“You can’t drink oil, keep it in the soil”

I don't know why this feels like a sudden realisation to me.

Tribes were and are sovereigns in the own right and still have those rights even if they were conquered and slaughtered. I suppose one can go with the might makes right imperialist model, but that would be admitting that white Americans are really just a bunch of lying (every treaty broken), thrieving (all kinds stolen) savages (see all the genocidal acts of the US, which actually in some cases provided the Nazis with inspiration). I however thing the US should at some level aspire to decency and enforce all treaty rights, restore reservations and make reparations to tribes that have suffered American depredations. The current model of tribes as being on par with states isn't a terrible or impractical approach, really

@Ogion, you're proposing half-assed measures. Be consistent and demand the return of the entire territory of the US to the Indians.

@Zmaj @Ogion, you're proposing half-assed measures. Be consistent.

What else can you expect from Ogion; he is consistently half-assed. Oh and don't bother to respond to me Ogion, I have you muted.

CAPT_Brad, what's this shit about muting? I thought free exchange of ideas was supposed to be a good thing. Ogion, expressed an opinion. Don't like his premise? Demand that he substantiate it. Don't stick your head in the sand. I would hope that you'd stand up for your position. I should hope this wasn't your attitude back when you were defending me and America back on that sub.

That's a bizarre straw man. "Oh, we don't want to hand over all lands so we must eradicate all tribes".

US law actually has a pretty well established middle ground of having tribes rough occupy the same status as states. Just as Oregon can't dictate to Arkansas how to run its affairs, Arizona can't tell Navajo what to do. Clearly, there is nothing inconsistent in saying that the federal government should keep its promises and pay reparations short of massive population movements

@Ogion, how about the slippery slope argument? What about all of the African American immigrants who dreamed of a better future for their kids or grandkids -- do their descendants get reparations too?

*you know, the ones Ben Carson talked about who arrived in the bottom of big boats to get jobs in the cotton industry.

@Hautac the fcuk?

The U.S. should respect the rights of Native American tribes and people. How to do that, having already broken so many treaties, while not screwing over even more people is difficult. But for a start, they could recognize the sovereignty of the already existing Native American lands.

@orathaic, I think the current system is pretty good the way it is. The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son. No reparations for American Indians or Blacks. However, we should make damn sure that discrimination is eliminated today. That is OUR responsibility.

Look, courts have already held that the US is in some $2 billion in arrears related to mismanagement of trust funds. Just paying that back would be a strart. As far as a "slippery slope" we've already slid pretty much to the bottom of it. Attitudes like Zmaj's are so common that the chances that tribes get anything resembling a fair shake is exceptionally unlikely. Tribes have to fight for every right much of the time. If the Us were simply to respect every treaty right, that'd be a massive start.

So, past genocide and systematic discrimination by the Us is all just wiped away? How convenient for you! As an entity, the Us government is still around and where it has enacted harm it ought to make it right just like any other entity would.

That said the point behind reparations is to make people whole, which doesn't have to be cash, but could involve investment and the like to put communities that have been harmed in a better position. That's a moral obligation regardless

I notice you are perfectly willing to accept the benefits of the actions of past generations. If that's the approach, to be fair, there ought to be a vote every fifteen years or so, and if a tribes votes against being oart of the US, then all lands are given back and back rents paid.

@Ogion, you'd make a wonderful dictator.

@Ogion, I got no problem with the enforcement of court judgments. Unfortunately, your view of the world doesn't recognize that war and law/rights are on a continuum. Win a war; sign a peace treaty that changes the law. The United States could always start yet another war with the American Indians and have the peace treaty settle things out if you prefer.

@ Hauta. no i prefer to mute Ogion otherwise i start calling him names and then the s@#t happens. Still i agree he has dictator ambitions but there is no way he would be wonderful unless you think Stalin or Hitler were wonderful. Oh and Ogion, don't talk about my people. when i think of people such as you i recall the stories of the 'Indian Givers'. Oh, who was the first president to appoint an Native American to head the Bureau of Indian Affairs? US Grant, Republican!!

@Hauta, Ogion doesn't operate on that level. His judgments are purely moral. When people like him come to power, millions die. Fortunately, that doesn't happen too often.

Zmaj, we need morality though. Without proper consideration of it, America would be no better than many dictatorships. We need to observe as much morality as we can afford. Being America, that is a LOT, however, it is not infinite.

@ Zmaj, that's what i was saying

@Hauta, I wholeheartedly agree. I'm just allergic to state-sponsored morality.

Wow, mods, does zmaj's totally irrational attacks qualify as off limits? I say "gee, maybe we ought to be decent and somehow the idea of having a moral argument makes one a dictator. I suppose it is refreshing for Brad and Zmaj to admit that their world is completely amoral and that decency and fair treatment of the less powerful is anathema to them.

Sure, the US could send in tops again to commit yet more war crimes and crimes against humanity. The notion that anyone would seriously suggest genocode as a valid basis for legal rights is chilling. Is the US better than a dictatorship, say that of Hilter? I'm not sure you could prove it with that line of reasoning. Which was, after all, my original point that it may just be that we are forced admit that Ameircans are by and large lying thieving savages. (After all "Indian givers" refers to white people whose word is worthless)

Imagine the idea that that we treat tribes with decency is deemed dictatorial! What does that say about the moral compass? Nothing good

state-sponsored? The State is you and me buddy, the very embodiment of OUR morals (through our representative government).

The lie of the slippery slope is the fantasy that we could ever be on level ground. Every position we take risks careening off to some dangerous or ludicrous extreme.

By the way, it's hilarious that y'all excoriate Ogion's concession to practicality and demand that he be impractical, all while discussing how dictatorial he is for refusing to think practically. Embrace your cognitive dissonance, by all means.

Happily there is no need for America to send in troops to commit genocide against the American Indians. Our morals and laws here are both good enough to handle the current situation without resort to violence. This is not a situation where "might makes right".

(And the lie of libertarian tirades against state-sponsored morality is the fantasy that making no choice is not itself a choice. Feel free to argue that a libertarian government represents a better morality, but not because it represents no morality at all.)

@Ogion: "Wow, mods, does zmaj's totally irrational attacks qualify as off limits?"

The strongest argument of a totalitarian mind: censorship.

@Hauta, no need for America to send in troops to commit genocide against the American Indians.

no we did that already, it cost Custer his life. Not that i side with Custer. i side with the ones who were defending their land and way of life.

Oh and Hauta, i didn't serve on submarines, i hunted them. yes i hunted long tubes filled with seamen. the carrier i was on actually took one out of service using the bow of our ship. the Russian sub didn't sink but it never sailed again under its own power.

@Lethologica, a liberal government wouldn't invest my money in what somebody else thinks is moral. It would invest in the justice, the police and the military. But I'm sure you know the story already. So I'm asking you, wouldn't it be possible to do away with morality on a state level?