Preventing racial discrimination (a good thing) should not lead into encouraging racial division, but unfortunately our well meaning desire to be equitable often causes that to happen.
Fryberg, S. A., & Stephens, N. M. (2010). When the world is colorblind, American Indians are invisible. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 115-119. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.483847
PDF: https://www.nicolemstephens.com/uploads/3/9/5/9/39596235/34_...
Of course that's definitely not the only way forward. You can fix unequal distributions of resources by, well, redistributing the resources, which requires acknowledging the existence of different groups and the history of how those groups have distributed resources among themselves. And note that acknowledging the existence of a social construct that distinguishes people into different groups does not imply condoning that social construct.
It's not that radical. If a thief steals my car, the way forward is to recognize who is the thief and who is the victim, and to redistribute the resources accordingly. That does not "simply encourage further division and entrenchment between thieves and victims of theft," or if it does, I think that's okay. We don't say "hey, I'm blind to the differences between thieves and victims, we're all just human beings."
Nothing about my argument relies on racial language or philosophy, any more than my argument for returning stolen property relies on "'thief'-like language or philosophy." My argument for remediation is simply that the injustice occurred, and I think our society should attempt to correct this past injustice just like other past injustices.
It does because you're relying on racial identity to determine who pays and who receives rather than who stole and who was stolen from. The matter of who did what to whom is "settled" in the sense that all parties are dead.
> I don't hope for cosmic justice, I think justice is up to us humans.
What is your solution to the "stolen land" problem?
I did not say or imply this.
But... the US taking its treaty obligations with native peoples as seriously as it does with other nations would be a good start.
The situation is at the very least complex and will likely require a "morally impure" solution.
Yes, it would be messy and complex. International relations already are, why would intranational relations be different?
Well... aside from letting go of past injustices and instead focusing on some better future. Which isn't really a solution at all since it relies on the permanent good will of all future generations.
> Well... aside from letting go of past injustices and instead focusing on some better future.
This is a false dichotomy. I'm not suggesting attempting to change the past, of course. I am proposing we try to improve things in the future and allow ourselves to be informed by the past.
I am by no means an expert, but I think the recent SC case is probably the right approach. I don't see why the US government should not be held to the treaties they signed - I mean, the court still relies on law settled centuries ago.
And if the gov't can't hold up their end, then restitution is reasonable. However, I wouldn't restitute based on today's value just because the tribal land is Manhattan now. But it would seem fair to make them whole based on if the treaty had been fairly followed.
People in wheelchairs are on the other hand affected by the presence or absence of wheelchair ramps.
Or the Standing Rock reservation, or ...
That's an issue of personal choices more than anything else.
If the Natives had integrated a few generations ago they would be far better off today.
Broader historical context plays part in what defines your parents' personalities and ability to raise children in the first place. You're trying so very hard to abstract it away in order to solve this problem but many of us know this won't work.