4 ms·

Something I guess I've never understood is why the US still value indigenous claims to pieces of land? I acknowledge that Europeans shouldn't have taken the lan

by kypro 6y ago

Something I guess I've never understood is why the US still value indigenous claims to pieces of land? I acknowledge that Europeans shouldn't have taken the land for themselves centuries ago, but why are there still people today who believe they have an ancestral right to a piece of land? Why can't these populations just integrate into the US instead of trying to preserve their cultures from migration? Why is this kind of ethnocentric thinking still acceptable in the 21st century America? The reason I ask is because I see a lot of European nationalists here in Europe asking for similar treatment to native peoples and it's hard to say their arguments are not genuine when you guys in America are tolerating nationalism from other non-European groups. What exactly do you say to a British nationalist who wants claim a piece of land in Britain to protect his "people" and culture from non-British arrivals like native Americans? Is this a backwards, racist concern, or a genuine one? I should note I am highly autistic. I'm not trying to be cruel here. I've just always found the concern for indigenous cultures and land highly contradictory and want to understand the US perspective better.

erik_seaberg 6y ago
It’s because they negotiated a formal treaty (often to end a state of war) which was signed by the president and ratified by 2/3 of the senate. That is supposed to have the same force as any federal law, but over time these were neglected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S.%E2%80%93Native_American_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties...
- beerandt 6y ago
  1) One key fact often overlooked though, is that the tribal treaties (most, anyway) not only gave the US ultimate sovereignty, but also transferred ownership/title of the lands into federally administered trusts, held on behalf of the tribe's members. So anytime a tribe wants to do anything with tribal land, it's got to get signed off on by someone at the Dept of the Interior, or whoever is holding their trust. But not the Dept of State. Which I'm assuming is part of what's going on in the situation in TFA. Govt action requires Govt study. 2) The 2/3 vote is to ratify a treaty, but withdrawl is always easier; it's often accomplished unilaterally, and for the US, it's basically at the Presidents sole discretion, if not at his pleasure. Of course tribal treaties are different things than foreign ones- even if that wasn't the original intent. And politically, leaving any such treaty is an idea DOA.
smeeth 6y ago
I don’t think there exists a clean logical explanation for why any sort of ancestral background should grant rights over land anywhere - your confusion makes plenty of sense. In America this issue is tied to socioeconomic disparities in race. To be born Native American today is to be born with higher likelihoods of poverty, alcoholism, low life expectancy, etc. These disparities are to some degree (how much is a hotly debated topic down political lines) a consequence of white people treating native peoples like shit (vast simplification) for ~500 years. Prevailing thought on the American political left is that since taking away native land illegally (and other atrocities) created these disparities, giving them their land back is the just and obvious thing to do (this conclusion is much debated). The left feels, generally, that disparities are unnatural, caused by those in power (white settlers and their descendants), and are to be stamped out. The political right, as best I can tell, both doesn’t agree with that assessment and doesn’t care. To integrate fully would be the ultimate subjugation: to accept the destruction of a culture and way of life they care deeply about that has already been almost totally taken from them by force. The political left believes this shouldn’t be demanded of an already downtrodden people. Re your Europe question: I believe the thinking goes that natives there are rich, so why should they have more even more land rights? The political poles are flipped, the political left sees no injustice to be fixed by empowering the privileged. I’m a white American, so my opinion should be discounted appropriately.
- beerandt 6y ago
