101–110 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The situation is at the very least complex and will likely require a "morally impure" solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well... aside from letting go of past injustices and instead focusing on some better future. Which isn't really a solution at all since it relies on the permanent good will of all future generations.
Neat map! Some usability issues -- if one border is entirely within another border, e.g. near Seattle, I couldn't figure out how to click it. Also, I wish the map was larger without fullscreening. Edit: The title also seems to be not quite right, as the map covers more than North America.
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.
It seems pretty clear to me. Both Oklahoma and the federal government willfully ignored established law and usurped jurisdiction that didn't belong to them. That it's inconvenient to the status quo doesn't mean it can't stand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
[flagged]
Was it really? There is very little evidence of Paleolithic warfare (especially evidence that is direct evidence of war as opposed to perhaps being capital punishment or the like). It's not until you get sedentary populations that you find clear evidence of warfare, and even then, there's still a great many settlements in early periods whose layouts suggest that defense was not a concern.
Or, to put more bluntly, the evidence seems to indicate that it's rather late in the development of "civilization" [1] that warfare is invented.
[1] I'm framing this in the unilinear model of anthropology, which I don't believe in, because this is how popular anthropology treats it.
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 territory is "owned" by the tribe(s) although that ownership is subjugated by federal (not state) interests. Imagine if MA tried to claim that RI was really part of its territory. Eventually, the case reaches the Supreme Court, which rules that in fact RI is actually its own thing. MA has no jurisdiction to prosecute in RI, but the federal government still does. Except that eastern OK is a lot larger than RI, and…
However, that analogy does not match up with what I read.
>The first is that going forward, certain major crimes committed within the boundaries of reservations must be prosecuted in federal court rather than state court, if a Native American is involved. So if a Native American is accused of a major crime in downtown Tulsa, the federal government rather than the state government will prosecute it. Less serious crimes involving Native Americans on American Indian land will be handled in tribal courts. This arrangement is already common in Western states like Arizona, New Mexico and Montana, said Washburn.
So it's not the territory that determines jurisdiction, but citizenship. In other words, based on who you are not where you are.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-rules...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you want to provide government aid to poor communities then by all means do it. But let's not pretend that welfare even approximates a solution to the problem. There is likely no solution. Well... aside from letting go of past injustices and instead focusing on some better future. Which isn't really a solution at all since it relies on the permanent good will of all future generations.
> Well... aside from letting go of past injustices and instead focusing on some better future.
This is a false dichotomy. I'm not suggesting attempting to change the past, of course. I am proposing we try to improve things in the future and allow ourselves to be informed by the past.