Native Americans are the indigenous people of the continent of North America that is within the boundaries of the present United States of America. These Native Americans did express preference by referring to themselves as American-Indians. They are composed of many small and distinct tribes of which most survive as intact political communities. The cultures of Native Americans were matrilineal: the land they occupied was for use by the whole community for agricultural practices and hunting. The migration of the Europeans to their land and African slaves’ importation led to consistent conflicts and adjustments of the old and new societies. The Europeans had culture of patriarchal which had a concept of individual property rights different from that of Native Americans in respect to land. These cultural differences between the Native Americans and the Europeans and the shifting alliances of this culture caused ethnic violence and social disruptions among the different nations (Reynoldson 123).
The revolution of the colonies against Great Britain and the establishment of the United States of America conceived the idea of Native American assimilation as its citizens. This was a policy that was consistent in all American administrations. The expansion of the European-American to the west increased the pressure of the Native American lands, and war between the groups and tension was raised. An Indian removal act was passed by the congress in 1830, which authorized the relocation of the Native Americans of the Deep South away from their homelands to the west. This was in order for them to accommodate the coastal regions.
The Native Americans live in the Southern part of the current United States of America, and are recognized by the state government as tribes. This has been the situation since the late 20th century, with some tribes being recognized by the federal government. The American-Indians were subjected to genocide during the process of expanding the United States of America, and the survivors have been subjected to cultural assaults to present days.
The Indian claim for reparation
Historical records show that there was factual predication that obligated the genocide of the Native Americans. The element of land theft is treated as the only relevant moral aspect that the Indians can claim. Justice As Supersession (JAS) argues that the land that was illicitly acquired by the colonist cannot be returned as the land has been passed on to the descendants (Johnston). The JAS theorists are against the current justice to restore the land occupied by the innocent descendant of the white colonists to the Indian ownership given that there is no direct connection of today’s people and those who lived many generations ago.
The restoration of these lands would lead to practical effects especially among the impoverished ones. The Indians claimed that, for centuries, they have been living as colonized people and being victimized by the world's racists. The reparation due is thus for the killing, degradation and the exploitation of the Indians Americans (Bradford 69). The government needs to consider and respond to the issue of reparation in the form of economic compensation with an apology for the past atrocities committed.
There are plenty of arguments against the reparation as most disagree with the payments. Most people describe reparation as being an ineffective solution, unnecessary and of all they view it to be racist. The argument claims that there was no individual group that was responsible for the atrocities committed. This is because these acts were among the natives tribe and between the colonists. It goes further to claim that there is economic prosperity as the Indian live better off economically and are able to compete with other people in the society (Morris and Young 112).
Therefore, it is difficult to ask the descendants of those who were fighting against the land grabbing to pay reparation. This is due to the fact that most of the descendants are immigrants and were not in USA during that period. Thus, it is impossible to ask for reparation for crimes that were committed by their ancestors (Tribe). Reparation is seen to be based on race as the judgment does not recognize the injuries inflicted. The case also points out that there had been no payment of reparation to anyone apart from the victims or their direct descendants, though there is no effect to payment of reparation.
The reparation is seen to be unfair as the descendants are not suffering economically as a result of losing land. They had a lot of opportunities to be economically successful as many have already achieved this economic success, and those not are viewed to be victims of their own failures, not the US system. Thus, they should not get reparation. Reparation is viewed as a way to view the Indians as victims instead of holding them for the state of the modern society. This implies that reparation is viewed as a way of helping out the lazy people in the society (Norris and Cindy 78).
Many people opposed to the reparation of Indians claim that it has been paid through the enactment of the civil right Act, and the welfare benefits. Thus, reparation could lead to division of races with the white who are unwilling to pass for reparation feeling that these Indians are taking what they do not deserve. Reparation opposes do not feel the guilty of Indians' status in the society as they blame it on their own failure to succeed.
Reparation for the Native Americans for the land that was unlawfully taken from them is crucial. This is because most of the Native Americans were forced out of their homelands with or without compensation by the colonists. The reparation can be done through courts where there is monetary compensation and the restoring of land illegally taken. The Native American leaders have taken their case to the United Nation which has already written on the Declaration on the Rights of Native Americans. The provisions that are included in the declaration are the restitution of lands, territories and resources. The native right Fund represents Native Americans' groups in negotiation to restore their treaty status to sovereignty for treaty guaranteed resources (Johnston). This clearly indicates the realization of the US government of the right of reparation and compensation for racial oppression.
The Justice As Compensation (JAC) theorists accept that the historical deprivation of the native Americans of land has the relationship with the current material deprivation that is being experienced, and their compensation is viewed as an ordinary corrective justice where some group based autonomies benefit from the Indians redress. Justice As Restoration (JAR) claims that even the compensation of the land, which was taken, in value cannot rectify the injustices that were committed historically. It views the restoration as only essential to set the injustices to be right. In fact, this injustices loom enormously in the descendants' minds. JAR is, thus, advocating for full restoration of the claims that are acknowledged publicly apologizing for the past acts accepting the social punishment (Bradford 520). The US administration has the duty to issue an official apology acknowledging the harm that was inflicted on Native Americans, which signifies the, symbolic recognition of the past acts to Indians (Bradford 49). This apology incorporates the recognition of the moral obligation in peacemaking negotiations. Commemoration is vital so as to ensure that the future generations do not perpetuate the past with the erection of monuments that will be signifying the past genocide of the Indians.
Land restoration will be difficult as the scarcity of the private property, and the refusal to commit the unjust enrichment by the whites will have to generate acclimate of restitution. Therefore, it will prove difficult to reach a consensus of the measure to be implemented that will result to just and agreement that will not favor the opposition. The colonists are citizens of the US and even after the restoration of land to Indians they will have nowhere to go if the transformation evicts them from their homes. The subject of land restoration will trigger hate as many whites will claim that they were not there when these atrocities were being committed. Thus, they owe nothing to the Indians (Coop, Nori and Cory 60).
The Indians are said to have ceded lands in the free process without fraud or duress along with individuals who posses the land. The restoration of the land right will affect the white possessors. Therefore, even if the US is committed to this restoration, it will lead to impoverishment of the ejected whites.
The Native Americans should be reparated of the land they lost. The forceful removal of their reservations and their subsequent life of impoverishment should be compensated. This is because the lives of the modern Indians are filled with poverty. This is despite the fact that they are the rightful owner of the US. This discrimination and deprivation of the Indians has led the current generation to be miserable. These Indians have been discriminated against by the white who are still enriching themselves by exploiting these natives. There are no economic incentives that are provided, and the wages that one is paid as a native is less in comparison to what the pay to their white folks. Thus, it is not possible for these natives to be economically.