Maybe it’s a bad idea to hand over an American national park
What if the culture of the great acupoints can no longer protect each other’s historical sins? The question is almost non-theoretical. The Middle East provides immediate answers: territory, tribal affiliation, religion, and lasting resentment and war on past mistakes. But that question applies in recent years, gradually but relentlessly, when investigating the fire of dissatisfaction that has broke out in the United States. This month, the Atlantic sprayed a new accelerator on the cultural fire in its cover story, “Returning National Parks to Tribes.” Written by prolific writer and member of the Ojibwe tribe, David Troyer presupposes that white settlers and weapons from the U.S. government have driven Native American tribes out of their lands and brought national parks to this territory. I made it. Nineteenth century. The details of these campaigns are jarring. About bloodshed prior to the founding of Yosemite: The Mariposa battalion came to Yosemite to kill the Indians. The Miwok tribe of Yosemite, like many indigenous peoples of California, thwarted the frenzy of extraction brought about by the gold rush. .. .. .. When about 200 soldiers of the Mariposa battalion were armed with rifles and marched to Yosemite, they were unaware that the Miwok were enthusiastic about the battle. .. .. .. They used the embers of the tribe’s own campfire to burn Wigwam, indiscriminately shoot fleeing villagers, and kill 23 people. By the end of the militia campaign, many of the surviving Miwok had been expelled from their hometown of Yosemite for thousands of years and settled in the settlement. 39 years later, Yosemite became the fifth national park. And before that, Yellowstone: In 1864, on the other side of the Sand Creek Plains in Colorado, Colonel John Chivington slaughtered and cut off as many as 500 Native Americans. Only four years before Yellowstone was born, Native Americans, led by Red Cloud, stagnated the U.S. government and subsequently forced Americans to make concessions at the treaty table, but these too eventually. Was not done. The proposed solution has been clarified. “For Native Americans, there can be no better remedy for land theft than land, and for us, no land is as spiritually important as a national park. They should be returned to us. India One needs to re-maintain, protect and preserve these preferred gardens. “Certainly, as part of the formation and expansion of the United States, tribes have been expelled, killed and humiliated from their lands. Given and deceived is indisputable. In addition, the more admirable qualities of the Atlantic include the historical willingness to challenge the wisdom of traditional factions, a trend that has declined in recent years and otherwise shakes things. The current cover story is similar to the 2014 Ta-Nehisi Coates cover, claiming compensation. If I could borrow Kamala Harris’ favorite Dodge, that meant “starting a conversation.” But in reality, we already have that conversation. The screaming match really ends with riots, widespread distrust of the institution, and demands for compensation. The latest entry still escalate proximity. One of the problems with this particular and fairly extreme proposal is that the sins of the park are interwoven with the sins of America itself. In fact, the same work suggests a true theft that should probably be justified under the same logical framework. “In 1491, the indigenous people dominated all 2.4 billion acres of the United States. Today we control about 56 million acres, or about 2 percent.” By the way, the violent edge of Westworld in the United States. Do the entire generation, generations away from, need to vacate suburbs and cities to recover the remaining 98 percent? Why not? It will cause a civil war. Or is it enough to turn 85 million acres of national parks back into a “federal-approved tribal consortium in the United States” to address these mistakes? Mathematically speaking, it deals with 3.5 percent of these mistakes. That’s too much, not enough. I’m not confident, but I don’t think this will be seriously enjoyed at any policy level. This work has already met the enthusiastic approval of social media. Return the land! it is a good feeling. I participated in “conversation”. Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Earlier this month, the House Commission submitted a bill to create a commission to study compensation for black Americans. A few weeks ago, the Biden White House upheld the idea. Last month, the city of Evanston, Illinois, approved the first compensation in the country, promising $ 10 million over 10 years. Virginia will also demand several public universities built on the basis of slave labor to compensate for their offspring. Compensation for Native Americans came out easily during the 2020 presidential election. That we are not our father must be a fairly simple concept. Inevitably, functional societies must demonstrate the ability to move beyond the sins of the past, not strictly from size. We are particularly