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

Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

whose.land

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 264 posts

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#21

Post by hhernandez »

baddox wrote: post #17
hhernandez wrote: post #2

"Indigenous Nations" are ethnotribal-pseudostates. They are racist and problematic. Claiming that some land is "Native Land" is the same as claiming some land is "White land". This is not flamebait. The reservation system is a relic of a time when both the white European settlers AND the Natives saw themselves as separate enough to be unable to live together in a single Nation. It is time we undo these artificial rac…

> If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else I think there's a pretty obvious difference between referring to land in historical North America as "Native land" and calling it "White land." And the specific label doesn't matter much, you could say "European land" or "colonized land" and the point remains unchanged. Your comment seems like th…

What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment.

Preventing racial discrimination (a good thing) should not lead into encouraging racial division, but unfortunately our well meaning desire to be equitable often causes that to happen.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#22

Post by baddox »

hhernandez wrote: post #21
baddox wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else I think there's a pretty obvious difference between referring to land in historical North America as "Native land" and calling it "White land." And the specific label doesn't matter much, you could say "European land" or "colonized land" and the point remains unchanged. Your comment seems like th…

What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment. Preventing racial discrimination (a good thing) should not lead into encouraging racial division, but unfortunately our well meaning desire to be equitable often causes that to happen.

> What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment.

Of course that's definitely not the only way forward. You can fix unequal distributions of resources by, well, redistributing the resources, which requires acknowledging the existence of different groups and the history of how those groups have distributed resources among themselves. And note that acknowledging the existence of a social construct that distinguishes people into different groups does not imply condoning that social construct.

It's not that radical. If a thief steals my car, the way forward is to recognize who is the thief and who is the victim, and to redistribute the resources accordingly. That does not "simply encourage further division and entrenchment between thieves and victims of theft," or if it does, I think that's okay. We don't say "hey, I'm blind to the differences between thieves and victims, we're all just human beings."

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#23

Post by 627467 »

Gunax wrote: post #18

So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state court. While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than another? Typically the jurisdictio…

> Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership?

And how does one certify identity/ethnicity and why won't individuals claim as many (or as little) of them?

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#24

Post by atombender »

Gunax wrote: post #18

So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state court. While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than another? Typically the jurisdictio…

The point that Gorsuch made in his majority opinion was that it's not the Supreme Court's role to figure this out — that's Congress' job.

The SC only interprets the law, which in this case referred to a treaty that never repealed by Congress, so the SC ruled that it must be honored.

Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand, and the court sent a strong signal that it needs to be resolved by Congress.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#25

Post by Gunax »

joshuakelly wrote: post #11
Gunax wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that's its flamebait, and I am even skeptical of the concept of flamebait as one person's flamebait is another's honest opinion. In fact I think the comment in question is a strait forward and honest opinion that is just missing the usual euphemisms and massaging that usually accompany such controversial topics. And I also think that questioning whether tribal pseudo sub-states should exist is completel…

The original comment has changed significantly. It was much more terse in its initial posting. I think another important factor to keep in mind here is age of account.

I also read it in it's initial form, and my reply was based on that.

I hate to detail so much from the article content. I strongly disagree with the flagging of that comment. Accusing a nation of being a racist ethno-state is completely on topic, even if controversial. And we regularly see the same accusations levied at America or Israel (I would not want those removed either). I fear a double standard is developing.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#26

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Gunax wrote: post #18

So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state court. While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than another? Typically the jurisdictio…

The territory is "owned" by the tribe(s) although that ownership is subjugated by federal (not state) interests.

Imagine if MA tried to claim that RI was really part of its territory. Eventually, the case reaches the Supreme Court, which rules that in fact RI is actually its own thing. MA has no jurisdiction to prosecute in RI, but the federal government still does.

Except that eastern OK is a lot larger than RI, and the origins of the reservation there are much darker and wrapped up in the appalling treatment of indigenous people.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#27

Post by chrisco255 »

The idea of the stable borders is so new. The Ottoman Empire still controlled much of the middle east before World War I. The British Empire was also still quite expansive at the beginning of that war (and into WW2). The fact that so much of the world speaks Latin-derived languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian...nearly 1 billion people in total) is a relic of the Roman empire's own expansive conquering of territory. Just over 150 years ago, Germany wasn't even a single nation state, but rather a collection of loose territories. Among the native americans themselves, there were constant warring, slavery, even human sacrifice and in some cases cannibalism.

And this is, for example, how the Iroquois treated prisoners of war: "The captive would be executed after a day-long torture session of burning and removing body parts, which the prisoner was expected to bear with stoicism and nobility (an expectation not usually met) before being scalped alive. Hot sand was applied to the exposed skull and they were finally killed by cutting out their hearts. Afterward, the victim's body was cut and eaten by the community. The practice of ritual torture and execution, together with cannibalism, ended some time in the early 18th century."

For some reason, some people believe that whatever "borders" existed several hundred years ago should be brought forward to modern times. These folks consistently craft a narrative that paints the U.S. in a bad light while ignoring the very real crimes against humanity that occurred on practically every square foot of ground across the globe, going back thousands of years.

From a certain perspective, all of human history can be summed up as an endless series of blood feuds.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#28

Post by jaegerpicker »

Gunax wrote: post #18

So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state court. While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than another? Typically the jurisdictio…

That's the point the tribe is a separate nation by treaty. The tribe has the right to make legal laws and rules. We almost never actually recognize them but they do exist.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#29

Post by S33V »

hhernandez wrote: post #21
baddox wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else I think there's a pretty obvious difference between referring to land in historical North America as "Native land" and calling it "White land." And the specific label doesn't matter much, you could say "European land" or "colonized land" and the point remains unchanged. Your comment seems like th…

What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment. Preventing racial discrimination (a good thing) should not lead into encouraging racial division, but unfortunately our well meaning desire to be equitable often causes that to happen.

I'd concur, a colorblind approach would have detrimental effects to indigenous people. Colorblindness leads to ignorance and turns a blind eye to the past when working for a fair future. There's a great journal article on this exact subject:

Fryberg, S. A., & Stephens, N. M. (2010). When the world is colorblind, American Indians are invisible. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 115-119. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.483847

PDF: https://www.nicolemstephens.com/uploads/3/9/5/9/39596235/34_...

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#30

Post by Gunax »

627467 wrote: post #23
Gunax wrote: post #18

So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state court. While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than another? Typically the jurisdictio…

> Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? And how does one certify identity/ethnicity and why won't individuals claim as many (or as little) of them?

Well it's certified based on tribal membership, which is an actual, de jure status. When I wrote ethnicity I am just acknowledging that it's so closely tied to tribal membership that they are effectively the same.

I imagine the tribes can grant status to anyone they like as a sovereign nation, just like America can grant citizenship to whomever it decides.

Post reply on HN