The bulk of their existence is to seek further aid from the government, while ignoring their own plight. Now contrast that to the Lumbee Tribe in Pembroke, SC. They are not recognized as a tribe by the US, and as such, dont receive any aid, but you can look at them, and not have a clue that they are natives, they have adapted, and have made their own way. I'm afraid with out nanny-ism increasing every day, that you can look at this barometer and get a good idea of what life will look like under a heavily controlled society, with little incentive to be anything other than what you have to be to get by.

Any thoughts?

[donandal]

my grandfather used to say the dirtiest trick ever played on somedody was welfare !

[mattblancarte]

John Stossel hits home, and he hits it hard.

Totally agree. He put on a great show regarding the drug war. Huge fan of his!

I don't have time to really put together a response that would seem anything better than "half-assed," so I will just lurk this thread for the most part.

More or less, I agree with your sentiments. Safety nets make people comfortable and can lead to underachievement. There is a fine line between a helpful social/economic/infrastructure and a hurtful one.

That said, I think a lot of people out there are literally incapable of taking care of themselves. Often, it's because of physical and mental defects.

[IBCoupe]

In other news, the Trail of Tears will know be referred to as the Waltz of Welfare.

[stebo0728]

In other news, the Trail of Tears will know be referred to as the Waltz of Welfare.

Hey throw emotion into the mix all you like, it doesnt change the fact that we've done the natives a huge disservice in making them dependant on the government. Short of saying we're sorry, packing up, and going the hell back to Europe, the best we can do is help them to acclimate to our society, to become a functional part of society. And we best learn a lesson about what government control can do to society. Im not saying we didnt do them wrong, Im not saying we dont owe them something for what we put them through, but making them a ward of the state certainly doesnt improve their situation.

[AppleBonker]

Stebo, isn't this a more complex issue than you're making it out to be? They had a much different lifestyle. Their land was stolen, they were massacred, and eventually they were given small plots of land to live on. Now, we expect them to adapt to OUR lifestyle in order to survive in a society that WE forced them in to (not that they CHOSE to enter)? Convenient idea. You do raise a valid point, however. We've already forced them to accept our way of living, so might as well let them do it on their own now. They've had enough time. And if they don't like it, they could've fought harder all the years ago...

[stebo0728]

Well you are correct as far as it being a tad more complex of an issue, but that doesnt change the dynamics. I mean literally, short of packing up and leaving, theres no way we can completely atone, so short of that we have to do the best we can do, and making them wards does them a continual disservice.

[IBCoupe]

What Adam said.

[AppleBonker]

But you are using data that isn't really applicable to try to extrapolate your point out across the masses. The disservice to the Native Americans was destroying their way of life and rendering it unsustainable. Sure, they might be able to survive better in our society if they adapt and adopt our culture, but how can you ask that of people? That seems particularly cruel (forcing others into your belief system). And maybe you're measuring the success of the tribe by our society's metrics rather than theirs. Sure, they might be more "successful" by your metrics if we force them to assimilate. But then we've wiped out what little of their culture remains. While I understand that we aren't going to "pack up and leave", it seems like it could be reasonable to allow them to at least TRY to live the lifestyle they believe in.

Oh, and comparing the poverty of Native Americans to that of inner-city Americans (or whatever) isn't even like comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to crayons. Though, I've seen you do this before; you take one small sample of data and try to use an analysis of that over a much more widespread sample. That's just not how things work. If the ONLY variable here was government assistance and we were using that to determine the impact on poverty levels, you might have a point. But I find it hard to believe that you would actually argue that as the ONLY variable. Don't you think it might be a bit disingenuous to ignore all of the other variables in this case?

[IBCoupe]

Well you are correct as far as it being a tad more complex of an issue, but that doesnt change the dynamics. I mean literally, short of packing up and leaving, theres no way we can completely atone, so short of that we have to do the best we can do, and making them wards does them a continual disservice.

I really think the plight of native Americans has less to do with government handouts and more to do with, as a collective, being handed a crappy hand.

Don't worry, though, they're marrying themselves out of existence. The problem will solve itself.

http://www.npr.org/story/134421470?url= ... ts-at-risk

[Eikon]

K.. I'm going to go off on a rant about Native Americans, but I want to preface it so that i'm not accused of being racist or something like that.. To be clear, I am not judging any individual. I have some dear friends and respected mentors who are native american, and I hold no ill will toward them individually. My judgment is on the society and group as a whole based on personal observation and experience. Think of it as me saying I dislike San Francisco because it's too liberal,.. I'm not saying I hate any specific individual.. just the collective...

Historically speaking, the native Americans have been treated well. Again, i say historically speaking... If you were to study history you would see hundreds of examples of the weaker society being assimilated into the dominant society. If they didn't like it, they were displaced, disbursed or even exterminated.

