US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations

[vz71]

I have shown you that you don’t know what you’re talking about with your dismissal of the term genocide to apply to Native Americans.

I have shown that both the survivors of genocide and their descendants are the victims of genocide.

Perhaps you do not understand the problem.
The crimes occurred in the 1800’s.
Any victim would have to be nearly 200 years old.
Otherwise they are simply not directly involved.
Likewise anyone actually guilty of these crimes is long since dead.
There is no one left to apologize, there is no one left to apologize to.

Being intentionally obtuse about understanding an obvious analogy does not help your argument.

The only thing remotely analogous is that people were forced from their land.
The timing makes everything else different.

Germany could make restitution because there were direct victims still available.
There are no direct victims in America of the treaty violations.
In fact, you helped show that none of the indians alive today were directly involved.

Returning any land to anyone is neither sound or just.
I have demonstrated (as have others on this thread) why.

I have yet to see an answer to these reasons.
In fact, all I have been hearing from the restitution side of the argument are slogans that are a better fit for a car bumper then in any serious discussion.

 

[BernardM]

LOL.

And to top it all off, Dudley Do-Right just stood by and allowed it to occur.

Again----LOL.

No the modern progressives re the Dudley Do-Rights. Protecting us brown people from evil that happened 200 hundred years ago. Of course they cannot fathom that we were neither passive nor stupid but often took advantage of the situation to our own benefit. Lord forbid people with brown skin be shown as pragmatic and cunning. I could type for hours on this issue, nothing makes me roll my eyes quicker tha some white progressive apologizing to me for something that happened over century ago.

 

[BrWilliam]

As a direct descendant of Adam, I plan on puting a condo back in Eden at the first chance I get.

The soil came from Cleveland therefore it is the Cleveland Indians land.

 

[BrWilliam]

Perhaps you do not understand the problem.
The crimes occurred in the 1800’s.
Any victim would have to be nearly 200 years old.
Otherwise they are simply not directly involved.
Likewise anyone actually guilty of these crimes is long since dead.
There is no one left to apologize, there is no one left to apologize to.

The only thing remotely analogous is that people were forced from their land.
The timing makes everything else different.

Germany could make restitution because there were direct victims still available.
There are no direct victims in America of the treaty violations.
In fact, you helped show that none of the indians alive today were directly involved.

Returning any land to anyone is neither sound or just.
I have demonstrated (as have others on this thread) why.

I have yet to see an answer to these reasons.
In fact, all I have been hearing from the restitution side of the argument are slogans that are a better fit for a car bumper then in any serious discussion.

The problem is you are looking for individuals you can;t it is tribes and these tribes still exist whether or not individuals are still alive. So it is a matter of the way you look at it and how the culture is set up With the way Natives think and live if you did it to a relative 500 years ago you still did it to them today because their blood still flows in each other. I don’t know about the UN getting involved and to what lands they say should be given back but I know the Black hills should be returned because to the Lakota it is sacred ground for whites it was for money or should I say gold and other precious metals. To this day treaties are still being broken with all Indian tribes. Except the ones with the casinos.

 

[stevegravy]

Elizabeth Warren may or may not be able to accept it.

She could accept 1/32 of it but the other 31/32 would have to give it to her.

 

[vz71]

The problem is you are looking for individuals you can;t it is tribes and these tribes still exist whether or not individuals are still alive.

The problem there is that it would be individuals effected by this, not tribes.

I share no blood with any of the people on either side of the treaty.
And yet the UN request would demand that I have my land taken from me.

And even assuming there are a number of individuals directly descended from these settlers that violated the treaties, do you propose they be punished for something an ancestor did?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[me27339]

How far back should we go? Didn’t we illeaglly take this land from the British? The British took much of it from the Dutch and the Indians? Who gave the Indians the deed to the land? You see where this is going? Every regeion of the world was conquored by force. Is that OK?

 

[ProVobis]

The soil came from Cleveland therefore it is the Cleveland Indians land.

But it is governed by the Atlanta Braves.

 

[stevegravy]

But it is governed by the Atlanta Braves.

When I was growing up it was Milwaukee!

 

[ProVobis]

When I was growing up it was Milwaukee!

Yes, those Braves really move about. First, Boston, then Milwaukee, then Atlanta. Hard to know what they want.

 

[He_Man]

The soil came from Cleveland therefore it is the Cleveland Indians land.

LeBron took the soil to Miami.

