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

211–220 of 264 posts

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#211

Post by oh_sigh »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #28
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…

That's the point the tribe is a separate nation by treaty. The tribe has the right to make legal laws and rules. We almost never actually recognize them but they do exist.

That seems like a horrible precedent. I don't see how this would be any different than, say, a group of Christians or Muslims installing a parallel system of courts to police their own people.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#212

Post by DiffEq »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #153
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what right did the the land belong to the native Americans? Do you think all the native tribes spilled out of Alaska and then neatly fitted themselves into mutually-recognized non-overlapping territories never to be disturbed?

Indigenous people have been in NA for an extremely long time and have sorted themselves into nations over that time just like any where else in the world. If there are overlapping disagreements between Indigenous Nations about land title, as there are with all sorts of modern nations around the world, there are lots of modern mechanisms to settle that. Not sure how any of this has any relevance or should be used as a…

The time tested ancient and modern mechanism to settle such claims has been war. They lost the war. That is it; victors make the rules after that.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#213

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

yellowapple wrote: post #206
BurningFrog wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Just because the genocide didn't fully succeed in exterminating every last Native American doesn't mean it somehow wasn't a "systematic mass genocide", for the same reason that just because Nazi Germany didn't successfully wipe every last Jew off the face of the Earth doesn't mean that wasn't a "systematic mass genocide", or how just because the VRS didn't exterminate every last Bosniak doesn't mean the Bosnian genoc…

[flagged]

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#214

Post by waffle_ss »

BeetleB wrote: post #197
waffle_ss wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers (do read some accounts of Apache or Comanche raids some time), and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered). They "weren't even given citizenship"…

> And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers Given that you're the first person to bring this up, accusing your parent for "brushing this off" is not coming across as an attempt to have a good faith conversation. > and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and…

The parent painted a picture of a one-sided, contemplative genocide when it was far from it. Neither was it a conflict uniquely faced by the United States - read up on the history of Mexico and the Apache for instance. If you want a short biopic version just read about Geronimo's life and what he thought about Mexicans.

> The US often didn't honor the terms of these concessions.

I agree, not in all cases. But before we could talk reasonably about this we needed to swing the conversation back from the idea that the US gov't was operating a land-stealing, genociding steamroller (and for apparently no reason at all, no less).

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#215

Post by waffle_ss »

refurb wrote: post #193
waffle_ss wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers (do read some accounts of Apache or Comanche raids some time), and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered). They "weren't even given citizenship"…

Random comment - I assume your username is an attempt at wit, but even I did a double take Suffice to say it was complicated. I was reading about the tribes that aligned with the Confederacy and the fate of black slaves owned by tribes post-Civil War.

My handle dates back to the 90s, when people barely rolled their eyes at a pun in poor taste.

It's probably at its apex of hilarity right now, given the sheer number of folks pissing their pants because of a delusion that there are innumerable secret members of a looooong-dead political party hiding under every bed.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#216

Post by deleuze »

waffle_ss wrote: post #184
thethethethe wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are brushing off the systematic, mass genocide of native people and dispossession of their land by essentially saying that its happened throughout history, that it’s normal. I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. The colonization of America is recent. NA indigenous people are still alive and have special designated land that they were forced to move to. They weren’t even given citizenship by de…

And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers (do read some accounts of Apache or Comanche raids some time), and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered). They "weren't even given citizenship"…

[flagged]

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#217

Post by deleuze »

dang wrote: post #111
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…

Why do you use the word 'occupied'? I don't see that on the OP, and it seems like an unnecessary step into predictable flamewar to bring that up here instead of reacting to the specific and interesting content that's posted there. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Why are you letting a user named "waffle_ss" post justifications for the mass slaughter of indigenous people?

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#218

Post by deleuze »

waffle_ss wrote: post #215
refurb wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random comment - I assume your username is an attempt at wit, but even I did a double take Suffice to say it was complicated. I was reading about the tribes that aligned with the Confederacy and the fate of black slaves owned by tribes post-Civil War.

My handle dates back to the 90s, when people barely rolled their eyes at a pun in poor taste. It's probably at its apex of hilarity right now, given the sheer number of folks pissing their pants because of a delusion that there are innumerable secret members of a looooong-dead political party hiding under every bed.

> It's probably at its apex of hilarity right now, given the sheer number of folks pissing their pants because of a delusion that there are innumerable secret members of a looooong-dead political party hiding under every bed.

Huh, "wild coincidence" that a user with the name "waffle_ss" spends their time posting about crime statistics and how killing indigenous people is whatever. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your politics.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#219

Post by sershe »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #153
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what right did the the land belong to the native Americans? Do you think all the native tribes spilled out of Alaska and then neatly fitted themselves into mutually-recognized non-overlapping territories never to be disturbed?

Indigenous people have been in NA for an extremely long time and have sorted themselves into nations over that time just like any where else in the world. If there are overlapping disagreements between Indigenous Nations about land title, as there are with all sorts of modern nations around the world, there are lots of modern mechanisms to settle that. Not sure how any of this has any relevance or should be used as a…

How would this apply to Europe and Asia, where the land has been conquered dozens of times? I frankly don't see how indigenous people have any more rights to "their" land than say the descendants of any random tribe, kingdom or empire that once controlled Anatolia or England.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#220

Post by neonate »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #187
neonate wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that question sounds like asking how I differentiate "eating a pizza" and "petting a cat". They're obviously not the same.

Is one allowed to hear from the heart and then disagree, or is disagreement evidence that someone didn't try hard enough?

I don't like the word "allowed", as if there's some authority here, but if you want my opinion, certainly there is no obligation to agree about anything at all. However, that doesn't mean that listening from the heart is easy. Really hearing what other humans have gone through is not easy. There is a strong temptation to react with denial, because otherwise it's too painful. There is an obligation, I believe, to acknowledge what actually happened, on all sides.
Post reply on HN