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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by _-david-_ »

krapp wrote: post #659
_-david-_ wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not an expert in Native American history but the Creek Nation are almost certainly not the originally inhabitants. This is one of my biggest issues with stuff like this. Why should the Creek Nation get this land and not the tribe that lived there previously? Why not the tribe before that tribe? Americans often did not treat the natives well but this is an issue with all countries. It was quite common for Natives…

>Why should the Creek Nation get this land and not the tribe that lived there previously? Why not the tribe before that tribe? Because the US government entered into a treaty with the Creek Nation, who were the inhabitants of that land at that time.

I get the US made an agreement. I was talking more of a general principle than this specific case.

I have seen several comments here saying the US was wrong to take land through violent means and as such the US should return the land.

When the natives did the same thing to other natives nobody seems to think they should return it to the people they took it from.

There is a double standard and I don't like it. If we are going to return the land we should return it to the original inhabitants. Of course there isn't actually a way to figure out who occupied the land thousands of years ago.

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

#782

Post by lekanwang »

kebman wrote: post #329

Being part Sami I think it's fascinating to read about the system of reservations in the USA. I'm not sure about minority rule, but I'm clearly in favour of saving the unique cultures and ethnicities from dying out. After many years of persecution in Northeren Europe—including forced assimilation often called "Norwegianization" or "Swedification," and near extinction in Russia—we've finally gotten some recognition as…

I was fascinated with the history of the Sami when I visited Karasjok in the dead of winter, and spoke to a few who still tried to keep a somewhat traditional lifestyle. It did feel like it was a fight against time to keep those nomadic herding ways alive, and a really interesting philosophical debate about what really defines the Sami other than blood and (partly forgotten or purged) shared history if most are living lives indistinguishable from Norwegians and Swedes in their community.

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

#783

Post by keith__talent »

jake_morrison wrote: post #747

We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think…

Who is this 'we' you reference? Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible for crimes committed on Native Americans before they or their ancestors/families arrived in a recognized (at the time of arrival) Sovereign Country.

Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived or breathed.

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

#784

Post by pyuser583 »

I don’t know how to feel about this. I would be nice if there was good warning.

Even worse is the “for purposes of the MCA” which means it may or not be state territory for other purposes.

We need to know who is in charge so they can be held accountable.

I’ve lived near plenty of reservations and they are very different places. Some have very good government services, and relations with non-tribal authorities. Others, not so much.

The idea of telling a tribal authority: “surprise you’re responsible for criminal laws of half a state” puts a ton of pressure on tribal authorities, and even more pressure on tribal members to hold them accountable.

I’m not for or against this decision. I’m saying the small print and details matter a lot. And “small print” is an area where tribal relations often go bad.

I hope this works out. It has great potential- for bad and good!

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

#785

Post by ChrisLomont »

knodi123 wrote: post #610
schmichael wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!) None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited. The cited…

> If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. My jurisdiction does, of course, which is why I mentioned it. > None of this has anything, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited I disagree, strongly. I acknowledge that the fence line is now legal, in the colloquial sense meaning "in…

Most crimes have a statute of limitations. Why should moving a boundary illegally not have a similar limitation?

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

#786

Post by CWuestefeld »

beenBoutIT wrote: post #556
rudolph9 wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think use of regulated drugs is legal during a religious service https://www.pewforum.org/2006/02/21/supreme-court-rules-that... And, again I think, reservations are exempt from state laws/taxes and to certain extent able to make/enforce their own laws/taxes but they still need to follow federal laws.

The only way to stop our neverending war on drugs is a Constitutional amendment that guarantees every American the right to consume anything they want for any reason. In the next several decades there will be un unprecedented number of elderly Americans living below the poverty line with no pension and medical issues they can't afford to fix - euthanasia will become something of a nuclear option that they'll want ava…

I don't understand how we don't already have this, in the form of Roe v Wade. That decision revolves around the idea that a medical treatment is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. And if that's the case, I don't understand how the government can interfere with a doctor advising a patient to use, say, marijuana, or any given drug.

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

#787

Post by jake_morrison »

keith__talent wrote: post #783
jake_morrison wrote: post #747

We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think…

Who is this 'we' you reference? Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible for crimes committed on Native Americans before they or their ancestors/families arrived in a recognized (at the time of arrival) Sovereign Country. Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived o…

Those who benefit from the the current situation are responsible.

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

#789

Post by sam36 »

jake_morrison wrote: post #787
keith__talent wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is this 'we' you reference? Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible for crimes committed on Native Americans before they or their ancestors/families arrived in a recognized (at the time of arrival) Sovereign Country. Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived o…

Those who benefit from the the current situation are responsible.

What is the "current situation" and what is the "benefit"?

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

#790

Post by scoopertrooper »

dfee wrote: post #771
jake_morrison wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in Norman, so I am familiar. It's not as good as the prime real estate they had, and the life they had there. Why do you think the government chose Oklahoma for the reservations?

We both know the reasons as we both studied it in 9th grade Oklahoma History. Though I’m not sure that Brad Henry (D) really did much more for those people then anyone more recently (R). To be fair, I’ve not lived there for over a decade. There is quite a bit of grift in that state. It is certainly not the land they were native to, and that is the important point.

I didn't study 9th grade Oklahoma history, so maybe you could enlightened me. I did a bit of googling and it seems that Oklahoma wasn't suitable for large scale agriculture till the 2oth century when innovative farming techniques were developed.

Is this not correct?

Post reply on HN