Hacker News Reader

Comment by jake_morrison | Hacker News Reader

We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think it mattered.

It's insulting to hear people talk about them as not having "initiative" or being somehow responsible for being poor. When they resisted being screwed, we sent in the US Army to kill them, then kept them under control.

Reconciling this after all these years is going to be tough, but acknowledging it is a first step. Giving them back the land is disruptive, but giving them a few billion dollars is pretty easy. It would be interesting to see a VC fund focused on Native Americans building businesses. Or some real educational funding in Oklahoma. It would be a lot better than what the Republicans are doing to the state. All they want to is protect the rich and the oil industry.

View on HN

As an Okie and a tribal member, the situation is far more complex than what the news/wikipedia can describe. But I think that's mentioned here a lot- the news never does anything justice. The Indians do get billions handed out all the time -ihs.gov.

One of the fundamental issues I see in Oklahoma is the lack of rule of law. I'm not thrilled we're releasing child molesters (that's who filed the suit), but I suppose starting somewhere is good.

As for VC funding, I'd love to see more of that. I do computer vision/nlp for a living, and I've had to leave the state due to lack of work. It's cheap, there are smart people, but they all leave after school.

The suit doesn't claim he shouldn't be tried for his crimes. It claims he should be tried by a federal court, not a state court. Nobody is "releasing" any criminals here.

Don't forget about sterilizing the women and forcing the children into boarding schools in an attempt to erase their culture.

I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. You find out it's all true, your father did murder and steal $1000 and you indirectly and unknowingly benefited from that. Should you legally be forced to pay back that $1000 dollars? But the person is dead, should you have to pay that dead person's son $1000? Should you and any siblings have to divide that sum up and pay back the $1000 collectively? Let's say you have already spent every dime you have on meals out. Should you go to jail because you can't pay back the $1000 your father stole? I think these agreements which weren't honored are equal to theft but how long down the line must you pay for the crime of being born in that situation and pay others that were born into the opposite side of the theft. Even with as close a relation as a father, I find it hard to believe that a child should be responsible for their parents wrong doing. But now assume that not only were you not related to that person who stole $1000, you simply don't have the heritage that the murdered man has. Now assume that hundreds of years have passed and now someone is still asking to collect that $1000 from you. I find it very difficult to find the moral obligation to pay back that money when the people who were the actual victims are long dead, the people who committed the theft are long dead, and there is no connection between your actions and the theft. Voluntary payments I would be all for but using tax money which is essentially taken by force, as if you don't pay taxes you will go to jail, that kind of thing seems very wrong. I would not blame a child for their father's sins.

This analogy falls apart rather quickly when you recognize that the north american indigenous population still suffers greatly under legal systems built on the treaties that weren't even honored while the descendants of those who perpetrated great crimes against them collectively constitute the greatest mass of wealth in the history of the world while also pretending to have done nothing wrong.

Re-do your analogy but now it's that your dad killed someone and stole the deed to his land, found oil on it, and is now one of the richest people in the world and the person he killed's kid is now on the street begging for cash and tell me again how little you owe that kid who's father's land gave you your trust fund and your college education.

tell me again how little you owe that kid

That's actually not that hard to do, both from a legal and a moral standpoint. Legally, the "you" in your analogy has never committed an unlawful act and is therefore not personally beholden to any restitution to the victim's side. It is the purveyance of a well-functioning justice system to provide adequate restitution for victims of crimes, but that does not extend to a personal obligation on people that had no part in said crime.

Morally, the story is a bit more convoluted but your premise falls back to the theory of original sin: that people can be personally held responsible for their heritage. In the past two-thousand years it has been proven a very powerful argument because it "feels" right, but at its core it is still a rejection of the individualist premise that all people are born equal. And I'm still on the side that believes all people should be born equal, even though that stance seems less and less prevalent nowadays. Once you start arguing for collective punishment of past crimes, it's very hard to argue your case without at the same time defending the same practice throughout many wars in history, and now explicitly outlawed in the Geneva Conventions.

