Hacker News Reader

Comment by newacct583 | Hacker News Reader

This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-...

The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of subsequent jurisprudence and state development has (unsurprisingly) completely ignored that with effectively no legal basis. Neither Congress nor the state of Oklahoma has ever lifted a finger to try to make this right.

Basically, this is the Supreme Court saying that enough is enough, this can't go on, and telling the relevant governments to get their shit together and figure this out.

No, Injuns aren't coming for Tulsa.

View on HN

Side note - as a part 'native' I wish that term you used would come back. Indian is now ambiguous and First Nations and Native American sound so stupid.

If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid, does that mean that one party is entitled to compensation for 187 years of damages? Or is it more likely that we will somehow hand-wave it away and just find a way to retroactively undo the treaty?

> If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid

If? SCOTUS literally just said it's valid. Today.

As far as what's going to happen, presumably the state legislature, congress, and the Tribal government(s) are going to come to some kind of deal. I'm no expert. I'm just reacting to the vaguely racist paranoia in the headline that has people freaking out that they'll suddenly be Ruled by Indians.

I said _treat_ it as valid. There are many valid laws we don't treat as valid (such as international ones).

It was a genuine question though; I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than I knew how it would be handled :)

>There are many valid laws we don't treat as valid

Including several on the bill of rights.

I agree 100% with your point but would just make one change to the wording. The Bill of Rights isn't made up of laws.

Well, they have binding legal force. They are Law. So, a kind of Super Law.

They are Amendments that enshrine rights and limit the Federal Government. Amendments take more than a simple majority to pass, which is all a law takes.

International Laws should not be expected to have juirisdiction inside of the United States.

That is certainly the opinion of the United States ;) (I'm referring to the laws being ignored by the US government itself, to be clear)

Ah, yes. I see. There is no doubt that the Federal Government ignores a number of Federal laws. More importantly, I believe, they ignore the US Constitution and Amendments.

I was thinking the same thing, if what the court was saying was that the land has always been a reservation, then, uh, get ready for the mother of all tax refunds.

Court decisions in the US (As in any other country in the world) are made in the context of the current social climate.

The current American social climate is not ready, willing, or interested in meaningful reparations. I doubt the tribe will be successful in suing for any damages.

Trying would be dangerous, a lot of people go from who cares about them to why are you taking my money for them.

Upvoted for sharing that article.

However, I think your comment would have been more impactful if you coolly made your point and linked to the WaPo article for further reading instead of using that inflammatory tone and language.

So if it's not part of OK, how does that impact OK from a representation in Congress, electoral college, e-Rate/federal funding perspective. All of those people are no longer part of the state?

States and reservations are orthogonal concepts. This has nothing to do with "taking land away from" a state, it's about which legal authority has jurisdiction within the borders. People on reservations still vote in their relevant state elections.

Am I correct in thinking that this is about authority, not (land) title over half of Oklahoma?

Yes. The specific case was about a murder conviction overturned because the Oklahoma county court didn't have jurisdiction over tribal land.

> didn't have jurisdiction over tribal land

Over native americans on tribal land. The state still has authority over everyone else. And the tribal police don't have authority over them. It's convoluted.

Do you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some respect.

EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.

He's obviously mocking the use of the word... can people here not understand context?

so would it be ok to mockingly use the n word in the same way?

I don't think there's a consensus on that. Regarding words that some persons find deeply offensive:

- Some readers feel that using such words should be avoided simply because it's emotionally hurtful to certain individuals. Or because it reinforces beliefs they find abhorrent. Or for the pragmatic reason that it tends to end constructive discussion.

- Other readers feel that having policies against using such words does more harm than good, and stifles free and honest discussion. And coddles individuals who are too easily offended, when they should in fact use it as an opportunity to mature.

I think HN's audience skews more towards that first group. I'm sure other forums exist that skew the other way.

From long observation: no, one thing HN is remarkably bad at, even compared to the rest of the web(!), is taking context into account. Usually that kind of thing is deliberate trolling when it happens elsewhere, but here I can never tell. It seems so sincere.

It's pretty clear to me that it was sarcastic, but sarcasm reads really badly on the Internet. In open forums, it's best avoided -- there are just too many ways for it to go wrong. (Especially when not everybody is a native speaker, which makes sarcasm even harder to recognize.)

It was sarcasm. I'm calling out the racism implicit in the headline. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

If you put the word in quotes, it is clearer that it doesn't belong to you..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com