4 ms·

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.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not. If they were truly sovereign you wouldn't feel the need to throw in the adjective "functionally". A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land. Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        > I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not. Are the individual states sovereign? By the highest law of the land (the Constitution), they are. Nevertheless, this is not an objection or an argument against the viewpoint I espoused: that they need to be granted full sovereignty. If they lack all indicators of sovereignty, as you claim, then this simply makes my claim that much more urgent. > A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land. Um, sure. The feds also have jurisdiction over state land, but that doesn't mean the states lack sovereignty by federal law. Also, the USA can object to any other country's VISA's for anyone entering its territory. > Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty. You object to the law as it is? The current policy of the federal government is to grant certain parts of self direction to the tribes. The tribes are above certain US laws. This is a quasi-sovereignty, and I think it needs to be ended, because it is anti-thetical to a free nation (the United States). There are two ways to do this: get rid of tribal nations and Indian land entirely, or let them exercise their full rights as the nations the federal government claims they are. Also, I am again arguing that they be granted full sovereign status. If they lack any sovereignty currently, that does not detract from my argument. They are clearly a separate people and want self-direction, as indicated by the fact that they established an entire justice system and government when allowed to. If -- as you claim -- these are not indicators of sovereignty, then these governments -- who claim sovereignty -- are in effect separatists. I am arguing that we should follow their desire to separate.
        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.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not. If they were truly sovereign you wouldn't feel the need to throw in the adjective "functionally". A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land. Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not. Are the individual states sovereign? By the highest law of the land (the Constitution), they are. Nevertheless, this is not an objection or an argument against the viewpoint I espoused: that they need to be granted full sovereignty. If they lack all indicators of sovereignty, as you claim, then this simply makes my claim that much more urgent. > A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land. Um, sure. The feds also have jurisdiction over state land, but that doesn't mean the states lack sovereignty by federal law. Also, the USA can object to any other country's VISA's for anyone entering its territory. > Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty. You object to the law as it is? The current policy of the federal government is to grant certain parts of self direction to the tribes. The tribes are above certain US laws. This is a quasi-sovereignty, and I think it needs to be ended, because it is anti-thetical to a free nation (the United States). There are two ways to do this: get rid of tribal nations and Indian land entirely, or let them exercise their full rights as the nations the federal government claims they are. Also, I am again arguing that they be granted full sovereign status. If they lack any sovereignty currently, that does not detract from my argument. They are clearly a separate people and want self-direction, as indicated by the fact that they established an entire justice system and government when allowed to. If -- as you claim -- these are not indicators of sovereignty, then these governments -- who claim sovereignty -- are in effect separatists. I am arguing that we should follow their desire to separate.
      - 7y ago