WHOSE Land is This?

There is a double standard going on in Utah.  Legislators want control of the land to be “given back” to Utah:

Utah to Washington: This land is my land!  Resolution suggests D.C. cede 35,000 square miles of state

“Be it resolved, that the Legislature of the state of Utah calls on the United States, through their agent, Congress, to relinquish to the state of Utah all right, title, and jurisdiction in those lands that were committed to the purposes of this state by terms of its Enabling act compact with them and that now reside within the state as public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management that were reserved by Congress after the date of Utah statehood,” says theState Jurisdiction of Federally Managed Lands Joint Resolution.

WHOSE land is this?  Hint: It’s NOT the Federal Government’s and it is NOT the Utah Government. If ANYONE is going to get their land back, it must be to be the RIGHTFUL guardians of the land: The Newe (Utes, Piutes, Goshutes, Shoshoni) and Diné (Navajo) People.

Utah Indian tribes--Utes, Goshutes, Navajo, and Shoshone

If Utah’s Legislators are really interested in insisting that the reigns on the land be released from the hands of government, they need to get it straight.  This land does not “belong” to anyone.   The control of the land should be  restored to the ancestors of the original Natives of the land, from whom the control was stolen.

Oh but wait.  Back to the double standard going on in Utah.  The governor of Utah has taken control of Indian Affairs in Utah. It looks like Utah’s Government will stay in control of Native Affairs for the foreseeable future.


2 Responses

  1. […] (cross-posted to Utah Legislature Watch) […]

  2. Slavery is murder. Property is robbery. Usucapio is the answer to ancestral lands occupied and possessed by the aboriginals of America, mistakenly stuck with the nomenclature “American Indians.” When we abandoned our perfect state of nature and welcomed civilization manifested as “limited” government” under our federal Constitution we harbored two conflicting versions of the truth. In Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, (1823), the US Supreme Court struck down the grant of a sovereign Indian Tribe. In United States v. Perceheman, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 51 (1833), the US Supreme Court sustained and upheld the grant of the sovereign king of Spain.

    This is justice? Records show that Chief Justice Marshall suffered only six weeks of legal education under the Master George Wyeth. But that is an explanation, not an excuse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s