[Uehreka]

Some would argue that the colonialism that created the status quo was pretty obviously discriminatory. Removing the last vestige of their sovereignty would be like saying “now that we’ve undemocratically seized your land, changed how it was governed and moved in enough people to vastly outnumber you, come join in our democratic process where you’ll be overruled by our superior numbers!”

[hattmall]

That's how conquest, war, and societal progress works. Should we go back and create entitlements for all the European tribes folded into monarchies over the last two millennia?

Entitlements are antithetical to equality. Continually attempting to right wrongs from the past simply carries them forward.

[janosdebugs]

In a lot of places in Europe minorities have varying degrees of autonomy, protections and special rights (use of language, schools, sometimes more). History and legal systems are complicated and a lot of it doesn't make sense without the historical context.

[_jal]

If the tribes had been corporations and the treaties governed under an ISDS scheme, would you find that less objectionable?

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor–state_dispute_settlem... )

[nemo44x]

> “now that we’ve undemocratically seized your land, changed how it was governed and moved in enough people to vastly outnumber you, come join in our democratic process where you’ll be overruled by our superior numbers!”

That's sort of how the world works. If you can't defend it (through power and/or political will - you have strong friends that you have a mutually beneficial relationship with) then it's not your land. There's literally no group of people that have lived on some piece of land since the dawn of humanity. In fact there have been untold thousands of groups of people wiped off the earth because another group decided they wanted to live on the land they once lived in.

C'est la vie?!

[cool_dude85]

>That's sort of how the world works.

Is that what you'd say if a few guys with guns came and pushed you out of your home, so that they can live there? Historically, it's correct: that's how the world works.

[nemo44x]

Correct which is why we formed tribes which allowed groups of people to form a common culture and bond which protected each other. And tribes would firm alliances with other tribes and work together to destroy rival tribes. These groups of tribes became nations which have evolved into the political organization of the nation state we see today.

Now if a few guys with guns pushed me out of my home my nation state would send more guys with better guns to remove them and my property would be back in my possession.

[cool_dude85]

What happens when your "nation" doesn't have a state, or the state youre in isn't made up of your "nation", or you just have a phony rump state, as in the case here? Those guys get to get pushed around?

[sillysaurusx]

Well, yes. It’s why national defense is important. As well as laws to prevent that from happening within the nation.

[cool_dude85]

Just to make sure - it's fine to ignore legal treaties, etc., because if "they" aren't willing to take up arms to defend what's theirs, that's how the world works. But when I run you out of your house because I'd prefer to sleep there, then laws and the legal system are a perfectly reasonable avenue to expect to save you?

Hey, at least you're honest.

[sillysaurusx]

Hmm? I said the opposite - that the law is all we can rely on. Without the law, we’re left with might makes right, which is precisely how the world works.