Tribal Soveringety

I think we should do away with it all. It may have had a place 200 years ago, but it has no place now.

 

In other words, there should be a statute of limitations for international theft by sovereign nations. I suggest adverse possession for 10 years and title passes.

 

I like the arrangement. Its complicated but it has worked for a while now as I recall.

What we did to these peoples is at best characterized as theft and at worst is form of ethnic cleansing. Of course 200 years ago the Indians still controlled their lands. Lest we forget that it was the latter part of the 19th Century that we truly embarked on the campaign of theft, murder, and pillaging for white interests.

Nothing beats the video of President Bush trying to answer the question about Indian sovereignty...if I was somewhere I could find it I'd post it. Its hillarity!

 

Indian sovereignty George Bush
I put the above in my search bar, and found the clip .

 

Indians were allowed to keep some of their sovereignty by treaty.

Yes, their sovereignty was pre-existing, but it was within our power to take it away from them. Since we allowed them to keep some of their sovereignty, that could easily be construed as "given".

Sounds like someone is more interested in semantics in order to embarrass ol' tongue tied W. It just doeesn't work very well in this case.

 

So, if you come and by force of arms take over my land while leaving me just a fraction, would you hold that it would be reasonable to say that the land I still own was "given" to me by you? Or if you enslave me as a prisoner of war, would it be reasonable to say that you have "given" me my life? "Given" only makes sense in these cases if one assumes that the legitimacy of ownership, life or sovereignty is granted only by force. Otherwise, it would be misleading, at best, to say that one is "given" something that was previously possessed and only taken away by force of arms, or that one "gives" something that was never legitimately theirs.

Does the robber "give" you money by refraining from stealing all of it? Only if power is that which grants legitimate possession.

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle

 

"God is on the side with the most cannon," A. Hitler (?).

 

As I said, semantics.

 

Are those sorts of things fair? No.

But then, compared to how our government treated them its nothing.

 

Semantics, as you call them, can reveal important and significant underlying philosophies.

Not to mention when semantics are a problem (that is, when novel or ambiguous words are being used, particularly to induce a particular affect on the listener) it really should be corrected. If politician who is caught taking bribes insists that they are just taking gifts, you can snort in derision, knowing that, while they might technically correct in some sense, their use of semantics is so non-standard as to be meaningless and misleading.

Same with saying we have "given" the Indians their sovereignty. It may be technically correct, but is so non-standard in people's understanding of what it means to "give" something that you can reasonable deride such a usage as, at best, an absurd statement. Only those who truly believe that sovereignty rests on power can safely and consistently use the phrase "give someone their (what was actually preexisting) sovereignty".

Now, was it just the slip of the tongue by a unthinking politician, or does it represent a troublesome philosophy. Well, when the same politicians also is known to speak of the government granting rights, then I begin to think it reflects a troublesome philosophy. After all, would you accept that the government *gives* you the right to worship, or the right to free speech, or the right to liberty? Cause if they do, then it stands to reason that they can legitimately take them away as well.

Regardless of your stance on such things, what is clear is that "semantics" can be extremely important.

 

Until we decided to not honor the treaties, or modified them without them knowing, or just sent in the military to either "re-sign" a treaty or wipe out the tribe.

I'm not certain but it doesn't seem like allowing someone to keep anything when you force them off land held for generations and "reassign" them to the wastelands of known civilization.

It was never in our legitimate power to do what we did to these peoples.

Sounds like someone is more interested in semantics in order to embarrass ol' tongue tied W. It just doeesn't work very well in this case.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Conquering a land and people is not about legitimacy. It's about power. That's the way it was. No one can change what happened.

So deal with it and stop crying over the "poor Indian". They took each other's land and lives without compunction if they had the power to do so.

They just ran into a bigger bully. That's the way it goes. Been that way for centuries.

 

So if I were to come to your house and had a battalion of military men I would have legitimate claim on your home, land, wife, children, pets, bank account, and your life because I'm bigger and better than you.

 

Conquering a land and people is not about legitimacy. It's about power. That's the way it was. No one can change what happened.[/quote]

Agreed. However, "giving" implies legitimacy of some sort. Esp. when its "giving" rights and sovereignty. Hence why its, at best, a very non-standard usage when applied to preexisting sovereignty, rights or ownership. You can't "give" something to someone when its not legitimately yours to give, particularly when the one you are "giving" to already had legitimate possession.

Two wrongs don't make something ok, much less right. The fact that they may have used power illegitimately does not mean that its ok if we turned around and did the same thing.

Doesn't make it right. One's own bullying is not justified simply because one was bullying a smaller bully.

And I am not concerned so much for the Indians as i am for our own views of rights and sovereignty. It is inconsistent and dangerous to claim inalienable rights and sovereignty based on the voice of the people while denying such to other people. Such a double standard is too likely to erode our own liberties to let it pass.

Might is part of reality, but might does not make right.

 

I am not a nation nor a people and this is not 150 years ago.

 

Doesn't matter. Moralizing about something that happened over a hundred years ago and was an accepted practice at the time changes nothing.

 

Semantics.

For everyone, not just DW -- consider carefully.

If I come in with a bigger army, and take your land, and your possessions, etc., etc. through force or sheer intimidation, and then I decide to leave you a little bit, when I could have taken it all, -- well, you could feasibly say that I did "give" it to you. By sovereignty of the power I have wielded, I have chosen to "give" you what was yours, instead of take it away from you -- which I could have done.

Doesn't make it right; but no one's arguing whether it was right or not.

And for the record, I agree: Might doesn't make right.