4 ms·

I'm not the first person to own my hatchback, but I'm not going to consult the previous owner if I want to repaint it. Not incorporating indigenous decision mak

I'm not the first person to own my hatchback, but I'm not going to consult the previous owner if I want to repaint it. Not incorporating indigenous decision making is a valid answer to the question of how to incorporate it.

defrost 3y ago
In the case where the previous owner is still the current owner and they have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" the right to strip the car of the engine mirrors and tyres, what then? We all like a good analogy .. but "previous owner" doesn't hit the mark in many cases of mining in the US, Canada, and Australia (for example) not to mention globally.
- Kamq 3y ago
  > have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it? My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations. I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.
  - defrost 3y ago
    My understanding is that there isn't really any international body that steps in to rule on (say) treaties made by the USofA and various Indian nations. History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent." https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_... The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.
  - sidkshatriya 3y ago
    > I might be getting way too pedantic with this Being pedantic is sometimes a good way to escape the deeper moral questions at play. It may give give us lawyerly oh-and-ah moments but the benefits are illusionary. The underlying problem remains unresolved. Now, many of the lands that various government (around the world) now own were acquired by force. The original owners lost control of that land and sometimes now live on the sidelines of society in abject conditions. When there are treaties with indigenous people, then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. Some consulation and a small profit share for things like mining are the right way to go (when the treaties imply economic rights to the indigenous party). If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. Treaties are agreements. Agreements mostly protect the weak because the stronger party always has the incentive to break the agreement when the terms become inconvenient to them. Should your bank suddenly simply renege on your fixed rate morgage contract and raise your interest sky high because it just _can_ ? No. Agreements and treaties should have some sanctity.
    - Kamq 3y ago
      > then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break? If yes, then why were so few of them upheld? If no, then your argument seems to legitimize a lot of the breakages that have happened throughout history. > If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. I mean, doesn't the law of the jungle apply pretty heavily to international relations? I'm not saying that this rule is the ultimate moral good, but in a de facto sense, doesn't it predict actions better than anything else? After WWII, the strongest countries (generally those with nukes) wanted a rules based system because the prospect of another war was absolutely terrifying. And so we had a rules based system. But whenever one of those countries has deviated from the rules, they're generally given wide latitude and few consequences, because reigning them in is really tough. This seems to be the same reason the US argues that the treaty with Cuba for Guantanamo Bay is still in effect (and the US keeps making trivial payments for it every so often as described by the treaty). Cuba doesn't have the strength to actually break the treaty themselves. Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
  - toast0 3y ago
    My understanding is that US case law suggests "Congress has the power to abrogate Indians' treaty rights, ... though we usually insist that Congress clearly express its intent to do so." [1] If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing. I don't quite see the point of a treaty if it terminates once it's violated though? [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ (sorry, I don't think I can link directly to the text in the opinion)
    - Kamq 3y ago
      > If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing. This is probably the part I was missing. That seems to be a departure from regular international relations standards, but there's a couple of clauses in the constitution specifically about relations with natives, so it makes sense there's some subtleties to the subject. Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.
keepamovin 3y ago
While I see the analogy you're trying to make, paul_funyun, I believe comparing the ownership of a hatchback to traditional indigenous lands oversimplifies the situation.
Mikealcl 3y ago
I doubt you have the same emotional attachment to traditional values, unless its a Subaru.
notjtrig 3y ago
Did you purchase it outright or have the previous owners murdered?
- paul_funyun 3y ago
  I bought it outright. Salvage, so it's possible that the previous owners died in bringing it to market.

defrost 3y ago

In the case where the previous owner is still the current owner and they have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" the right to strip the car of the engine mirrors and tyres, what then? We all like a good analogy .. but "previous owner" doesn't hit the mark in many cases of mining in the US, Canada, and Australia (for example) not to mention globally.

Kamq 3y ago
> have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it? My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations. I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.
- defrost 3y ago
  My understanding is that there isn't really any international body that steps in to rule on (say) treaties made by the USofA and various Indian nations. History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent." https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_... The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.
- sidkshatriya 3y ago
  > I might be getting way too pedantic with this Being pedantic is sometimes a good way to escape the deeper moral questions at play. It may give give us lawyerly oh-and-ah moments but the benefits are illusionary. The underlying problem remains unresolved. Now, many of the lands that various government (around the world) now own were acquired by force. The original owners lost control of that land and sometimes now live on the sidelines of society in abject conditions. When there are treaties with indigenous people, then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. Some consulation and a small profit share for things like mining are the right way to go (when the treaties imply economic rights to the indigenous party). If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. Treaties are agreements. Agreements mostly protect the weak because the stronger party always has the incentive to break the agreement when the terms become inconvenient to them. Should your bank suddenly simply renege on your fixed rate morgage contract and raise your interest sky high because it just _can_ ? No. Agreements and treaties should have some sanctity.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    > then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break? If yes, then why were so few of them upheld? If no, then your argument seems to legitimize a lot of the breakages that have happened throughout history. > If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. I mean, doesn't the law of the jungle apply pretty heavily to international relations? I'm not saying that this rule is the ultimate moral good, but in a de facto sense, doesn't it predict actions better than anything else? After WWII, the strongest countries (generally those with nukes) wanted a rules based system because the prospect of another war was absolutely terrifying. And so we had a rules based system. But whenever one of those countries has deviated from the rules, they're generally given wide latitude and few consequences, because reigning them in is really tough. This seems to be the same reason the US argues that the treaty with Cuba for Guantanamo Bay is still in effect (and the US keeps making trivial payments for it every so often as described by the treaty). Cuba doesn't have the strength to actually break the treaty themselves. Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
- toast0 3y ago
  My understanding is that US case law suggests "Congress has the power to abrogate Indians' treaty rights, ... though we usually insist that Congress clearly express its intent to do so." [1] If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing. I don't quite see the point of a treaty if it terminates once it's violated though? [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ (sorry, I don't think I can link directly to the text in the opinion)
  - Kamq 3y ago
    > If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing. This is probably the part I was missing. That seems to be a departure from regular international relations standards, but there's a couple of clauses in the constitution specifically about relations with natives, so it makes sense there's some subtleties to the subject. Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.

keepamovin 3y ago

While I see the analogy you're trying to make, paul_funyun, I believe comparing the ownership of a hatchback to traditional indigenous lands oversimplifies the situation.

Mikealcl 3y ago

I doubt you have the same emotional attachment to traditional values, unless its a Subaru.

notjtrig 3y ago

Did you purchase it outright or have the previous owners murdered?

paul_funyun 3y ago
I bought it outright. Salvage, so it's possible that the previous owners died in bringing it to market.