  >socioeconomic disparities in race. To be born Native American today is to be born with higher likelihoods of poverty, alcoholism, Important in this context: the predisposition to alcoholism is a known genetic one. It complicates many of the issues you describe.
- kypro 6y ago
  Thanks for the polite response, I was quite nervous about asking the question incase it was perceived poorly to be honest. It sounds like my problem is that I'm looking for a one fits all solution. I guess the answer is that Americans have decided different groups are entitled to different things based on historical events and inequalities. I tend to think quite individualistically so treating someone differently based on their ancestral background doesn't come naturally to me. > Re your Europe question: I believe the thinking goes that natives there are rich, so why should they have more even more land rights? The political poles are flipped, the political left sees no injustice to be fixed by empowering the privileged. I will say that in my experience isn't true, at least if you're looking on an individual level. Part of the reason I asked the question is because I've asked the reverse to people here in the UK. I'm from a working class background and I know a lot of Brits from working class backgrounds who are unhappy with being "minorities" and feeling culturally alienated because of immigration into their communities. I know one elderly man who due to the effects of migration now lives in a majority Muslim area of my city and often expresses his sadness with no longer being able to enjoy Christmas with his neighbours or not being able to read the posters put up in his council flat, etc. I've found here in Britain people rarely take these complaints seriously. When I ask people here if we should feel some sympathy for those who feel they're losing "their culture" as "their group" becomes the minority the answer is typically that they need to get with times and adapt to the change, but I'm aware that this is different from the American perspective, which does take the concerns of native groups becoming minorities due to immigration seriously. Funnily enough the only time I've heard anyone give a different answer was from a Muslim immigrant and I wonder if that was because of their sympathy for the struggles of being a minority. I don't know if there is a right answer to this though. If we want to become are more globalised world these changes are inevitable, but at the same time time I do seem to feel some sympathy knowing that not everyone is asking to live in a globalised world and that many would like to continue living in a nation that resembles the one of their ancestors. I'm just rambling now, but I think about this a lot because I know it's the cause of many problems in the West today (Trump, Brexit, nationalism) and it seems we have quite poor, or at least highly contradictory answers – some cultures deserve to be preserved, some need to get with the times; some natives have rights to their ancestral lands, others are racist for wanting the same; some groups concerns over being a minorities is valid, some groups need to just accept their new minority status. These answers, at least to me, don't seem to be satisfactory. I don't know what the answer is, and I doubt there is a perfect one, but at the very least our answers to these questions shouldn't be contradictory.
AlotOfReading 6y ago
There's a lot to unpack here and like any complex system, there's a lot of history behind why things are a certain way. All of the following are likewise extreme simplifications of a messy reality. 1. Historically the reservation system evolved as a way to control and corral indigenous peoples. It continues to continues to exist today largely because natives want it to exist and there aren't any better solutions. It gives them the ability to form their own governments, own their own land, and have their own quasi-sovereignty. They're (nominally, not always practically) free to leave reservations whenever they like and many do. 2. The US had a couple centuries where the official policy on native peoples was "integration". These years are widely regarded as constituting something called a "cultural genocide". Suggesting it as a policy comes across... badly. 3. Pretty much everyone involved recognizes that logic has very little to do with the whole affair. It's a complicated mess with a lot of sensitive areas, and more competing interests than you can possibly imagine.

