muting lifeless letho

Hauta:
"You should be more careful about how you characterize your opponent's position because your credibility is damaged when you're wrong."

Have you read the last page? Lethologica was consistently articulate and on point in replying to your comments and Zmaj's comments.

He was also right to snap at your segue into spiritualism and European Jewish history. Lethologica literally just finished telling you about how the "government forc[ed] Native Americans onto bad property lacking either arable land or infrastructure, spawning a vicious cycle of underinvestment." Obviously he understands that tribes, once dispossessed of their land, go onto retain their culture. Do you really not understand that every time Jews were expelled from or massacred in a European country, that both the Jewish culture of a given national community and the economic wellbeing of these Jews and their descendants were massively damaged? You did indeed set the bar quite low for what you find acceptable ("If they fail, then so be it").

JECE, Leth seemed to be making the point that if the Indians lose at Standing Rock or lose land in general (I forget which), that their culture will be destroyed. I was just disagreeing and pointing to an example. I have made abundantly clear that ancient transgressions are in the past but that recent transgressions should be litigated in the courts where civilized people resolve disputes. I don't know why this is so controversial.

I'm certainly willing to concede to any mistake in writing that led you to that impression of what I was talking about, but JECE's characterization is correct.

I'm not surprised that you'd find comfort in JECE's assessment. I suggest that you and JECE take your positive energy to one of the many areas where we agree so that we can push back on ignorant types.

I'd take more comfort in you not somehow reaching the conclusion that I'm massively concerned about some absolute connection between land and culture. Both have been subject to massive depredation in ways that inform the present and understanding historical causes for present situations to inform future actions has been the thrust of my argument all along. If you point me to the passage that led you to believe otherwise, I'll rewrite it.

(I *do* think you're entirely too ready to make hasty generalizations from a culture particularly founded upon the diaspora, but man, that has *nothing* to do with what I care about.)

Leth, you wrote: "maybe we should be less complacent about telling modern-day Native Americans that they should desert their failing culture, move to NYC, and join our successful culture if they want to succeed."

The inference is that Native Americans can't maintain their culture in NYC. Why not? Oh right, because they would have to MOVE to NYC. That's why I inferred that you were "massively concerned about some absolute connection between land and culture."

I wrote that because of what *you* wrote.

"...nothing stopped American Indians from leaving the reservation and moving to NYC where nearly everyone off the boat was discriminated against. There they could achieve a lifestyle and education that could be superior to what they got by staying."

"...With poverty being the metric, my response was to point out that NYC was a better bet than a reservation. Apparently, many Indians decided that poverty with their own people was better than a chance at prosperity with unfamiliar people. Their choice."

You yourself seem to realize in these comments that the choice isn't just about land, but about other things like community and lifestyle. I'm taking those things together, just as you did; what I'm not doing is taking the land part alone and trying to establish everything else from there (unless that's what you think you were doing, in which case I don't know why you're arguing against it now).

I suppose a rewrite would look like: "Maybe we should be less complacent about telling modern-day Native Americans that it's their fault for staying on the reservations."

Hauta: You didn't really reply to my comment, but for what it's worth, you're wrong to assume that Native American tribes have a fair shot at preserving their rights in the U. S. court system. There is a reason why Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives refuse to be classified as recognized tribes, even though recognition grants certain quasi-sovereign and land rights.

@Hauta
"... that recent transgressions should be litigated in the courts where civilized people resolve disputes. I don't know why this is so controversial."

This doesn't seem so contraversial, but it does mean you think Indian reservations should be subject to the US court system, do they skip past state court, directly to the federal level (at least assuming we're not talking about local court resomving local issues).

Or do you go beyond the supreme court and head to some international court (which usually only works for human rights and war crimes, and the US consistantly refuses to recognise).

And why don't you use the international norms for two sovereign states disputing issues, which is diplomacy, treaty negotiations, and not often a court system.

@Lethologica: Hauta said: "The inference is that Native Americans can't maintain their culture in NYC. Why not?"

