Tribal Leader Interview

Food for thought.

A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.
George Bernard Shaw

Life is inherently risky. There is only one big risk you should avoid at all costs, and that is the risk of doing nothing.
Denis Waitley

Failure should be our teacher, not our undertaker. Failure is delay, not defeat. It is a temporary detour, not a dead end. Failure is something we can avoid only by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.
Denis Waitley

I would rather fail trying than succeed at doing nothing.
Denis Waitley

Criticism is something we can avoid easily
by saying nothing, doing nothing,
and being nothing.
Aristotle

^^^^^^^^ Well put Jon! I guess we all need to be reminded sometimes. Yes, I could not agree more!

Jon Jordan wrote:

Agree, Tom. Also the netters should be required to be tribal members who are 100% indian. Not someone who is 1% related to someone-white-guy with blue eyes and blonde hair. Or worse, just hired off the street to do the dirty work.

-J.

We have one of those in the family Jon. Every and any freebie offered by the good ol US of A and he’s right there at the head of the line.

“Doing something stupid is just plain stupid”-me

lancew wrote:

“Doing something stupid is just plain stupid”-me

Deeeeep…..

The thing about the racism card is that the Mille Lacs rules as they stand are a clear cut case of reverse racism against everyone not of Ojibway heritage. Same thing with the Casino’s. I don’t begrudge the Ojibway for taking full advantage of this reverse racism. If I were in their shoes I would see it from their perspective. Intellectually speaking I have done just that. That’s why I don’t begrudge them anything. Is it fair? No! Is it right? No! But Indians live in a prison most largely of their own making, but have the so called “White man” to blame. The victim mentality when you have someone else to blame and some of the blame is indeed justified is a very difficult mental trap to escape from. Go ask any alcoholic or drug user who started using because their parents sucked or the love of their life dumped them. Feeling sorry for yourself is a self and others loathing road to nowhere. You take what you can get along the way. But the same is generally true on a road to anywhere else whether it be a high or low road. You gladly take what you can get along the way. What separates the high roads from the low roads is how ethically you take what you can get.

I am fine with their treaty, but use the same means as they used when the treaty was signed. Carve that canoe out of an old tree and tow behind your hourse, with your hand woven net.

David Blais wrote:

I am fine with their treaty, but use the same means as they used when the treaty was signed. Carve that canoe out of an old tree and tow behind your hourse, with your hand woven net.

This opens a huge can of worms unfortunately.

ie: I am fine with the 2nd amendment, but that should apply to the firearms available when the amendment was signed. If you want to go hunting/shoot up your office then take that revolutionary war era musket and go to town.

Wasn’t it illegal for Indians to possess or use firearms AND alcohol when that treaty was signed?

I say if they want to live by the treaty, abide by as well.

I believe there were many other clauses and restrictions in the treaty that the tribes would not want enforced. The ruling was on a selective part of the treaty.

Give it a rest folks. When a non-indigenous person:

– offers an expert opinion on how the treaty should or shouldn’t be enforced; or

-tries to define what percentage of blue pigment a “native” is allowed to have in their eyeballs;

– or compares the struggles of resort/cottage owners to the plight of this country’s indigenous people;

– or insists that they too are a “Native American” since they were born here

I believe that only serves to reinforce the exact image that folks like Bradley Harrington are painting with a big ol’ broad brush.

EDIT: I’ll be clear, you guys have every right to the above beliefs and more. I just don’t see how re-hashing it again and again is helping anything or anyone.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Wasn’t it illegal for Indians to possess or use firearms AND alcohol when that treaty was signed?

I say if they want to live by the treaty, abide by as well.

Wasn’t it illegal for women to vote when the constitution was signed?

I don’t think these arguments go anywhere…

The entire problem with all of this is that the Ojibwe are not indigenous to the area, they are from the east coast and migrated to the area in the 1750s.
This area was originally indigenous to the Dakota.
The Ojibwe fought the Dakota and pushed them west.

The Ojibwe heritage at Mille Lacs is as old as the European heritage at Mille Lacs.

Even Wakon is a Dakota name.

This is all about the treaty and how it has created segregation and racism in this county.

gary_wellman wrote:

The entire problem with all of this is that the Ojibwe are not indigenous to the area, they are from the east coast and migrated to the area in the 1750s.

