4 ms·
The thing is that some of these treaties are expiring (e.g. one of the tribes in Snohomish county, I forget which) and, per the treaty, the land must be returne
by zamalek 3y ago
The thing is that some of these treaties are expiring (e.g. one of the tribes in Snohomish county, I forget which) and, per the treaty, the land must be returned to them. This is why these treaties are seen as problematic.
Once these treaties expire, assuming they are ignored, the land does become stolen.
I don't expect the tribes to be unreasonable about the land and take up land-grabs, it will likely just be a matter of taxes going to one entity instead of another.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThat's the problem with having rule of law, integrity, and honor. Sometimes it's inconvenient and costly. Something being costly does not absolve you of your moral, legal, and honorable obligations. It is not a justification for ex post facto recontracting. I would like to see the government uphold it's obligations, stop acting weird exceeds these obligations, I work towards permanent Solutions where advantageous. This may include buying out of contractual obligations for purchasing Indian land and rights