[abqio]

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.

[manuelabeledo]

> 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.

[_-david-_]

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.

[manuelabeledo]

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.

[kyleee]

Which immigrants?

[manuelabeledo]

All of them.

[phaedryx]

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?

[abqio]

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.

[woah]

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

[abqio]

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

[woah]

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

[krapp]

>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.

[ekam]

Two wrongs don’t make a right

[krapp]

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

[rukittenme]

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.

[krapp]

>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...

[rukittenme]

> 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.