4 ms·

Agree with the ecological preservation objectives, hard disagree with handing over of sovereignty, whatever that actually means,to a group based on their ethnic

by gatvol 3y ago

Agree with the ecological preservation objectives, hard disagree with handing over of sovereignty, whatever that actually means,to a group based on their ethnicity / ancestry.

jker 3y ago
A close read of the statement suggests that this is more of a feel-good thing and not much to worry about. If those tribes get actual sovereignty over those waters, they’ll soon find them full of Chinese fishing trawlers.
TinkersW 3y ago
I grew up in the area, those shores aren't tribal lands other than a few tiny bits. And most of it is already preserved shore/ocean, so this just appears to be a land grab attempt. I agree that this area should be protected, but giving it to a few people based on ancestry is ridiculous.
- constantly 3y ago
  Out of curiosity how far back are you choosing to go to designate something as a tribal land?
- labster 3y ago
  Just curious, are you opposed to land inheritance in general, or just when it comes to indigenous groups?
hypeit 3y ago
They're indigenous, nothing is being "handed over" it's land that they were forced to live on when they were forced of their original land in the area. They already have sovereignty.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  A lot of people were forced to leave a lot of land all over the world. Borders shifted constantly within Europe. People were constantly expelled and relocated. Now of course they shouldn't have been, but that was a long time ago and we've generally agreed not to do that anymore. Should former Roman land be given to the Italians? Should the Louisiana purchase be undone because it was the result of a military defeat in the Napoleonic Wars? Should the non-first-nations parts of California be returned to the Mexicans because it was ceded in the Mexican-American War under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? What framework do you propose we use to decide which land is worthy of sovereign rule - and which isn't? Which groups are worthy of sovereignty, and which aren't, and on what basis? I think all groups should be represented within the government and there's no reason to revisit the question of sovereignty because there's no framework that makes sense. There's no easy place to stop that isn't totally arbitrary.
  - rfwhyte 3y ago
    To take things a step further, all the various North American indigenous groups have been waring, slaving and migrating their way across the continent for millennia, just like every single other people group on earth for all of history, so it's almost certain that whatever indigenous "Nation" is claiming a given piece of land "Stole" it from some other indigenous "Nation" at some point in the past, yet we never hear them talking about returning "their" land to those "Rightful owners" do we?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 3y ago
      >yet we never hear them talking about returning "their" land to those "Rightful owners" do we? I mean, they might if they didn't have bigger problems to worry about, and they might have in the past, because native cultures were as complex and multifaceted as any other. Unfortunately, Europeans completely obliterated those cultures and only fragments of their knowledge and histories only remain, unrecognized by American culture and untaught in American schools, so we'll never know.
  - 3y ago
markisus 3y ago
Isn't this how most nations work? If one's parents are American, they inherit all the rights due to Americans, including the ability to run for political office. This gives the descendants of Americans sovereignty over a chunk of land in North America known as the United States.
- gatvol 3y ago
  For how many generations back do these claims remain valid? As someone of European ancestry do I have claims in Europe?
  - markisus 3y ago
    I think usually the sovereignty must be handed down through an unbroken chain. This is how monarchy and dynasty worked. Once the chain was broken, then you have a new sovereign entity. I think this is how citizenship works in most countries. In modernity we have different notions of justice where it becomes meaningful to claim that a chain of sovereignty was unjustly broken from one group of people and handed to another. If this were the case, you might have claims in Europe in some people’s eyes. Whether this is the actual case or not, parental lineage is a major force that justifies claims of sovereignty in the American legal system and elsewhere.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  I generally support tribal rights, but just to clarify all people born in the United States are citizens regardless of ancestry or ethnicity.
  - markisus 3y ago
    Yes there are other routes to sovereignty over US soil other than familial inheritance, including being born on the land or becoming a naturalized citizen. Still, the predominant route is via a claim to the correct ancestral lineage. Here I mean that one’s ancestors form an unbroken chain of people who also had sovereignty over the land. This route is also the predominant one taken by citizens of most other countries.
zopa 3y ago
Tribes were sovereign, signed treaties that enshrined sovereignty—within limits,to be sure—and continue to exercise that sovereignty. Nothing is being handed over, it’s always been there. Interestingly the idea that tribal membership is based on ancestry originated with Europeans and (white) Americans, more than native tribes. Historically (generalizing wildly), tribal membership is about citizenship in a community much more than it is about who ones’ grandparents were. Blood quotient was a US legal concept that reflected the American fondness for racial categories. A Navajo friend has Scottish and Arab ancestors who’d married into the tribe, just to give an example. Or check out _The Unredeemed Captive_, for a practice that would make no sense if tribal membership were racial. Communities often want to continue as communities, in a way that’s only possible with self-determination. That can land as either a left- or a right-flavored interest, depending on who’s asking and the overall context. But it’s too big a part of human nature to brush aside.
krapp 3y ago
Native tribes are and have always been sovereign entities, that didn't end with European colonization. The degree to which the US government acknowledges this has varied over time, obviously, but as recently as the SCOTUS case on the Indian Child Welfare Act (Haaland v. Brackeen[0,1]), it has at least recognized that sovereignty exists. [0]https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v-brackeen/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v-bracke... [1]https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-upholds-indian-child-welfare-act https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme...
- gatvol 3y ago
  Sovereignty only exists for those that recognise it.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Funny, because the same Americans who refuse to recognize the sovereignty of native people claim their own is an inalienable manifest destiny granted to them directly by God. The white man speaks with a forked tongue.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Agree with the ecological preservation objectives, hard disagree with handing over of sovereignty, whatever that actually means,to a group based on their ethnicity / ancestry. I’m sure many people in the various tribes object to the handing over of most of their sovereignty over to the USA based on the guns held to their head (and where land was retained, it often being not merely a small subset of their land, but often completely different and worse land) but their vigorous excercise of the sovereignty they retain is not a “handing over” of anything to them “based on their ethnicity”, even to the extent that there is a rearrangement of sovereign rights between the three relevant sovereigns (state, federal, and tribal) such that there is something being handed over at all.
- gatvol 3y ago
  Those events occurred a long time ago to people that no longer exist.

