Hauta: How are you directly benefiting from the invention of the light bulb?

no there is one administration that needs not apologize, US Grant's administration. the most friendly of all, still there was that jackass Sheridan that mucked up things after Grant left

It took me less than 5 seconds to find this article:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/ulysses-s-grant-mass-genocide-through-permanent-peace-policy/

Plus a few more seconds to notice that the Battle of Little Bighorn occured during Grant's administration.

For what it's worth, Grant is the last Republican president I have much symapthy for.

Hauta, do you really not understand how wealth and power get accumulated in this country? Native Americans today have vastly less wealth and power and an impoverished culture relative to this

That's like asking whether someone is harmed right now after you ransack their house. After all, you're not ransacking their house that very moment so obviously there is no violation of law

For an example, anyone living at Standing Rock has a greatly elevated risk of pollution from the US unwillingness to recognize tribal rights.

Furthermore, tribes, which are sovereign entities are suffering from a lack of control and resources directly resulting from the malevolence of the US.

Pivoting from Zmaj's golden rule, so, Hauta, if I strip you of your property and say: hey, want to be rich? learn Chinese and move to Hong Kong while we wipe what's left of your culture. No harm in that, right?

Are there no conservatives here willing to defend Trump's decision to push through an oil pipeline, or answer the actual question, and explain what rights (and under what treaty) the Indians should be having their land threatened (when white voters across the other side of the river objected, so thry moved the planned route).

ND? Anyone?

What about Brad and Zmaj? They're pushing the "cultural destruction doesn't matter" line pretty well.

Presumably cultural marxism doesn't bother them either then.

But this doesn't require cultural extermination, genocide is a crime against humanity, and violating international treaties is frowned upon.

Discussing cultrual destruction seems like a distraction from the issue of oil spills threatening the water supply. Poluting the environment, of the Sovereign Indian Territory, seems like a clear and present threat, happening today.

So if the loss of cultural heritage. Those are holy sites as well. Shall we tear down the Vatican to use the stone in apartment buildings?

They do it all the time in the Mid East. Or what they don't sell on the black market for money.

Polluting the environment only matters in rich white neighborhoods. The poor and minorities have to really have a major tragedy to get some respect. Look at Flint, MI water. Coal plant pollution over Navajo lands in Arizona.

Clearly matters to a bunch of protesters who live on their land.

But my question is what rights *SHOULD* they have?

Ogion, you seem to have missed the distinction that I make between crimes committed by people today and crimes committed by people 100 years ago. Why do you insist on characterizing my position as defending crimes committed today?

Because the things you're defending are going on today, maybe?

Your "let bygones be bygones" is a bit specious as well, since the consequences are still with us as is the perpetrator.

The distinction between past and present crimes is noticeable, Hauta. On the other hand, I'm not sure what concession you're offering to the difference between crimes committed 100 years ago and crimes *not* committed 100 years ago. It's easy enough to say we should just leave the past in the past and do the best we can from now on, but it's all but impossible to understand what is happening in the present and how best to proceed in the future without confronting the legacy of the past.

For example, since the US historically did a lot of shit to destroy Native American culture (and still does to a lesser extent), maybe we should be less complacent about telling modern-day Native Americans that they should desert their failing culture, move to NYC, and join our successful culture if they want to succeed. Maybe the extreme poverty on reservations traces back to our government forcing Native Americans onto bad property lacking either arable land or infrastructure, spawning a vicious cycle of underinvestment. Maybe the ongoing sexual assault issues have something to do with Native Americans historically lacking jurisdiction over their own justice system. Maybe understanding the ways we've failed Native Americans, by malice or neglect or mismanagement, helps us understand why the current situation is broken and what it needs for improvement.

It's not necessarily about making direct reparations for past wrongs. But we should at least account for those past wrongs when deciding what is the right thing to do. Otherwise, we aren't meeting the Native Americans where they are, and anything we do will be less effective than it could be.

(You asked earlier in the thread, what about the slippery slope? What about blacks and the legacy of slavery? This is basically the same attitude I take there. I don't understand how people expect to even begin approaching the problems many black Americans face today without understanding the havoc America has historically wrought on black bodies, black families, black businesses, black wealth, and so on. That legacy echoes to this day.

But somehow we can't bring ourselves to think about that because it threatens to open the door to reparations. We're more afraid of the ghost of a possibility that we might have to sacrifice something than we are of the real present-day problems that we make more difficult by being fearful. Of course we are. Those problems happen to other people.)

