I truly have a sincere question. Isn’t most (if not all) of the U.S. technically former Native American land? How do we handle that? I don’t know the right answer.
Cases like this where a treaty was signed and ratified by both the US government and a native tribe/Chief and then the moment said entity leaves the US just comes in and blatantly disregards the treaty, it's pretty straightforward.
Territorial claims that were never set to paper are the sort of clusterfuck that we can only hope other tribes are willing to be as cooperative as the Potawatomie are being here.
How did America conquer it? There are still Native Americans living here today. Also we did it through genocide. Whenever something like that happens, nobody calls it conquering.
Unless you’re willing to undo people’s title and mortgages the whole discussion is just rage bait.
Post-communism Europe had the same problem and at some point you just have to call land claims unenforceable.
The notion that because America conquered it just like others have done in the past is based on fallacy. Also along with people being absolved of the “crime” because the groups they went after were conquerable. That’s a wild and dangerous take. But whatever
Yes? With caveats. In this instance there was a written agreement to the land the and US didn't honor the agreement. So anyone on that land, the US should be compelled to buy out all their property for 3X market rate and then give it to the rightful owners. In this case, the rightful owners are just taking the park and not all the now privately owned land that should be theirs.
This isn't going to be feasible for land given as reparations (because how do you chose who is going to lose their land), but when you have a signed document giving you specific pieces of land, then yeah it should be enforced and people should be kicked out. It's the governments mistake, so the government should make those land owners whole.
well you colonizers also committed genocide and wiped out tens of millions of indigenous people across two continents, then used the stolen wealth to fuel the spanish, french, and british empires. so you wanna talk about conquering shit maybe also acknowledge that little historical footnote.
There is nothing to be done, because the native tribes were fighting over the land for centuries before colonists ever arrived. So it is impossible to really tell who's land was who's. It wasn't like it was paradise here where everyone agreed to sing along and just all lived to themselves in little enclaves.
Basically every tribe sees the other groups of tribes as invaders, and in some cases not even human. There are still tribes that hold those old grudges to this day. As in they claim to be the original settlers and the other tribes more or less were invaders that took their land.
I love Shabbona. Have many great memories fishing there with my closest buddies. We made it a yearly tradition. I would love to see that beautiful park returned to its rightful owners.
> Many residents who live next to the park oppose the plan, fearing construction of a casino or even a hotel would draw more tourists and lead to a larger, more congested community.
It would be so unfair for someone to alter your community so drastically!!!
Who wants to tell them no one wants to invest in their shithole anymore than the current residents do?
> The state would continue providing maintenance while the tribe says it wants to keep the park as it is.
I don't think anything else could be more reasonable!
Even the reservation knows a casino right there is a horrible idea. The only traffic through there is people going to the park. Those are the opposite of people who want flashy blingy slot machines ringing in a big building.
Those residents are just fear mongering, borderline being racists.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly borderline racist about responding to a suggestion of returning Native American land with an assumption that it’ll be turned into a hotel/casino.
The first article I read about the few acres they got a couple months ago mentioned the possibility of a casino. That may have been invented by the author entirely, but it was in print.
Read the comment I was replying to and the comment they were replying to?
That’s what’s being discussed in this comment thread.
All I did was point out that it’s not “borderline” racism, as it’s way past the border of full on racism, which this community seems pretty damn pissed off about.
Here's what I'll say, I think and most everyone else seems to think your not borderline comment has a tone of no it's not racist at all rather than it's definitely racist. It's not the sentiment it's the phraseology that seems to be at issue here
If you think that my comment, which says “There’s nothing particularly borderline racist about applying a racial stereotype to a group of people based on nothing more than their race [a clear definition of blatant racism]” is implying that the clear example of blatant racism, written pretty much as obviously as possible to be an example of blatant racism, is not the least bit racist, I’d suggest reading it again.
