4 ms·

We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. This country s

We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. This country should welcome immigrants. If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.

gourabmi 7y ago
" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. "
- tathougies 7y ago
  I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If Hitler's response to the "Jewish problem" was to put the Jews into their own sovereign nation, then I don't think we would have had a Holocaust. But, yeah, I mean Goodwin's law and all.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    Well, there was at least a theoretical plan by Hitler to resettle Jews to Madagascar.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      OMG, you're right. Granting the native americans sovereignty over reservation land is exactly the same as enacting the Holocaust. You cannot make Hacker News up sometimes.
mjevans 7y ago
You've made three distinct points which might have been better offered split up: > We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. While I prefer the phrasing "Nobody should get special treatment." I think most agree with this. > This country should welcome immigrants. I think many agree with this; however in the historical context we're all immigrants here. The Cherokees having crossed some land/sea bridge much longer ago, and Europeans and others arriving within the last 600 years. Also, defining which country you're talking about is crucial. I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too. > If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy. Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?
- tathougies 7y ago
  > I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too. So I actually mean the Cherokee nation. Their platform of excluding non-Cherokee from the nation is akin to the white supremacists of America not wanting non-whites to live in America. If the nation ends up getting its freedom (as I think they should), that sovereign state ought to be accepting of migrants, as the current government of the United States ought to be as well. > Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in? As espoused elsewhere, I am proposing that the currently defined indian reservations (with their boundaries set by treaty with the United States) be given the opportunity to leave the Union, and form independent sovereign states. I am not asking anyone to physically 'move', by ship, or car, or plane. I am referring to a figurative leaving -- letting the land leave the sovereignty of the United States and its member states.
javagram 7y ago
Native American tribes in the USA are arguably not based on race, but on citizenship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Indians_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Indians_in_the_United_St... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy
- tathougies 7y ago
  Tribal membership is typically based on ancestry which is a code word for race.
  - javagram 7y ago
    Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen). Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood” on the citizenship rolls for some tribes, that’s the argument it’s not a race based classification.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood” I mean there are white people with little current Indian blood who meet the requirements because of an old ancestor. Why single out the African Americans? > Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen). Sure, but the US is already a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, so... it would be more akin to a hypothetical US that ceased all immigration and naturalization, and only allowed natural born citizenship for a hundred years or so. I do agree that many other countries do this kind of thing, and I'm not sure it's good there either.

gourabmi 7y ago

" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. "

tathougies 7y ago
I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If Hitler's response to the "Jewish problem" was to put the Jews into their own sovereign nation, then I don't think we would have had a Holocaust. But, yeah, I mean Goodwin's law and all.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Well, there was at least a theoretical plan by Hitler to resettle Jews to Madagascar.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    OMG, you're right. Granting the native americans sovereignty over reservation land is exactly the same as enacting the Holocaust. You cannot make Hacker News up sometimes.

mjevans 7y ago

You've made three distinct points which might have been better offered split up: > We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. While I prefer the phrasing "Nobody should get special treatment." I think most agree with this. > This country should welcome immigrants. I think many agree with this; however in the historical context we're all immigrants here. The Cherokees having crossed some land/sea bridge much longer ago, and Europeans and others arriving within the last 600 years. Also, defining which country you're talking about is crucial. I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too. > If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy. Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?

tathougies 7y ago
> I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too. So I actually mean the Cherokee nation. Their platform of excluding non-Cherokee from the nation is akin to the white supremacists of America not wanting non-whites to live in America. If the nation ends up getting its freedom (as I think they should), that sovereign state ought to be accepting of migrants, as the current government of the United States ought to be as well. > Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in? As espoused elsewhere, I am proposing that the currently defined indian reservations (with their boundaries set by treaty with the United States) be given the opportunity to leave the Union, and form independent sovereign states. I am not asking anyone to physically 'move', by ship, or car, or plane. I am referring to a figurative leaving -- letting the land leave the sovereignty of the United States and its member states.

javagram 7y ago

Native American tribes in the USA are arguably not based on race, but on citizenship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Indians_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Indians_in_the_United_St... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy

tathougies 7y ago
Tribal membership is typically based on ancestry which is a code word for race.
- javagram 7y ago
  Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen). Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood” on the citizenship rolls for some tribes, that’s the argument it’s not a race based classification.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood” I mean there are white people with little current Indian blood who meet the requirements because of an old ancestor. Why single out the African Americans? > Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen). Sure, but the US is already a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, so... it would be more akin to a hypothetical US that ceased all immigration and naturalization, and only allowed natural born citizenship for a hundred years or so. I do agree that many other countries do this kind of thing, and I'm not sure it's good there either.