Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

Are you saying that, unlike other injustices where we as a society generally approve of at least attempting to correct the injustice, this particular injustice is unique, and we shouldn't even attempt to remediate? Or do you oppose all attempts to correct past injustices because "cosmic justice" doesn't exist? I don't hope for cosmic justice, I think justice is up to us humans.

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.

View on HN

> Nothing about my argument relies on racial language or philosophy.

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?

> 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.

I did not say or imply this.

The question remains. How do you solve the problem of historical injustice? Focusing specifically on land stolen from Native Americans by European settlers.

There probably isn't an easy, simple or universally acceptable answer.

But... the US taking its treaty obligations with native peoples as seriously as it does with other nations would be a good start.

As I said yesterday in our conversation, we are in agreement there but I'm not quite sure it solves the problem. A "good start" isn't a solution to the problem and even the "good start" requires enforcing some form of racial governance model otherwise its just another county of the United States.

The situation is at the very least complex and will likely require a "morally impure" solution.

It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would solve a problem. And the USG refusing to act in good faith is a pretty big problem. Any mutually beneficial solutions would be at best infeasible or at worse impossible without at least that.

Yes, it would be messy and complex. International relations already are, why would intranational relations be different?

Historical injustice is not something that people living today are responsible for. Therefore the "problem" of historical injustice is best solved by people today forgiving the people from the past and moving on with their lives.

I don't have the experience to suggest specifics, but I think more government aid programs targeted to Native American communities is a good start. I don't pretend that there's some way of perfectly undoing the land distribution, but I also don't claim that there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done.

If you want to provide government aid to poor communities then by all means do it. But let's not pretend that welfare even approximates a solution to the problem. There is likely no solution.

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.

There is almost certainly no perfect solution. I think everyone is in agreement there. "If you want to provide government aid to poor communities then by all means do it" is major progress over complete resignedness.

> 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.

What is your solution to the "stolen land" problem?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com