@Lethologica, when someone has raped another person, should he try to make things right by pushing his newly found love and understanding on the victim? Or should he just stay the hell away? The same goes for the US government and the Indians.

I never suggested pushing anything on anyone, Zmaj, but I suspect that you will find the analogy doesn't actually translate well into practical policy, which is usually the case for pithy analogies about complex issues.

That said, thank you for accommodating the reality that past crimes matter to present-day choices.

@Lethologica, whenever I suggest to keep the state out of anything, you brush it off by telling me I'm oversimplifying things. Hasn't it occurred to you that things might actually get simpler if the state is not involved?

Zmaj, how about you actually present something concrete regarding the Native American reservation situation, what it would actually look like for the US government to step off, and why it would be good for the Native Americans, instead of retreating to vagueness. Convince me that things will get simpler and better. Don't ask me to do the work for you. Then I won't brush you off for oversimplifying things.

Leth, I'm cool with America apologizing for past mistreatment and admitting all the bad things it did. I said so above, so I'm not really "letting the past be the past". We need to always remember and strive to be our best selves today. However, I sense a "tyranny of low expectations" from you. American Indians are beneficiaries of affirmative action in college admissions. They have a way out of financial poverty. I believe they prefer the spiritual riches of living in their own community and maintaining their culture. So let them live as they choose. If they got a problem with Standing Rock (or some other land dispute), then bring it to the courts. If they fail, then so be it -- Land is not culture; the Jews got kicked out of different places in Europe for years yet still retained their culture.

"Tyranny of low expectations"--oh, right, the *other* bogeyman that always gets brought up when you try to address history. Not that it never happens, not that it shouldn't be accounted for, but it's such a lame excuse for not even considering systemic issues. One catchphrase and you're out of jail free, brain not required. Just raise your expectations! Don't worry about how to help anyone meet them. Then, since they don't meet expectations now, you can safely dismiss them as spiritual nuts who think they're better off.

And why is it *always* college *fucking* admissions? Is that the only affirmative action anyone can possibly think of? That doesn't even square the contemporary inequities in Native American primary/secondary education, never mind anything else.

Oh, but *here's* a nice bit of tyrannical low expectations: "As long as we're doing as well by Native Americans as Europe historically did by the Jews, that's good enough." Whoops, sorry, I tripped over the bar, it was lying here on the ground for some reason.

Whoah fella, I do worry about how to help them meet higher expectations -- continued affirmative action in college applications. I'm also cool with equalizing per child spending in primary/secondary education. Lastly, you follow up with a typical mischaracterization of what I wrote -- My point about Jews was that they retained their culture even when they lacked a homeland; likewise, the existence of the Indians' culture does not, and should not depend on land.

Honestly Leth, sometimes I think you're just jonesing for the heat instead of seeking the light.

No, I have to drag you into the light inch by inch, it seems. Not until I point out the gross insufficiency of "I'm sorry" do you consider anything more. Not until I point out the absurdity of your complacency about Native Americans losing land disputes they shouldn't have to fight in the first place do you backtrack and attempt clarification. Maybe at some point I'll drag you all the way over to the history books, but that doesn't seem likely tonight.

Leth, I haven't changed the way I think based on what you said. We have merely explored the contours of the issue. You should be more careful about how you characterize your opponent's position because your credibility is damaged when you're wrong. Consider showing people how great the light is and they might voluntarily come TO the light instead of being dragged.

Tried that. Got static. Tried a more volatile approach. Got a different kind of static. Maybe I'll try a third approach tomorrow. Maybe not. In the meantime, you should consider that careful writing is prior to careful reading. Your point *as actually written* was not merely about the dependence of culture on land; it was excusing injustice because another oppressed group survived similar injustices in history. If that mistake resulted in mischaracterization, so be it--other people have been misinterpreted due to careless composition before, and they didn't spontaneously combust. I'm sure you'll be fine.

@Lethologica, you said to Hauta:

"Your point *as actually written* was not merely about the dependence of culture on land; it was excusing injustice because another oppressed group survived similar injustices in history."

What Hauta *actually wrote*:

"Land is not culture; the Jews got kicked out of different places in Europe for years yet still retained their culture."

In fact, his point was merely about the dependence of culture on land.

Lethologica, you aren't assuming good faith. That's a basic mistake when having a discussion.

Zmaj, try quoting the full sentence instead of just a part and you'll probably see where the implication comes from. If that's not an intended implication, fine--I'm willing to cop to a mistaken interpretation if Hauta is willing to cop to a mistaken composition.

I stand by my full sentence as written -- Leth is only one who should apologize. Copping to a "mistake" is copping out.