To speak further of the conflicts of history, many tribes, including the Muscogee (Creek) tribe involved in the most recent Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma, were slaveholders. After the Civil War, the terms of the Reconstruction Treaties contributed to their land loss.
I don't have background other than reading the background included in the decision, but it seems that in late 1800s/early 1900s, the land was allotted into parcels with individual ownership by members of the Creek Nation, and after a time that ownership became freely conveyable to any person.
Conveying property to a non-member does not remove land from a reservation, and this ruling does not void any conveyances. Whoever owns the land, owns the land. This ruling just makes it clear that all of the land within the treaty boundaries is still a reservation. I don't know all of the implications this will have, but I imagine a lot of things done by the state of Oklahoma assuming they were operating within the state of Oklahoma may need to be reviewed, given that they were operating within the Creek Nation.
For example, can the state allow formation of counties and cities within the Creek Nation? What about if said counties and cities were formed inclusive of only land owned by non-members of the Creek Nation?
Of course, the court mentioned that Congress is free to stop honoring the treaty, the only requirement is that it must do it explicitly.
I am not an expert in Native American history but the Creek Nation are almost certainly not the originally inhabitants.
This is one of my biggest issues with stuff like this. Why should the Creek Nation get this land and not the tribe that lived there previously? Why not the tribe before that tribe?
Americans often did not treat the natives well but this is an issue with all countries. It was quite common for Natives to kill other tribes and take over that area. It sucks but that is how a country is formed.
Tulsa may not be the best example of tribal lands being near a major city, as it looks like a Supreme Court case last year found that much of Oklahoma (including Tulsa) is supposed to actually be tribal lands.
I don't think McGirt v. Oklahoma actually gave ownership of the land to Native Americans. It might seem that being on reservation land would mean that but apparently it doesn't.
Likewise, the Native Americans who controlled the land before the US likely didn't have it gifted to them freely. Tribes were constantly at various stages of war with each other, and some wiped out completely.
Do they owe reparations to each other, too? And what about the ones that are completely gone?
All of the discussion of reparations and making good on centuries-past injustices always leaves out how it all gets swept under the rug if there are no decendents around to make claims.
How do you think warring tribes treated each other? You are aware that some proportion of native tribes kept both native and black (and probably white to a lesser extent) slaves, right?
It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership. Seems people are too eager to view history through a modern moral lense these days.
Native American land laws are a disaster, and it’s not their fault. It’s a large contributor to poverty as well. I’m still not sure if that was an unintended or intended consequence of US govt treaties.
Indian land was taken over the course of hundreds of years of false promises and violated treaties. European settlers were predominately the ones drawing the maps, and consistently taking what was not only not theirs to begin with, but what they had agreed belonged to the native tribes and then took anyway. We're not talking about thousands of years of human history, we're talking about very real injustices that are still being perpetuated by one current-day party (largely the states) against another (various tribes). Would you prefer the tribes resort to rebellion and bloodshed to reclaim what is theirs by treaty? Would you prefer that contracts and treaties are simply ignored when inconvenient?
Tribal Soverignity is a different story than nation state soverignity. The Federal government has supremacy over Tribal and State Government. Worcester v. Georgia still holds
edit: the OP is actually a good example now that he explained it.
"hopefully it will mean that treaties are more likely to be kept and that stolen land can be restored to its original owners"
I do not find it particularly likely, especially in case of land that is actually in use. Are Hispanic or Asian landlords more friendly towards Native compensation/restoration claims than whites? Or do they mostly care about their own interests first, just like most landlords do?
As far as historical grievances go, slavery is on the top of all conversations, because 40 million Americans actually are descendants of former slaves and are identifiable as such. Natives have either died out, or mixed with the rest of the population so thoroughly that their heritage can no longer be easily discerned. Tribes numbering more than 1000 people are rare, and this corresponds to their relative weight in public discourse.
What are the consequences to people in Tulsa who aren't tribe members? Landowners who aren't tribe members? Can the tribe expel them and confiscate the land?
> In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole.
So I wonder whether more of Oklahoma could be affected.
And what about other states? I vaguely recall that the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York.
I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also think that treaties made at the time should be honored.
Apparently Congress can unilaterally change the treaties, as per another SCOTUS decision in https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553
In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the Congressional action. The Court rejected the Indians' argument that Congress' action was a taking under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Edward D. White reasoned that matters involving Indian lands were the sole jurisdiction of Congress. Congress therefore had the power to "abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty," including the two-million acre change. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the judgment.
reply