Tribal Soveringety

This is a perfect example of why its not just semantics. Your usage of the word portrays an essentially different philosophy of sovereignty than I have. In my thinking, there is no such thing as sovereignty of power. In my view, you can no more "give" sovereignty than you can give life. Furthermore, sovereignty that is "given" is no sovereignty at all - just as rights that are "given" by the government are no rights at all.

Whether or not we agree on this concept is a different topic probably. The main point I am making is that its not just semantics - its ultimately about differing ways of thinking. Semantics is a matter of using wording that causes someone to think about something differently - ie. calling a garbageman a "sanitary technician" is semantics. Thats not what is going on with the use of the word "given" here. Its not just a different way of expressing the same essential thing, but it instead reflects an essentially different idea and philosophy. That is not just semantics.

 

I disagree. The past is connected to the present. While the importance of past actions or policies can be overplayed, they can't be ignored either. Past actions and policies still have some significance in the present. Even though the particular events are done and gone with and can't be changed, the ideas and thinking which surrounded them still filter into the present, as well as their consequences. You can't break someone's legs and then disavow any responsibility for the consequences simply because its in the past and can't be changed. The "over 100 years ago" is just a matter of degree.

 

OK. So go ahead and moralize about it if it makes you feel better. It changes nothing that happened way back when.

Ifs and buts ya know...

 

Who said anything about changing things back then? What we can do is to change the past's impact on the present...or at least recognize the connection and address that in our thinking and approach to the problem.

 

Who said anything about changing things back then? What we can do is to change the past's impact on the present...or at least recognize the connection and address that in our thinking and approach to the problem. Treating the present as if it has no real and substantial connection to the past is just as bad and moralizing about the past in the hopes to expunge past events from history. The present is not the past, but neither is it disconnected from the past.

 

One would assume, with all your whining and moralizing about what happened 150 years and how so very wrong it was, that you were wishful of turning back the clock.

Maybe not. Maybe you just like the moralizing part. Maybe it gives you feelings of superiority to those dumb slobs of 150 years ago that so mistreated the poor Indians, or some such.

 

Go back and read my statements again. I neither say nor imply such. I merely find it troublesome that some would seek to address the present issues w/o accounting for the past issues. Its like setting a match to someone's home and then refuse to take any responsibility for their present homelessness (ie. they should just get a job).

No, I just find it absurd when people try to address present problems only in terms of the present. Failing to understand and appreciate history (both good and bad) creates a blind spot when addressing present day issues. I only seek to bring recognition of this fact. The "dumb slobs", as it were, are those who fail to recognize the connection of the present to the past.

 

My turn.

Who said anything about not learning lessons from the past?

Except you, that is...:wavey:

 

Who said anything about you saying anything about not learning lesson's from the past? Not me. Read my language again please.

Your turn.

 

I read the whole thread and , yep. It's confirmed.

You are the only one that mentioned not learning lessons from the past. Maybe your language wasn't what you planned.

 

Borders change all the time when there is conflict (war).

Should the U.S. give Texas back to Mexico?

 

Of course not! We can't "give" it back to them! We stole it to begin with. How can you "give" something back that was stolen?! :laugh:

 

FWIW, the US never took Texas from Mexico. The only war between Mexico and the US occurred after Texas was already independent and then accepted as a state. Furthermore, Texas' independence was formerly recognized by Mexico. But I take your point.

However, the point doesn't apply. You are speaking of restoring something that was clearly removed from possession of the original owner (both de facto and de jure). In that case, "giving" it wouldn't be an abnormal or absurd usage. What we are speaking of with relation to Indian sovereignty is that it is something that was never taken. The reasoning we protest against is to use "give" to express the fact that one merely refrained from taking when one had the power to do so. Such an non-standard usage goes beyond simple semantics. It would be like saying that we "gave" Mexico their land because we refrained from taking all their land after we won the Mexican-American War.

 

Thats not the question. The issue is whether it is at all reasonable to claim you "gave" something that you never took in the first place - that your "giving" was merely refraining from taking it when you could.

 

But not their de facto sovereignty.

Which brings up another point: Should the Ottowa, Fox and Sauk tribes have given back Illinois to the Cahokia and Kaskaskia? Wait they couldn't cause they killed them off. Gosh maybe Americans weren't the only ones behaving badly back then.

 

I am trying to figure out who here is arguing that anyone should be giving back any land to the anyone... If no one is, then this sort of statement is just a red herring.

 

The words 'theft', 'giving back', 'illegitimate', 'forcing off' have been used, which would imply that something should be given back. You are interested in defining terms and arguing minutiae, but you know discussions just might go in directions that you don't approve of. May have to get used to it!