5 ms·

Actually, we need to do one of two things: (1) Treat the natives like any other citizen, so no special land reservations etc, or (2) Grant them completely sep

Actually, we need to do one of two things: (1) Treat the natives like any other citizen, so no special land reservations etc, or (2) Grant them completely separate sovereign nation status and end this ridiculous quasi-sovereign state of affairs we find ourselves in. No person deserves special rights or recognition because their grandfather (or grandmother) was of a certain race. That is antithetical to a free society. The easy solution here is to cede all land back to them, and establish proper international relations. Understandably, natives want their own land. That's great, but they can't get that if there's another government in their way. Understandably, states want full sovereignty over their own land, but they can't get that if there exist quasi-nations in the way. The obvious solution is to allow them actual self governance.

bdamm 7y ago
That viewpoint is needlessly absolutist. There's obviously no way that native nations could even afford to negotiate with the US Federal Government. That was true 184 years ago, and it's still true now. At the same time these people do deserve special treatment, being the subjects of systemic oppression that continues to this very day. If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them. It's yet more evidence, as if more was needed, that the idea of a "melting pot" is fundamentally the wrong way to think about multiculturalism.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them. An individual who is a native american is valuable because they are a human. Their race does not factor into their worth, thank goodness. We need to provide governance capable of working for the 300(400?) million people that call the United States home. None of those people should get outsized consideration, and especially none for their race. No nation can actually afford to negotiate with the US federal government as equals. Perhaps China and Russia are two exceptions. My proposed nations would nevertheless enjoy the same sovereignty that many other nations enjoy. If they would like US help, they can ask for protectorate status (like the Mariana islands), and the US should comply, because we should be friends with our neighboring countries, especially what would functionally be ex-colonies. The US needs to wash its hands of this kind of colonialism now, or it will fester and get much much worse.
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    The point of reconciliation/reparations is acknowledging that have been long-standing systemic oppression of these groups— it isn't a matter of just bucking up and working hard when you're subject to multi-generational trauma. I don't know as much about the US situation, but in Canada there was a long period of intentional attempted cultural genocide, where indigenous kids were literally ripped from their parents' arms and sent to far off boarding schools and taught to behave white. That would be bad enough if it wasn't also an environment with almost no oversight that led to rampant other abuses, including sexual. And this wasn't really all that long ago— the last of these residential schools didn't close until 1996. If you're interested in more about this, APTN did a terrific series called First Contact, which featured everyday Canadians with neutral-to-negative feelings about indigenous people touring the country and learning first hand about it: https://aptn.ca/firstcontact/video/season-1/ https://aptn.ca/firstcontact/video/season-1/
    - tathougies 7y ago
      I acknowledge there has been long-standing government oppression of these groups. In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the government that oppressed them. When a parent is mean to a child, a child deserves its parents apology. When a friend is mean to a friend, they won't be friends anymore. In a partnership of equals, the behavior you described would result in the equals separating their interests and continuing on with their existence, not continued apologies starting again the cycle of abuse.
      - learc83 7y ago
        So our government oppresses a group of people for centuries, and the response is to wash our hands of the situation and wish them well. When a prisoner is wrongfully convicted, there is often additional compensation beyond just releasing them from jail. I have no problem with making them sovereign nations, but we owe them additional compensation.
        tathougies 7y ago
lalaithion 7y ago
If we ceded all land back to them, the United States would cease to exist, having no land left.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Well most native american tribes with land claims no longer exist any more (given that most were decimated by the varying colonial armies if they hadn't already been decimated by the spread of small pox), so the US would be just fine. But, to clarify above, I meant the boundaries already agreed to as boundaries of the quasi-sovereign 'nations' that are referred to (in a remarkably politically incorrect manner for this day and age) as 'Indian reservations'. This would not be controversial were it not for most Americans' -- whether hick conservatives or rich white liberal -- love of continued colonialism and conquest. Functionally, and by US law, the reservations are to be treated as individual, sovereign nations. However, again by US law, they are not allowed to address foreign non-US nations as equals, because the US government will intervene. This is akin to the relationship between a parent and a teenager on the cusp of adulthood -- we will treat you like an adult, but don't get the false impression that you really are one. This American paternalism needs to end.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    that's factually untrue, reservations are federal land held for the tribes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation Your other claims are no more accurate than this one either.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Yes a reservation is federal land held for the tribe. The tribal government however is a separate sovereign nation. You are making a distinction between indian reservations and indian nations that is the same as the distinction between the Vatican City State (being the area that houses the bishop of Rome) and the Holy See (being the actual entity that enjoys diplomatic sovereignty). For what I am talking about (tribes being akin to sovereign nations), you should research Native American 'Tribes': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American) > An Indian tribe recognized by the United States government usually possesses tribal sovereignty, a "dependent sovereign nation" status with the Federal Government that is similar to that of a state in some situations, and that of a nation in others. Depending on the historic circumstances of recognition, the degree of self-government and sovereignty varies somewhat from one tribal nation to another. The designation of 'tribal sovereignty' means they enjoy limited national sovereignty. Whereas the United States federal government allows other sovereign nations (with the exception of the 50 states that make up the united states) to interact with one another as equals, it restricts the ability of the tribes to do so. It does not allow the tribes to exercise full sovereignty over their land (as you point out). From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit... > The idea that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves is at the foundation of their constitutional status Again, back to what I said. I said: > Functionally, and by US law, the reservations are to be treated as individual, sovereign nations. Sovereignty means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty): > is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies From what we read of tribal sovereignty above, the US government recognizes (as per the Constitution) that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves, which is exactly sovereignty. Thus, I stand by what I said that, functionally, by US law, tribes are to be treated as individual sovereign nations. I am arguing that these tribes ought to enjoy full sovereignty and the land held by the USA in their name (an infringement upon their demanded sovereignty) be remitted to them. I suppose you may object to my usage of 'reservations' above. I do apologize, that was a mistake on my part. I should have said tribes. Reservations are not people. They are land.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bdamm 7y ago