Original sin is the idea that a dude ate an apple some number of thousands of years ago and an all powerful (and allegedly all knowing) being got grumpy at him for it for some reason and now we all suffer for his intransigence.

In fact, the concept of original sin requires that we exist in a state of punishment for that sin permanently, not that we continue to benefit from it by, again, existing in the wealthiest civilization that has ever existed on this planet.

This is again a poor analogy, framing us as victims of an aggressor who wants something from us that we cannot give.

As for the geneva conventions, please note that colonial relations to indigenous people violated just about every single one of the geneva conventions. Forced resettlement, biological warfare, collective punishment, the destruction of non-military targets -- it is not "collective punishment" to expect there to be at least a moderate reparation for crimes committed. What is even the point of the concept of "war crimes" if you can get away with them just because "oh it's been too long".

If you unintentionally buy stolen property, should you be obligated to return it to the original owner (with adequate proof of such) when requested? If you are forced to return it, are you being held responsible for your heritage?

Would you support the return of Armenians and Greeks to Turkey along with their historical land being given to them?

I think it is a false dilemma to assume that either person would become rich by means of owning the land at that time. The second the land was stolen it's future was changed forever but that does not change the original value of the stolen land. I assume the land was bought and sold between many parties before the person who finally found oil and became rich owned it, and assuming a tribe recognized ownership at the time the person who had the oil rich land stolen may not even have been of that tribe under an alternate timeline. I do understand the point though that the greater the size of the theft, the more reason to give back but I wouldn't go as far as to say there is an obligation by society in general towards that murdered man's grandchildren. I think the analogy still stands, in that the victim is long dead, the thief is long dead, and there was no crime knowingly committed by the living. I also think if we referred to the country of Spain as the "Spanish Tribe" and the country of England the "English Tribe" and the Colonists the "Colonist Tribe" and said they were warring with each other, then we probably would not even have this conversation.

Some crimes are not forgotten.

This is a false analogy because unlike money (representation of value), land is not consumed and disappear.

A better analogy would be: your grandparent barged in to a persons house at gun point, demanded him to hand over his house. The owner obviously resist, and your grandpa tells the original owner that he will be given his house back in a couple of years(legally signed) to ease the resistance. This paper was also signed "with the current owner of the house", in mind(in case grandpa dies).

Now the original owner lives on the street, his grandchilden the same. Each generation have always asked "when would you live up to your promise?" to the descendant of your grandpa (current owner of the house) each year.

Now you can of course discuss if you should give additional compensation for their suffering, but the original contract still stands, and you've always been obliged to follow it. It's not about blame.

disclaimer: I'm in general in agreement with you that I don't think a child should be blamed for their ancestors sins.

I am quite surprised to see this default-to-no-action comment here on HN. Sometimes, a problem isn't your fault, but you are still compelled to fix it. If people have this attitude, then "we" (as a species) are absolutely screwed vis-a-vis climate change. In a generation, nobody is going to be around who did all the polluting, and hopefully everyone doesn't just sit around saying "Well I didn't do it!"

Is that really surprising on HN? IME there's always been a pretty big politically right leaning presence on here.

>How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers?

This is a fundamentally flawed analogy. Our government - the same government that has existed since these treaties were signed - is still around.

> I find it very difficult to find the moral obligation to pay back that money when the people who were the actual victims are long dead

The question of a "moral obligation" is entirely irrelevant and unrelated to our government's legal obligation to uphold the treaty that our government signed.

By “we” he means the United States Government. Unlike the father in your example, the USG is still around and still responsible for its actions. As such, I see no moral issue with requiring it to make restitution. If we don’t want to raise additional taxes to do so we can always make some small cuts to military spending or some other bloated program to pay for it.

> I would not blame a child for their father's sins.

