Every country in the world that exists today is occupied by a people who can be traced back to a conquering nation. If you think through the implications of your statement, you'd see you're talking about wiping out 10,000 years of history and forcibly moving 7 billion people somewhere else.

Proximity in time and space add important context to the issue. There are still many places in the world where injustices are happening due to this kind of problem, saying that it has always been this way doesn't add anything to the conversation.

> Proximity in time and space add important context to the issue.

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.

> Proximity in time and space add important context to the issue

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.

The answer doesn't lie in the temporal dimension at all.

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 have a distinctly queer idea of what happens after a war. This isn't an American idea to take land after conquest, it's how it's always worked throughout human history, even with the Indians that warred amongst themselves prior to the American government becoming the ultimate victor against them.

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.

This is a unique idea, that feels to be mostly semantic. Ok, you don't want to call it theft, but does that change the justice of the situation? America conquered a series of less developed nations of people through sometimes dubious means, and has spent the years after that conquering trying to erase or marginalize the conquered peoples. America won, so it's not theft, but whatever you call it it's unjust.

I find it amusing that you hold a blanket thought that the theft of Native American land was the result of war games and not a mixture of deception, racism, genocide, breach of trust, and thievery.

I'm amused that you possibly think war is just two sides in distinct colors simply lining up and shooting volleys at each other until one side surrenders from the field with a white flag in the air. That may be more civil and gentlemanly, but it's far from how wars are mostly fought.

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.

War is hell...

and all of those things

How do you think warring tribes treated each other? You are aware that some proportion of native tribes kept both native and black (and probably white to a lesser extent) slaves, right?

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.

> It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership

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...

>all their varying climates causing different socioeconomic structures to emerge

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.

> a mixture of deception, racism, genocide, breach of trust, and thievery.

Were there rules against that? And if so, who would enforce them?

Theft is a concept that exists within a legal or normative framework. There is no such thing as theft outside of an established framework. If you want to argue that America unjustly took Native American land, you basically have to start from first principles.

This is kind of the same point I was making. I'm not trying to prove that anything was just or not in some grand scheme of things.

I'm arguing that "what happens after war" is not some fixed law of nature, but a human decision. Human decisions are not laws of nature, they can be changed. Historical precedent can be a useful tool, but it's not the same as "something immutable we must adhere to".

Because that is how this world works. You may be new out of the womb intellectually speaking, but if a child shows up at my doorstep one day and tells me I'm on his ancestors land from 300 years prior and I must vacate the home I bought and have legal title too, on the land my ancestors fought and bled over 300 years prior, even if they were assholes about it at the time, I have zero obligation to hand it over because of feelings.

That is why. You may not find it fair, but there does come past a point where the only fair thing to the present society, that had no hand in the original act, is to "keep on trucking" as they say.

This argument translated to other situations:

* we can't just end slavery - this is not how this world works. There have been slaves forever. We can't change slavery because of feelings.

* we can't give women the right to vote. This is not how this world works, women are supposed to be property of their men. We can't just let them do it because of feelings.

* we can't try to have a geneva conventio. This is not how this world works, excessive torture and cruelty have always been part of war. We cant just expect or troops to show humanity.

* we can't give land ownership rights to commoners. This is not how the world works, nobility has always had special privelege to own a thing. We cant just expect to let lesser humans have land because of feelings.

Finally: if your argument applies equally to a pro- and anit-Isreal stance - it's existence both proves and violates your exact point at the same time, depending on which stance you are already more inclined to.

Lol at your last point. It works very well for the Jews. Not so well for those who oppose Israel. The initial way that Israel acquired the land was by ancestral right, but it’s since defended it by war. Additionally, most of the land that is disputed never had any legal ownership as recognized by any ruling government.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense and not worth addressing.

Seems like all of your points conflate current/ongoing wrongs with past wrongs. At some point things that happened in the past are best left there, read about in history books.

My examples were all historical, as a way to highlight that some things we now think of as obvious, basic rights could have (and did have) opposing arguments consisting of "this is the way this world works". The point being: when it comes to human laws, it's not actually a sound argument.

No thank you. As someone who lives in one of those states this is a worrying precedent.

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.

> 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.

That is also the reality of 40 million immigrants in the US.

Surely immigrants chose to come to the US. People in Tulsa didn't chose to be in a Native reservation. They chose to be in Tulsa, Oklahoma, US.

I find this delightfully ironic.

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.

Which immigrants?

All of them.

Doesn't this just change things from state level to federal? You still are a US citizen and you still have input in the government. This seems like the same situation as when someone goes through multiple states?

Yes and no. To expand on the firearm example:

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.

Same thing happens if you go to Canada or Mexico. What's the big deal?

See my other comment.[0] Particularly the part about checkerboarding.

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.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23788209

You're saying the Native Americans should have better border control over their territories?

>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.

Two wrongs don’t make a right

It isn't two wrongs, it's a wrong and the recognition of a right.

The recognition of what right? How is it right to govern without consent? Take a moment to consider that the world can not go back to 1950 as some Republicans would like and it can not go back to 1850 as apparently some Democrats would like.

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 recognition of what right?

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...

> 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.

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.

>Your proposal for an American Indian ethnostate

>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.

Didn't they steal that land from the tribes before them?

I am not an expert in Native American history but the Creek Nation are almost certainly not the originally inhabitants.

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.

>Why should the Creek Nation get this land and not the tribe that lived there previously? Why not the tribe before that tribe?

Because the US government entered into a treaty with the Creek Nation, who were the inhabitants of that land at that time.

I get the US made an agreement. I was talking more of a general principle than this specific case.

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.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23782234.

Might makes right. Land has no true owners, only those with the means to defend it. Florida could be part of "greater Canada" if the US government was weak and the Canadian government felt it was worth it.

You're literally justifying genocide.

I don't think I'm saying any of this is fine, just pointing out that geopolitics isn't about what's morally correct. Anyone can own any piece of land for just about any reason so long as they have the firepower to back it up.

This part of humanity's impulses has me thinking we’re closer to the cosmic equivalent of “orcs” than to anything resembling a highly evolved species. Our impetus is to define things in terms that lead to conflict or must use conflict to resolve problems. We’re evolved mammals with a distinct us/them complex. Whereas if we were highly evolved organisms with a more hive like ancestor we might not war with each other as much or ever. I’m thinking like fungi or something.

"Might makes right" certainly implies a moral stance.