[flagged]
> "an incredibly fair system"
I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
91–100 of 264 posts
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 The SC only interprets the law, which in this case referred to a treaty that never repealed by Congress, so the SC ruled that it must be honored.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 alrea…
The Chief Justice doesn't agree with you there. He wrote the decision "will undermine numerous convictions obtained by the State, as well as the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes committed in the future ... [and] may destabilize the governance of vast swathes of Oklahoma."
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
In the exact same way that every country in the world operates. The tribal government sets the criteria that must be met to be a member of the tribe.
I see, so, just like how around the world peers recognize the ability of a self-proclaimed nation of define their own nationality so in this case the US is the peer that recognizes tribal government sovereign authority to define who is has membership in it (among other things).
Does tribal governments not have legal jurisdictions? Judicial institutions?
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#94Wait until the indigenous folks start going back further in time and revising their own conquests. That should be fun to watch. Oh, and they had slavery too, in case where their enemies weren't exterminated outright or even eaten sometimes. Quote from Wikipedia: "Native American groups often enslaved war captives, whom they primarily used for small-scale labor. Others however would stake themselves in gambling situat…
Maybe stop learning about Native American history from Wikipedia and a "cursory search". You can always find something on the web to "support" your argument. The harder path is to actually do the research to understand the nuances and most importantly, in this case, to learn how much of history is highly innacurate and written by the conquerors.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#95"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…
Funnily enough, we tried disestablishing the reservation systems. It was the Native Americans who objected to that.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
There probably isn't an easy, simple or universally acceptable answer.
But... the US taking its treaty obligations with native peoples as seriously as it does with other nations would be a good start.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ...
Or your local BLM protest. The Brookings Institution has a good survey of the relevant history, here: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining...
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I don't have the experience to suggest specifics, but I think more government aid programs targeted to Native American communities is a good start. I don't pretend that there's some way of perfectly undoing the land distribution, but I also don't claim that there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's harder to do over a text forum than in person, but it's not strictly impossible. The low hanging fruit is checking to see if a person is responding specifically to the arguments in your post, or just arguing against a strawman. You can take that a step further and try to determine if their response indicates they understood your argument. This is more error prone, but still a possible method of determining good faith.
Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America
#100Human 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…
Humans have not found a more stable normative concept of capital allocation (property) than: "Who got here first."