You’re splitting hairs; they’re indigenous to North America. The Anishinabe have been in North America since before 1600 BC. Whether they were in Main or Minnesota, they are still… NATIVE…AMERICANS.

Further, your facts needs some checking. The beginning of their westward migration started in 900 AD and took approx 500 years to reach our region. In 1400, or 92 years before that Chris Columbus fella sailed the ocean blue, they were living on Madeline Island. 140 years later the Europeans reached the Eastern end of Madeline Island, and the Anishinabe then migrated inland shortly thereafter.

gary_wellman wrote:

This is all about the treaty and how it has created segregation and racism in this county.

You can tell that story all you want. You’re entitled to your own opinion.

500 years.. they must have been starving when they finally got to the ooga….

pool2fool wrote:

they’re indigenous to North America

Indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

My understanding is we have scientifically proven we are all originated from the same place, regardless of whatever cultural, religious or geographical name we came to be known by later.

big_g wrote:

500 years.. they must have been starving when they finally got to the ooga….

You can argue about a lot of things but history has a funny way of not caring. Facts are facts.

BigWerm wrote:

Indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

My understanding is we have scientifically proven we are all originated from the same place, regardless of whatever cultural, religious or geographical name we came to be known by later.

This is actually a completely fascinating aspect of the argument to me and I appreciate that you’re bringing it up. I did read that article in the New York Times last year. It basically asserts that nobody is indigenous to any place in this world other than Africa. While that may be true, the term “indigenous” is widely used and accepted throughout the world; Humans may not be indigenous to North America in the same way a truly native tree or plant or animal is — but they were, by a long stretch, the first to call North America home. They settled in North America without disrupting any other humans’ existing way of life. That’s good enough for me.

You’re splitting hairs; they’re indigenous to North America. The Anishinabe have been in North America since before 1600 BC. Whether they were in Main or Minnesota, they are still… NATIVE…AMERICANS.

Are you stating the war between the Dakota and Ojibwe, fought in the Mille Lacs area, did not happen? And that the Dakota were not there before the Ojibwe?

Secondly,
That’s fine, if you want to classify Indigenous to the 7 Continents.
You can tell that story all you want. You are entitled to your own opinion.

some source material might be helpful here for reference so we are not trying to pass grandpas campfire stories along as fact.

gary_wellman wrote:

Are you stating the war between the Dakota and Ojibwe, fought in the Mille Lacs area, did not happen? And that the Dakota were not there before the Ojibwe?

I made no such statement. I never said the Ojibwe were innocent and perfectly peaceful people. However, from what I’ve read, the French were to blame for the conflict between these two. The tribes coexisted peacefully for quite some time and there were even inter-tribal marriages. The scarcity of fur-bearing animals basically led the French to instigate war between them, which drove the Dakota out.

What remains indisputable is that they were BOTH here (North America) long before Europeans were.

I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. Are you saying you’d be AOK with the treaty, netting, etc, if only it were the Dakota netting and not the Ojibwe? In terms of the health of the lake and the future of the walleye in Mille lacs, what’s the difference?

One can claim heritage… the other not so much. If the Ojibwe said, “we get the ooga because we kicked the Dakotas a55”, so be it.. and to that we say “touche’ no netting anymore”.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>
they’re indigenous to North America

Indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

My understanding is we have scientifically proven we are all originated from the same place, regardless of whatever cultural, religious or geographical name we came to be known by later.

What exactly does this argument mean? That no one has any claim to anything? I don’t see how it’s relevant.

Treaty was signed by our government, don’t be mad at the Natives about it. They got screwed for generations by white people, I’m surprised they even put an effort in to make themselves look good in this situation.

If the roles were reversed, we would net the lake dry and lay the dead fish on the side of 169 as a visible middle finger to everyone.

Or maybe we would just dump the rotting carcasses in the woods to be found?

big_g wrote:

. . .and to that we say “touche’ no netting anymore”.

Fair enough big_g. The problem with that is there is no “WE” and if there were, WE still don’t get a say. That’s just the way it is, Hornsby.

If the concern is Ojibwe vs Dakota then let’s start a civil discussion using the historic record as a guide, with the goal of restoring the Dakota to their proper place in the region. Including treaty rights to net. Something tells me the anti-Ojibwe contingent around here would pretty quickly morph into the anti-Dakota contingent.

some things will never change….