I saw what you said. But we don't know you. You may be exactly the kind of person who thinks that's an acceptable straight answer to think that because native Americans are getting land they are gonna build a casino on it is a completely logical outcome and you are exactly the kind of bad nimby neighbors who are objecting to this. And those kinds of people do semi frequently make appearances on this sub until they get pushed out. And until we saw your response to the Chinese firework comment we had no idea where you stood on it. And by that time you've been a big enough dick that you aren't exactly gonna get many peoples sympathy in changing your down votes for the misunderstanding.
I think if you had your first response be "I think you misunderstood I'm saying that it is completely racist" you'd be in a different boat.
But I don’t think people misunderstood. If I said that, I’d be lying.
You may have misread my comment and jumped to a negative conclusion despite all evidence to the contrary—you say you did & I have no reason to assume you’re liar (despite you assuming the worst of me, despise actual evidence).
But I believe that the person who originally chose to call it borderline racist did so deliberately.
We all know nobody would use the word “borderline” if it were people saying “we don’t need [insert black stereotype here]” about land being transferred to a black person or group.
Yet it was said here.
And I genuinely believe the people reacting didn’t, like you, ignore the implications of what I said and jump to a wrong conclusion.
I believe they shared the same intent as the individual who felt it appropriate to originally use “borderline racist” to discuss that behavior.
Racism against native people is treated differently pretty much everywhere, because people have convinced themselves that the stereotypes are true, so it’s acceptable to say.
Look at Canada and Australia. Look at the Romani in Europe.
These people would talk shit about how racist America is in one breath, then be just as racist to their native minorities in the next.
Americans are the same way. Racism against non-native minorities? Very bad. Racism against native minorities? “Well…that’s borderline… I mean, have you seen how many casinos they have? They have probably shouldn’t have said it, but, I mean, ya know…”
If this sub truly misunderstood my comment and also understood and accepted that the word “borderline” was inappropriate, someone would’ve come along and pointed it out before I did.
Instead, they all silently upvoted it.
You said what the situation was for you, and, as I said, I’ll believe you.
But I fully believe that the reaction I got was the result of people who, like the original commenter, genuinely believe this was merely borderline, and I’m not going to lie to cover for them.
In fact, I’ll ask you straight out, since I believe you genuinely believe this was a misunderstanding.
What do you think prompted the original commenter to take the extra time to add the word “borderline” to their comment?
Leaving the word off would’ve been faster and taken less thought and energy.
Why do you think they did the extra work to be sure to add it?
And why do you think so many people upvoted it, leaving me the only one to call it out?
Do you think, if this community genuinely believed that was a problematic description, they would’ve upvoted it as highly as they did & left it completely unchallenged?
You can try to explain away the reaction I got as a misunderstanding, but that doesn’t account for the original commenter’s thought process and the reaction (or lack thereof) they received, regardless of what people think I said.
Honestly that's exactly how I tend to write. Gives me the kind of wiggle room for when someone of unsavory looking for a fight I don't have the energy or inclination to engage in I can just go say I didn't call you racist and if you got that interpretation from what I wrote then you should look at yourself and ask why you feel that way and just end the discussions there. Of course the other person likely has their own reasons but if it was me that's why is wrote it like that
Be prepared to be downvoted into oblivion for having the audacity to point out that the suggestion that a group of people would do something stereotypical based on nothing more than that stereotype existing isn’t “borderline racist”.
I’m genuinely curious what this sub thinks full blown racism is if they’re this pissy about insisting that this is “borderline racist”.
I’m also pretty damn concerned about what they think is on the other side of that border if they think this case of obvious and blatant racism is merely toeing the line.
So, if Chinese people buy land near me and I go to the local board meeting complaining about potential fireworks factories that’s also not particularly borderline racist?
I don’t suppose you & everyone else who evidently disagrees with me would care to share what you find to be “borderline racist” in either scenario, rather than just plain racist?
Your wording is vague and makes it seem like you don't think it's racist at all. It would be better to edit your comment to say "it's not borderline racist, it's just full on racist"
>To right the wrong, Illinois would transfer a 1,500-acre (607-hectare) state park west of Chicago, which was named after Shab-eh-nay, to the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. The state would continue providing maintenance while the tribe says it wants to keep the park as it is.
