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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by stormbrew »

berryjerry wrote: post #862
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…

I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. Yo…

This analogy falls apart rather quickly when you recognize that the north american indigenous population still suffers greatly under legal systems built on the treaties that weren't even honored while the descendants of those who perpetrated great crimes against them collectively constitute the greatest mass of wealth in the history of the world while also pretending to have done nothing wrong.

Re-do your analogy but now it's that your dad killed someone and stole the deed to his land, found oil on it, and is now one of the richest people in the world and the person he killed's kid is now on the street begging for cash and tell me again how little you owe that kid who's father's land gave you your trust fund and your college education.

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

#872

Post by quattrofan »

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…

Amen to that

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

#873

Post by darawk »

japhyr wrote: post #852
oxAAAFFB wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s one thing to be obligated to follow the law of the country. But it’s another to be assigned moral guilt for things you have no involvement in.

You don't need to be "assigned moral guilt" to recognize atrocities from the past, their influence on the present state, and reparations that should be made.

It's kind of an interesting moral question though. Should immigrants have to pay reparations for the crimes of a state that neither they nor their ancestors were a part of?

If we accept that the entity of the United States is responsible for these crimes and owes reparations...is it fair to use fungible tax dollars paid partially by immigrants to pay those reparations?

I don't know. Interesting puzzle to think about though.

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

#874

Post by StanislavPetrov »

berryjerry wrote: post #862
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…

I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. Yo…

>How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers?

This is a fundamentally flawed analogy. Our government - the same government that has existed since these treaties were signed - is still around.

> I find it very difficult to find the moral obligation to pay back that money when the people who were the actual victims are long dead

The question of a "moral obligation" is entirely irrelevant and unrelated to our government's legal obligation to uphold the treaty that our government signed.

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

#875

Post by StanislavPetrov »

bzb3 wrote: post #869
berryjerry wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. Yo…

What GP expresses is called white guilt, and it's brutally amplified by the media nowadays. If you don't feel bad for what your ancestors did, you're a terrible person... Even though you didn't have anything to do with their choices.

Whether or not you are a terrible person has nothing to do with legal obligations. If your ancestors took out a loan and signed a lien against a property, that doesn't just go away if they die. Its a legal contract. The whole "white guilt" argument about some sort of collective burden that people are supposed to bear is entirely unrelated to a codified, legal treaty signed by our government.

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

#876

Post by berryjerry »

stormbrew wrote: post #871
berryjerry wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. Yo…

This analogy falls apart rather quickly when you recognize that the north american indigenous population still suffers greatly under legal systems built on the treaties that weren't even honored while the descendants of those who perpetrated great crimes against them collectively constitute the greatest mass of wealth in the history of the world while also pretending to have done nothing wrong. Re-do your analogy but…

I think it is a false dilemma to assume that either person would become rich by means of owning the land at that time. The second the land was stolen it's future was changed forever but that does not change the original value of the stolen land. I assume the land was bought and sold between many parties before the person who finally found oil and became rich owned it, and assuming a tribe recognized ownership at the time the person who had the oil rich land stolen may not even have been of that tribe under an alternate timeline. I do understand the point though that the greater the size of the theft, the more reason to give back but I wouldn't go as far as to say there is an obligation by society in general towards that murdered man's grandchildren. I think the analogy still stands, in that the victim is long dead, the thief is long dead, and there was no crime knowingly committed by the living. I also think if we referred to the country of Spain as the "Spanish Tribe" and the country of England the "English Tribe" and the Colonists the "Colonist Tribe" and said they were warring with each other, then we probably would not even have this conversation.

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

#877

Post by qppo »

berryjerry wrote: post #868
qppo wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about guilt for the quantitative benefits you derive from no other reason but the position of your birth, often at the expense or detriment of others who suffer from the position of theirs?

I understand the point, because one was born with more, one owes it to those born with less. Correct? I think that is an economical system argument than a moral argument. I don't find being born into ANY situation a reason to feel guilt or apologize.

No, not correct. It's less of a debt and more of a duty, and less of an apology than an acknowledgement, and not a guilt but a recognition.

I didn't own slaves, I didn't commit genocide, and neither did my ancestors. But I benefit from slavery that did exist, and my ancestors benefited from a genocide. Do I owe anything to the victim? No, because the victims have been dead for decades if not a century. But a failure to recognize ones obligation or duty to the rest of their community to bring an equity about such that their children or grandchildren don't even consider such questions - that's not nearly at the scale of destruction as our history has wrought but it does continue the cycle. If you want future generations to break from it, it starts by reconciling that your status is derived from the status of those who came before you, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

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

#878

Post by ivalm »

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…

We the American people who are bound by the legal treaties our American government entered into. The same American government that existed for the past 200+ years and currently represents myself and all other Americans.

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

#879

Post by ivalm »

sam36 wrote: post #804
Klinky wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We", as in, "the country". It's part of the history and foundation of the country you agreed to become a citizen of. The nation of today is not isolated from it's past. Much benefit was gained from injustices of the past. What is the just thing to do? Sweep it under the rug and act like it didn't matter? What kind of values are those?

>What is the just thing to do? Sweep it under the rug and act like it didn't matter? That has stuck with me and I've been thinking. But I think I got an idea. Maybe we should educate our young about the past, where we came from (fled state sponsored religious persecution to a land that was free). We could also teach about the mistakes that were made, you know, like how we purchased conquered and displaced refugees fr…

Somehow in all of this you forgot the word genocide.

Oh wait...

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

#880

Post by astrange »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #875
bzb3 wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What GP expresses is called white guilt, and it's brutally amplified by the media nowadays. If you don't feel bad for what your ancestors did, you're a terrible person... Even though you didn't have anything to do with their choices.

Whether or not you are a terrible person has nothing to do with legal obligations. If your ancestors took out a loan and signed a lien against a property, that doesn't just go away if they die. Its a legal contract. The whole "white guilt" argument about some sort of collective burden that people are supposed to bear is entirely unrelated to a codified, legal treaty signed by our government.

> If your ancestors took out a loan and signed a lien against a property, that doesn't just go away if they die. Its a legal contract.

This is true, but only because liens are special, not because it's a contract. You're not a party to your ancestors' debts or contracts if they die. At most, their estate is.

Post reply on HN