miserable, but we are rarely alone in the communities of countries, including groups that have the right to have a grudge against each other. What sets America apart is the willingness to embark on building something for ourselves, for our families, and for each other, without feeling the need to wave the sectarian flag. Partisans and religious and racial tensions have certainly not left us in the last few years. But our leaders, our officials, and our respected media have refused to extinguish the embers and exacerbate them by facilitating the acceptance of intergenerational dissatisfaction. Looks like hell. This is a dangerous road. And the concept of the alliance is that there is an army of enablers who are willing to amplify the cry of every rally, such as the cover of the Atlantic Ocean, even if only to prove their spirit. Means This is happening now. Indeed, Native Americans are in a unique tension compared to other minority groups, but their numbers have grown to about the same level as the Jewish-American population. With the exception of the frequently documented struggle between substance abuse and unemployment, many live in lands trusted and controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But what specific problem does the delivery of the national park fix? Given that the park’s proposal includes the same rigorous protection standards currently applied by the federal government, it provides the tribe with significant space for additional development of homes and businesses. there is no. This plan provides “free access” to the tribe’s hometown, but beyond that it means, above all, a symbolic restoration. Yosemite National Park, California. Euphoria quickly gives way to the hassle of maintenance — let’s start with a trail of about 20,000 miles, not to mention the unprocessed portion of a significant repair — the government of a country with this kind of task, eg, the ability to deficit -Finance is getting better handled. Washington isn’t doing a lot well, but broadly speaking, despite its untreatedness, park management isn’t one of them. A 2019 NPS survey found that 98% of park visitors were satisfied with their “facility, service and recreational opportunities.” For comparison, Congressional approval assessments are currently hovering in the 1930s, after approving trillions of COVID bailouts. Practical complications follow. Troyer writes that, under his suggestion, the federal government will continue to provide some funding to maintain the park and keep visitor fees low, and the tribes will always allow “universal access.” .. Thank you, but what if, for example, there is a dispute over the size of federal payments? New custodians can easily use leverage to block access without being accountable to taxpayers. This kind of standoff makes the government shutdown of the last decade look, well, a walk in the park. (In this scenario, this article cites a member of the MHA nation who dismissed concerns that tribes would block access.) Forest management, wildlife management, and other routine park management. Can you maintain a consistent feature policy under a “consortium”? Tribal “? However, the fundamental concern here is not the solution of the problem, but the direction of the domestic debate towards the creation of a new problem. And rest assured, 85 million acres of wholesale delivery will create a new one. Like $ 14 trillion in damages. We have come a long way from JFK’s “don’t ask” appeal to the national spirit. Where is my work? Summarize the zeitgeist more appropriately. We vs. them. See this quote from the author about how the “White Park Ranger” taught me how to interact with land that was “mine” rather than the United States. We consider national parks to be a pristine plot of nature’s wonders. The story ignores the people who first lived there, says Ojibwe historian @DavidTreuer. He talks to correspondent @TracieHunte in the latest episode of #TheExperimentPodcast. https://t.co/9xNiR0cbOF pic.twitter.com/VWjWEuHufm — Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) April 16, 2021 Your? Privileged people like the author of this work in National Review may think they like the status quo. However, there are no special privileges here. Only the ability to drive to the park, pay a small fee, and maybe rent a lot of soil to serve as a home base. No one has that ability, in any color, in any tribe, or at all. The park system, despite driving its bloody past, is a national donation and not another frontier of an expanding cultural war. For their beauty and management, the park is the best that the world has to offer. Certainly “America’s best idea”. Have you ever seen the brilliance of sunbathing on the rusty hoodoos of Bryce Canyon? Zion’s deeply carved peak? Appalachia’s spine running in Shenando and the vast, almost spiritual Death Valley? If not, get out there. You really should. And in such a majestic and fortunate country, one might wonder if it’s time for the descendants of our turbulent founding story to keep peace. It always tells you a little like a “COEXIST” bumper sticker.