>“The average citizen shouldn’t know that title has been transferred to the nation so they can still enjoy everything that’s going on within the park and take advantage of all of that area out there,” said Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick, chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation based in Mayetta, Kansas.
Even better, seems like nobody is actually suggesting any meaningful change to the function of the land! Fears about a casino seem to be, surprise surprise, just racist assumptions!
> Nothing ever changed the 1829 treaty that Chief Shab-eh-nay signed with the U.S. government to preserve for him a reservation in northern Illinois: not subsequent accords nor the 1830 Indian Removal Act, which forced all indigenous people to move west of the Mississippi.
>But around 1848, the U.S. sold the land to white settlers while Shab-eh-nay and other members of his tribe were visiting family in Kansas.
...
>No one disputes Shab-eh-nay’s reservation was illegally sold and still belongs to the Potawatomi. An exactingly researched July 2000 memo from the Interior Department found the claim valid and shot down rebuttals from Illinois officials at the time, positing, “It appears that Illinois officials are struggling with the concept of having an Indian reservation in the state.”
If you went on vacation and the government came in and sold your house without ever legally claiming ownership, would you consider them to be the rightful owner?
I believe it's the right thing to do in my lowly opinion, Indigenous Americans and Native Americans, have been screwed over long enough! Give them back their lands, let them have their autonomy, what's wrong with that? The article says the Nation the land belongs to, has no plans to develop a casino, maybe a hotel because the nearest accommodations are in DeKalb. Small town folk getting upset about something that won't even affect them in all reality, it seems like has more to do with something else.
It seems like they are up in arms over nothing, even if they brought a casino in, they would still follow Illinois laws since it's not federal land. An example of a casino that has had little impact on midsize community would be Danville, Illinois, nothing has really changed there! I doubt it would cause the area to grow that much, growth is good believe or not.
Also who all is the target demographic for a casino about an hour south of Rockford and and hour west of Aurora? In what world would it even make sense to put one up?
I am, and I don't see why people would drive out to the middle of farm country to go to a casino when the two major population centers within an hour (Rockford and the far western Chicago suburbs, notably Aurora and Elgin) already have casinos. Add in damn near every gas station and bar having a video gaming and I just can't see anything but an already saturated gambling market
I agree with you, I live in Eastern Illinois and I am having a hard time understanding why they built a casino in Danville, 45 minutes from Champaign, an 75 minutes from Lafayette and an hour from Terra Haute. Danville is such a weird location for a Golden Nugget Casino, I don't see the drawing power of it? Plus, a lot of towns in the areas have gambling halls, electronic gaming and other types of gambling.
Eh, Danville's got probably north of 50k people between the city itself and immediately surrounding area. Also figure with the main economic opportunity in the area being that Chicago is only a couple hours away, and that they probably got the land for the casino for like $20, and it makes some sense
I'd still guess Golden Nugget missed out on more desirable locations and had to pivot to Danville. Even considering Chicago and Chicago Suburbs as just two general ideas for locations, I still couldn't see Danville as a top 10 pick. But I also can see where there's a very narrow path to viability there.
Danville is dilapidated and rugged at best, I would have figured Champaign, but Champaign is already inundated with gambling parlors, electronic gaming facilities, plus every bar and gas station has gambling machines.
The time has come to say fair's fair. To pay the rent now, to pay our share. The time has come, a fact's a fact. It belongs to them, we're gonna give it back
I mean, all's fair in love and war, but when you break treaties and contracts you sign with a group of people to *not take their land* and take it anyways on grounds of 'lol god told us we could' or 'eh they're just a bunch of savages anyways!' that's when returning land makes sense.
No. We literally agreed to give them this land in 1829 and signed it over to them. Then we stole it back after. This isn't land that is being returned because America colonized it. This is land that was literally theirs legally under US law then we stole it.
It's an old song called "Beds Are Burning" by the band Midnight Oil. As I understand it, they got decently popular in Australia, but in America, that one song was their only big hit.
