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

71–80 of 264 posts

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#71

Post by ifokiedoke »

waffle_ss wrote: post #63

Human history is a story of conquest, and Native Americans fought - fought , not rolled over on their bellies - and were conquered by white settlers. It might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it was a fight nonetheless. The 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…

While I understand this sentiment - especially since as you say, most (if not all) of today's accepted states and borders are the result of bloody, unfair conquest - I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. Interestingly, I've also found that many people (I'm being a bit hand-wavy here, I know) who are completely fine with dismissing indigenous land acknowledgements have plenty to say about Tibet re: China, or Crimea re: Russia, etc. Perhaps it's all realpolitik posturing, but if it has been I certainly haven't been able to tell.

Seems to me that so long as the peoples who "lost" in history are still around and able to generate sympathy, empathy, and understanding, it lands upon us to seriously think about whether or not we should continue the status quo and carry history into the present.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#72

Post by pinkfoot »

neonate wrote: post #69
MockObject wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm talking about hearing from the heart and not just in the technical sense that might say "Ok, you said your piece and I heard it, now can we just move on". I believe that most people won't respond dismissively to the suffering of others, if the conditions for hearing each other, really listening and acknowledging, are in place. But it's painful and we avoid those conditions as much as possible. For example, I hear…

“Hearing from the heart”

This is just undefined, non-falsifiable, linguistic drivel that allows you - and you alone - to dismiss any response you dont like.

Which you do.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#73

Post by random314 »

waffle_ss wrote: post #63

Human history is a story of conquest, and Native Americans fought - fought , not rolled over on their bellies - and were conquered by white settlers. It might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it was a fight nonetheless. The 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…

Yes of course. If you lose your property to a stronger person in a fist fight, it is now his property. Who are we to change this ancient wisdom.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#74

Post by vmception »

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…

> Typically the jurisdiction of crime is based on territory, not ethnicity.

The US Constitution allows the country to enter into treaties which are otherwise unconstitutional.

It has entered into a treaty with a different nation with overlapping boundaries, due to the nature of the treaty, and it has to honor that. Congress can further renege on their promises and change the treaty, but the reason that treaty exists is because a prior older unconstitutional act involving the relocation of those indigenous nations to that area of Oklahoma. So Congress and the President won't touch it, not just the current one, but no congress and President will touch this without consequence.

So its not about what we want, its about atonement and having to deal with this incongruency now in the 21st century. We are still in the process of recognizing that there are hundreds of separate semi-autonomous and co-dependent nations within the continental US, and we have to have diplomatic relations with their people, people that cannot be simply deported when they commit a heinous crime, and share a porous border with the rest of the country.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#75

Post by baddox »

MockObject wrote: post #65
neonate wrote: post #60

Earlier 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?

I think it's reasonable to infer that "hearing" in this context doesn't literally mean only the act of perceiving sound. It's clearly referring to listening in good faith.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#76

Post by rukittenme »

baddox wrote: post #70
rukittenme wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying that, unlike other injustices where we as a society generally approve of at least attempting to correct the injustice, this particular injustice is unique, and we shouldn't even attempt to remediate? Or do you oppose all attempts to correct past injustices because "cosmic justice" doesn't exist? I don't hope for cosmic justice, I think justice is up to us humans. Nothing about my argument relies on rac…

> Nothing about my argument relies on racial language or philosophy.

It does because you're relying on racial identity to determine who pays and who receives rather than who stole and who was stolen from. The matter of who did what to whom is "settled" in the sense that all parties are dead.

> I don't hope for cosmic justice, I think justice is up to us humans.

What is your solution to the "stolen land" problem?

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#77

Post by vmception »

waffle_ss wrote: post #63

Human history is a story of conquest, and Native Americans fought - fought , not rolled over on their bellies - and were conquered by white settlers. It might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it was a fight nonetheless. The 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…

You hit the nail on the head: everyone is too busy grouping these separate nations together.

Like there will be a reader here trying to form an opinion and say "wow that opinion from an American Indian/Indigenous/Native American person will now form my opinion since it weighs so much more" as opposed to "one part Ojibwe person has one paradox regarding the Ojibwe nation's relationship with the Lakota nation, and I wonder what the actual consensus on that specific issue is with the representatives of those nations and the US Federal Government".

There are hundreds of separate nations within the US that are barely on any map. And these all need to be reconciled individually.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#78

Post by baddox »

rukittenme wrote: post #76
baddox wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that, unlike other injustices where we as a society generally approve of at least attempting to correct the injustice, this particular injustice is unique, and we shouldn't even attempt to remediate? Or do you oppose all attempts to correct past injustices because "cosmic justice" doesn't exist? I don't hope for cosmic justice, I think justice is up to us humans. Nothing about my argument relies on rac…

> Nothing about my argument relies on racial language or philosophy. It does because you're relying on racial identity to determine who pays and who receives rather than who stole and who was stolen from. The matter of who did what to whom is "settled" in the sense that all parties are dead. > I don't hope for cosmic justice, I think justice is up to us humans. What is your solution to the "stolen land" problem?

> It does because you're relying on racial identity to determine who pays and who receives rather than who stole and who was stolen from.

I did not say or imply this.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#79

Post by rukittenme »

majormajor wrote: post #49
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…

> From a certain perspective, all of human history can be summed up as an endless series of blood feuds. Is it so bad that people think we should try to do better? In my history classes I learned about Europe - itself very much in flux as you mention through the past thousand years - being "invaded" and America being "settled." Things need to be properly acknowledged before they can be moved past. And some of these t…

> Things need to be properly acknowledged before they can be moved past.

What acknowledgement would right the wrongs of history? What is the appropriate amount of reparations to be paid?

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#80

Post by Miner49er »

waffle_ss wrote: post #63

Human history is a story of conquest, and Native Americans fought - fought , not rolled over on their bellies - and were conquered by white settlers. It might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it was a fight nonetheless. The 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…

The simplest solution is that land ownership shouldn't exist. Land belongs to all.
Post reply on HN