This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
2001-2002 Klamath Basin Water Wars
Contestants: Farmers - Fishermen - Tribes
As water adjudication (the process of determining who has legal title to water) moved west, struggles over water rights ensued, and communities divided. One of the last places this process has yet to work itself out in these United States is along the California/Oregon Borderlands of the Klamath Basin. See Right-Farmer view or the Left-Environmentalist view
The irony, for the farmers, was that the tribe was ready to negotiate a mutual water sharing pact, the tribe never wanted to shut off all the farmers water, however this is what ensued after the farmers left the negotiation table. At the Water Committee meeting in 2001 the farming representative described their treatment at the hands of the Federal Government. This garnered the somewhat sympathetic response by a tribal councilman, "They're treating you like they used to treat us!" And perhaps a moment to commiserate. However, the farming representative stood up and said, "We don't want to be treated like any damn Indians." Then all the farmers left the Water committee meeting in a bad feeling. Later their was yet another mediation scheduled in Eugene, Oregon with Judge Tom Coffin, all parties were present except the farmers. THe effect of all this avoidance was the inevitable shutting off all water to the farmers in the Summer of 2001. AND much racial hatred. As expressed by Judge Issacson during the sentencing of three boys from Bonanza who went to Chiloquin and shot up this historically tribal town, You boys aren't going to understand this, because you are racist, and furthermore the Klamath Basin is the most racist area outside of the south...
As water adjudication (the process of determining who has legal title to water) has moved west, struggles over water rights ensues, and communities divide. One of the last places this process has yet to work itself out in these United States is along the California/Oregon Borderlands of the Klamath Basin.
Everyone agrees that this is a very challenging current event that should be acknowledged in Wikipedia. I am being BOLD for bringing this up. It should not just be erased. There are several points of view on this, see the talk page. Don't just erase.
added to article 10:13, August 30, 2006 by 63.24.43.45
I'm not erasing this because there is anything wrong with including the info. But the main article space is not the place to discuss the merits of the information. It needs to be cleaned up and written to match the rest of the article and have the sources cited properly. If I have time later I will see what I can do. Katr6717:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am not sure if including "The treaty provided that, if the Indians drank or stored intoxicating liquor on the reservation, the payments could be withheld and that the United States could locate additional tribes on the reservation in the future." has any value to the article other than bringing up the point of injuns and their booze. I mean if we are to include that, why not go on to state that none of the alchoholism abatement programs current in Klamath Basin are run by a Native American? And all the current grant money to combat this disease flows through the hands of whites? Is this a valid point? Why even mention alcoholism in this article. I find more insightful to this treaty discussion would be the treaty terms including that the tribal members could no longer hold slaves, mostly of the Pit River tribe. One such descendant is an acquaintance of mine, but this is too bitter yet. Thus why include either point?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.24.57.37 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't read it as being about "injuns and their booze" or even about alcoholism, I read as "Look how patronizing whitey is in exercising his godlike power over these people" aka "One false move and you're outta here". We know that treaties were enforced arbitrarily and including this clause probably gave the U.S. some leverage. I think it should be left in. The part about slavery might be intersting too--I haven't read the treaty. It might be worth going back through the edit history and seeing which editor added what, and if s/he is still around, ask him or her about it. Some of the other articles on tribes would also be worth looking at, and we can always ask people involved in the Indigenous WikiProject (above). Katr6715:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