by gatvol 3y ago

Agree with the ecological preservation objectives, hard disagree with handing over of sovereignty, whatever that actually means,to a group based on their ethnicity / ancestry.

jker 3y ago

A close read of the statement suggests that this is more of a feel-good thing and not much to worry about. If those tribes get actual sovereignty over those waters, they’ll soon find them full of Chinese fishing trawlers.

TinkersW 3y ago

I grew up in the area, those shores aren't tribal lands other than a few tiny bits. And most of it is already preserved shore/ocean, so this just appears to be a land grab attempt. I agree that this area should be protected, but giving it to a few people based on ancestry is ridiculous.

constantly 3y ago
Out of curiosity how far back are you choosing to go to designate something as a tribal land?
labster 3y ago
Just curious, are you opposed to land inheritance in general, or just when it comes to indigenous groups?

hypeit 3y ago

They're indigenous, nothing is being "handed over" it's land that they were forced to live on when they were forced of their original land in the area. They already have sovereignty.

arcticbull 3y ago
A lot of people were forced to leave a lot of land all over the world. Borders shifted constantly within Europe. People were constantly expelled and relocated. Now of course they shouldn't have been, but that was a long time ago and we've generally agreed not to do that anymore. Should former Roman land be given to the Italians? Should the Louisiana purchase be undone because it was the result of a military defeat in the Napoleonic Wars? Should the non-first-nations parts of California be returned to the Mexicans because it was ceded in the Mexican-American War under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? What framework do you propose we use to decide which land is worthy of sovereign rule - and which isn't? Which groups are worthy of sovereignty, and which aren't, and on what basis? I think all groups should be represented within the government and there's no reason to revisit the question of sovereignty because there's no framework that makes sense. There's no easy place to stop that isn't totally arbitrary.
- rfwhyte 3y ago
  To take things a step further, all the various North American indigenous groups have been waring, slaving and migrating their way across the continent for millennia, just like every single other people group on earth for all of history, so it's almost certain that whatever indigenous "Nation" is claiming a given piece of land "Stole" it from some other indigenous "Nation" at some point in the past, yet we never hear them talking about returning "their" land to those "Rightful owners" do we?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 3y ago
    >yet we never hear them talking about returning "their" land to those "Rightful owners" do we? I mean, they might if they didn't have bigger problems to worry about, and they might have in the past, because native cultures were as complex and multifaceted as any other. Unfortunately, Europeans completely obliterated those cultures and only fragments of their knowledge and histories only remain, unrecognized by American culture and untaught in American schools, so we'll never know.
- 3y ago

