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

31–40 of 264 posts

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#31

Post by simonsarris »

notJim wrote: post #15
baddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This map contains a lot of overlapping and very rounded regions that I think convey that it's rough areas of settlement rather than some internationally-recognized partition of the land.

The FAQ also contains this, and more nuanced discussion about what the map means. Why are we recognizing more than one Nation on this territory? Indigenous history stretches back thousands and thousands of years. Some Indigenous nations were nomadic, while many had permanent communities and seasonal communities. Often, boundaries between territories overlap because the Indigenous Nations were continuously sharing the…

"Continuously sharing and negotiating" is a wild ride of a euphemism. It's like writing that the Mamluks and Ottomans continuously shared and negotiated a couple of peninsulas. It's true, but what it doesn't say is incredible.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#32

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

This map should really have some dates on it. It might represent the state of things within, say, a 100 year period (or so) of European arrival, but it doesn't convey the history of humans in North America. I read the FAQ and could not find any information on what time period is represented here. If someone showed you a map of Europe or China marked out like this, it would be natural to ask "when is this?"

None of that does anything to ameliorate the genocide that was perpetrated against the people living in the Americans when europeans travelled and then settled here. But it's also important not to portray the prior 10k years or more of human settlement in the Americas as static and unchanging.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#33

Post by luckylion »

notJim wrote: post #15
baddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This map contains a lot of overlapping and very rounded regions that I think convey that it's rough areas of settlement rather than some internationally-recognized partition of the land.

The FAQ also contains this, and more nuanced discussion about what the map means. Why are we recognizing more than one Nation on this territory? Indigenous history stretches back thousands and thousands of years. Some Indigenous nations were nomadic, while many had permanent communities and seasonal communities. Often, boundaries between territories overlap because the Indigenous Nations were continuously sharing the…

The FAQ strangely avoids the fact that Indigenous Nations also waged war against one another over territory. Sharing the land and negotiating agreements is a strange euphemism. It sounds more interested in narratives of Noble Savages than historical facts.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#34

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

atombender wrote: post #24
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.

... which if past practices provide any indication means that the USA will abrogate yet another treaty.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#35

Post by S33V »

Gunax wrote: post #25
joshuakelly wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there any way to refute a flagging? I think the original comment spawned some great conversation which relies on it being visible.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#36

Post by throwanem »

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.

The concept of a colorblind approach ignores the existence of historical context. One might as well take a disability-blind approach to whether buildings need wheelchair ramps.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#37

Post by alistairSH »

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…

SCOTUS left the door open for Congress to change or nullify the treaty that created the reservations in OK.

If we (American society) decide we'd rather not deal with the complexities of a massive reservation that overlaps half of OK and includes one of OK's largest cities, we can ask Congress to change the rules.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#38

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

chrisco255 wrote: post #27

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 conque…

Seems like there is quite a bit of fragility and anxiety with this thread, mostly culminating into getting the US out of the spotlight, and talking about humanity through all periods.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#39

Post by krapp »

S33V wrote: post #16
dlivingston wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain further? I don’t see how you reach your conclusion from your premise. Or, how you reach your premise at all.

Not the original commenter, but what I'm taking from it is that the notion of land ownership was/is foreign to indigenous people. Given that, using the term native land can be misrepresenting native history. I'm not sure what the alternative verbiage would be to describe an area has inhabited by an indigenous tribe. Urban Native Era, a pretty large Native movement/brand, holds the slogan "You Are On Native Land" and…

"indigenous people" comprises hundreds of tribes, with distinct cultures and beliefs. Talking about what was or wasn't a "foreign concept" in that context is like doing so for Africans or the kind of Indians that Columbus intended to find.

It's difficult to come to an objective conclusion because so much of what's believed and reported about native culture is often done through appropriate by the descendents of European settlers, rather than the natives themselves, and a lot of mythologizing, fetishizing and stereotyping has taken place over the years as a result. One should at least be wary of sweeping "just so" truisms about historically oppressed people.

Anecdotally, I was able to find some evidence to the contrary[0], and I would expect the actual truth to vary according to tribe.

[0]https://daily.jstor.org/yes-americans-owned-land-before-colu...

[1]https://mises.org/wire/did-indians-understand-concept-privat...

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#40

Post by tspike »

627467 wrote: post #9
dlivingston wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain further? I don’t see how you reach your conclusion from your premise. Or, how you reach your premise at all.

I do want to hear more from more versed people since I hear arguments in favour of indigenous rights that are variations of pro-(insert your ethnogroup) rights. Why are some pro-ethno rights alright and others not? Is it that because some ethnogroups are considered in disadvantage and hence deserving special rights? I understand the concept Affirmative Action, is this what we are talking about?

"Some ethnogroups are considered in disadvantage" is one way to put it, but it's minimizing it. We're talking about groups that were specifically targeted for their ethnicity: murdered, raped, disenfranchised, and exiled (with no hyperbole).

You can't decimate a group based on ethnicity and then ask why they deserve special treatment for their ethnicity. Further, they're not even getting special treatment- they are having the sovereignty and jurisdiction our _own system_ assigned them validated and reaffirmed after having it unlawfully stolen from them.

You can argue that a tribal government should adopt open, non-ethnocentric policies, but that is their decision to make, not ours.

Post reply on HN