Timeline for Why don't Native Americans have representation in Congress?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 18, 2013 at 1:45 | comment | added | user1530 | @dvk, sure, that makes sense. I was wondering what (if any) responsibility a State Senator has towards representing tribal land interests (either officially or unofficially). Maybe a more succinct question: do residents of tribal lands have the right to vote for the senators of the state their lands are within? | |
| Aug 18, 2013 at 1:45 | comment | added | user1530 | @user1873 I suppose it's different in that they'd still have representation in the state they moved to. | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 21:38 | comment | added | user1873 | @dan04, yes apparently. They have drawn district lines so that Hopi and Navajo indians have different representation. | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 21:22 | comment | added | dan04 | Even though I disagree with the practice, a lot of states do have gerrymandered Congressional districts with the explicit intent of electing a Black or Latino representative. Does such a district exist for Native Americans? | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 17:33 | comment | added | user4012 | @DA. - It's not "their own land". It's their tribe's land. More specifically, their tribe's jurisdiction. Their tribal leaders chose to make that deal with DC back when. They can opt to live under tribal jurisdiction or not (same as anyone else who doesn't like the deal their parents made with their society, assuming they live in a free country like USA and not a communist paradise where moving elsewhere is a hard to impossible task). | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 16:46 | comment | added | user1873 | @DA., Is this any different than a person who moves to New York no longer being represented in their former state? | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 16:34 | comment | added | user1530 | @dvk so, in that sense, native americans that want to live on their own land do not have representation? | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 14:18 | comment | added | user1873 | @DVK, and DA., that isn't how I read the question. This question is specifically about Congress's Senate (" representation in the Senate"). We aren't talking about state Legislature (I think). | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 11:17 | comment | added | user4012 | @DA. - that's the whole point. If you choose to be on a reservation, you're basically a subject to the treaties made with US Fed government, which didn't allow representation (for a couple of reasons some of which this answer addressed). If you choose to live outside reservation, you are a regular state citizen and get state representation. | |
| Aug 14, 2013 at 16:35 | comment | added | user1530 | What is the relation between the reservation and the state it resides in? I think reservations are technically managed by United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than the state, so 'representation' at the state senator level may not be quite as direct. | |
| Aug 14, 2013 at 10:16 | vote | accept | Affable Geek | ||
| Aug 14, 2013 at 4:13 | history | answered | user1873 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |