Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.
Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.
I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.
I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.
I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?
Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?
Mostly, I'm trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.
That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.
I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.
The way I understand it is that even if we omit any ancestral blame for what happened, the Native Americans are still dealing with the impact while European descendants benefit from it. It's kind of like if I went to school with a very bright kid that was horribly abused and kicked out into the streets, so they performed poorly and dropped out, allowing me to get into the best college possible and have a great career. Why should I have any compassion for this kid if I didn't abuse them myself? Why would I help them get housed and into college? Why would I even acknowledge that they were abused and forced out of their home? I'm one that earned it by working hard to get into college and graduate.
This omits the possibility that this kid might have outperformed me and taken the college spot, leaving me to be in a worse off situation.
Not 1000% on board with your analogy, but I understand and fully agree lol.
I just wish most people had the empathy and mental capacity to understand the intricacies of this stuff. It’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “uH wOw I ain’t payin reparations for no dang indians” than it is to actually think for a minute about and acknowledge the real history of where you live
As far back as required to make those involved feel as if they were compensated. If you feel that 36x Great uncle Olaf's loss affects your Family Today, then you should have your day in Court to make the case. However, as most likely 36x Great uncle Olaf was in fact not involved in anything in a currently oppressed People's past, it'll be a hard case to make.
The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma's rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.
It's the control. If one Native tribe still controlled the ancestral grounds of another tribe, then you probably would have some people calling that out… but they don't. The US government has ALL the control, every tribe within US territory, and all of their land, is at the governments mercy.
No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.
Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here
Nope not that at all. I'm against all war is all. And many people in many countries all around the world are benefiting from awful wars that happened centuries before they were born, possibly from people they aren't even descended from. To call me and anyone else who moved to the US afterwards "colonists" is imo a misrepresentation and unfair. And I'm not saying the native Americans don't deserve more than they're been given so far.
My point is more getting people thinking about how tribes that early Americans wronged were also wronged before that. If we fix things to return them to how it was, why does the final state of tribes before European arrival get chosen as the correct state? We likely have no idea who was on specific land first here in America. We just know the final state and some of the preceding wars before then. Keep going back and there's always a new victim.
Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here
Explain. How is it a false equivalent? Romans controlled the city / region for over a thousand years and were later conqured, and their land stolen, to use the vernacular of this thread.
You’re oversimplifying in order to compare the two. Wildly different historical contexts with entirely unrelated events. Distilling both down to “area conquered” just so you can make a point is reductive.
Beyond that though, why does it matter honestly? Does the fact that a city was conquered in the 1400s invalidate anything mentioned so far?
Damn, still couldn’t make it past the first sentence huh? Really hard question too, I’m not surprised you conveniently ignored it given the aptitude you’ve shown so far. Ain’t my fault that you can’t possibly comprehend two things being somewhat similar yet remaining distinct.
Yes, people don't leave occupied land. It's never happened historically and certainly won't happen now, that's the point of occupation. People can acknowledge what happened but in practical terms thinking that somehow all native land will be returned is just naive.
Oh well of course, at this point in time it’s been made extremely clear that natives will be getting absolutely no land back, even unoccupied land in the plains for example. There’s no major figures in government even remotely speaking on this stuff in a substantial way, so it may as well never happen. Fucked up stuff on top of all the other fucked up stuff.
And also to be fair, implying that most anyone here believes that all land should be returned is pretty naive in and of itself - there are absolutely more options than ALL OF THE LAND and NONE OF THE LAND
Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.
Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.
I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.
I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.
I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?
Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?
Mostly, I'm trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.
That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.
I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.
I like that approach. It's in line with what Amnesty International is proposing for Isreal and Palestine
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/
The way I understand it is that even if we omit any ancestral blame for what happened, the Native Americans are still dealing with the impact while European descendants benefit from it. It's kind of like if I went to school with a very bright kid that was horribly abused and kicked out into the streets, so they performed poorly and dropped out, allowing me to get into the best college possible and have a great career. Why should I have any compassion for this kid if I didn't abuse them myself? Why would I help them get housed and into college? Why would I even acknowledge that they were abused and forced out of their home? I'm one that earned it by working hard to get into college and graduate.
