U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#441

Post by spaginal » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

S33V wrote: post #378

spaginal wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a distinctly queer idea of what happens after a war. This isn't an American idea to take land after conquest, it's how it's always worked throughout human history, even with the Indians that warred amongst themselves prior to the American government becoming the ultimate victor against them. You may disagree with the foundations of the conflict, and you can argue on those merits if you choose, but the result…

I find it amusing that you hold a blanket thought that the theft of Native American land was the result of war games and not a mixture of deception, racism, genocide, breach of trust, and thievery.

I'm amused that you possibly think war is just two sides in distinct colors simply lining up and shooting volleys at each other until one side surrenders from the field with a white flag in the air. That may be more civil and gentlemanly, but it's far from how wars are mostly fought.

Deception, killing, accepting/breaking agreements, and taking things is basically war in a nutshell. It is an extension of diplomacy. How you execute these parts is a matter of your goals, and your morals and ethics.

But it's not THEFT. There is no such thing as theft when it comes between two nation states, it's either yours or it's not yours, and how well you can defend it basically is the rule of the game.

If you deceive yourself enough to assume you aren't at war, while the other side sends you all the signals that they are at war with you, whose fault is it when you eventually fall?

You may hate it, but don't redefine something basic to the politics of humanity.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#442

Post by hvs » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #379

hvs wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, that precisely the opinion that the Romans came to as well.

Why is Rome important here? I can see the symmetry between Rome and what USA currently has - different rich powerful groups arguing and ignoring half the people, for example; rife corruption and nepotism - but how is Rome a model for a democracy, and one that seeks (in theory) not to divide the people into ruling and subservient classes at that?

Because the U.S. isn't a democracy it's one that was explicitly founded on the model of the Roman Republic, albeit one with a written constitution.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#443

Post by klipt » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

salmon30salmon wrote: post #401

tempestn wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic, given that these same tendencies were very present around the fall of the Roman republic. Rome had a similar gridlock of opposing positions of power, and similarly fell into a state where little could be accomplished due to the regular undermining and vetoing. Edit: Since most replies are talking about the empire, I just want to reiterate that my comment was regarding the end of the Republic, which imo is a m…

Rome also had decades of civil war where a majority of the ruling class was either a) killed in said wars or b) killed after the wars in proscriptions by the victor. The only people left in the Senate were either weak-willed or allied to the "winner". The proscriptions by Marc Antony basically wiped out whatever resistance was left after the death of Julius Caesar. Couple this with the fact that the populace by-and-l…

There's some evidence that presidential democracies are inherently less stable than parliamentary democracies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-presidenti...

America was thought to be an exception because both parties used to be more centrist with wide overlap, but it seems they've become increasingly polarized, which makes the whole system less stable.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#444

Post by sophacles » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:52 PM UTC

spaginal wrote: post #321

NonEUCitizen wrote: post #233

The numbers should really be 100% instead of 25% and 10%. Much has been stolen from them.

You have a distinctly queer idea of what happens after a war. This isn't an American idea to take land after conquest, it's how it's always worked throughout human history, even with the Indians that warred amongst themselves prior to the American government becoming the ultimate victor against them. You may disagree with the foundations of the conflict, and you can argue on those merits if you choose, but the result…

You have a distinctly queer idea of physics. Just because many many assholes in the past have used violence to steal land, does not require any of the following:

* current or future people honor the validity of those assholes' decisions and actions * current or future people choosing to make right the bad things their ancestors did in the past, and giving back what was taken. * current or future people changing the structure of governance to allow groups to co-exist

All of these things are possible actions humans can take. Physics does not stop it - post war "happenings" are just human decisions. So why does your post read like the current situation is immutable just because it was preceded by war?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#445

Post by onetimemanytime » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:52 PM UTC

I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also think that treaties made at the time should be honored. Apparently Congress can unilaterally change the treaties, as per another SCOTUS decision in https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553

In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the Congressional action. The Court rejected the Indians' argument that Congress' action was a taking under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Edward D. White reasoned that matters involving Indian lands were the sole jurisdiction of Congress. Congress therefore had the power to "abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty," including the two-million acre change. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the judgment.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#446

Post by btilly » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #432

guerrilla wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatters rights only apply to abandoned property though. This land wasn't abandoned at any time. People were forced out and it was occupied.