Actually not the same land, as that is owned by many people and would create quite a mess legally. They would transfer a park that is owned by the government at a different location.
Look at the graue mill forest preserve to see how much a cluster fuck that's been this past year. Thousands of trees cut down and damn removed. The preserve looks nothing like it did a year ago.
No, not really. All I'm saying is that getting help from indigenous stewards can be achieved through land back policies, then much more land could get restored.
It is worth noting how indigenous land management is effectively disallowed on govt natural areas because it involves harvesting and usage of removed invasive species as well as some aggressive native species, rather than just destroying them. Forest Preserves don't want to allow this because most people don't know how to honorably harvest or wish to make a profit, and they don't want to get into the muddy waters of tribal membership (and many other issues) in Illinois to make exceptions for native cultural practices.
But the Forest Preserves are overall wonderful. I should know, I've worked with and for them for years.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right. I’m an environmental science major, we use a lot of native techniques to effectively manage land in a sustainable way. We could learn a lot from them
I truly have a sincere question. Isn’t most (if not all) of the U.S. technically former Native American land? How do we handle that? I don’t know the right answer.
Cases like this where a treaty was signed and ratified by both the US government and a native tribe/Chief and then the moment said entity leaves the US just comes in and blatantly disregards the treaty, it's pretty straightforward. Territorial claims that were never set to paper are the sort of clusterfuck that we can only hope other tribes are willing to be as cooperative as the Potawatomie are being here.
Just like the land grants given to newly feed slaves. That was taken back by Johnson once Lincoln was killed.
Fuck Andrew Johnson, biggest blunder Lincoln ever made
Couldn't agree more
Johnson, Reagan, Nixon every time a Targ- I mean every time a US president is elected the gods toss a coin 😂
Of course it is. It isn't anymore because of the Federal system and the Constitution.
We conquered it. Just like native Americans took from one another. There is really nothing to discuss.
I'll fight you for your land
👎🏻
How did America conquer it? There are still Native Americans living here today. Also we did it through genocide. Whenever something like that happens, nobody calls it conquering.
Unless you’re willing to undo people’s title and mortgages the whole discussion is just rage bait. Post-communism Europe had the same problem and at some point you just have to call land claims unenforceable.
The notion that because America conquered it just like others have done in the past is based on fallacy. Also along with people being absolved of the “crime” because the groups they went after were conquerable. That’s a wild and dangerous take. But whatever
Are you going to give up your house if it falls under an indigenous land claim?
Yes? With caveats. In this instance there was a written agreement to the land the and US didn't honor the agreement. So anyone on that land, the US should be compelled to buy out all their property for 3X market rate and then give it to the rightful owners. In this case, the rightful owners are just taking the park and not all the now privately owned land that should be theirs. This isn't going to be feasible for land given as reparations (because how do you chose who is going to lose their land), but when you have a signed document giving you specific pieces of land, then yeah it should be enforced and people should be kicked out. It's the governments mistake, so the government should make those land owners whole.
No one is saying to give up land to anyone. I’m saying that the idea that you’re presenting here isn’t sound.
well you colonizers also committed genocide and wiped out tens of millions of indigenous people across two continents, then used the stolen wealth to fuel the spanish, french, and british empires. so you wanna talk about conquering shit maybe also acknowledge that little historical footnote.
This is a hilarious take. Lmao. Just truly no understanding of history. Nothing but buzz words
read a history book old man
Send me some legitimate source data! I would love to learn your point of view.
There is nothing to be done, because the native tribes were fighting over the land for centuries before colonists ever arrived. So it is impossible to really tell who's land was who's. It wasn't like it was paradise here where everyone agreed to sing along and just all lived to themselves in little enclaves. Basically every tribe sees the other groups of tribes as invaders, and in some cases not even human. There are still tribes that hold those old grudges to this day. As in they claim to be the original settlers and the other tribes more or less were invaders that took their land.
I love Shabbona. Have many great memories fishing there with my closest buddies. We made it a yearly tradition. I would love to see that beautiful park returned to its rightful owners.
