Is this to do with the court settlement awarded to Native Americans regarding the class action against the US government over mismanagement of their lands held in trust and century-long non payment of royalties?
Pub Quiz thread
- Thread starter colognehornet
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Very close - can you be a little more specific before I award it to you? ... the point about the lands being held in trust (or not) is a moot one also whether the money owed is indeed a 'royalty'..
OK - the 1887 Dawes Act, legislation aimed at the assimilation of native Americans into 'white' society, saw traditional tribal lands split into smaller lots with the intention being that individual families become self-sufficient through farming. The downside was that families were given 25 years to 'prove themselves' as farmers or else - the government would take the land back of them and sell it on to white settlers. The land owned by the successful farmers was, upon their death, by law split into smaller lots for each of the heirs, meaning that in time it was impossible to farm. The tribes contended that ownership of the whole should be in the hands of the tribe & the recent court ruling concurred with that. The 'royalties' refer to areas of tribal lands retained by the government and leased to white settlers or mining/logging companies. The revenue from those activities was due to be paid to the tribes concerned, but rarely, if ever, was.
Enough?
I will give it to you but the specific example is the Black Hills of Dakota and the Sioux
The Sioux believe that the land was illegally seized having previously been agreed by treaty that it would forever 'belong' to the Indians
The US Supreme Court finally agreed that the land was seized illegally - however the Sioux want the land back not the monetary sums that have been offered to settle the 'dispute' - the sum at the outset is the current estimated value of what the Black Hills would be worth if purchased - over to you.
The Sioux believe that the land was illegally seized having previously been agreed by treaty that it would forever 'belong' to the Indians
The US Supreme Court finally agreed that the land was seized illegally - however the Sioux want the land back not the monetary sums that have been offered to settle the 'dispute' - the sum at the outset is the current estimated value of what the Black Hills would be worth if purchased - over to you.
Which international cricketer was named in the FA's Team of Heroes to commemorate 125 years of the FA cup?
Tim Buzaglo of Woking and Gibraltar (have to confess curiosity rather than knowledge and so googled it)
That was short-lived. You must watch the same tv programmes as I do. Over to you.
Autumn Watch last night?
Which two English football clubs have never won the title in the English top division, have never won the FA Cup, yet have won the Charity / Community Shield?
There's a reason you asked this one - Leicester won it in 1971 after Arsenal won the double & couldn't take part. Leicester were invited as Div 2 champions - they beat Liverpool who were FA cup runners up.
Haven't a clue about the other one though - was it when Spurs won the double in 1961?
Haven't a clue about the other one though - was it when Spurs won the double in 1961?
Correct about Leicester of course ... I was there
... the other was much earlier
Correct and over to you (Brighton were invited to take part as Southern League Champions back in 1910)
Is that because Russia were still officially at war with Berwick? Probably wanted to reassure themselves that there was no major threat to USSR 