7 ms·
This 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 abo
by newacct583 6y ago
This 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-oklahoma-could-be-returned-native-americans-it-should-be/ 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 subsequent jurisprudence and state development has (unsurprisingly) completely ignored that with effectively no legal basis. Neither Congress nor the state of Oklahoma has ever lifted a finger to try to make this right.
Basically, this is the Supreme Court saying that enough is enough, this can't go on, and telling the relevant governments to get their shit together and figure this out.
No, Injuns aren't coming for Tulsa.
- count 6y agoSo 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?
- newacct583 6y agoStates 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.
- bitminer 6y agoAm I correct in thinking that this is about authority, not (land) title over half of Oklahoma?
- newacct583 6y agoYes. The specific case was about a murder conviction overturned because the Oklahoma county court didn't have jurisdiction over tribal land.
- rootusrootus 6y ago> didn't have jurisdiction over tribal land Over native americans on tribal land. The state still has authority over everyone else. And the tribal police don't have authority over them. It's convoluted.
- wwright 6y agoIf 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?
- newacct583 6y ago> 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.
- wwright 6y agoI said _treat_ it as valid. There are many valid laws we don't treat as valid (such as international ones). It was a genuine question though; I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than I knew how it would be handled :)
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>There are many valid laws we don't treat as valid Including several on the bill of rights.
- IncRnd 6y agoI agree 100% with your point but would just make one change to the wording. The Bill of Rights isn't made up of laws.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoWell, they have binding legal force. They are Law. So, a kind of Super Law.
- treeman79 6y agoNo income tax? Never mind injuns coming. Where do people sign up to become one? Huge percentage of population has some Indian blood. The exact definition can be worth a lot to many people. Let the drama begin!
- vlowther 6y agoYeah, it doesn't work that way, and no, most US citizens don't have any appreciable native ancestry, no matter what family mythology says.
- burkaman 6y agoYou "sign up" with the sovereign tribal governments, just like any other nation. EU citizenship is worth a lot to many people, but they've still managed to find a system that doesn't include anyone with "some European blood". Every tribe can determine their own criteria, and while some do consider how much "Indian blood" you have, that seems to be mostly because the US government heavily promoted the idea 100 years ago: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/10/20/18426433/warren-ancestry-brings-attention-to-how-tribes-decide-membership https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/10/20/18426433/warren-ance...
- chc 6y ago"Indians" in the sense you're using are not an actual thing. To my understanding, if you want to be a member of the Muscogee Nation, then you need to show legal proof of a bloodline going back to at least one specific person on the Dawes Roll's list of Creek members.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThere was already an incentive - tribes running casinos had folks try to force their way in to get a cut. It didn't work; tribes get to manage their membership, and have historically been quite picky about how they do it. https://www.voanews.com/usa/native-american-tribal-disenrollment-reaching-epidemic-levels https://www.voanews.com/usa/native-american-tribal-disenroll...
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y agoI believe that you must have an ancestor whose name appears in the Dawes Rolls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Rolls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Rolls
- binarymax 6y agoDo you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some respect. EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.
- asdf21 6y agoHe's obviously mocking the use of the word... can people here not understand context?
- jjaaammmmy 6y agoso would it be ok to mockingly use the n word in the same way?
- DoofusOfDeath 6y agoI don't think there's a consensus on that. Regarding words that some persons find deeply offensive: - Some readers feel that using such words should be avoided simply because it's emotionally hurtful to certain individuals. Or because it reinforces beliefs they find abhorrent. Or for the pragmatic reason that it tends to end constructive discussion. - Other readers feel that having policies against using such words does more harm than good, and stifles free and honest discussion. And coddles individuals who are too easily offended, when they should in fact use it as an opportunity to mature. I think HN's audience skews more towards that first group. I'm sure other forums exist that skew the other way.
- pantaloony 6y agoFrom long observation: no, one thing HN is remarkably bad at, even compared to the rest of the web(!), is taking context into account. Usually that kind of thing is deliberate trolling when it happens elsewhere, but here I can never tell. It seems so sincere.
- jfengel 6y agoIt's pretty clear to me that it was sarcastic, but sarcasm reads really badly on the Internet. In open forums, it's best avoided -- there are just too many ways for it to go wrong. (Especially when not everybody is a native speaker, which makes sarcasm even harder to recognize.)
- paiute 6y agoSide note - as a part 'native' I wish that term you used would come back. Indian is now ambiguous and First Nations and Native American sound so stupid.
- cowpig 6y agoUpvoted for sharing that article. However, I think your comment would have been more impactful if you coolly made your point and linked to the WaPo article for further reading instead of using that inflammatory tone and language.