It is arguable that their culture involves living off the land, and this is not possible in NYC. There were no cities in the continental US when europeans first arrived (there were in Mexico and Peru) so most of the cultures were not like the Jewish culture. In contrast, Judaism has lived in cities since the destruction of the (correct me if i'm wrong) Second Temple about 2,000 years ago by the Roman Empire. They had an urban culture with a Priestly Caste/Class (one person doing the full-time job of spiritual leader, supported by many, which necessitates urban centres of some kind - unlike the pre-urban shamanic positions which are usually part-time and support themselves by living off the land the rest of the time).

But your point is well made, so perhaps i shouldn't be trying to help...

@JECE, can you elaborate on the Hawaiian and Alaskan differences, and why being US citizens in a US state is preferable to living in a Tribal area under Tribal (partial?) jurisdiction. I am interested but all i've found so far is oblique references to many exceptions...

@me: "It is arguable that their culture involves living off the land, and this is not possible in NYC."

When i say this, i incorrectly speak for native peoples, i am merely making assumptions, and the correct actions is to ask those people, rather than talking to an Irish man who has never living in a Tribal area.

Still comparing Indians and Jews... Talk about flogging a dead horse...

@orathaic, whatever courts the Indians are using in Standing Rock seems good enough for me too. Also, there's plenty of land on the frontier now that enough people have left the farm for the big city; I don't see why Indians can't find tons of land to settle on. Not arable? Somehow the Jews (there he goes with the Jews again) managed to turn some desert into arable land in Isreal.
@JECE, the court system isn't fair. Never was. Never will be. Ex. Bush v. Gore. But it's all we got.

orathaic: One of my college professors wrote about that:
“Precarious Positions: Native Hawaiians and US Federal Recognition,” J. Kehaulani Kauanui
I found a copy on-line: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/13835

I also have a draft Word doc copy of this chapter from before it was published:
“Hawaiian Nationhood, Self-determination, and International Law,” J. Kehaulani Kauanui

Hope you find that useful because it took me a while to find.

Thanks JECE :)

Hauta and orathaic: It all boils down to plenary power. Take these quotes from the draft chapter (they span several pages, but listed in order they still fit well together):

"[T]he U. S. asserts its plenary power to keep indigenous sovereigns both domestic and dependent. . . . Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U. S. Constitution . . . reads: 'The Congress shall have power…to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.' The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled time and time again that this clause – also known as the 'Commerce Clause' – means the U. S. federal government has total and complete power over tribal nations (Wilkins 1997). . . . It should also be noted that the U. S. Congress (the legislative branch of the federal government) has repeatedly delegated its authority to the executive branch of the U. S. government. With regard to Indian tribes, it delegates its authority specifically to the U. S. Department of the Interior. . . . There is no equal footing here; all negotiations must take place within the framework of U.S. federal law and policy with regard to Indian tribes and under U. S. plenary power, where the U. S. government asserts total and complete power".

Here is the Wilkins citation:
Wilkins, David E
1997 American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press.


The implications for the Dakota Access Pipeline under the Trump administration are clear.

Thanks JECE, so the Indians have as much power as the sovereign (U.S.) is willing to give them.

Hauta: Right, hence why trusting in the courts is a bad idea when dealing with tribal rights.

A bad idea, but better than everything else.

Better than what? Trump controls the Department of the Interior. Interior has plenary power to do whatever the fuck it wants. If matters go to the courts, the tribes will lose by default.

So better to trust in civil disobedience as the only lever to power they have any hope of being effective when it comes to blocking the Pipeline?

(Also thanks again JECE, was reading the 'Precarious Positions' pdf last night until i fell asleep, really interesing stuff)

orathaic: I guess so, yes. The civil disobedience was effective at embarrassing the previous administration.

Wow, Lewis v Clarke (real case) is about Indian affairs and is at the Supreme Court:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lewis-v-clarke/
Case involves car accident where Native American driver was on the job for his tribe and hit non-Indians. Case seems to turn on the limits of tribal immunity.