Resorts & Lodging
Fishing Guides
Bait & Tackle Shops
Products & Services
Important Links
Classified Ads
Contact Us & More
Minnesota Fishing Reports



« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 9 10 »



Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
05/07/2008
From Cambridge, MN
Posts: 639
Where do you think Welfare goes, that you pay for, not True Americans rather the non ability to assimilate to what America is, Going to change soon.
Tim

Posted on: 9/12 13:25:24
_________________
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 118
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.

Posted on: 9/12 13:31:21
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
01/14/2013
From Manitowoc county
Posts: 223
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.



Natives got the better end of the deal. Name one other country where the indigenous people who were conquered were not forced to assimilate? Both parties would be better off if that happened. Sorry its a law of nature the stomger and smarter survive. This post is not intended to be anyway racist.

Posted on: 9/12 14:51:30
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
01/14/2013
From Manitowoc county
Posts: 223
Double post

Posted on: 9/12 14:52:22
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 118
Quote:

jriegel wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.



Natives got the better end of the deal. Name one other country where the indigenous people who were conquered were not forced to assimilate? Both parties would be better off if that happened. Sorry its a law of nature the stomger and smarter survive. This post is not intended to be anyway racist.


But the Bands were never conquered. The records make it very clear that we wanted to avoid war and wanted to peacefully acquire the land.

Could we have conquered them? Maybe. But at a great cost. Including the potential loss of the iron range to Great Britain. We did not want to go that route.

Posted on: 9/12 15:17:13
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
08/08/2015
Posts: 160
Quote:

jriegel wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.



Natives got the better end of the deal. Name one other country where the indigenous people who were conquered were not forced to assimilate? Both parties would be better off if that happened. Sorry its a law of nature the stomger and smarter survive. This post is not intended to be anyway racist.


It doesn't matter about assimilation of a people. A treaty was signed with a sovereign nation. This is no different than a treaty with Mexico or Canada. Short of another that would supersede the previous one we must honor these treaties.

Posted on: 9/12 15:18:57
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
01/14/2013
From Manitowoc county
Posts: 223
Quote:

otter wrote:
Quote:

jriegel wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.



Natives got the better end of the deal. Name one other country where the indigenous people who were conquered were not forced to assimilate? Both parties would be better off if that happened. Sorry its a law of nature the stomger and smarter survive. This post is not intended to be anyway racist.


It doesn't matter about assimilation of a people. A treaty was signed with a sovereign nation. This is no different than a treaty with Mexico or Canada. Short of another that would supersede the previous one we must honor these treaties.



I understand a treaty was signed, he asked.who got the better deal and i answered.

Posted on: 9/12 15:26:36
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
01/05/2008
From St. Paul, MN
Posts: 2007
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:

As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.



The better end of the deal went to the Indians who get to have all the protections the constitution affords everyone else AND they still get to live under their own rules and regulations. They also get to have a monopoly on casinos in MN raking in millions if not billions and pay nothing (other than political money) and still get millions of dollars in "aid" from US taxpayers.
We now have land the politicians won't allow to be mined for the natural resources it holds and the Indians are laughing at us while they net walleyes that have helped ruin a lake and hunt moose that no one else can hunt because their population is too low. We as US citizens don't have any "special rights" other than the right to pay taxes to support the Indians.

Posted on: 9/12 17:16:07
_________________
Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something - Ron Swanson
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
02/05/2010
Posts: 135
Quote:

jriegel wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.



Natives got the better end of the deal. Name one other country where the indigenous people who were conquered were not forced to assimilate? Both parties would be better off if that happened. Sorry its a law of nature the stomger and smarter survive. This post is not intended to be anyway racist.


Australia!

Posted on: 9/12 18:47:54
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
12/07/2012
Posts: 1146
We stole the land.(easiest way to say it)To me assimilate means to do so by free-will not force.There are things "events"in history that no matter how you slice it it is still WRONG.You're debating about who got the best deal in the treaty signing???????????Give me a break you really think the Natives think they got anything worth while out of that?BTW most of the welfare( 70 percent+)go to non minorities of this nation.Be careful when you claim only the strong survive.Strength comes in many different forms.c63

Posted on: 9/12 20:08:46
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer



« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 9 10 »




[Advanced Search]


 

 
Copyright 2004-2013 Lake State Fishing P.O. Box 577 Deerwood, MN 56444 612-414-5593
All logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. |  Lake State Fishing |   Login lakestatefishing.com Facebook Page lakestatefishing.com Twitter Page lakestatefishing.com LinkedIn Page lakestatefishing.com YouTube Page