41–50 of 1001 posts
Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?
This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
Do you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some respect. EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.
This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
No income tax? Never mind injuns coming. Where do people sign up to become one? Huge percentage of population has some Indian blood. The exact definition can be worth a lot to many people. Let the drama begin!
https://www.voanews.com/usa/native-american-tribal-disenroll...
This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
Do you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some respect. EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.
This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
No income tax? Never mind injuns coming. Where do people sign up to become one? Huge percentage of population has some Indian blood. The exact definition can be worth a lot to many people. Let the drama begin!
We should then probably go back to Genghis Khan times and challenge the whole Eurasia, Persian inlands and a bunch of other areas around the world. To me, it seems like looking back and expecting special treatment many centuries ago is a minority trump card and instead we should be focusing on giving better opportunities, improving communities and looking forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, either way, what are the implications to non-tribe citizens and non-tribe governments?
And how do you even define a tribe citizen? Is there like an ID card? Is it a DNA test? Does Elizabeth Warren qualify?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
"The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is Reversed."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some respect. EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.
He's obviously mocking the use of the word... can people here not understand context?