I don't think he was saying this is an example of squatters rights. He is saying that squatters rights is an example of a principle where an unlawful act done long enough becomes a lawful act.

Almost. Not becomes, can become.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#447

Post by sib » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #432

guerrilla wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatters rights only apply to abandoned property though. This land wasn't abandoned at any time. People were forced out and it was occupied.

I don't think he was saying this is an example of squatters rights. He is saying that squatters rights is an example of a principle where an unlawful act done long enough becomes a lawful act.

But "squatters rights" are in fact the law... So a party "squatting" and thereby becoming the new owner is not a counterexample to the statement that "Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law." The squatters are not amending the law, they are acting in accordance with it.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#448

Post by brandmeyer » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

twsttest wrote: post #219

masklinn wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare. It didn't rule that the current administration can't undo the program, it ruled that the a…

However DACA itself is unlawful in that it is an Executive Order undermining Federal immigration law, so the administration's rescinding it on the basis of its unlawfulness should be sufficient enough justification. The problem is that the Court's ruling indicates that an EO which subverts existing law cannot be overturned by subsequent administrations simply on the basis of its illegality. Justice Thomas' dissent sa…

I urge you to read the SCOTUS opinion itself, and not just the rhetoric you may have heard in the media about the opinion. Because this:

> According to the recent ruling therefore, a President has the power to issue and EO which prevents the enforcement of certain laws

is flatly untrue.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#449

Post by nwallin » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #261

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know if you'd qualify it as a "major" city, but over 10% of Palm Springs CA is on an Indian reservation. For interesting historical reasons, though, the reservation is basically shaped like a checkerboard, where every other 640-acre square is reservation land. This obviously has huge implications on real estate - none of the reservation land is sold, just leased, and there were some recent cases where the tribe…

That seems like an insane way to divvy up land. My first instinct was that it was done that way to make the land effectively unusable as tribal land, just because that's how the government tends to roll in these cases

Correct. It was a policy to encourage Native Americans to move to the agricultural model used by European Americans, as well as incorporate socially. It was relatively easy for a white American farmer to set up a farm in the state administered squares, but it was relatively difficult for Native Americans to roam nomadically- it essentially reduced the density of available foodstuffs in the checkerboard by half. The presumption was that Native Americans would/should start farming and adopt American social and economic norms.

Another somewhat common practice was splitting up reservations into homestead sized blocks and assigning each block to an individual Native American adult male in traditional common law property ownership ways, which didn't map to any Native American social/economic norm.

There was a lot of effort put forth by the US government after the Reconstruction to coerce Native Americans to act like white Americans. Which was bizarre considering citizenship wasn't fixed until 1924. You would have thought they would have led with that.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#450

Post by spaginal » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #444

spaginal wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a distinctly queer idea of what happens after a war. This isn't an American idea to take land after conquest, it's how it's always worked throughout human history, even with the Indians that warred amongst themselves prior to the American government becoming the ultimate victor against them. You may disagree with the foundations of the conflict, and you can argue on those merits if you choose, but the result…

You have a distinctly queer idea of physics. Just because many many assholes in the past have used violence to steal land, does not require any of the following: * current or future people honor the validity of those assholes' decisions and actions * current or future people choosing to make right the bad things their ancestors did in the past, and giving back what was taken. * current or future people changing the s…

Because that is how this world works. You may be new out of the womb intellectually speaking, but if a child shows up at my doorstep one day and tells me I'm on his ancestors land from 300 years prior and I must vacate the home I bought and have legal title too, on the land my ancestors fought and bled over 300 years prior, even if they were assholes about it at the time, I have zero obligation to hand it over because of feelings.

That is why. You may not find it fair, but there does come past a point where the only fair thing to the present society, that had no hand in the original act, is to "keep on trucking" as they say.