Land dispute: US vs Onondaga for New York state

[skyblue1]

Give them an inch and they will take a mile

[RageBeoulve]

Give them an inch and they will take a mile

Agreed. This goes for any demographic.

[Jack]

They know it wont be taken seriously; it's too late; they can't have new york. They'll likely get some settlement, but they're poor so whatever. Go indians.

[ZEGH8578]

They should just give in to "Lakotah Republic" demands.
There's no reason why native americans are inherently poor, born poor, or cannot be anything but poor or disorganized. They are people, aren't they? South Ossetia, famously declaring violent independence from Georgia had like 100 000 people at the time of war.

They just need to know what they're doing. A country don't have to be rich to be successful. Americans seem very set on their definitions of a country. It don't even need to be democratic or even benevolent. North Korea is a totally legitimate country, it's even a member of the UN.

A "Lakotah Republic" would be like an overgrown Moldova or something. A huge, poor, shithole. Export: dung, Import: corn. But it would be a legitimate and real country, and Americans could visit it for cheap shopping.

[odeon]

They know it wont be taken seriously; it's too late; they can't have new york. They'll likely get some settlement, but they're poor so whatever. Go indians.

Which is why the cynic in me thinks they are in it for the money.

[Al Swearegen]

They know it wont be taken seriously; it's too late; they can't have new york. They'll likely get some settlement, but they're poor so whatever. Go indians.

Which is why the cynic in me thinks they are in it for the money.

You know maybe, BUT, I think that people look at it the wrong way. Let's say they want land and only the land of their forefathers and only for completely altruist/spiritual/cultural reasons. If they can not get that at all for their people, what is the alternative? Some settlement? But then people accuse them of money grubbing and being in it for the cash.

I dunno?

The only way to REALLY know is to give them all the options for them to choose. Maybe they would go one way or another. Maybe land and cash best for their community, maybe cash only, maybe land only? Maybe they would ruin it all anyhow. It is all idle speculation. It is speculation because they are never be going to be given open choice and we can only see what they manage to do with what they get.

That said, I still think they ought not go fighting for this. It should be given freely and in good faith and with agreement from all stakeholders.

[Jack]

The indians don't own reservation land.

[Al Swearegen]

The indians don't own reservation land.

No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe. It was usage and right to occupy that they understood. The difference is semantics but I think that their claims do not neatly fit with non-Native American land use.
It would be easy if the claims and rights did not clash with each other. The fact is they do.
The more you give to Native Americans to more you take from non-Native Americans and the more you give to non-Native Americans the more the Native Americans miss out.
If these specific non-Native Americans stole the land then it would be easily given back and taken back off them. But that is not the case.
non-Native Americans using and in possession of the land are doing so in good faith and have clean hands. (I know SG would like to pretend this is not true).

Innocent parties = those currently with a claim (indigenous and not)
Incompetent = Government and judges in dealing with this issue
Criminal and morally bereft = The non-Native Americans who broke the treaty and stole land. (now long dead)

SG would call what I said a lie, more than likely and say it would look like this.

Innocent parties = those currently with a claim who are Native Americans

Criminal and morally bereft = The non-Native Americans who broke the treaty and stole land. (now long dead),  Government and judges in dealing with this issue, Greedy citizens (because they elect in the government) ..........and perhaps Nazis.

We all have our own opinions as to where we place people but I can not help but think that the above looks to my eye, a little racist, bigoted and unreasonable. That is just me. Until he clears up this and backs what he says logically and not to reiterate bigoted claims and intolerant claims whilst arguing hypocritically against intolerance, bigotry and unreasoning, I can only imagine that this is what he thinks.

[BUBBASAURUS_RAEP]

The indians don't own reservation land.

No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.

Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).

[odeon]

The indians don't own reservation land.

No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.

Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).

There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.

[BUBBASAURUS_RAEP]

The indians don't own reservation land.

No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.

Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).

There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.

It does not (automatically) stand to reason from that statement that there were tribes which had the concept of land ownership, though. But it happens to be correct.

[Al Swearegen]

The indians don't own reservation land.

No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.

Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).

There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.

It does not (automatically) stand to reason from that statement that there were tribes which had the concept of land ownership, though. But it happens to be correct.

I believed that was true but actually added intentional "I believe" as a disclaimer to the statement to affirm that I was merely an understanding. I further went on to say that for the purposes of remedy the difference of understanding or appreciation was semantics. The Salish people were not in any way contextualised in this treaty nor its remedies, that was being discussed though, was it?

Won't hive you a hard time, my wimpy manchild friend, because you tried talking about something other than your favourite four themes.

[Jack]

Don't leave, n00b.

[Al Swearegen]

Don't leave, n00b.

I don't want Sg1008 to leave either. Seems like he has. It was Rissy all over again. Did not have to be of course. Oh well.

[odeon]

The indians don't own reservation land.

No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.

Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).

There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.

It does not (automatically) stand to reason from that statement that there were tribes which had the concept of land ownership, though. But it happens to be correct.

No, it does not, but then it's not what I wrote. I simply think that it is reasonable to assume that different tribes might have very different ideas about such things.