5 ms·

Dunbar-Ortiz has a good take on this, for her the US American identity is basically a European settler/covenant identity, much like the whites in other settler

by ftyers 5y ago

Dunbar-Ortiz has a good take on this, for her the US American identity is basically a European settler/covenant identity, much like the whites in other settler colonies: Australia and South Africa or Rhodesia (as they were). Unlike in Mexico, where the native history and identity formed part of the identity of the identity of the new country "everyone's an Aztec", the real history of the US prior to European invasion and colonisation was marginalised. Even today US American schoolchildren know more about European history than the history of America. Is that settler/covenant identity collapsing? Great, hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept and that stolen land can be restored to its original owners.

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
It is well known that only the US society originated in settlers, and that everywhere else, the local people simply sprung from the bedrock.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept and that stolen land can be restored to its original owners" I do not find it particularly likely, especially in case of land that is actually in use. Are Hispanic or Asian landlords more friendly towards Native compensation/restoration claims than whites? Or do they mostly care about their own interests first, just like most landlords do? As far as historical grievances go, slavery is on the top of all conversations, because 40 million Americans actually are descendants of former slaves and are identifiable as such. Natives have either died out, or mixed with the rest of the population so thoroughly that their heritage can no longer be easily discerned. Tribes numbering more than 1000 people are rare, and this corresponds to their relative weight in public discourse.
ameister14 5y ago
>hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept I hope that too, Gorsuch started to get the ball rolling there in the Supreme Court I think >stolen land can be restored to its original owners. I don't think that's possible for most stolen land at this point.
jwond 5y ago
> hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept and that stolen land can be restored to its original owners. What do you mean exactly by “original owners”? If you simply mean that the US should return land to whichever group was occupying it when the US took it, that doesn’t seem particularly fair in cases where that group “stole” said land themselves. So how far back do you want to trace land ownership?

by ftyers 5y ago

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

It is well known that only the US society originated in settlers, and that everywhere else, the local people simply sprung from the bedrock.

inglor_cz 5y ago

"hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept and that stolen land can be restored to its original owners" I do not find it particularly likely, especially in case of land that is actually in use. Are Hispanic or Asian landlords more friendly towards Native compensation/restoration claims than whites? Or do they mostly care about their own interests first, just like most landlords do? As far as historical grievances go, slavery is on the top of all conversations, because 40 million Americans actually are descendants of former slaves and are identifiable as such. Natives have either died out, or mixed with the rest of the population so thoroughly that their heritage can no longer be easily discerned. Tribes numbering more than 1000 people are rare, and this corresponds to their relative weight in public discourse.

ameister14 5y ago

>hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept I hope that too, Gorsuch started to get the ball rolling there in the Supreme Court I think >stolen land can be restored to its original owners. I don't think that's possible for most stolen land at this point.

jwond 5y ago

> hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept and that stolen land can be restored to its original owners. What do you mean exactly by “original owners”? If you simply mean that the US should return land to whichever group was occupying it when the US took it, that doesn’t seem particularly fair in cases where that group “stole” said land themselves. So how far back do you want to trace land ownership?