I think you are making this too much about personal blame, and sin, and ego. Your analogy falls apart right out of the gate because the premise is off. It's not about placing blame or making you feel bad.

>I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers?

As long as restitution has not happened and you are still profiting from the act of wrongdoing and the victim (or their descendants) are still suffering from it. It's pretty simple, isn't it.

It's not just about the literal land and dollars stolen. That theft has contributed to the way that American society sets Native Americans up for failure and repression. That is a systemic inequality that is never too late to correct

You're taking a crime that was done to multiple nations and millions of people and trying to turn it into an analogy in a family's personal history, which isn't right; it's nowhere near in the same scale.

The facts are that the colonists / invaders genocided and displaced the original inhabitants of a continent and moved the survivors into reservations, probably to avoid it going down history as racially motivated genocide entirely.

Sure, you didn't do it, your ancestors probably didn't have anything to with it (or the slave trade for that matter), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for other people's rights. They still suffer under what happened a hundred-and-then-some years ago, they are a people whose country was taken from them, whose culture was (attempted to be) erased, and who today what little they got as a consolation has also been attempted to be taken from them because said consolation actually did have some value.

Your analogy is wrong, oversimplified and trivializing the issue.

> We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma

Interesting sentiment. As someone who grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I think you should go there and tell the people who live there your thoughts.

The fact that people live there doesn't make it desirable. People will always defend where they live. Don't be naive.

The land around the Ouchita Mountains is not shitty at all. In fact it’s gorgeous.

Mountains are gorgeous when you have plenty of food and shelter, like we do now. They're shitty if you're a subsistence farmer in the 1800's.

I highly encourage the OP to make this point, too.

I grew up in Norman, so I am familiar.

It's not as good as the prime real estate they had, and the life they had there. Why do you think the government chose Oklahoma for the reservations?

We both know the reasons as we both studied it in 9th grade Oklahoma History.

Though I’m not sure that Brad Henry (D) really did much more for those people then anyone more recently (R). To be fair, I’ve not lived there for over a decade. There is quite a bit of grift in that state.

It is certainly not the land they were native to, and that is the important point.

I didn't study 9th grade Oklahoma history, so maybe you could enlightened me. I did a bit of googling and it seems that Oklahoma wasn't suitable for large scale agriculture till the 2oth century when innovative farming techniques were developed.

Is this not correct?

I’m not sure as I’m not an agricultural scientist or engineer. That’s also not a lot of what OK History was about, either. Though that would’ve been pretty interesting!

A few highlights are: the Trail of Tears and the land grants and those who rushed to claim plots of land before the land rush started (illegally marking their territory - hence Sooners, the mascot of the University of Oklahoma). This was likely for sustenance farming and ranching (iirc) and incentivizing local development. (Oklahoma State is the agricultural school, and their mascot is the Cowboys, probably related to the massive cattle flows that ranged from Fort Worth to the Kansas City railroads).

The next highlight is the dust bowl where a drought made the land largely untenable for farming. This was the setting for the play “Oklahoma!” as well as the book “The Grapes of Wrath”.

Throughout the whole history, natural resource mining (specifically gas and oil) have been the primary economic driver of the state. Unfortunately for the state, through the 80s and 90s much of that moved to Texas. And indeed, Oklahoma is the heart of fracking today. (Or at least was, but my mom who’s an environmental chemist has retired, so I no longer hear the current stories).

My oddest memories (coming of age into teenage years) was during the Brad Henry (D) days. I was probably more inclined to that party, but saw some weird shenanigans during that period too. Like the “right to work” anti-unionization situation play out as well as the introduction of the Oklahoma lottery (to support education! / actually a grift machine for general government budgeting).

Tulsa has become increasingly swamped by seedy casinos (something I knew nothing of until my late high school days when I feel like they really began to take off).

If I were there today, I’d advocate for exactly what Tulsa has done: try and stop the brain drain by putting together programs to attract talent (like $10k grants to tech folks who move there), a renewal of investment in parks, and pitches to the likes of Tesla to attract national attention for innovation. The latter two were successful programs proven our by a city I lived in (and love) after college, Austin (just 7 hours south).

Anyway, that’s my grab bag of history, without going into too many of the unique stories that make up the history of the state. I hope I got most of it right!

My thoughts on the place have softened with my time away, and while I don’t intend to move back any time soon, I recognize the struggles the people who live there face. In some respects it’s the opposite of the Bay Area (where I live now) and in other respects it’s exactly the same.

That is only correct according to what agricultural products you wish to produce. In a purely English traditional style of growing grain in small plowed earth plots you are likely correct, which is a largely ethnocentric view of agriculture.

Well, if it is correct from the perspective of the Americans who were conceding the land, then it's as correct as it needs to be for the purposes of this discussion.

People were displaced from most of the land area of the United States, not just from the east coast.

From pretty much all of it it seems: https://www.whose.land/en/

This map shows why Houston is such a shit hole (I live here). I often explain there were no dominant indigenous tribes in the Houston area when white men settled because it was a malaria infested swamp. That's what the summers feel like. No one in their right mind would live here without air conditioning.

I believe the atakapa did live in the area. The map is just incomplete, unfortunately.

Actually I had a problem with that map too if you are referring to the one posted today showing ancestral tribal lands. There is no mention of the Karankawa tribe who lived along the Gulf Coast. Interestingly enough they are one of at least two Texas tribes known to have practiced ritual cannibalism, the other being the Tonkawas.

I lived in Houston for nearly 10 years and totally agree with the poster you replied to, that area is a shithole that is really unpleasant if you don't have air conditioning. The local tribes were mostly naked and covered themselves in mud to avoid the mosquitoes so they had workable options they employed.

Yes, anywhere the fishing is good you can find evidence of a tribe. However, further inland (50+ mi) in the flooding swampy flats or “coastal plains” specifically around Houston there is little evidence of previous inhabitants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

It's certainly something to think about when so much today revolves around giving the government even more power and control, all the way down to what we can say.

The Cherokees made up a large portion of the "Trail of Tears". The saddest part is they were largely fully "assimilated" into the "American" culture at the time. Most were fully "Christianized", spoke English, they translated many church hymns into their native language, built towns, and lived in houses. All like the "white man". Then they were asked to give up their guns and property and start marching.

And some of them that had intermarried with whites and slaves and had mixed blood passed themselves off as Black Irish or Black Dutch to avoid being labelled Indian and sent west. This allowed them to keep the homes and businesses their families had founded and maintain their places in white society. They just needed to look believably white.

An excellent book in that regard and for anyone looking to learn more is Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.

Who is this 'we' you reference? Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible for crimes committed on Native Americans before they or their ancestors/families arrived in a recognized (at the time of arrival) Sovereign Country.

Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived or breathed.

> Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible [...]

Yes, the whole point of being citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state.

We collectively owe interest on the national debt. We still must abide by international treaties signed and ratified by long-dead representatives. We follow a constitution written long ago, and if we want to change it we follow its prescribed process. We pay taxes. We serve on juries. Those of us eligible agree we can be drafted into military service if necessary. And so on.

Maybe 2 discussions are here, one of legal/fiscal and another of social culpability.

Absolutely, we have the process to modify laws or treaties we find no longer to suit the modern country. We try to move forward with better laws or fairer treaties, everyday. We as living citizens have the responsibility to improve today's laws. (As I hope we do regarding police conduct, to be topical.)

If I take your statement "...Citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state." I would have to accept that my ancestors escaping persecution in another country and coming to this one, that I am morally bound to take on the social dogmas of the United States for crimes I did not commit or do not endorse today. I don't believe this to be correct or fair, but this is my opinion.

It seems like the historical weight of this country (or maybe any country) will crush it under past social deeds that are irremediable. Unfortunately, we can not correct the past, but we should heed it, to not make similar mistakes. If there is no way to not be guilty for the crimes of the state then perhaps we should abandon the state.

It’s one thing to be obligated to follow the law of the country. But it’s another to be assigned moral guilt for things you have no involvement in.

You don't need to be "assigned moral guilt" to recognize atrocities from the past, their influence on the present state, and reparations that should be made.

It's kind of an interesting moral question though. Should immigrants have to pay reparations for the crimes of a state that neither they nor their ancestors were a part of?

If we accept that the entity of the United States is responsible for these crimes and owes reparations...is it fair to use fungible tax dollars paid partially by immigrants to pay those reparations?

I don't know. Interesting puzzle to think about though.

Yes, immigrants are part of that "entity of the United States". The reparations are owed by that entity for not complying with a legally binding treaty.

The rule of law means that the entity states that it will comply with everything that is legally binding. As such it is responsible for paying those reparations. The way that entity raises funds is by taxation or borrowing, using itself as the collateral for the debt.

The law is objective, but morals are not. That was the line of discussion.

Morals are reasoned, which is not objective but logical, fair enough. Logically, the morality question is answered by deriving the concept of personal responsibility. As an immigrant, you agree to the responsibility inherent to a new citizenship.

Likewise, the Native Americans who controlled the land before the US likely didn't have it gifted to them freely. Tribes were constantly at various stages of war with each other, and some wiped out completely.

Do they owe reparations to each other, too? And what about the ones that are completely gone?

All of the discussion of reparations and making good on centuries-past injustices always leaves out how it all gets swept under the rug if there are no decendents around to make claims.

The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim. But if one tribe wants to make a claim to reparations from another they’re free to do so. It’s between them to sort that out and none of my business.

On the other hand I am a citizen of the USG and believe it should be held to its promises.

Promises are a different case, imo. If the deal was made for the land, then past injustices and reparations are irrelevant.

> The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim.

I could have been more clear, but I was trying to imply that we should remember that it's the lesser injustices that have claimants. The greater injustices would have none.

In fact, it raises an interesting question. Suppose that early American settlers genuinely just conquered the whole land, provided no reservations, made no special deals, and expected / enforced all remaining Native Americans to submit to the laws of the land. You know, like virtually every other conquering of a territory throughout history.

Would we look on those actions less favorably than the actions that were actually taken? Or would we just write it off morally as "every place was ultimately taken by force by someone at some point" and it be a non-issue, despite it being a much greater injustice?

It is a part of the system the immigrants are choosing to join when they arrive in a new country. You don’t get to choose only the good parts.

what about guilt for the quantitative benefits you derive from no other reason but the position of your birth, often at the expense or detriment of others who suffer from the position of theirs?

I understand the point, because one was born with more, one owes it to those born with less. Correct? I think that is an economical system argument than a moral argument. I don't find being born into ANY situation a reason to feel guilt or apologize.

No, not correct. It's less of a debt and more of a duty, and less of an apology than an acknowledgement, and not a guilt but a recognition.

I didn't own slaves, I didn't commit genocide, and neither did my ancestors. But I benefit from slavery that did exist, and my ancestors benefited from a genocide. Do I owe anything to the victim? No, because the victims have been dead for decades if not a century. But a failure to recognize ones obligation or duty to the rest of their community to bring an equity about such that their children or grandchildren don't even consider such questions - that's not nearly at the scale of destruction as our history has wrought but it does continue the cycle. If you want future generations to break from it, it starts by reconciling that your status is derived from the status of those who came before you, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

> But I benefit from slavery that did exist, and my ancestors benefited from a genocide.

I don't think this is the best way to say it, because "I benefit from slavery" sounds kind of abstract at this point. In fact, white people benefited from all kinds of 100% real and explicit racism right up to and beyond Civil Rights.