 

[Paul_Nurmi]

The people who stole it and the people from whom it was stolen are all dead. So this whole notion of returning is ridiculous. Forgive the people who did the stealing in the past and move on with life. Otherwise it just makes people miserable for no reason. Grow up.

 

[The_Rock]

And what do we do about all of the mixes that are possible.

If I am 1/4 Comanche, do I get a 1/4 the share in the winnings?

How about the double atrocity of the government coming and taking land again from an indian to give back to another tribe?

But the UN isn’t concerned with the logistics of an issue, only that they have spoken against the US.

I have a great idea…
Let’s give back the land the UN tower sits on.

I have a boy-hood friend who is 1/32 Native American. He grew up in a large city along with me. He he was not even aware of his 1/32 lineage until he was an adult (no contact with his relative). He applied for and gained formal “membership” in the tribe at age 47. He has no dealings with the tribe at all. He is just looking for a possible share in casino revenue if the tribe ever builds a casino. I guess he would also be looking for “reparations” if the US government decides to take the advice of the UN.

Should he gain a windfall simply because he is a tribe member?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

I have a boy-hood friend who is 1/32 Native American. He grew up in a large city along with me. He he was not even aware of his 1/32 lineage until he was an adult (no contact with his relative). He applied for and gained formal “membership” in the tribe at age 47. He has no dealings with the tribe at all. He is just looking for a possible share in casino revenue if the tribe ever builds a casino. I guess he would also be looking for “reparations” if the US government decides to take the advice of the UN.

Should he gain a windfall simply because he is a tribe member?

Why does everyone assume the most absurd or unfair scenario? The proposal would address real problems with real solutions that could be gained by returning some land back to the Native Americans. What is so shocking about that?

 

[The_Rock]

Why does everyone assume the most absurd or unfair scenario? The proposal would address real problems with real solutions that could be gained by returning some land back to the Native Americans. What is so shocking about that?

This is the actual situation, I did not make it up. The UN proposal is what is absurd.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

This is the actual situation, I did not make it up. The UN proposal is what is absurd.

Actual, there is no proposal yet, no details have been worked out. So again, if proposal would address real problems with real solutions that could be gained by returning some land back to the Native Americans, what would be so shocking about that?

 

[drfye]

I think some of the land should be returned to all the Tribes that want reparations. If some tribes are happy with what they have than problem solved. I also feel that once the queen of england croaks Ireland should push once more for unification of Ireland under the Republic. No more “Northern Ireland” as part of the UK, just the Republic of Ireland. The British Empire when it dissolved the Queen returned canada, its stakes in India and the worldover except one little island somewhere off the coast of africa I believe (not sure on that one) and then six counties in Ireland and she didn’t return those out of a personal grudge because her uncle (I believe) was killed during the troubles fighting against the Irish freedom fighters.

In regards to Canada, sort of, in 1982 Canada basically asked to be it’s own counrty, which was granted and the Canadian constitution " Charter of rights and freedoms" was written to replace the British North American act which had made canada a dominion in 1867, but Canada is still a constituional monarachy with the queen as her head of state and the Governor general as her acting representative.

 

[The_Rock]

Actual, there is no proposal yet, no details have been worked out. So again, if proposal would address real problems with real solutions that could be gained by returning some land back to the Native Americans, what would be so shocking about that?

To the situation I presented, (my friend who is 1/32 Native American) you said: “Why does everyone assume the most absurd or unfair scenario”. When in actuallity this is not an absurd or unfair scenario, but a real situation involving a real person. Reparations for decendants who are 5 generations removed are absurd.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

To the situation I presented, (my friend who is 1/32 Native American) you said: “Why does everyone assume the most absurd or unfair scenario”. When in actuallity this is not an absurd or unfair scenario, but a real situation involving a real person. Reparations for decendants who are 5 generations removed are absurd.

You presented the idea that the UN was just going to hand over land to your friend who is 1/32 Native American. I said that this is not what the plan would be, and that if the plan addressed real problems with real solutions that involved giving some land back to the Native Americans, what is so shocking about that? There’s a good argument for it and justice is something we should all care about

 

[The_Rock]

You presented the idea that the UN was just going to hand over land to your friend who is 1/32 Native American. I said that this is not what the plan would be, and that if the plan addressed real problems with real solutions that involved giving some land back to the Native Americans, what is so shocking about that? There’s a good argument for it and justice is something we should all care about

I did not say the UN was going to just hand over land to my friend.

I posed the question:
“Should he gain a windfall simply because he is a tribe member?”

I agree that justice is something we should all care about.

So would it be just for my friend (who is an official member of a tribe) to receive compensation?