Hacker News Reader

Somethings have improved (the Tribal Community College system), and some things haven't or have gotten worse (Indian Health Service). The DoD money that helped build some industry dried up with the defense cuts in the 90's and never came back. Also, it probably doesn't help that certain institutions of higher learning don't recruit from the tribal schools and then give scholarships meant for Native Americans to non-natives (proof of tribal enrollment is quite easy to get). Also, some of the federal districts will not bring charges against non-natives who commit robbery on the reservation, and at the same time will not do the due diligence in investigating native-on-native crimes.

Enforcing the rules, continued support of the expansion of tribal colleges, understanding state money rarely gets to tribes regardless of what the bill says, and actually funding the healthcare might be a nice step forward. Please note, whatever your opinion on the PPACA, it excludes tribes (yes, I read the whole bill). Also, understanding that no bank is going to loan money for housing on a reservation and doing something at the federal level might be a nice thing.

There are some amazing bright spots, but the northern plains is a bit far from them.

AFAIK, banks can't loan for reservation housing because enrolled members don't own the land, they have a long term lease.

No, the tribal members do own the land, its just unlikely that a bank could ever foreclose because of the tribes involvement and how tribal land works. Non-tribal members get leases. The federal land rules are archaic and work against the tribal members.

Have some of the wealthier tribes fixed this problem for themselves? If they can't create a tribally-funded financial arrangement that makes a bank happy, couldn't the tribe just do the lending?

Of course, not every tribe has a casino, but if those that do had innovated in this area, we'd have a better idea of the best direction for federal funding.

Even tribes with casinos aren't rich[1][2], and yes the tribes that have cash generally give enough to their members to build the houses without loans or do some short term loans. Some have their own banks / credit unions. Sadly, a lot of the plains tribes are not in that situation.

1) most tribes were sent away from cities which makes casinos problematic, but it didn't hurt on the natural resource front for some

2) I still think the tribal pact with North Dakota that you cannot directly pay members (imagine a business that couldn't pay its owner) is the purest form of evil

Prairie nigger" is a term that got thrown around--and wasn't objected to by a sitting US senator.

Which Senator? (For my notes).

Conrad Burns: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/19/opinion/weirder-and-weirde...

This guy is a comically nasty piece of work. His wikipedia article lists a bunch of controversies ranging from racism to corruption, and including... removing criticism from wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Burns#Controversies

Fascinating. Thanks!

>New Zealand is far from perfect, but from my observations there, engagement with Māori is miles better than anything here.

There appear to be are more Maori per capita than American natives (according to Wikipedia about 14.6 percent in the latter case and less than 2 percent in the former - I'm assuming these numbers are true but in general it's probably correct if they aren't) so that's not surprising.

Australia's treatment of it's indigenous population is a bit of a contrast to NZ's. (And I think it speaks in support of your comment -- the population is far closer to 2% than 14)

Australia's treatment of its indigenous population is really shameful - something that I think really needs to be discussed more openly. Australia got away with some of the most heinous racial cleansing programs to come from the modern world .. forced sterilizations, forced adoption of indigenous children to white families 'to shake the black out of them', and so on. These were government-funded and -supported programs, and continued even up until the 80's.

And by 'got away with it', I mean, seriously got away with it. Its not like Australia is held to the same standards as Germany is today, with regards to its racial prejudice and general malaise within the white population towards the history of the indigenous people. I think thats because Germany started a war over their racial policies - Australia just quietly swept it all under the rug in the meantime ..

It always made me sad that that was the case farther North.

I grew up in what used to be Indian Territory and there wasn't any of that that I knew about. Not much you can do about individual people, but my experience is much more optomistic.

ah, another America hater!

It's pretty coarse to use the full N word, even in quotes.

I can understand where that word could be offensive even in this context. I don't feel particularly comfortable using the word in any context. I considered censoring, but in the end decided that "prairie n-word" was a bit too euphemistic compared to the actual usage. These are northerners who, in this century, understand the full context and ugliness of the term, and choose to use it anyway. Apologies to anyone offended by my quoting it.

Having given it considerable thought, I have come to the conclusion that I will use words like that in academic or quotational contexts, but only if I'm with company who will understand my intentions and not be offended. Although I value clarity and the ability to have thoughtful, dispassionate discussion of sensitive topics, I do not want to be an asshole, nor do I want to give the impression that I think casual usage of these terms is acceptable. Some would say that I have no right to use these terms at all, but I don't feel this is reasonable (though I won't argue this point or attempt to use such words in front of those who hold this view). The primary reason not to use these words is to avoid inflicting pain and perpetuating intolerance, but if my wife and I are having a private discussion about, say, homophobia, and I recant a story that involves the quotation of a slur, I am hurting no one and perpetuating nothing.

I would personally have elected not to use it in this case given the wide audience, but I understand that the context was not hateful and it was being used to illuminate a real situation and promote discussion. Just my opinion, not a permission slip obviously.

One of my favorite joints as a kid: http://genius.com/A-tribe-called-quest-sucka-nigga-lyrics

I said the word non-chalantly to my girlfriend in a sentence the other day (to see what her reaction would be), and she nearly fell out of her chair. We're both white. The word is, and I think will always be, extremely powerful.

Singing along to rap whilst walking down the street remains an exercise in paying attention to who is around me. If I'm alone you can be damned sure I'm singing the whole thing. It's far from just that word which is completely inappropriate - but hell I'm having fun.

What would be the purpose of censoring it out? Everyone would know what term was being used anyway.

The point is that

> it was used just about every time a Black person was whipped, chained, beaten, insulted, spat upon, raped, lynched, or otherwise humiliated and mistreated by White folks.

Since everyone would know what term was being used anyway, why NOT censor it, given it's vile origins? Why continue to say it?

Precisely because it is vile. Why did you have to use the word "rape" in your comment? Couldn't you have just said "sexually assaulted"? Or r-ped?

I appreciate it when people don't nerf their language, personally. It's just more honest.

Honest at the what cost, though? White people continue to try and use the word with whichever excuse they can find.

There is a vast difference between the word rape and the N word.

When quoting what someone else actually says, there's no word that should be censored in my opinion. If someone is coming up with excuses to say vile shit, then call them on it. But quoting what someone else actually said isn't trying to "use the word with whichever excuse they can find".

> Honest at the what cost, though?

Good question. What is the cost that you're talking about?

Speech has intent behind it. Peatmoss' comment doesn't seem intended to hurt anyone. It seems intended to drive home the unfairness that they (peatmoss) witnessed, and to remind us that racism is still a widespread problem. I don't think that a bowdlerized version of the comment would've had the same impact.

If you're directly quoting someone, you should use the words they use.

There's a vast difference between using a racial slur yourself and calling out someone who does.

And why do you think white people look for excuses to use the word? I haven't heard a White person use it since middle school.

Life can be pretty coarse, my white friend.

Why do you think I'm white?

i second that opinion that you're a white, and raise that you are a male.

What makes you think so?