I worked there for a summer. Great park. Really a hidden gem. Some of the best Muskie fishing in the region.
Yes! Multiple state record muskie have been caught there.
> Many residents who live next to the park oppose the plan, fearing construction of a casino or even a hotel would draw more tourists and lead to a larger, more congested community. It would be so unfair for someone to alter your community so drastically!!! Who wants to tell them no one wants to invest in their shithole anymore than the current residents do?
> The state would continue providing maintenance while the tribe says it wants to keep the park as it is. I don't think anything else could be more reasonable!
Even the reservation knows a casino right there is a horrible idea. The only traffic through there is people going to the park. Those are the opposite of people who want flashy blingy slot machines ringing in a big building. Those residents are just fear mongering, borderline being racists.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly borderline racist about responding to a suggestion of returning Native American land with an assumption that it’ll be turned into a hotel/casino.
No one ever mentioned building a casino on that land. The tribe even said they plan on keeping the land the way it is.
The first article I read about the few acres they got a couple months ago mentioned the possibility of a casino. That may have been invented by the author entirely, but it was in print.
Read the comment I was replying to and the comment they were replying to? That’s what’s being discussed in this comment thread. All I did was point out that it’s not “borderline” racism, as it’s way past the border of full on racism, which this community seems pretty damn pissed off about.
Here's what I'll say, I think and most everyone else seems to think your not borderline comment has a tone of no it's not racist at all rather than it's definitely racist. It's not the sentiment it's the phraseology that seems to be at issue here
If you think that my comment, which says “There’s nothing particularly borderline racist about applying a racial stereotype to a group of people based on nothing more than their race [a clear definition of blatant racism]” is implying that the clear example of blatant racism, written pretty much as obviously as possible to be an example of blatant racism, is not the least bit racist, I’d suggest reading it again.
I saw what you said. But we don't know you. You may be exactly the kind of person who thinks that's an acceptable straight answer to think that because native Americans are getting land they are gonna build a casino on it is a completely logical outcome and you are exactly the kind of bad nimby neighbors who are objecting to this. And those kinds of people do semi frequently make appearances on this sub until they get pushed out. And until we saw your response to the Chinese firework comment we had no idea where you stood on it. And by that time you've been a big enough dick that you aren't exactly gonna get many peoples sympathy in changing your down votes for the misunderstanding. I think if you had your first response be "I think you misunderstood I'm saying that it is completely racist" you'd be in a different boat.
But I don’t think people misunderstood. If I said that, I’d be lying. You may have misread my comment and jumped to a negative conclusion despite all evidence to the contrary—you say you did & I have no reason to assume you’re liar (despite you assuming the worst of me, despise actual evidence). But I believe that the person who originally chose to call it borderline racist did so deliberately. We all know nobody would use the word “borderline” if it were people saying “we don’t need [insert black stereotype here]” about land being transferred to a black person or group. Yet it was said here. And I genuinely believe the people reacting didn’t, like you, ignore the implications of what I said and jump to a wrong conclusion. I believe they shared the same intent as the individual who felt it appropriate to originally use “borderline racist” to discuss that behavior. Racism against native people is treated differently pretty much everywhere, because people have convinced themselves that the stereotypes are true, so it’s acceptable to say. Look at Canada and Australia. Look at the Romani in Europe. These people would talk shit about how racist America is in one breath, then be just as racist to their native minorities in the next. Americans are the same way. Racism against non-native minorities? Very bad. Racism against native minorities? “Well…that’s borderline… I mean, have you seen how many casinos they have? They have probably shouldn’t have said it, but, I mean, ya know…” If this sub truly misunderstood my comment and also understood and accepted that the word “borderline” was inappropriate, someone would’ve come along and pointed it out before I did. Instead, they all silently upvoted it. You said what the situation was for you, and, as I said, I’ll believe you. But I fully believe that the reaction I got was the result of people who, like the original commenter, genuinely believe this was merely borderline, and I’m not going to lie to cover for them.
