4 ms·
Half the land in Oklahoma could be returned to Native Americans. It should be
- bradknowles 8y agoPay walled. Got a non-paywall link?
- knolax 8y agohttps://outline.com/sScq5j https://outline.com/sScq5j
- stevenwoo 8y agoThe Atlantic covered this last week, it appears they changed the title from something close to the WP to what they have now. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/murphy-case-supreme-court-rules-muscogee-land/576238/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/murphy-cas...
- erikpukinskis 8y agoI don’t see why all of the Native American treaties shouldn’t be reopened. We have an order of magnitude better a view on the facts of history than we did 100 years ago. Just as DNA evidence gives cause to reopen the cases of living incarcerated, we should pull all of the current land claims in the U.S. which include any claims granted under treaty and if there is any new evidence of criminal wrongdoing, adjudicate those crimes and bring forward any civil litigation that may fall from those decisions. Heck, exempt any existing structures, with an easement, to appease existing residents. But any empty space, undeveloped land, farmland, etc can be returned. Offer any residents of the space a share too, as needed. Not corporations but individuals up to a certain acreage if they can show they continuously kept that land in production. Murder is not an excuse for ignoring a signed legal document, and hasn’t been in this country for hundreds of years. We only have time. Maybe it takes 1000 years but I believe the First Nations will be made whole, to whatever degree the Constitution indicates in its highest interpretation.
- sublupo 8y agoMy issue with that is who should it be returned to? The people who it was taken from and who took it are long dead. Is one person more deserving of the land simply because they can trace their ancestry to someone who used to own that land? See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18558224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18558224 to see the issue with it.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoIn absence of a will, descendants and their descendants share the deed as a partnership.
- viburnum 8y agoFormerly known as Permanant Indian Territory becuase it was the worst land in America.
- sublupo 8y agoThe question of how to repay generational theft is a difficult one. So many people have been wronged historically, and almost no nation / aristocrat has got their land "ethically". If Oklahoma were to be "returned" to the Cherokee leaders, would they have to return it to who ever the Cherokee battled to get the land in the first place? But America is relatively easy to determine. What about land that has been "stollen" throughout history. Should Israel be "returned" to the British, Ottoman (Turkey), Momluk (Egypt), Mongols, Crusaders (British), Islamic Caliphate (Iraq), Byzantine (Greek?), Romans (Italians, I guess), Jews, Babylonians (Iraq), Jews again, or to the nations that lived there over 4000 years ago and no longer exists? There has to be some form of statute of limitations, no matter how unfair life is. I mean, why should that author get millions of acres of land in America, when there are dense slums in India, who have a much greater need for it?
- eesmith 8y agoIn this case the argument is that Congress never actually explicitly legislated the original Muscogee Creek reservation out of existence. The examples you listed don't appear to be similar.
- sublupo 8y ago> Today, we still lose land every time an acre is sold to a non-Indian, inherited by someone less than half blood quantum, or even when an owner lifts restrictions to qualify for a mortgage I don't see how that would be effected by the Congress. If Congress allocated land to the natives, but then the natives sold it (I assume not of fair grounds, but still...) then the Congress cannot return the land to the natives.