I agree, I do think it is disingenuous to make a blanket statement on Native American's knowledge of land ownership and border establishment. I was merely interpreting what the original comment said.
Given your points, is there a more correct way to define the lands once inhabited by Native peoples?
Historic Native lands do not stop at today's borders. The term "United States" would be misleading, as some tribes owned lands that extended beyond the U.S.-Canada border and the U.S.-Mexico border.
> It is high time for non-Native Americans to come to terms with the fact that the United States is built on someone else's land.
As usual, the concepts of "native United States citizen" and "native North American aborigine" are being conflated.
The United States is a "nation of colonists". The Republic did not precede the North-Western European colonists who founded it. Demands for non-Aborigionies to acknowledge "someone else's land" stem from a failure to distinguish between United States citizenship and chance birth on the North American continent. The North American Aborigine peoples may have historically been born on the North American landmass, but they were not the founders of the United States nor the people whose interests said nation was designed to further. The disorganized aboriginals variously aided or hindered the expansion of the Republic depending on the particular tribe's short term ends.
The European pioneers did not "steal" a pre-existing democratic republic, rather, they struggled, triumphed, and created their own for their progeny. North American Aborigines lived outside the republic until reservations were allotted to them, reservations which they largely continue to live apart in today.
Frankly, the tone of the parent article smacks of 1960s-era Baby Boomer coming-of-age politics. Its high time to question this line of thinking.
"Indian" land is a meaningless term. When the Sioux fought with the Anishnabe over the Great Plains, whom the Anishnabe occupied earlier than the Sioux, who deserves that land? Do we owe reparations to the Sioux or to the Anishnabe? Presumptively, another tribe controlled that territory before the Anishnabe. There never was this concept of "owned, stable land" until modern times. The way of the world was more like you only got to keep what you could defend. This is why Europe is dotted with massive castles. 1000 years ago, a Viking party could end your town's existence in a single raid. This map is not representative of what is "theirs by treaty". This map is a rough outline of rough territories (some notably overlapping among the individual tribes) from some arbitrary point in the past. It's not relevant in the year 2020, sorry to say. No more so than a map of individual territories of the Germanic tribes of 200 years ago. The native American tribes do enjoy semi-autonomy in various territories across the U.S. and have even contributed to the development of the United States, with native Americans fighting alongside all the other races in nearly every war we've ever engaged in, including the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. They are U.S. citizens and part of this country. Rewinding the clock 200 years is not helpful or productive.
Not the original commenter, but what I'm taking from it is that the notion of land ownership was/is foreign to indigenous people. Given that, using the term native land can be misrepresenting native history. I'm not sure what the alternative verbiage would be to describe an area has inhabited by an indigenous tribe. Urban Native Era, a pretty large Native movement/brand, holds the slogan "You Are On Native Land" and I believe they are holding themselves to a pretty high standard of racial sensitivity.
> Proximity in time and space add important context to the issue
So how long do non-native Americans have to wait for it to no longer be stolen land? What's the date? Because in order to believe that your line of thinking is logical, surely you at least have a vague answer to that question.
Exhibit A of something that wouldn't apply to all tribes the same because they are too different. Some are more sovereign than others in some aspects. There is nothing uniform about the concept of indigenous lands, but the arbitrage comes from everyone treating them as an amorphous group. Even the most progressive and inclusive people do this, but fortunately it just comes down to reading comprehension. If you can read or are willing to read, you'll find some unchallenged and interesting thing you might be willing to pursue. You likely will have to go to the area to find what to read though, "area" because I'm not willing to call them all "tribes".
>The Penobscots, one of the member nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, have never been displaced from Indian Island (since settling there ~11k years ago), and acquired significant additional land holdings since the 1970s.
How do you know that? If they took land from another tribe 9k years ago do you think we would have a record of it? What if another tribe took the land from them 8k years ago and 7k years ago they took it back? Do you think we can actually determine if that happened?
> Clovis-Americans have certain unique rights based on legal theories that their ancestors were the first human occupants of the land
Please point to these rights and legal theories. Do you just mean NAGPRA?
As far as I know, whatever legal rights any native American people have in the Americas at this point in time are based purely on them being here when Europeans arrived near the start of the 16th century.
Whether they had been the occupants for 400 years or 40,000 years wouldn't make any difference to the treaties that were signed (and generally abrogated).
>70% of the land is not the U.S. Government's to give.
"The federal Indian trust responsibility is [...] a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources." [0]
The questions of armies and building bases I'm not sure have been raised, so the legal precedents might not exist. Sufficed to say, however, that the GP's hypothetical sale to Canada would be wholly infeasible in light of the treaties between the sovereign tribes and the US, as well as the legal complexities those entail.
I strenuously disagree with that part of hhernandez's premise and I don't think "native lands" is actually problematic at all. It's just a generic, umbrella term to me. You could say tribal lands, First Nations lands, aboriginal lands, it's all the same.
>Wait, you think Native Americans are confined in reservations? Like there's a big fence around the reservation, and they can't go out?
Good one, no.
I think that the lands they lived and had autonomy and their rule of law etc, have been taken from them as their ancestral places, and have been confined to the reservations.
The fact that they can move "freely" to New York or the greater South Dakota are irrelevant. It's like someone coming over, taking your house, handing you over the "right" to live and rule over the backyard, but also giving you the "freedom" to rent/buy/live in a room on their own old house if they want.
And that's with tons of shady behavior from the federal/state level even for them living there and their resources (e.g. when uranium was discovered in those places).
I think what the author is saying is that the history taught in schools and colleges should not omit the part about the how the lands were acquired from the native americans.
Saying that "North American Aborigines lived outside the republic" is a bit misleading, because it insinuates that they weren't interested in assimilating, and becoming a part of that struggling, triumphing mass of people that identified as Americans at that time.
More truthfully, leading up to the times when they were forcibly relocated to reservations, they were never allowed in, for the same reasons that black residents of the US had a tough time in those years: the world around them was quite racist and (especially in the case of indians) kleptomaniac.
In fact, many Native Americans tried to assimilate; I remember reading about one enterprising native gent in the early 1800s who had made himself quite rich from trade, had a mansion, the whole nine yards ... until the day came when his town wanted his stuff. So they took it, because America was in large part founded on the notion of repeatedly taking stuff that the natives considered their property.
Acknowledging the massive wrongs committed by this country against those peoples isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I agree with you that we need to be realistic about what conclusions we draw from it. Yes, the United States stole stuff from the indians. No, we're not going to now consider dispossessing the current owners of that stuff; that's akin to, say, questioning the rightness of the origins of modern-day Israel. There's a state there now, so it's moot.
The land acknowledgement statements really irk me. Pretty much all land has been conquered, reconquered, or otherwise changed hands many times over the last several thousand years. What is the point of saying this land once belonged to group A? How does that help marginalized people? It reminds me of people saying, “Thank you for your service” and then voting against politicians that want to increase funding for veterans.
I suppose this sort of meaningless act lets some people feel like they are “allies” of native people without having to actually help native people. It’s like, “thoughts and prayers”. There will be a backlash and these dumb requirements are an obstacle to progress toward racial equality.
I get the US made an agreement. I was talking more of a general principle than this specific case.
I have seen several comments here saying the US was wrong to take land through violent means and as such the US should return the land.
When the natives did the same thing to other natives nobody seems to think they should return it to the people they took it from.
There is a double standard and I don't like it. If we are going to return the land we should return it to the original inhabitants. Of course there isn't actually a way to figure out who occupied the land thousands of years ago.
You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption.
I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
Given your points, is there a more correct way to define the lands once inhabited by Native peoples?
reply