Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
61–70 of 264 posts
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#62Their coverage is focused on North America, but there's also entries in South America, Australia, and New Zealand.
This isn't a critique of this project, but a question about the spirit of acknowledgement and reconciliation embodied by this and other projects: Africa bore a crushing toll under colonialism. Its people were kidnapped and sold to slavery, which persisted for hundreds of years. In many cases, they weren't even afforded the dilemma of making unequal treaties. Those who remained in Africa lived under colonial powers until after WWII, then in artificial states inheriting the old colonial borders. Many of these places descended into civil war shortly after their independence, and even today their human development lags behind the rest of the world. Ought we not reconcile that?
Of course, it's not a competition. Injustice done to one ought to stand on its own, without comparison to injustice done to others. But the promise of multinational, classically liberal states like Canada, the United States, Colombia, Australia, is that their people are empowered with the right to thrive regardless of how they found themselves in the country, by blood of conquerors, blood of indigenous peoples, blood of slaves, or as recent immigrants. Belief in this lofty ideal, which doesn't always work in practice when one starts much further behind, is also what sets the stage for the self-reflection, compassion, and the desire for reconciliation.
Other parts of the world aren't so keen on this movement. In Europe, similar desires to recognize past inhabitants of a land are painted as irrendentism, hurt by the association with today's xenophobic nationalists and past conquerors who turned to total war and genocide. In Asia, powerful states regularly engage in the subjugation of ethnic groups to this day, but the powers are too significant to world trade and world peace to condemn and alienate. Preservation of life and limb are surprisingly powerful motivators in suppressing this kind of examination elsewhere. Stability, a reduced level of fear, and a latent sense of guilt among the dominant group in power appear to be the necessary preconditions for this kind of movement to emerge and thrive. This isn't a cynical point, but we ought to collectively acknowledge that.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#63The natives were certainly fighting each other before whites arrived, too - the warrior role is an important part of many tribes' culture.
Should the Comanche give reparations and land back to the Apache because they drove them out and slaughtered them almost to complete genocide?
Should the Ojibwe (who I share blood with) apologize for teaching white settlers the name "Sioux", meaning "little snakes", for the Lakota (their enemy)?
The USA should honor its treaties and acknowledge any wrongdoings, but these land acknowledgements that state the land is "occupied" by a foreign power are absurd and I'll continue to strongly object to them.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
SCOTUS can't close the door on congress changing the law, though. That's the purpose of congress.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It almost as if your definition of ‘hear me’ really means ‘silently agree with me and acquiesce to all remedies that I alone propose’.
Not at all. I mean hear as in really listen and take in what the other is saying. That's harder than it sounds. It's painful and frightening and almost no one is willing to do it, but I think it's the only way forward. Otherwise we're just going to get more violence and justification of violence, because no matter how deeply we try to suppress them, the grievances of the past will just keep reexploding.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 hi…
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
It almost as if your definition of ‘hear me’ really means ‘silently agree with me and acquiesce to all remedies that I alone propose’.
Not at all. I mean hear as in really listen and take in what the other is saying. That's harder than it sounds. It's painful and frightening and almost no one is willing to do it, but I think it's the only way forward. Otherwise we're just going to get more violence and justification of violence, because no matter how deeply we try to suppress them, the grievances of the past will just keep reexploding.
Instead, once you realised that the OP had not capitulated to your point of view, you belittled and dismissed it as not listening/hearing
How else does one hear you and then answer: ‘nah you are wrong, and here is why...’
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
People in wheelchairs are on the other hand affected by the presence or absence of wheelchair ramps.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. I mean hear as in really listen and take in what the other is saying. That's harder than it sounds. It's painful and frightening and almost no one is willing to do it, but I think it's the only way forward. Otherwise we're just going to get more violence and justification of violence, because no matter how deeply we try to suppress them, the grievances of the past will just keep reexploding.
Interesting that you seem to be assuming a particular result from "hearing", excluding the reaction of "I hear you, and I just don't care." which is surely a possibility?
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 hi…
The problem isn't remediation for an injustice. The problem is the overt and explicitly racial language and philosophy behind your arguments for remediation. The problem is the inability to remediate history. There is no such thing as cosmic justice.
Nothing about my argument relies on racial language or philosophy, any more than my argument for returning stolen property relies on "'thief'-like language or philosophy." My argument for remediation is simply that the injustice occurred, and I think our society should attempt to correct this past injustice just like other past injustices.