The numbers should really be 100% instead of 25% and 10%. Much has been stolen from them.
It really doesn't and saying otherwise doesn't add anything to the conversation (see what I did there).
Do you really believe the Russian and German empires should reclaim their "rightful" territories in Europe? Do you believe Europe should reassert its domination over Africa because it had strong political control over it in recent history? What about the British Raj? What about Hong Kong?
"Time and space" is a bullshit argument and you don't believe it yourself. How could you? "So and so" holding "such and such" lands at "this and that" time is the basis of 99% of wars throughout history.
Its a stupid way to think. Its a stupid way to govern.
So how long do non-native Americans have to wait for it to no longer be stolen land? What's the date? Because in order to believe that your line of thinking is logical, surely you at least have a vague answer to that question.
We can stop stealing the land by choosing to live on it differently, and by respecting indigenous leadership with respect to use of and trust in the land.
The idea that the land was stolen in discrete acts, decades or centuries ago, does not comport with what I am hearing from indigenous leadership. The land is still being stolen today, all the time.
You may disagree with the foundations of the conflict, and you can argue on those merits if you choose, but the results are the results all the same, and it's not theft when you win.
Were there rules against that? And if so, who would enforce them?
and all of those things
It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership. Seems people are too eager to view history through a modern moral lense these days.
There were many tribes living without telecommunications across the Americas with all their varying climates causing different socioeconomic structures to emerge
https://mises.org/wire/did-indians-understand-concept-privat...
Which supports my point, that trying to view native practices through modern concepts is a bit like forcing a square peg through a round hole.
>One of the reasons that many continue to think that aboriginal Americans had no concept of private property, however, is because many tribes did regard land as being communally owned. Carl Watner explores the topic in The Journal of Libertarian Studies
The article seems to conflate "private property" with land ownership. Even this particular paragraph speaks of "communal ownership" which isn't quite the same as the concept of ownership in modern US law, though there are certainly provisions for group ownership.
Point is that article only supports what I'm saying, that it's borderline slanderous to assign morality to the behavior of cultures from 300+ years ago according to modern laws and ideas. Regarding this discussion, "theft" certainly becomes a strong word when you consider how different (and heterogeneous) concepts and practices were back then.
Deception, killing, accepting/breaking agreements, and taking things is basically war in a nutshell. It is an extension of diplomacy. How you execute these parts is a matter of your goals, and your morals and ethics.
But it's not THEFT. There is no such thing as theft when it comes between two nation states, it's either yours or it's not yours, and how well you can defend it basically is the rule of the game.
If you deceive yourself enough to assume you aren't at war, while the other side sends you all the signals that they are at war with you, whose fault is it when you eventually fall?
You may hate it, but don't redefine something basic to the politics of humanity.
Maybe if their laws didn't apply to me as a non citizen I would be ok with this. As it is, I can be arrested for stopping at the wrong gas station with a firearm in my car.
I have no choice but to pass through reservations on a regular basis. And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being heard. Yet those laws apply to me just the same.
It's almost as if they stole part of your country from you, ignored your laws and customs and forced you to submit to their authority without your consent. That must just be terrible.
You believe its right to subject a person who lives in Oklahoma, who has never lived in a country other than the USA, who has never stolen anyone's land, to the non-representative rule of a person (who's land was never stolen) because of their racial origin?
I'm very interested in the ideology that led you to these beliefs.
The right of sovereignty of Native peoples over themselves and their lands, as recognized and respected by treaties signed onto in (ostensible) good faith by the United States, and natural law itself.
>You believe its right to subject a person who lives in Oklahoma, who has never lived in a country other than the USA, who has never stolen anyone's land, to the non-representative rule of a person (who's land was never stolen) because of their racial origin?
Yes, because parts of Oklahoma are the sovereign territory of Native peoples. That's been established legal fact for centuries. Here's a Wikipedia article on Tribal sovereignty in the US for further clarification[0]. When you cross from one sovereign territory into another, you become subject to its laws.
I'm sorry the situation is frustrating. Things would obviously be simpler if the settlers had either not committed to the path of Manifest Destiny and genocide, or else committed to it entirely. As it is, they half-assed it and now things are complicated.
But the Natives were there first and their rights are no less inalienable than yours or mine.