You don't have to uncover anything hidden because you can just go look up e.g. zoning laws in Berkeley and they will just say in the meeting minutes that they'd invented them to keep out the blacks and Chinese. The reason highways go through US cities instead of around them is because they wanted to knock down the black neighborhoods. They really put a lot of effort into it.

One reason to fix it is that it'll improve life for you too - undoing zoning will make your commute shorter and housing cheaper. But of course, people tend to not care about their absolute quality of life as long as it's better than someone else's.

I agree with this.

Did anyone ask you to feel guilt or to apologize?

I have to disagree. No one chose to be citizens of the collective populace and state, they were born/forced into it since they were young. Try not to participate in the system by say not paying taxes or ignoring any law and you get locked up. Try to physically leave the system and at best you are at the mercy of another system. There was no choice where you are born. It is a collective agreement only by force.

Fine. If there's no choice then it doesn't matter, you are deemed responsible and that's it.

But you can't say "we collectively should decide we don't owe because we individually don't have choice". Either you are forced or you have choices.

"We", as in, "the country". It's part of the history and foundation of the country you agreed to become a citizen of. The nation of today is not isolated from it's past. Much benefit was gained from injustices of the past. What is the just thing to do? Sweep it under the rug and act like it didn't matter? What kind of values are those?

>What is the just thing to do? Sweep it under the rug and act like it didn't matter?

That has stuck with me and I've been thinking. But I think I got an idea.

Maybe we should educate our young about the past, where we came from (fled state sponsored religious persecution to a land that was free). We could also teach about the mistakes that were made, you know, like how we purchased conquered and displaced refugees from muslim warlords and then tried to treat these people as some kind of property. Maybe even go over the past processes and laws that were used to free these people and become an even better society. Maybe even go further, like make/erect some statues of some of the past heroes that actually purchased some of these conquered people but then saw the light and worked towards freedom for all using the Bible as proof that God made only one kind of "mankind" and no one set is superior to another. Maybe even erect some statues of some of these conquered people to show that we are not ashamed of seeing them as people and not property.

Basically just kind of educate people so they don't grow up questioning the most basic tenets of their own nation and history?

Oh wait...

How does this solve a legal land dispute that has been going on for generations? "We'll mention you in childrens' text books" doesn't do justice.

It doesn't, but I was referring to your more broader statement of "The nation of today is not isolated from it's past." Given the current climate of the last two months, it just reeks of dogma.

Are you complaining about dogma while referring to the Bible as a source of truth in your previous post?

Seems like you saw the word "Bible" and immediately typed your response...

Nonetheless, the bible has been used to promote many ideas through the ages. Regardless of what Obama said years ago ("we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens"), America was/is a Christian nation. The Bible and Christian faith were used in many areas to form the constitution, laws, and even our republic (based on the original notion of "judges" set before Israel in the old testament). Of course none of this is taught in schools anymore (at least I had never heard of it until researching in my adulthood), which is the problem I make a point of.

The accuracy of the Bible and its influence on the US is its own can of worms. It was heavily referenced both for and against slavery, and was certainly not convincing enough proof "that God made only one kind of "mankind" and no one set is superior to another.", to prevent genocide and the subjugation of people of color for centuries.

Edit: I see you don't consider the Native American genocide to be actual genocide, so I am going to conclude you're just ignorant of Native American history. It seems you have a very coddled view of American history.

Somehow in all of this you forgot the word genocide.

Oh wait...

Debatable on whether "genocide" is the correct term. But sure, use it if you want.

"Genocide: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."

But I don't think that the giving of land (no matter how terrible the land is) for a group to live on truly counts as "attempted extermination".

US government displaced and murdered native Americans for a long stretch of history. For multiple tribes this included extermination based on ethnic group. US soldiers acting in official capacity killed defenseless Native American civilians including young children based on their ethnicity. The genocide of Native Americans is well documented.

