Tribal Soveringety

Those words don't necessarily imply such. For one, even if something is stolen, people are forced off and the claim to it was initially illegitimate, after its passed down through several generations and is integral to other's welfare, the idea of giving it back becomes questionable at best. After a century, such words might imply some sort of recompense, but, esp. with land, the words rarely are used to imply actual restoration of the property. They are morally charged words, not legally meaningful ones.

Oh, I understand that. I just prefer to wait to argue against something till someone is actually arguing for it. Otherwise it appears that one is presenting a straw man. At the least, such a preemptive argument should be identified as such to avoid confusion, IMO.

 

Only the lawyers and other legalists. The rest can continue to live there in their ignorance. But they will have to assume a certain amount of guilt!

 

Why do people keep asking these sorts of questions? Until someone actually argues that anything should be given back, such questions are, at best, red herrings, and, at worst, straw men. The only question of land I know of where people seriously argue for restoration to the "original" owners is in Palestine. I don't know if even the most bleeding heart liberal argues for giving the land back to the Native Americans...although I am sure someone will prove me wrong about that

And, FWIW, there was extremely little displacement of the English after William the Conqueror. Now the Angles and the Saxons on the other hand...and lets not even mention the Celts before them

 

Alrighty then. Let me reword my original comment and then you can have at it:

"Which brings up another point: Should the Ottowa, Fox and Sauk tribes have given sovereignty 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."

 

1. To answer your question...oh wait it wasn't meant be answered. I got your point. Americans aren't the only bad guys. So what? That the Americans weren't the only ones behaving badly has no bearing upon the fact that they were. Two wrongs don't make a right, much less a good argument.

2. The argument over sovereignty so far as been about whether the Indians ever lost it, and whether its reasonable to say that what they do have was "given" to them by the US. So, I am not seeing what "Which brings up a good point..." follows from. What brought up that point?

 

Was making a larger point: It was a violent time, that all humans are capable of cruelty, and it is pointless for some to always speak as if the Americans were the only ones capable of it, as some do. You didn't, and I wasn't directing the comment to you in particular.

I am not at all sure that the Indians would have allowed whites any sovereignty or even to continue living had things gone the other way. It was common for captured white males to be executed and the women and children to be kept within the tribe as wives or adopted children. Legality means little in such circumstances.

As for the treaties now in effect, I think that they should be kept as well as we are able.