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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by myspy »

berryjerry wrote: post #876
stormbrew wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some crimes are not forgotten.

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

#882

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

> 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.

I disagree; whilst decriminalization is the way forward for the harmless / "soft" drugs, the hard drugs (e.g. heroin) are dangerous and destroy people and should not be freely accessible to anyone, anywhere.

What some countries do instead is provide heroin (or methadone) to people but only in specific locations, where they're provided with a safe and clean environment and equipment to do their thing, and where they can get help with their addiction if they want.

What I'm saying is that a lot of drugs are genuinely dangerous and should not become generally available.

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

#883

Post by astrange »

azernik wrote: post #541
refurb wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up in Canada some of the reservations do 99-years leases with developers. They retain ownership, but can actually get something for it.

Interesting - that's how the Israel National Fund managed its land in the pre-state period.

It's how China works as far as I know. It's a pretty good system; it makes housing cheap (one of the worst problems in the US) and it's good for farmers because if you go bust, you can return the land to the village who owns it anyway.

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

#884

Post by astrange »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #160
antics wrote: post #130

Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it. This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications. The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Trib…

Does the nature of the crime in this case have any implications on the ongoing precedent? It's bizarre that the headline could have read: Rape-related SC Decision Returns Land to Native American Tribe.

There's a difference in that now major crimes between tribe members have to be tried in federal rather than state court. Minor ones would be tried by tribal courts, which already exist.

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

#885

Post by astrange »

jeffdavis wrote: post #744
koheripbal wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are the consequences to people in Tulsa who aren't tribe members? Landowners who aren't tribe members? Can the tribe expel them and confiscate the land?

Nothing. The tribe members lost that land with the Dawes Act before Oklahoma was a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act

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

#886

Post by NalNezumi »

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 is a false analogy because unlike money (representation of value), land is not consumed and disappear.

A better analogy would be: your grandparent barged in to a persons house at gun point, demanded him to hand over his house. The owner obviously resist, and your grandpa tells the original owner that he will be given his house back in a couple of years(legally signed) to ease the resistance. This paper was also signed "with the current owner of the house", in mind(in case grandpa dies).

Now the original owner lives on the street, his grandchilden the same. Each generation have always asked "when would you live up to your promise?" to the descendant of your grandpa (current owner of the house) each year.

Now you can of course discuss if you should give additional compensation for their suffering, but the original contract still stands, and you've always been obliged to follow it. It's not about blame.

disclaimer: I'm in general in agreement with you that I don't think a child should be blamed for their ancestors sins.

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

#887

Post by StanislavPetrov »

astrange wrote: post #880
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oklahoma is our country's estate.

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

#889

Post by jlg23 »

sytelus wrote: post #813
ISL wrote: post #49

I found the conclusion compelling. I haven't yet had enough time this morning to read the dissent thoughtfully. 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…

Wait, so congress can throw away promises at its whims that was supposed to last until perpetuity? And SC will be fine with that as long as promise was thrown away explicitly?

That's exactly what courts are for: Application of laws created by the legislative.

And yes, the SC should be fine with whatever congress does as long as laws are obeyed in the legislative process itself.

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

#890

Post by throwqqq »

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…

This is an indictment of the American way of dealing with poverty more than anything. Giving some Indian chiefs the ability to decide life and death is a step in the wrong direction. We will not solve the problems of the 19th century with the methods of the 16th.

Compare BLM being outraged that blacks are killed by police at 3 times the rate of whites in the US. When the scandal should be that white Americans are killed at 20 times the rate of any British.

In short, there's a big problem in America, but no one is even able to see it.

Post reply on HN