>I'm very interested in the ideology that led you to these beliefs.
The ideology is, simply, morality and respect for the rule of law.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...
Regardless of "whose" territory they reside in and regardless of their racial origins, the people have a right to self-governance. Your proposal for an American Indian ethnostate where other ethnicities are subjugated and deprived the right to representative democracy is disgusting, illiberal, and racist.
Recall what you said because it seems you have forgotten:
> forced you to submit to their authority without your consent. That must just be terrible.
"you" being white people (presumably but non-American-Indian is more correct) and "their" being American Indians. That was your appraisal of the situation. You are in support of one racial identity compelling the submission of another.
And if you think this is a stretch (or that you were just making light) I spelled out your racial ideology explicitly in my previous post. To which you responded:
> Yes, because [...]
But you have a reason, as people often do. I don't buy the "legal" argument. It has been legal to commit a great many evil acts throughout history. No, I believe your reasoning is two fold:
1). You believe the ancestors of one ethnic group committed genocide against the ancestors of another ethnic group.
2). You believe land belonging to the ancestors of one ethnic group was appropriated by the ancestors of another ethnic group.
That's why you come to the conclusion that modern peoples should be rewarded or punished based on their racial identity. Its a racial tit-for-tat where the children of abusers are punished for actions completely outside of their control.
> The ideology is, simply, morality and respect for the rule of law.
I have a different appraisal and I think you can guess what it is.
---
I know what your response will be. Its the tribe's land by right (which is an organization that has survived the duration and which has been materially harmed), it has every right to seek remediation. To which I would agree (maybe to your surprise).
But the people who reside within the territory must be, by moral law, given the right to participate in the government of the territory. And if they are not, then the people will exercise their natural right to protest, revolution, and self-governance.
They should not be subjugated to a single racial identity. I don't doubt their legal ability to do it. I doubt the morality of it. And I doubt the people who seem to cheer this "reversal".
A visitor obeying a territory's laws is one thing but a group of people forcibly removed from their country are in a peculiar situation which requires, in my opinion, their consent to be governed regardless of what piece of paper gives what racial identity the right to rule a parcel of land.
>I know what your response will be.
Yeah... I'm not even going to waste my time on you or your nonsense now, so good night.
That is also the reality of 40 million immigrants in the US.
Tulsa residents actually _chose_ to live in a land that happens to be a native American reservation. They may not have known prior to this day, but the Supreme Court was there to clarify it.
In fact, and given that the Supreme Court dismissed the state arguments about laws passed around the early 20th century, it is not that these territories are _now_ part of the reservation, they _always_ were.
Now, if you were to argue that there may be uncertainty and prejudice against current Tulsa residents, because of the change of the status quo, I would say that, again, this is the reality 40 million immigrants face in the US to this day.
I can't end up in Canada or Mexico by accident. Nor do I have to drive through them to get from one part of my state to the other.
When on federal or state land, I only have to comply with the state's laws. (Basically just don't shoot or threaten anyone.) When on reservation land, I'm protected under the FOPA[0] which is considerably more restrictive. Some of its provisions can be hard to meet. Especially in a two seater pickup truck.
Add checkerboarding[1] to this and it can be very easy to make a mistake because you're constantly changing jurisdictions. Usually with no fence or signage.
I don't want to get into it here but there are a number of reasons one might want a readily accessible firearm when the nearest civilization is ~100 miles away.[2] Hence why one might not always be compliant with FOPA.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)
[2] A benign example would be hitting a cow.
This is one of my biggest issues with stuff like this. Why should the Creek Nation get this land and not the tribe that lived there previously? Why not the tribe before that tribe?
Americans often did not treat the natives well but this is an issue with all countries. It was quite common for Natives to kill other tribes and take over that area. It sucks but that is how a country is formed.
Because the US government entered into a treaty with the Creek Nation, who were the inhabitants of that land at that time.
I have seen several comments here saying the US was wrong to take land through violent means and as such the US should return the land.
When the natives did the same thing to other natives nobody seems to think they should return it to the people they took it from.
There is a double standard and I don't like it. If we are going to return the land we should return it to the original inhabitants. Of course there isn't actually a way to figure out who occupied the land thousands of years ago.