That viewpoint is needlessly absolutist. There's obviously no way that native nations could even afford to negotiate with the US Federal Government. That was true 184 years ago, and it's still true now. At the same time these people do deserve special treatment, being the subjects of systemic oppression that continues to this very day. If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them. It's yet more evidence, as if more was needed, that the idea of a "melting pot" is fundamentally the wrong way to think about multiculturalism.

tathougies 7y ago
> If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them. An individual who is a native american is valuable because they are a human. Their race does not factor into their worth, thank goodness. We need to provide governance capable of working for the 300(400?) million people that call the United States home. None of those people should get outsized consideration, and especially none for their race. No nation can actually afford to negotiate with the US federal government as equals. Perhaps China and Russia are two exceptions. My proposed nations would nevertheless enjoy the same sovereignty that many other nations enjoy. If they would like US help, they can ask for protectorate status (like the Mariana islands), and the US should comply, because we should be friends with our neighboring countries, especially what would functionally be ex-colonies. The US needs to wash its hands of this kind of colonialism now, or it will fester and get much much worse.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  The point of reconciliation/reparations is acknowledging that have been long-standing systemic oppression of these groups— it isn't a matter of just bucking up and working hard when you're subject to multi-generational trauma. I don't know as much about the US situation, but in Canada there was a long period of intentional attempted cultural genocide, where indigenous kids were literally ripped from their parents' arms and sent to far off boarding schools and taught to behave white. That would be bad enough if it wasn't also an environment with almost no oversight that led to rampant other abuses, including sexual. And this wasn't really all that long ago— the last of these residential schools didn't close until 1996. If you're interested in more about this, APTN did a terrific series called First Contact, which featured everyday Canadians with neutral-to-negative feelings about indigenous people touring the country and learning first hand about it: https://aptn.ca/firstcontact/video/season-1/ https://aptn.ca/firstcontact/video/season-1/
  - tathougies 7y ago
    I acknowledge there has been long-standing government oppression of these groups. In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the government that oppressed them. When a parent is mean to a child, a child deserves its parents apology. When a friend is mean to a friend, they won't be friends anymore. In a partnership of equals, the behavior you described would result in the equals separating their interests and continuing on with their existence, not continued apologies starting again the cycle of abuse.
    - learc83 7y ago
      So our government oppresses a group of people for centuries, and the response is to wash our hands of the situation and wish them well. When a prisoner is wrongfully convicted, there is often additional compensation beyond just releasing them from jail. I have no problem with making them sovereign nations, but we owe them additional compensation.
      - tathougies 7y ago

lalaithion 7y ago

If we ceded all land back to them, the United States would cease to exist, having no land left.

tathougies 7y ago
Well most native american tribes with land claims no longer exist any more (given that most were decimated by the varying colonial armies if they hadn't already been decimated by the spread of small pox), so the US would be just fine. But, to clarify above, I meant the boundaries already agreed to as boundaries of the quasi-sovereign 'nations' that are referred to (in a remarkably politically incorrect manner for this day and age) as 'Indian reservations'. This would not be controversial were it not for most Americans' -- whether hick conservatives or rich white liberal -- love of continued colonialism and conquest. Functionally, and by US law, the reservations are to be treated as individual, sovereign nations. However, again by US law, they are not allowed to address foreign non-US nations as equals, because the US government will intervene. This is akin to the relationship between a parent and a teenager on the cusp of adulthood -- we will treat you like an adult, but don't get the false impression that you really are one. This American paternalism needs to end.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  that's factually untrue, reservations are federal land held for the tribes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation Your other claims are no more accurate than this one either.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Yes a reservation is federal land held for the tribe. The tribal government however is a separate sovereign nation. You are making a distinction between indian reservations and indian nations that is the same as the distinction between the Vatican City State (being the area that houses the bishop of Rome) and the Holy See (being the actual entity that enjoys diplomatic sovereignty). For what I am talking about (tribes being akin to sovereign nations), you should research Native American 'Tribes': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American) > An Indian tribe recognized by the United States government usually possesses tribal sovereignty, a "dependent sovereign nation" status with the Federal Government that is similar to that of a state in some situations, and that of a nation in others. Depending on the historic circumstances of recognition, the degree of self-government and sovereignty varies somewhat from one tribal nation to another. The designation of 'tribal sovereignty' means they enjoy limited national sovereignty. Whereas the United States federal government allows other sovereign nations (with the exception of the 50 states that make up the united states) to interact with one another as equals, it restricts the ability of the tribes to do so. It does not allow the tribes to exercise full sovereignty over their land (as you point out). From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit... > The idea that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves is at the foundation of their constitutional status Again, back to what I said. I said: > Functionally, and by US law, the reservations are to be treated as individual, sovereign nations. Sovereignty means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty): > is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies From what we read of tribal sovereignty above, the US government recognizes (as per the Constitution) that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves, which is exactly sovereignty. Thus, I stand by what I said that, functionally, by US law, tribes are to be treated as individual sovereign nations. I am arguing that these tribes ought to enjoy full sovereignty and the land held by the USA in their name (an infringement upon their demanded sovereignty) be remitted to them. I suppose you may object to my usage of 'reservations' above. I do apologize, that was a mistake on my part. I should have said tribes. Reservations are not people. They are land.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]