4 ms·
I think the fact that we now know the land was stolen was conceded much higher up in this thread ("That is certainly something the tribes should sort out, after
by ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
I think the fact that we now know the land was stolen was conceded much higher up in this thread ("That is certainly something the tribes should sort out, after getting the land back.") Conceding that we know the land was already stolen and arguing that our responsibility is still to give it to the immediately previous thieves and let them figure it out is what I take issue with. If we don't know whether it was stolen, that's another matter.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoFair enough. I lost track of that conceit in the hypothetical. If there is a clear victim, then yes it should go back to them, not the thief. Because individual actors and even nations are discontinuous over the thousands of years we are talking about, we are stuck with treating racial and ethnic lineages as the actors, blurring the lines. The Thief and victim can be the same. Lets say a deceased grandfather (A) was robbed by a now deceased son (B), depriving the living grandchild (C) of their ancestral property. Living Indians, party C, are the decedents of both the thief and victim. It still makes more sense that the stolen goods should go back to them, than stay with recipient of the stolen goods. Anchoring back to reality, I think the whole thief analogy is bogus. At the time treaties were made with Indians, possession by conquest was considered a valid means of acquisition, and Indians were held to be in sufficient standing to enter agreements. Rationales which try to retroactively invalidate the historic land ownership by natives, and thereby invalidate contractual obligations, are logically bankrupt if they dont also attempt to identify a rightful owner to return the property to.