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

81–90 of 264 posts

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#81

Post by nepeckman »

pinkfoot wrote: post #72
neonate wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The concepts of empathy and active listening are well defined. Calling those concepts "undefined, non-falsifiable, linguistic drivel" is completely unsubstantiated.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#82

Post by rukittenme »

baddox wrote: post #78
rukittenme wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The question remains. How do you solve the problem of historical injustice? Focusing specifically on land stolen from Native Americans by European settlers.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#83

Post by pdonis »

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.

> Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand

I'm not so sure. The only real effect of this decision is that everybody now has to recognize that a certain class of criminal cases (those in which all parties are members of the Creek nation) in eastern Oklahoma can only be tried in Federal courts (or, for some, Creek tribal courts), not Oklahoma state courts. Nothing else has to change. The Creek nation is already coexisting with non-Creek inhabitants of the same territory and none of that has to change; the city of Tulsa doesn't have to move, people don't have to leave their homes, businesses don't have to relocate. I don't see what makes the state of affairs after this decision particularly confusing or unstable.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#84

Post by fennecfoxen »

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…

To speak further of the conflicts of history, many tribes, including the Muscogee (Creek) tribe involved in the most recent Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma, were slaveholders. After the Civil War, the terms of the Reconstruction Treaties contributed to their land loss.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#85

Post by 627467 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #48
627467 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

First of all, there's a complication here in that some Indian reservations were created by the Indian nations themselves (particularly in the Pacific Northwest), while others were created as part of the genocide of Indians carried out by Europeans in the Americas. So let's focus first on the second category. Imagine that some people from elsewhere showed up, rounded up you and all your relatives and everybody else li…

I see, so it's akin to a breach of contract your second scenario. How is this controversial then?

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#86

Post by [deleted] »

ifokiedoke wrote: post #71
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…

[deleted]

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#87

Post by minerjoe »

hhernandez wrote: post #68
throwanem wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 today are generally not limited by the historical context from which they come. Your parents' individual personalities and ability to raise you does matter, but broader historical context matters very little, unless we try to make it so and that generally just causes conflict. People in wheelchairs are on the other hand affected by the presence or absence of wheelchair ramps.

Dude, go visit the Pine Ridge Reservation and then come back here and say "prople today are generally not limited by the historical context from which they come.

Or the Standing Rock reservation, or ...

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#88

Post by pinkfoot »

nepeckman wrote: post #81
pinkfoot wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

The concepts of empathy and active listening are well defined. Calling those concepts "undefined, non-falsifiable, linguistic drivel" is completely unsubstantiated.

Ok, let’s test that. So how do you decide if someone on a forum who you have never met has either:

1) listened with empathy, but still disagrees

2) ignored your argument, but replied with the same answer.

You cannot. So its just a linguistic device to bully other people in a conversation until they agree with you.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#89

Post by fennecfoxen »

Miner49er wrote: post #80
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.

Not so simple. Kind of hard to run a farm and grow your food when "land belongs to all". And who'd be stupid enough to put up a building on land they don't own?

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#90

Post by jcranmer »

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…

> It might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it was a fight nonetheless.

Contrary to popular misconception, most of the Indian Wars actually involved both sides having pretty equal access to then-modern technology, and sometimes the natives brought the better weapons to the fight.

They lost largely because we spent 300 years waging a war of extermination against them, and their smaller base was far less able to manage the attrition they suffered.

Post reply on HN