[rayiner]

Reservations are a profoundly evil concept. You’re basically committing to keep around pockets of the pre-industrial societies that existed before America was built. There is no timeline where the reservations in California develop governments and institutions as sophisticated and competent as the State of California. So the best case scenario for these reservations is that they’ll be perpetual dependents on the federal government. But the reality is that you’re condemning the kids born in these places to quasi third world conditions. If they had been forcibly assimilated into the United States back in the 1800s, their descendants would be like the descendants of Spanish settlers who were living in the west when the U.S. annexed that land (i.e. more or less indistinguishable in terms of material prosperity from other Americans).

[Newlaptop]

Reservations have no federal restrictions against development. In fact, they are exempt from regulations that restrict nearby land, which is why casinos are such a common usage.

People born on reservations are US citizens, with full rights and privileges to live and work anywhere in the US they choose, as well as access to capital to start businesses within the reservation (subject to regulations from within the tribal government).

The dependency on federal funds is true in many cases, but some tribes operate such profitable casinos or other businesses that being born a descendant of the tribe is akin to being born a descendant of a Rockefeller or Kennedy.

[wahern]

Sadly, the environmental lobby in California would never allow a substantial amount of land to be fully returned to the tribes. From the article,

> Access and collaborative agreements — and sometimes even land return agreements — come with requirements specifying what tribes can and cannot do with the land. Many require navigating sometimes tricky relationships with land managers who may have different priorities. It’s a ways off from tribes outright holding their homelands as sovereign nations, with the freedom to take care of the land as they see fit; however, these agreements can also help support tribes that do not yet have the capacity to single-handedly manage hundreds or thousands of acres.

When push comes to shove, too many (arguably most) on the left will choose to recapitulate the methods of the "white supremacists" they claim to abhor. Of course, in their mind its because their predecessors had evil intentions, while theirs are pure. But that generally wasn't true--for the most part, albeit with plenty of exceptions, people have always screwed over Native Americans with what they believed were good intentions. The fundamental problem has been substituting their own judgement about what's best for Native Americans, and that judgement will inescapably be self-serving, reflecting their own priorities and expectations.

If people really wanted to right the wrongs of the past, just transfer the land. If the tribe wants to turn it into a nuclear waste dump, or pave it over with asphalt, so be it. Anything else is just the same old oppression, updated to reflect modern mores of the majority. Once upon a time it was about "helping" them integrate with schooling and work programs, whether they wanted to or not; now it's "helping" them steward the land, whether they want to or not. Of course, today plenty of Native American activists do want to steward the land for the cause of environmentalism; but 100+ years ago plenty of Native Americans activists wanted to pursue integration. But when there's no real choice in the matter, it's not really an exercise in granting liberty and autonomy, and history will not look any more kindly on today's flavor of imposed progressivism then it does on yesterday's imposed progressivism.

[rayiner]

> Reservations have no federal restrictions against development.

The barrier isn’t restrictions on development. The barrier is being excluded from the developmental trajectory of the United States. Imagine if the treaties had been respected and the reservations had remained as quasi-sovereign nations. They’d be among the poorest countries in the world. Maybe a few with natural resources would be able to export them, but they’d probably be like the African countries that have natural resources which suffer from resource curse.

As it is with the trajectory of semi-integration, we just created a bunch of pockets of poverty for no reason. Think of it in unromanticized economic terms. Imagine Mark Zuckerberg takes over your company and then later builds it into Facebook. If he gave you the option to keep 2% of the company, would you rather have that in pre-IPO Facebook stock, or cash out and go your own way?

If we had privatized whatever land we were willing to allocate to reservations, and fully integrated it into US jurisdiction, then at least the Indians would have gotten some shares of USA Inc. Instead what happened is that, by creating the reservations and encouraging them to maintain their traditional lifestyles, we took the same amount of land, but gave it to them in shares of Native American Inc. Whatever land we gave them was vastly less valuable because it was excluded from the U.S.

[hollerith]

>Instead what happened is that, by creating the reservations and encouraging them to maintain their traditional lifestyles

Aside from simply not forcing them to integrate into mainsteam society, how did mainstream American society over the last 102 years encourage them to maintain traditional lifestyles?

Since the "Indian" Citizenship Act of 1924, every native American born in the US (on a reservation or not) has held US citizenship, free to move anywhere they want in the US just like any US citizen or lawful resident (who is not on probation after having been convicted of a crime). I am tempted to conclude that the main effect of the existence of reservations after 1924 has been to give native Americans the choice between integrating into American society with all the advantages any other immigrant would have (by moving off the reservation) and continuing to live in a jurisdiction administered by members of his or her own tribe (by chosing to stay on the reservation).

Actually the situation is a little more nuanced than that because Washington has disbursed money to the tribes every year, and some of that money goes to benefits (e.g., housing assistance, healthcare (via Indian Health Service), or per capita payments) that tribe members get only if they continue to live on or near the tribe's reservation.

But still, do you stand by your assertion that "you’re condemning the kids born in these places to quasi third world conditions"? Because being able to just move whenever you want to the US legally without even a requirement to inform any authority of the move doesn't strike me as "third world conditions", the essence of which IMHO is the difficulty of becoming a lawful resident of a more competently-run jurisdiction.

[simianwords]

Why is it promoted then?