Did the Aztecs take over a neighboring region, but then give the residents a plot of land to remain their own? Then on top of that give them welfare, tax forgiveness, free education, rights to commerce not granted to others (Casinos), etc... I don't think so!!!
How about the "barbarians vs. Romans".. how did those fights turn out for the losing groups? Chinese vs. Tibet? How many neighboring tribes did the Zulus wipe out? The Mongols? So then, were the American settlers any different from other examples of a dominant civilization? Well, yes actually.. They gave the conquered tribe land reserves, and the numerous benefits available in the new culture, PLUS they gave them reparations and a number of benefits that were over and above what the normal members of the society got.

So if you look at things from a historical context, the treatment of the native Americans is probably not so terrible. Sure, there were some atrocities.. Sure, there was some dishonesty... They were taken advantage of.. But, they were not treated any worse than any other weaker nation in comparison to the rest of human history.

With that out of the way... lets get back to the original point of the thread.. I completely agree that the condition of the native american tribes is a good bellweather for how welfare really affects people.

Here's my personal experience with Native American society... (NOTE that I talk about society and not any specific individual... I have had friends who are Native American and they are wonderful people.. I do not judge them on a personal level... I only state what I see on a collective and societal level)
I lived in Green Bay, WI for more than 10 years. The Western suburbs of the city are part of the Oneida Nation. So, I had ample opportunity to observe how the tribe works and how they interact with society. I was even an employee of the Oneida Casino for a while... I was constantly frustrated with the incredible advantages that they got over the rest of us. They got a ton of welfare money, they got free cash disbursements from the profits of the casino, they got jobs with higher pay rates, more holidays, more benefits, etc.. without having to earn any of it. They don't have to pay income taxes or property taxes.. They get free tuition to any state university, plus a number of scholarships that apply only to them. They didn't even have to pay sales tax on automobiles or other big purchases. AND YET.. the crime rate, alcohol and drug abuse, and basic poverty level was significantly higher than that of the society around them. Way to go welfare! Why should they try to earn anything when it is given to them for free? Why should they better themselves when they can live the easy life and take handouts? Why should they bother to buy their kids new clothes or even shoes to wear to school? They are guaranteed a free ride in life so they don't care... in fact, they take it the other direction and abuse everything they have and actually make things worse for themselves. What a tragedy!!!!

What really sucks is that when the tribe buys land, it removes that land from the city and county tax rolls. To make up for the lost revenue from those property taxes, the city and county have to increase property taxes on everyone else. So the native americans get the benefit of the schools, roads, police, sewer and water, garbage collection, libraries and other things funded by property taxes, but they don't pay for it... in fact, the rest of us had to pay MORE because of it.

Reparations for the crimes of the past should be more than paid for by now. None of the living members of those societies experienced the terrible things that were done to them.. They now have a significantly greater advantage in life than they would have had outside of American culture. To that point, they have significantly greater advantage in life than the rest of us!

I'm a parent.. I want my sons to be great people. So, I refuse to coddle them. They learn to work and they learn the value of the reward for the work performed, they learn to be responsible, they learn that to get ahead they have to earn it. Because they learn these things, they will be great people. If raised them on the couch and brought them everything they needed for their entire lives, they would be worthless. It's time our society figured that out... Save welfare for those who really need it and teach the rest of them how to earn what they get in life.

[Eikon]

Oh, and comparing the poverty of Native Americans to that of inner-city Americans (or whatever) isn't even like comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to crayons.

This is a very good point!

[AppleBonker]

Seth, the only problem I have with your post is that I'd like to think that as a country we are far more compassionate than those ancient societies you mentioned. All of those conquered peoples were forced into assimilation (if they were still alive), but the victors were generally far more barbaric in many ways. I personally don't want to see any society regress to those standards.

And with that, I definitely don't have an answer I like to this situation. Though I have a hard time agreeing that welfare/handouts are the causes of their issues. It may be true that they are far more impoverished and have a higher drug/crime rate. I just don't know that I've seen enough data to personally conclude that this is a result of nothing other than said handouts. I've also seen nothing that would prove that eliminating the handouts would eliminate those problems.

[stebo0728]

Very well said Eikon, the only thing I would add, is that the land they are provided is then placed under tribal control, and subject to the whims of the tribal leaders. There have been many cases of people removed from their land by their own tribal leaders, in order to place a closer relative or friend on that land. The displaced individual has no avenue for justice, as the tribal leaders have the say, and the courts dont have any jurisdiction to intervene.

I appreciate your assessment of history in comparison to the treatment of the natives and agree. It doesnt excuse our action to say that, "well hey they had it better than people in the past did", but even still, I would completely agree that whatever needed to be done on our part to correct it, its been done at least 10 fold.

Apple, Im not trying to discount other variables, but welfare by far is the largest variable here. Its like dont physics and calculating drop speeds based on gravity and mass, sure wind resistance is there, and even the unconstant value of gravity, but those variables are so minute that they dont play into the calculations nearly as strongly, and often are disregarded except for the most precise of calculations. Sure inner cities have different dynamics at play than native reservations, BUT, human nature is the same, as Eikon laid out, handing things out forces the worthless nature of humanity to come to the surface. When you dont HAVE to work to make it, you WONT work, especially when that mentality becomes 3 or 4 or more generations engrained into your psyche. Welfare has not gotten to the magnitude anywhere else that it is on these reservations, but when it does, I guarantee things will look the same as they do in these reservations.

