Alan Aker's column in the Rapid City Journal today looks at the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which concerns ownership of the land in West River South Dakota.
Aker looks at a number of considerations involving the treaty, but points out a wide impasse between whites and Native Americans when it comes to how to best use this land:
Most whites in West River try not to think about the treaty, but tribal members revere it. It’s their hope for a better future and their comfort in bad times. I once participated in a set of meetings hosted by an out-of-state foundation. Our purpose was to discuss, frankly and privately, West River race relations. Our group included state legislators, business leaders, tribal officials, elders and the like.
We all got along great, and agreed on much, but when we discussed solutions, it was as if two separate conversations were occurring.
We whites would say something like, “you need jobs on the reservations,” and the Lakota responded that they needed their land back. We said they needed better law enforcement, and they replied that they needed their land back. We said they needed better schools, and they said they needed their land back. We said they needed more Indian-owned businesses, and they said they needed their land back.
A firm negotiation tactic, or short-sightedness?
Aker says his column next Sunday will take a look at what the treaty actually says. This is an area where I wish I knew more, so I look forward to Alan's column next week.
0 comments:
Post a Comment