This omits the possibility that this kid might have outperformed me and taken the college spot, leaving me to be in a worse off situation.
Not 1000% on board with your analogy, but I understand and fully agree lol.
I just wish most people had the empathy and mental capacity to understand the intricacies of this stuff. It’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “uH wOw I ain’t payin reparations for no dang indians” than it is to actually think for a minute about and acknowledge the real history of where you live
How far back in time are we going to enact justice? My 36x Great uncle Olaf never got his comeuppance (/s a little)
As far back as required to make those involved feel as if they were compensated. If you feel that 36x Great uncle Olaf's loss affects your Family Today, then you should have your day in Court to make the case. However, as most likely 36x Great uncle Olaf was in fact not involved in anything in a currently oppressed People's past, it'll be a hard case to make.
The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma's rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.
Doesn't the pioneer woman's family own the land involved in Killers of the Flower Moon? Pretty wild stuff
Yes. As well as all the oil money pumped out of OK over the Years.
What about the tribes that lost wars to other tribes? Do they get their old land? How far back are we going?
Irrelevant, only considering land taken by settlers
Why is only one relevant? Is it the brutality of the war that matters? Or the recency?
It's the control. If one Native tribe still controlled the ancestral grounds of another tribe, then you probably would have some people calling that out… but they don't. The US government has ALL the control, every tribe within US territory, and all of their land, is at the governments mercy.
No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.
Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here
Nope not that at all. I'm against all war is all. And many people in many countries all around the world are benefiting from awful wars that happened centuries before they were born, possibly from people they aren't even descended from. To call me and anyone else who moved to the US afterwards "colonists" is imo a misrepresentation and unfair. And I'm not saying the native Americans don't deserve more than they're been given so far.
My point is more getting people thinking about how tribes that early Americans wronged were also wronged before that. If we fix things to return them to how it was, why does the final state of tribes before European arrival get chosen as the correct state? We likely have no idea who was on specific land first here in America. We just know the final state and some of the preceding wars before then. Keep going back and there's always a new victim.
Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here
Because those Tribes are not currently benefiting from the land they took. And most likely are in the same boat if they still exist.
So by that logic, the Turks should give Constantinople back to the Romans?
False equivalence, that’s an entirely different historical context. Things can apply to one situation and not another
Explain. How is it a false equivalent? Romans controlled the city / region for over a thousand years and were later conqured, and their land stolen, to use the vernacular of this thread.
You’re oversimplifying in order to compare the two. Wildly different historical contexts with entirely unrelated events. Distilling both down to “area conquered” just so you can make a point is reductive.
Beyond that though, why does it matter honestly? Does the fact that a city was conquered in the 1400s invalidate anything mentioned so far?
Oversimplifing an empire being overthrown. Seems legit.
Yes.
If you had made it past the first sentence you’d see how legit it is.
People. On a land mass. Wiped out. People. On a land mass. Wiped out.
Yeah, I guess I see your point.
Damn, still couldn’t make it past the first sentence huh? Really hard question too, I’m not surprised you conveniently ignored it given the aptitude you’ve shown so far. Ain’t my fault that you can’t possibly comprehend two things being somewhat similar yet remaining distinct.
God, I love sealioning.
Yes, people don't leave occupied land. It's never happened historically and certainly won't happen now, that's the point of occupation. People can acknowledge what happened but in practical terms thinking that somehow all native land will be returned is just naive.
Oh well of course, at this point in time it’s been made extremely clear that natives will be getting absolutely no land back, even unoccupied land in the plains for example. There’s no major figures in government even remotely speaking on this stuff in a substantial way, so it may as well never happen. Fucked up stuff on top of all the other fucked up stuff.
And also to be fair, implying that most anyone here believes that all land should be returned is pretty naive in and of itself - there are absolutely more options than ALL OF THE LAND and NONE OF THE LAND