[AppleBonker]

Im not trying to discount other variables

Yes, you are (especially with this comparison):

those variables are so minute that they dont play into the calculations nearly as strongly, and often are disregarded except for the most precise of calculations

but welfare by far is the largest variable here

Stating an opinion as fact? Have anything that backs up this assertion?

Its like dont physics and calculating drop speeds based on gravity and mass, sure wind resistance is there, and even the unconstant value of gravity, but those variables are so minute that they dont play into the calculations nearly as strongly, and often are disregarded except for the most precise of calculations

And I can easily calculate their influence in those calculations, which will then allow me to determine if they can be considered negligible and disregarded. The current topic of discussion isn't so simple...

Sure inner cities have different dynamics at play than native reservations, BUT, human nature is the same, as Eikon laid out, handing things out forces the worthless nature of humanity to come to the surface. When you dont HAVE to work to make it, you WONT work, especially when that mentality becomes 3 or 4 or more generations engrained into your psyche

And I will still claim there is insufficient data to support this claim. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

[IBCoupe]

I think, Stebo, that Adam's saying he's not convinced that it's the largest factor. And what you've just done is reassert that it is. I don't see progress in this conversation being made through that route.

You've done an excellent job of restating the theory behind your claim, though.

[AppleBonker]

I think, Stebo, that Adam's saying he's not convinced that it's the largest factor. And what you've just done is reassert that it is. I don't see progress in this conversation being made through that route.

This. If the handouts issue did turn out to be the key variable in question, I would be inclined to agree with Stebo on the need to make changes.

[stebo0728]

Ok, I'll say it again .... j/k

So we've framed it up well, is welfare really the culprit or not? The only thing I can add to that, was also in the Stossel special. Contrast the welfare tribes to the non-welfare tribes, one in particular, the Lumbee in Pembroke, SC. They have acclimated, you cant look at them and say, gee theres some more natives. I understand the other tribes may have some desire to retain their culture and heritage, but culture and heritage dont necessarily have to be sacrificed, merely modified to meet the challenges of the day. They can still run around a fire and pop their own mouths on the weekend if they like, but gotta work during the week now. I dont know if the Lumbee, and their success compared to the plight of the rest is necessarily what you're looking for, in fact, im not at all sure exactly what proof would appease you, and to that I can only say, I would repeal the welfare on principle. On the principle that its no longer owed to them, and its no longer necessary. Will thy b*tch and moan? Sure, so does Mr. Sheen when you take his coke.

I guess my philosophy is: use welfare only when its proven absolutely necessary, rather than: use welfare until its proven absolutely unnecessary

And that applies across the board, not just to native americans.

[AppleBonker]

So we've framed it up well, is welfare really the culprit or not? The only thing I can add to that, was also in the Stossel special. Contrast the welfare tribes to the non-welfare tribes, one in particular, the Lumbee in Pembroke, SC. They have acclimated

I'll go ahead and stop you there, as that was precisely my point. You are suggesting yourself that the level of acclimation to our society may be key variable. In fact, your statement asserts that there may be a direct relationship between welfare needs/grants and level of acclimation. Which controls the other? Force them to acclimate and they wont need welfare? Or kick them off welfare and they'll be forced to acclimate? Either way, my issue is still the forced assimilation to our culture. As I've stated a million times before, I will NEVER agree with someone who tells me they know what is best for another person. Sure, if you pull the welfare away from them, they will have a choice between assimilating and perishing. But the option that they may want more is to continue living life as they always have (before any European exploration of North America). This is the option that has been stripped from them.

I understand the other tribes may have some desire to retain their culture and heritage, but culture and heritage dont necessarily have to be sacrificed, merely modified to meet the challenges of the day

Again, one of my key issues. What gives you the right to tell them what they must do?

On the principle that its no longer owed to them, and its no longer necessary

According to whom?

I guess my philosophy is: use welfare only when its proven absolutely necessary, rather than: use welfare until its proven absolutely unnecessary

Well, then, I guess you best start proving it absolutely unnecessary...

[IBCoupe]

Contrast the welfare tribes to the non-welfare tribes, one in particular, the Lumbee in Pembroke, SC. They have acclimated, you cant look at them and say, gee theres some more natives. I understand the other tribes may have some desire to retain their culture and heritage, but culture and heritage dont necessarily have to be sacrificed, merely modified to meet the challenges of the day.

That kind of thing might work with a confirmation bias, Stebo, but you're drawing a comparison to a tribe that really only "exists" recently and trying to extrapolate differences between them and tribes on reservation. Again, you're trying to point at one of many differences and claiming it's the driving factor.

In fairness, you did say you weren't sure if this would be sufficient evidence.

They can still run around a fire and pop their own mouths on the weekend if they like, but gotta work during the week now.

Gee, Howie, it's a good thing you're not talking about Pakistanis, or else there might be a gang-up on you! Dodged that bullet.

[szh]

Howie probably does not travel to American Indian lands either.

Z