by kypro 6y ago

erik_seaberg 6y ago

It’s because they negotiated a formal treaty (often to end a state of war) which was signed by the president and ratified by 2/3 of the senate. That is supposed to have the same force as any federal law, but over time these were neglected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S.%E2%80%93Native_American_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties...

beerandt 6y ago
1) One key fact often overlooked though, is that the tribal treaties (most, anyway) not only gave the US ultimate sovereignty, but also transferred ownership/title of the lands into federally administered trusts, held on behalf of the tribe's members. So anytime a tribe wants to do anything with tribal land, it's got to get signed off on by someone at the Dept of the Interior, or whoever is holding their trust. But not the Dept of State. Which I'm assuming is part of what's going on in the situation in TFA. Govt action requires Govt study. 2) The 2/3 vote is to ratify a treaty, but withdrawl is always easier; it's often accomplished unilaterally, and for the US, it's basically at the Presidents sole discretion, if not at his pleasure. Of course tribal treaties are different things than foreign ones- even if that wasn't the original intent. And politically, leaving any such treaty is an idea DOA.

smeeth 6y ago

I don’t think there exists a clean logical explanation for why any sort of ancestral background should grant rights over land anywhere - your confusion makes plenty of sense. In America this issue is tied to socioeconomic disparities in race. To be born Native American today is to be born with higher likelihoods of poverty, alcoholism, low life expectancy, etc. These disparities are to some degree (how much is a hotly debated topic down political lines) a consequence of white people treating native peoples like shit (vast simplification) for ~500 years. Prevailing thought on the American political left is that since taking away native land illegally (and other atrocities) created these disparities, giving them their land back is the just and obvious thing to do (this conclusion is much debated). The left feels, generally, that disparities are unnatural, caused by those in power (white settlers and their descendants), and are to be stamped out. The political right, as best I can tell, both doesn’t agree with that assessment and doesn’t care. To integrate fully would be the ultimate subjugation: to accept the destruction of a culture and way of life they care deeply about that has already been almost totally taken from them by force. The political left believes this shouldn’t be demanded of an already downtrodden people. Re your Europe question: I believe the thinking goes that natives there are rich, so why should they have more even more land rights? The political poles are flipped, the political left sees no injustice to be fixed by empowering the privileged. I’m a white American, so my opinion should be discounted appropriately.

beerandt 6y ago
>socioeconomic disparities in race. To be born Native American today is to be born with higher likelihoods of poverty, alcoholism, Important in this context: the predisposition to alcoholism is a known genetic one. It complicates many of the issues you describe.
kypro 6y ago
Thanks for the polite response, I was quite nervous about asking the question incase it was perceived poorly to be honest. It sounds like my problem is that I'm looking for a one fits all solution. I guess the answer is that Americans have decided different groups are entitled to different things based on historical events and inequalities. I tend to think quite individualistically so treating someone differently based on their ancestral background doesn't come naturally to me. > Re your Europe question: I believe the thinking goes that natives there are rich, so why should they have more even more land rights? The political poles are flipped, the political left sees no injustice to be fixed by empowering the privileged. I will say that in my experience isn't true, at least if you're looking on an individual level. Part of the reason I asked the question is because I've asked the reverse to people here in the UK. I'm from a working class background and I know a lot of Brits from working class backgrounds who are unhappy with being "minorities" and feeling culturally alienated because of immigration into their communities. I know one elderly man who due to the effects of migration now lives in a majority Muslim area of my city and often expresses his sadness with no longer being able to enjoy Christmas with his neighbours or not being able to read the posters put up in his council flat, etc. I've found here in Britain people rarely take these complaints seriously. When I ask people here if we should feel some sympathy for those who feel they're losing "their culture" as "their group" becomes the minority the answer is typically that they need to get with times and adapt to the change, but I'm aware that this is different from the American perspective, which does take the concerns of native groups becoming minorities due to immigration seriously. Funnily enough the only time I've heard anyone give a different answer was from a Muslim immigrant and I wonder if that was because of their sympathy for the struggles of being a minority. I don't know if there is a right answer to this though. If we want to become are more globalised world these changes are inevitable, but at the same time time I do seem to feel some sympathy knowing that not everyone is asking to live in a globalised world and that many would like to continue living in a nation that resembles the one of their ancestors. I'm just rambling now, but I think about this a lot because I know it's the cause of many problems in the West today (Trump, Brexit, nationalism) and it seems we have quite poor, or at least highly contradictory answers – some cultures deserve to be preserved, some need to get with the times; some natives have rights to their ancestral lands, others are racist for wanting the same; some groups concerns over being a minorities is valid, some groups need to just accept their new minority status. These answers, at least to me, don't seem to be satisfactory. I don't know what the answer is, and I doubt there is a perfect one, but at the very least our answers to these questions shouldn't be contradictory.

AlotOfReading 6y ago

There's a lot to unpack here and like any complex system, there's a lot of history behind why things are a certain way. All of the following are likewise extreme simplifications of a messy reality. 1. Historically the reservation system evolved as a way to control and corral indigenous peoples. It continues to continues to exist today largely because natives want it to exist and there aren't any better solutions. It gives them the ability to form their own governments, own their own land, and have their own quasi-sovereignty. They're (nominally, not always practically) free to leave reservations whenever they like and many do. 2. The US had a couple centuries where the official policy on native peoples was "integration". These years are widely regarded as constituting something called a "cultural genocide". Suggesting it as a policy comes across... badly. 3. Pretty much everyone involved recognizes that logic has very little to do with the whole affair. It's a complicated mess with a lot of sensitive areas, and more competing interests than you can possibly imagine.