So, since we are picking on the poor natives maybe their supporters can answer this question.

Why is it they insist on netting during the spawn?
Do not tell me it doesn’t matter why because it’s their “right.” Could it be they net just to stir the pot and keep the flames burning? They certainly don’t need the fish. They could net prior to or after the spawn and collect the fish for their ceremonies.

I suspect it’s a great big f u to the whites who complain. OK, thats cool. Just don’t cry when we keep coming and keep coming after your golden goose. The day will come.

I’m outa this because the boys who want to stir the pot are back and they certainly don’t give a damn about what has transpired up there since the court case.

big_g wrote:

some things will never change….

I knew the name big_g was always a front, 2pac lives!!

nhamm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>big_g wrote:</div>
some things will never change….

I knew the name big_g was always a front, 2pac lives!!

Lol, have a feeling big_g ain’t no pac fan. Would he make it thru the first few lines, that’s my question.

Dutchboy wrote:

So, since we are picking on the poor natives maybe their supporters can answer this question.

Why is it they insist on netting during the spawn?
Do not tell me it doesn’t matter why because it’s their “right.” Could it be they net just to stir the pot and keep the flames burning? They certainly don’t need the fish. They could net prior to or after the spawn and collect the fish for their ceremonies.

I suspect it’s a great big f u to the whites who complain. OK, thats cool. Just don’t cry when we keep coming and keep coming after your golden goose. The day will come.

I’m outa this because the boys who want to stir the pot are back and they certainly don’t give a damn about what has transpired up there since the court case.

Yup when someone offers a differing view point they’re just stirring the pot, they could care less. Please. Maybe take a look at your signature and heed the advice from time to time friend?

The answer I have received from natives when asking why net during the spawn, is that’s when they’re consistently shallow enough and present in a density that allows netting. Never claimed to be an expert, that’s just what I’ve been told.

pool2fool wrote:

Fair enough big_g. The problem with that is there is no “WE” and if there were, WE still don’t get a say. That’s just the way it is, Hornsby.

If the concern is Ojibwe vs Dakota then let’s start a civil discussion using the historic record as a guide, with the goal of restoring the Dakota to their proper place in the region. Including treaty rights to net. Something tells me the anti-Ojibwe contingent around here would pretty quickly morph into the anti-Dakota contingent.

And what if none of them were here until Asian blood crossed the land bridge between Alaska and the Asian continent? There is that theory.

And none of either tribe here today can validate anything that happened 500 years ago. Its amazing that in the 21st century that only one aspect of modern society, native , is so unwilling to change, or conform to today’s way or life, except when it shoves blatant prejudice down the throat of every other race in this country to get something for nothing using tools way outside of the realm of any treaty.

And for those who think these native have been so put upon, what would have happened to the mother and child if she had a blue eyed sweetie come pop into the world back then, loving caring people that they say they were?

Tom Sawvell wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>
Fair enough big_g. The problem with that is there is no “WE” and if there were, WE still don’t get a say. That’s just the way it is, Hornsby.

If the concern is Ojibwe vs Dakota then let’s start a civil discussion using the historic record as a guide, with the goal of restoring the Dakota to their proper place in the region. Including treaty rights to net. Something tells me the anti-Ojibwe contingent around here would pretty quickly morph into the anti-Dakota contingent.

And what if none of them were here until Asian blood crossed the land bridge between Alaska and the Asian continent? There is that theory.

And none of either tribe here today can validate anything that happened 500 years ago. Its amazing that in the 21st century that only one aspect of modern society, native <em class=”d4pbbc-italic” i=”on’t”>, is so unwilling to change, or conform to today’s way or life, except when it shoves blatant prejudice down the throat of every other race in this country to get something for nothing using tools way outside of the realm of any treaty.

And for those who think these native have been so put upon, what would have happened to the mother and child if she had a blue eyed sweetie come pop into the world back then, loving caring people that they say they were?

I think the new DNA evidence published last year would say they came from Africa to Asia before North America. Doesn’t change the fact they predate Europeans by a long shot.

I can’t comment on your disbelief of the historical record.

nobody ever called them loving or caring, please don’t put words in my mouth. There is an ugly element to every cultural history. Am I supposed to ignore the fact that Europeans methodically rooted natives out by pitting them against one another, giving them guns and booze and letting them go at it, all because you infer that they frowned on inviting European blood into their tribe?