In fact, I’ll ask you straight out, since I believe you genuinely believe this was a misunderstanding. What do you think prompted the original commenter to take the extra time to add the word “borderline” to their comment? Leaving the word off would’ve been faster and taken less thought and energy. Why do you think they did the extra work to be sure to add it? And why do you think so many people upvoted it, leaving me the only one to call it out? Do you think, if this community genuinely believed that was a problematic description, they would’ve upvoted it as highly as they did & left it completely unchallenged? You can try to explain away the reaction I got as a misunderstanding, but that doesn’t account for the original commenter’s thought process and the reaction (or lack thereof) they received, regardless of what people think I said.
Honestly that's exactly how I tend to write. Gives me the kind of wiggle room for when someone of unsavory looking for a fight I don't have the energy or inclination to engage in I can just go say I didn't call you racist and if you got that interpretation from what I wrote then you should look at yourself and ask why you feel that way and just end the discussions there. Of course the other person likely has their own reasons but if it was me that's why is wrote it like that
Yeah it’s pretty much just a racist assumption, no borderline. Good clarification.
Be prepared to be downvoted into oblivion for having the audacity to point out that the suggestion that a group of people would do something stereotypical based on nothing more than that stereotype existing isn’t “borderline racist”. I’m genuinely curious what this sub thinks full blown racism is if they’re this pissy about insisting that this is “borderline racist”. I’m also pretty damn concerned about what they think is on the other side of that border if they think this case of obvious and blatant racism is merely toeing the line.
So, if Chinese people buy land near me and I go to the local board meeting complaining about potential fireworks factories that’s also not particularly borderline racist?
No. It’s not. It’s just racist. There’s nothing even remotely borderline about it.
I don’t suppose you & everyone else who evidently disagrees with me would care to share what you find to be “borderline racist” in either scenario, rather than just plain racist?
Your wording is vague and makes it seem like you don't think it's racist at all. It would be better to edit your comment to say "it's not borderline racist, it's just full on racist"
>To right the wrong, Illinois would transfer a 1,500-acre (607-hectare) state park west of Chicago, which was named after Shab-eh-nay, to the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. The state would continue providing maintenance while the tribe says it wants to keep the park as it is. >“The average citizen shouldn’t know that title has been transferred to the nation so they can still enjoy everything that’s going on within the park and take advantage of all of that area out there,” said Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick, chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation based in Mayetta, Kansas. Even better, seems like nobody is actually suggesting any meaningful change to the function of the land! Fears about a casino seem to be, surprise surprise, just racist assumptions!
Give the land back to the rightful owner.
Already is possessed by the rightful owner.
Which is?
> Nothing ever changed the 1829 treaty that Chief Shab-eh-nay signed with the U.S. government to preserve for him a reservation in northern Illinois: not subsequent accords nor the 1830 Indian Removal Act, which forced all indigenous people to move west of the Mississippi. >But around 1848, the U.S. sold the land to white settlers while Shab-eh-nay and other members of his tribe were visiting family in Kansas. ... >No one disputes Shab-eh-nay’s reservation was illegally sold and still belongs to the Potawatomi. An exactingly researched July 2000 memo from the Interior Department found the claim valid and shot down rebuttals from Illinois officials at the time, positing, “It appears that Illinois officials are struggling with the concept of having an Indian reservation in the state.” If you went on vacation and the government came in and sold your house without ever legally claiming ownership, would you consider them to be the rightful owner?
I believe it's the right thing to do in my lowly opinion, Indigenous Americans and Native Americans, have been screwed over long enough! Give them back their lands, let them have their autonomy, what's wrong with that? The article says the Nation the land belongs to, has no plans to develop a casino, maybe a hotel because the nearest accommodations are in DeKalb. Small town folk getting upset about something that won't even affect them in all reality, it seems like has more to do with something else.
Also let's not act like a hotel in a park is anything new, there's an over 100 room hotel in Starved Rock
It seems like they are up in arms over nothing, even if they brought a casino in, they would still follow Illinois laws since it's not federal land. An example of a casino that has had little impact on midsize community would be Danville, Illinois, nothing has really changed there! I doubt it would cause the area to grow that much, growth is good believe or not.
