326,459 is not big enough

[Andrew Kemp]

Scott,

You're right, the number of people relevant to (the focus of, perhaps?)
the MSU Topic is small (especially compared to the number of other
"Indians" that we are not focusing on). In fact, Minneapolis is a really
nice comparison for how many people we are talking about.

I don't know why the seemingly small number of people is a problem, per
se. I am inclined to react with some skepticism about such a small number
of people, I am interested in hearing someone calm my fears about what
that could mean, but then I remind myself I am not so sure why a small
number of focused upon people is bad (or as you say, "not big enough").

Is your concern one of what type of literature base a small number of
topic subjects would yield? Is your concern about the relevant advantages
being small (because the numbers of people is not high enough)?

To be certain, you raise a good point, but I am interested in a little bit
more in how you see the "not big enough" numbers of people being a
problem.

Yours,

Andy
Concordia


On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, scott varda wrote:

>
>
>
>
> I don?t know which of these is the best resolution, but I really don?t
> think the debate about currently unrecognized tribes is the one we should
> be having. Why? Numbers. Pure and simple. Korcok and I decided to find
> out just how many people we are talking about on this topic. There are
> 562 recognized tribes in the United states (The News Tribune, 1-4-01),
> made up of just under 2 million people (1990 census, and that doesn?t
> include Hawaiians). Resolution number one focuses on the edge of the edge
> of the "Indians" debate. Based on our research, here?s the totals for the
> number of people this topic will deal with:
>
> Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA) 1000
> http://www.doc.gov/eda/pdf/41Virginia.pdf
>
> Eastern Chickahominy (VA) 150 http://www.vmnh.org/tribes.htm
>
> Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe (CT) 100
> http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/ghp930813.html
>
> Lumbee Regional Development Association 40,000 MSU topic paper
>
> Monacan Indian Nation (VA) 700 http://www.vmnh.org/tribes.htm
>
> Muwekma Indian Tribe (CA) 414 San Fransico Chronicle May 28, 2001
>
> Nansemond Indian Tribe Association (VA) 300
> http://www.vmnh.org/tribes.htm
>
> Native Hawaiians (HI) 260,000 CSM 10-17-1994
>
> Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. (NJ) 3000 MSU topic paper
>
> Schaghticoke Indian Tribe (CN) 70 THE HARTFORD COURANT 10-26-00
>
> Shinnecock Tribe (NY) 700 NYT july 17, 2000
>
> Snohomish Tribe of Indians (WA) considerably less than 2000, but we?ll
> call it 2000 for the sake of argument Seattle Times July 13, 2000?Diane
> Brooks author
>
> St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis (VT) less than 2500
> www.newigwam.com/habenaki.html
>
> United Houma Nation (LA) 15,000 MSU topic paper
>
> United Rappahannock Tribe (VA) 75 Washington Post December 21, 1981 (it
> may have grown, but the trade off here is more than equalled out with
> overclaiming the Snohomish)
>
> Upper Mattaponi Tribe, Inc. (VA) 450 www.baylink.org/Mattaponi/
>
> That brings the total to 326,459. And remember, 300,000 of those are
> Native Hawaiians or members of the Lumbee RDA. In other words, this is a
> rather small portion of the total "Indian" population of the United
> States. An analogy may be appropriate. If the topic were "city dwellers
> in the united states," this is the equivalent of debating "Resolved:
> Minneapolis, Minnesota." Now, Minneapolis is a fine city, and similarly,
> these 16 tribes are certainly worthy of debate, but this topic excludes
> huge numbers of "Indians" in America. In addition, an affirmative can be
> crafted that deals with a mere 75 people.  This is not to say that those
> 75 people did not suffer greatly, or that their voices should be
> excluded.  Simply, this is to argue that the other 2 million "Indians" in
> America should be dealt with as well.
>
> In our minds, anyway, and no offense to the excellent work done by the
> MSU staff and team, a different resolution should be chosen.
>
> Varda
>
> FSU
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>