Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by kbenson »

btilly wrote: post #411
ddingus wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. The natives deserve a fair shake and the land is roomy enough for people to get along and work together. Forcing that is a damn good thing. The USA has a lot to account for, and it is very sick. Rough roads ahead. Maybe they lead to better places. I do not feel good about the last 4 or so decades of travel. As a people, maybe world, we may well be better for going down this road.

For the record I have a brother living on a native reservation. I am well aware of exactly how horrible our past and continuing treatment of the natives have been. And strongly support fixing our ongoing treatment of them. However I also strongly believe that our future prosperity is based more on current actions than past circumstances. And therefore believe that attempts to redress long past ills are actively harmf…

> I don't support trying to redress ills from over a century ago whether we are talking about restoring native reservations, or paying reparations for slavery.

I can understand this, and I think a lot of people are open to argumentation on this. Where it seems to get complex is when those past harms seem to have had a chain reaction that lingers and causes problems for people today.

Do I support recompense for someone just because their great grandparent was a slave? No. Do I support recompense because someone lives in a slum and has had poor choices in life available to them because of structural problems resulting in their parent and grandparents situations because of the situation of that great grandparent? Maybe? Yes? I think it's a harder and more complex question with a lot more to consider when laid out in that manner, so I don't have a simple answer.

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

#482

Post by sophacles »

seemslegit wrote: post #474
sophacles wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it means that the borders of Oklahoma get more complex when you consider the treaties that the US has entered into. It's worth noting that according to the constitution, treaties have equal weight to the constitution. Therefore this ruling seems to me a way of saying "hey, maybe we should draw the maps according to the highest law in the land". It has a bonus effect of signalling that the native people are ac…

That's all nice and well, but what does it mean for the 1.8 million non-native-american people in that area, can one of them now rob another and not be guilty of a crime ? Or does it mean every robbery/arson/murder there can only be investigated by the FBI and charged in a federal court ?

Well, fortunately from what I gather, this only applies to tribal members on reservation land. So some of those 1.8 million will have it apply, and the rest wont. I mean it's right there in the article and the ruling... but you know, racist FUD is a better source I guess.

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

#483

Post by hackinthebochs »

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…

Theft is a concept that exists within a legal or normative framework. There is no such thing as theft outside of an established framework. If you want to argue that America unjustly took Native American land, you basically have to start from first principles.

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

#484

Post by StavrosK »

koheripbal wrote: post #459
threatofrain wrote: post #2

> The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest city. McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

This seems like an invitation for Congress to pass a law taking the land back officially. ...though probably not until after the election.

It means "if you want to go back on your promise and steal their land, you'll have to do it explicitly".

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

#485

Post by woah »

abqio wrote: post #367
NonEUCitizen wrote: post #233

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

No thank you. As someone who lives in one of those states this is a worrying precedent. Maybe if their laws didn't apply to me as a non citizen I would be ok with this. As it is, I can be arrested for stopping at the wrong gas station with a firearm in my car. I have no choice but to pass through reservations on a regular basis. And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being h…

Same thing happens if you go to Canada or Mexico. What's the big deal?

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

#486

Post by Wohlf »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #366
Vysero wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was wondering what exactly was meant by "reservation".. in my experience you can't, as an outsider (non-native), just go, and live on the reservation. So unless it's unlike any reservations in my state then there must have been something I was missing.

Back in the day, enrolled members of some tribes could sell land to non-members. I think most tribes prevent that now. Land sold to non-members became Fee property that can be owned by non-members or sold to non-members. Depending on the reservation, you will find plenty of non-members that own property within the reservation.

Does this depend on the reservation? I've heard of reservations where you basically couldn't build a permanent structure or get a building loan due to how the tribal land rules work.

It's kind of fascinating having these micro-nations that aren't quite nations within our borders, I should read more in to this subject.

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

#487

Post by phaedryx »

abqio wrote: post #367
NonEUCitizen wrote: post #233

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

No thank you. As someone who lives in one of those states this is a worrying precedent. Maybe if their laws didn't apply to me as a non citizen I would be ok with this. As it is, I can be arrested for stopping at the wrong gas station with a firearm in my car. I have no choice but to pass through reservations on a regular basis. And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being h…

Doesn't this just change things from state level to federal? You still are a US citizen and you still have input in the government. This seems like the same situation as when someone goes through multiple states?

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

#488

Post by mtgp1000 »

__s wrote: post #433
mtgp1000 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think warring tribes treated each other? You are aware that some proportion of native tribes kept both native and black (and probably white to a lesser extent) slaves, right? It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership. Seems people are too eager to view history through a modern moral lense these days.

> It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership There were many tribes living without telecommunications across the Americas with all their varying climates causing different socioeconomic structures to emerge https://mises.org/wire/did-indians-understand-concept-privat...

>all their varying climates causing different socioeconomic structures to emerge

Which supports my point, that trying to view native practices through modern concepts is a bit like forcing a square peg through a round hole.

>One of the reasons that many continue to think that aboriginal Americans had no concept of private property, however, is because many tribes did regard land as being communally owned. Carl Watner explores the topic in The Journal of Libertarian Studies

The article seems to conflate "private property" with land ownership. Even this particular paragraph speaks of "communal ownership" which isn't quite the same as the concept of ownership in modern US law, though there are certainly provisions for group ownership.

Point is that article only supports what I'm saying, that it's borderline slanderous to assign morality to the behavior of cultures from 300+ years ago according to modern laws and ideas. Regarding this discussion, "theft" certainly becomes a strong word when you consider how different (and heterogeneous) concepts and practices were back then.

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

#489

Post by refurb »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #366
Vysero wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was wondering what exactly was meant by "reservation".. in my experience you can't, as an outsider (non-native), just go, and live on the reservation. So unless it's unlike any reservations in my state then there must have been something I was missing.

Back in the day, enrolled members of some tribes could sell land to non-members. I think most tribes prevent that now. Land sold to non-members became Fee property that can be owned by non-members or sold to non-members. Depending on the reservation, you will find plenty of non-members that own property within the reservation.

Up in Canada some of the reservations do 99-years leases with developers.

They retain ownership, but can actually get something for it.

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

#490

Post by falcrist »

koheripbal wrote: post #457
zetazzed wrote: post #301

From the actual opinion: "Oklahoma replies that its situation is different because the affected population here is large and many of its residents will be surprised to find out they have been living in Indian country this whole time. But we imagine some members of the 1832 Creek Tribe would be just as surprised to find them there." Damn, nice shade, Gorsuch! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pd…

The entire city of Tulsa is there - literally millions of non-native Americans live in this area. Congress will have no choice but to make a law breaking the promise and repatriating the land out of Native American hands.

I think that's the intent of the ruling, actually. Part of the conclusion says "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so."
Post reply on HN