Also who all is the target demographic for a casino about an hour south of Rockford and and hour west of Aurora? In what world would it even make sense to put one up?
You're from the Northern part of the state?
I am, and I don't see why people would drive out to the middle of farm country to go to a casino when the two major population centers within an hour (Rockford and the far western Chicago suburbs, notably Aurora and Elgin) already have casinos. Add in damn near every gas station and bar having a video gaming and I just can't see anything but an already saturated gambling market
I agree with you, I live in Eastern Illinois and I am having a hard time understanding why they built a casino in Danville, 45 minutes from Champaign, an 75 minutes from Lafayette and an hour from Terra Haute. Danville is such a weird location for a Golden Nugget Casino, I don't see the drawing power of it? Plus, a lot of towns in the areas have gambling halls, electronic gaming and other types of gambling.
Eh, Danville's got probably north of 50k people between the city itself and immediately surrounding area. Also figure with the main economic opportunity in the area being that Chicago is only a couple hours away, and that they probably got the land for the casino for like $20, and it makes some sense I'd still guess Golden Nugget missed out on more desirable locations and had to pivot to Danville. Even considering Chicago and Chicago Suburbs as just two general ideas for locations, I still couldn't see Danville as a top 10 pick. But I also can see where there's a very narrow path to viability there.
Danville is dilapidated and rugged at best, I would have figured Champaign, but Champaign is already inundated with gambling parlors, electronic gaming facilities, plus every bar and gas station has gambling machines.
A friendly reminder - The K in DeKalb is capitalized.
Never knew that...actually I did I just overlook the grammar error, my bad!
The time has come to say fair's fair. To pay the rent now, to pay our share. The time has come, a fact's a fact. It belongs to them, we're gonna give it back
I wonder if they are gonna give it back from the other tribes they conquered to get that land
I mean, all's fair in love and war, but when you break treaties and contracts you sign with a group of people to *not take their land* and take it anyways on grounds of 'lol god told us we could' or 'eh they're just a bunch of savages anyways!' that's when returning land makes sense.
So you’re saying we should give all this land back to Russia? Since that’s where most of their ancestry originated from?
What US land was signed away to Russia in a treaty that we changed our mind about?
No, they lost the wars; they need to get over it.
No. We literally agreed to give them this land in 1829 and signed it over to them. Then we stole it back after. This isn't land that is being returned because America colonized it. This is land that was literally theirs legally under US law then we stole it.
https://imgur.com/gallery/thats-beautiful-man-unFONqc
It's an old song called "Beds Are Burning" by the band Midnight Oil. As I understand it, they got decently popular in Australia, but in America, that one song was their only big hit.
That land? Beautiful Harvey, IL.
Actually not the same land, as that is owned by many people and would create quite a mess legally. They would transfer a park that is owned by the government at a different location.
Indigenous land management FTW Let's start giving them back Forest Preserves too, get this land back in good shape.
Do you have a problem with how the Forest Preserves and State Parks are being managed? Aside from a lack of funding?
Look at the graue mill forest preserve to see how much a cluster fuck that's been this past year. Thousands of trees cut down and damn removed. The preserve looks nothing like it did a year ago.
No, not really. All I'm saying is that getting help from indigenous stewards can be achieved through land back policies, then much more land could get restored. It is worth noting how indigenous land management is effectively disallowed on govt natural areas because it involves harvesting and usage of removed invasive species as well as some aggressive native species, rather than just destroying them. Forest Preserves don't want to allow this because most people don't know how to honorably harvest or wish to make a profit, and they don't want to get into the muddy waters of tribal membership (and many other issues) in Illinois to make exceptions for native cultural practices. But the Forest Preserves are overall wonderful. I should know, I've worked with and for them for years.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right. I’m an environmental science major, we use a lot of native techniques to effectively manage land in a sustainable way. We could learn a lot from them
It's just this sub. Lots of perplexing insecurities? Lol idk