Seems like you could say since the Nazis moved the Jews to ghettos and had plans to move them to "Madagascar" it wasn't genocide either.

>sweep it under the carpet

As a European (Scot) who lived in Canada with my partner (Ojibwe) it became obvious how ignorant I was of the past wrt all Native American tribes and the indoctrination they were subjected to.

I'd mentioned to her that during this BLM movement that the African-American story is seemingly world-known but the Native American story less so. I believe their time will come when there is a greater understanding. Not an expert but my time living on the reserve but it seemed apparent that their society was still experiencing culture shock.

A large part of the stress came from residential schools. Children were taken from their parents to be "raised right" by the government.

There is a big debate here in Canada about Canada's founding father John A MacDonald because he approved residential schools. It would be like a debate over George Washington in the US should he be on money, statues erected and so on.

Another topic is missing women in indigenous communities. Often murdered by a partner or stranger or simply gone missing without any known reason.

It's interesting to see how little talk there is in the US over rights of First Nations (or "Native American") people. It's a daily discussion here in Canada going on for years.

Sometimes referred to as “transgenerational trauma.” It’s something Jews and Native Americans/First Nations people have in common, probably along with most populations who suffered genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma

Yes. My partner worked in a women's shelter and told me about the 'learned behaviour' that was perhaps the root cause in so many situations. Her grandmother had managed to hide and avoid being taken to one of the Catholic schools when they came into their family home to take her, her grandfather didn't manage it.

Easy to see how that kind of trauma in a family could affect the next generations, particularly so if their was abuse - which apparently was rife in the schools they were sent to.

> Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived or breathed.

Of course they are responsible, who else should be if not the one who are getting the historical benefits?

Do you use "we" in your country only to refer to the good parts of your history, or up to the day you set foot on it?

Do you think countries' debt should be cancelled every 50 year or so?

> Of course they are responsible, who else should be if not the one who are getting the historical benefits?

This idea of generational responsibility, taken to its full extent, might have some unintended consequences. For example, aren't there historical records that indicate that the at least some Native American tribes themselves fought over territory? How should those claims be adjudicated?

How does this logic work for Dreamers(DACA beneficiaries)? Should a child who benefits from their parent's illegal activities be punished years later? Should the grand-children be punished? great-grandchildren? The Supreme Court even ruled recently that DACA was illegally established. BTW, this is another good example where Congress should have passed legislation rather then letting the situation live in legal limbo.

The argument for reparations is not about punishment for past crimes. It is about remediating inequity that still exists today as a result of those crimes.

But presumably the reparations have to be paid from one group to another group. And perhaps there is a third group that pays nothing and gets nothing (recent immigrants?). So if you are in the group that has to pay out the reparations aren't you being punished for the actions of your ancestors?

As complicated as these considerations are, I still wonder about the unintended side effects if there were indeed some sort of substantial transfer of wealth from some subset of Americans to descendants of slaves. Wouldn't that create a terribly animosity between those groups and what if that transfer of wealth didn't actually resolve the disparities? What if 10 years later the metrics used to measure those disparities indicated that they still existed? More reparations? It isn't clear to me that wealth transfer can actually remedy many of the disparities that are observed. I think it is quite a bit more complex than that.

We the American people who are bound by the legal treaties our American government entered into. The same American government that existed for the past 200+ years and currently represents myself and all other Americans.

Those who benefit from the the current situation are responsible.

What is the "current situation" and what is the "benefit"?

Half of Oklahoma has no value or benefit?

Legally they are responsible because they are citizens of the country, and it is their government that made the promise. This is extremely simple.

We should give Manhattan back too.

> We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think it mattered.

Tangential: to me (an European) it seems quite insulting to put all the (or just the five "civilized" ones?) native northern american tribes/nations in the same basket by capitalizing "Native Americans".

Are you describing yourself as European with a capital E?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com