markisus 3y ago

Isn't this how most nations work? If one's parents are American, they inherit all the rights due to Americans, including the ability to run for political office. This gives the descendants of Americans sovereignty over a chunk of land in North America known as the United States.

gatvol 3y ago
For how many generations back do these claims remain valid? As someone of European ancestry do I have claims in Europe?
- markisus 3y ago
  I think usually the sovereignty must be handed down through an unbroken chain. This is how monarchy and dynasty worked. Once the chain was broken, then you have a new sovereign entity. I think this is how citizenship works in most countries. In modernity we have different notions of justice where it becomes meaningful to claim that a chain of sovereignty was unjustly broken from one group of people and handed to another. If this were the case, you might have claims in Europe in some people’s eyes. Whether this is the actual case or not, parental lineage is a major force that justifies claims of sovereignty in the American legal system and elsewhere.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
I generally support tribal rights, but just to clarify all people born in the United States are citizens regardless of ancestry or ethnicity.
- markisus 3y ago
  Yes there are other routes to sovereignty over US soil other than familial inheritance, including being born on the land or becoming a naturalized citizen. Still, the predominant route is via a claim to the correct ancestral lineage. Here I mean that one’s ancestors form an unbroken chain of people who also had sovereignty over the land. This route is also the predominant one taken by citizens of most other countries.

zopa 3y ago

Tribes were sovereign, signed treaties that enshrined sovereignty—within limits,to be sure—and continue to exercise that sovereignty. Nothing is being handed over, it’s always been there. Interestingly the idea that tribal membership is based on ancestry originated with Europeans and (white) Americans, more than native tribes. Historically (generalizing wildly), tribal membership is about citizenship in a community much more than it is about who ones’ grandparents were. Blood quotient was a US legal concept that reflected the American fondness for racial categories. A Navajo friend has Scottish and Arab ancestors who’d married into the tribe, just to give an example. Or check out _The Unredeemed Captive_, for a practice that would make no sense if tribal membership were racial. Communities often want to continue as communities, in a way that’s only possible with self-determination. That can land as either a left- or a right-flavored interest, depending on who’s asking and the overall context. But it’s too big a part of human nature to brush aside.

krapp 3y ago

Native tribes are and have always been sovereign entities, that didn't end with European colonization. The degree to which the US government acknowledges this has varied over time, obviously, but as recently as the SCOTUS case on the Indian Child Welfare Act (Haaland v. Brackeen[0,1]), it has at least recognized that sovereignty exists. [0]https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v-brackeen/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v-bracke... [1]https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-upholds-indian-child-welfare-act https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme...

gatvol 3y ago
Sovereignty only exists for those that recognise it.
- krapp 3y ago
  Funny, because the same Americans who refuse to recognize the sovereignty of native people claim their own is an inalienable manifest destiny granted to them directly by God. The white man speaks with a forked tongue.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Agree with the ecological preservation objectives, hard disagree with handing over of sovereignty, whatever that actually means,to a group based on their ethnicity / ancestry. I’m sure many people in the various tribes object to the handing over of most of their sovereignty over to the USA based on the guns held to their head (and where land was retained, it often being not merely a small subset of their land, but often completely different and worse land) but their vigorous excercise of the sovereignty they retain is not a “handing over” of anything to them “based on their ethnicity”, even to the extent that there is a rearrangement of sovereign rights between the three relevant sovereigns (state, federal, and tribal) such that there is something being handed over at all.

gatvol 3y ago
Those events occurred a long time ago to people that no longer exist.