Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?
U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
31–40 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#32This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#33Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?
You can go as far back as you want and it’s still native Americans / native North Americans.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very interesting. Is this the first time a major city has fallen within a reservation?
And, either way, what are the implications to non-tribe citizens and non-tribe governments?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid, does that mean that one party is entitled to compensation for 187 years of damages? Or is it more likely that we will somehow hand-wave it away and just find a way to retroactively undo the treaty?
> If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid If? SCOTUS literally just said it's valid. Today. As far as what's going to happen, presumably the state legislature, congress, and the Tribal government(s) are going to come to some kind of deal. I'm no expert. I'm just reacting to the vaguely racist paranoia in the headline that has people freaking out that they'll suddenly be Ruled by Indians.
It was a genuine question though; I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than I knew how it would be handled :)
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#36Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#37Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?
As I understand it, it's not "special" status and more a result of the laws that were put into place when the land was "obtained" from Native Americans. Renegading on those treaties would be no different than the government repossessing your generations-owned land because "you shouldn't get special treatment because your great grandfather bought this land for $3".
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if it's not part of OK, how does that impact OK from a representation in Congress, electoral college, e-Rate/federal funding perspective. All of those people are no longer part of the state?
States and reservations are orthogonal concepts. This has nothing to do with "taking land away from" a state, it's about which legal authority has jurisdiction within the borders. People on reservations still vote in their relevant state elections.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#39This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#40Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?
It really isn't that hard of a question to answer. If I legally own land, how far back in history should it go? Well, probably as far back as the entity that enforces legality says.