Odeon is right here.
But, yes our gov't is greedy, and yes citizens voted them in.
Native Americans are not citizens?
They are different. A different class? Not suffering from greed and not citizens themselves. Bearing no responsibility for voting in government. Sounding a bit....what is the word?
Bear with me here. When was the treaty first broken?
No, "it is still broken" or how legally enforceable it is, but WHEN was it first broken and by which specific people?
Now there are your culprits and there are the people that did wrong and need to fix the problem that they have caused every Native American with claim on the land and every non-Native American with claim on the land.
You are making it sound like a series of treaty breaks...but it simply is not. There was a break and a non-recommencement. Not a breaking of the treaty in each successive government or by every person who elected the government.
If this is your argument then it is not a worthy argument at all and it not just a simplistic argument but wrong and basing any assumptions off this wrong.
Of course for the courts and government, it is embarrassing and uncomfortable. It shows non-Native American people, possibly even related to them or their forefathers, who have quite obviously lied and deceived and stolen from Native Americans and the Native Americans are saying that they want the treaty honoured.
Obviously the land in question has not been in the Native Americans possession for a while and non-Americans have been using it. Again to say "just give it back" is said so easily.
It is simplistic and idealistic. Let's say...just out of argument that they did and said OK, NY state is your's. Go and collect. What happens there? At the very least I imagine that there would non-Native Americans would have their land rights reduced and seek compensation. From who? Not the Native Americans, but the Government. What if they could not afford the value of the claims. What if there was jurisdictional problems with maintaining order in NY State due to the fact that the land could now be considered a sovereignty? What effect on the State's economy in general? What if there was confusion or differences in opinion as to the rights assumed by the Native Americans? Was if there was a legislative follow on yet unconsidered?
You may say "Doesn't matter" I say that this would be overly simplistic an answer.
Now Parts may say "'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old."
This too, I find simplistic BUT it does get old. Why? Because it is the same thing occurring again and again. Who would be the judge ruling on this case? Non-Native Americans, stole, cheated and lied and it is clear they did. It is equally clear that the agreement is a contract.
Now who lied to who? Who stole off who? Those people who originally broke the agreements are long dead as are the people that they broke it with. Now they are asked to reactivate and make good the treaty again. They also have all the unknowns listed above.
Now what stops them or the government okaying this? (I will give you hint, I don't think it is greed or that greed plays a big part). They are shitting themselves as to what such a nod will do?
So they do nothing. Then it hangs in the air and is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about and everyone wants to ignore. It is old and unresolved.
Parts would possibly say "Fuck that. Why should some Non-Native American have their rights extinguished or reduced on the basis of what some dickheads did 200 years ago?"
It would be a great point. They shouldn't.
Parts may say, "Look past is past and what someone did to someone 200 years ago ought not impact on people now. Every race, creed or nation has screwed over or been screwed over by someone at some point and it is not fair but it is. We make the best of it. I will not take up arms against the English for the way they treated my Irish forefathers years ago. I am over it We get on with things. You can only really take issue with the here and now"
It is simplistic but a fair call.
Now my view:
The treaty is broken. The people have been wronged. It WAS wrong. No one needs to say they are personally responsible or accountable. They need to say "Yup you guys were screwed over". Now as benevolent society will help the handicapped, the sick, the injured and the aged, and for no financial windfall or agenda, society should acknowledge "something" needs to be done for the people that were screwed over and had their land stolen.
That is the starting point. The next part ought to involve ALL stakeholders and accept relevant concerns and treat everyone in good faith. It ought to be a situation where whilst acknowledging every concession will be a diminishing of rights to at least someone, to work on this. Slowly work to what is a compromise. This compromise to allow all parties the best result.
But hey, that is me.
