| >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... |
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.