Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're referring to the beginning of the establishment of Native American reservations in this country then you're certainly correct that they were established in an involuntary fashion , though since then many different reservations have come about in a voluntary fashion .
Many different currently recognized tribes have fought long and hard legal battles to get recognized in the past , which goes to show that the formation of reservations isn't an inherently involuntary phenomenon ,regardless of its early history in this country .
That said let me answer your questions :
1 . People would most certainly be free to come and go as they please , except of course in cases such as ( for example ) being sent to a reservation/autonomous zone located correctional facility as a result of being convicted of a crime , a scenario that would obviously not be free of potential abuses which again leads me to reiterate the obvious fact of there being no perfect system .
2 . As I've stated before such places could be carved out of already existing communities ( which could enjoy only partial autonomy with respect to certain issues if they so chose ) or not yet existing communities , in which the usual rules of real estate transaction law would apply if such a place were to come about as a result of the purchase of property .
3 . People would retain their citizenship rights the same way present day residents of currently existing reservations retain theirs .
What I bolded...Please tell me any Native American Tribe that voluntarily decided to join a reservation, or start their own. I'm not familiar with those tribes.
What I bolded...Please tell me any Native American Tribe that voluntarily decided to join a reservation, or start their own. I'm not familiar with those tribes.
I'll get back to you on this if I find something ( or not as well I suppose ) , but in the meantime I'd just like to point out that the issue of how the reservation system for Native Americans was set up is quite irrelevant to this discussion .
After all this would entail a completely non one sided " herd people onto patches of land at gunpoint " type approach .
I'll get back to you on this if I find something ( or not as well I suppose ) , but in the meantime I'd just like to point out that the issue of how the reservation system for Native Americans was set up is quite irrelevant to this discussion .
After all this would entail a completely non one sided " herd people onto patches of land at gunpoint " type approach .
Actually, no, there is nothing about the reservation system for Native Americans that is irrelevant to this discussion, seeing as how you brought up this system in your OP, referring to it as an example of "legal precedent in this country." A "legal precedent" that is no doubt questionable and which you appear to be ameliorating by later stating that there were also "many different reservations" that "have come about in a voluntary fashion." (I would also like to know which voluntary reservations you're referring to.)
If this "legal precedent" has somehow changed from involuntary to voluntary reservations, who is to say that any proposal such as the one you're suggesting might not also change from voluntary to involuntary, resulting in the "herd people onto patches of land at gunpoint" type of approach you mentioned?
Utopian visions have a way of turning into dystopias.
Actually, no, there is nothing about the reservation system for Native Americans that is irrelevant to this discussion, seeing as how you brought up this system in your OP, referring to it as an example of "legal precedent in this country." A "legal precedent" that is no doubt questionable and which you appear to be ameliorating by later stating that there were also "many different reservations" that "have come about in a voluntary fashion." (I would also like to know which voluntary reservations you're referring to.)
If this "legal precedent" has somehow changed from involuntary to voluntary reservations, who is to say that any proposal such as the one you're suggesting might not also change from voluntary to involuntary, resulting in the "herd people onto patches of land at gunpoint" type of approach you mentioned?
Utopian visions have a way of turning into dystopias.
' I mean anything can potentially turn violent depending on the way people go about achieving it , so the only counter I can offer is that I quite clearly stand for peace .
As for irrelevance , while it's true that I've mentioned Native American reservations many times now , I haven't suggested at all that these newfangled ones in my proposal be patterned after them , which makes the issue of the history of how reservations came to be in this country not particularly pertinent .
History isn't destiny after all .
Also my vision isn't utopian in the slightest since ( as I've also written ) it wouldn't be a perfect system .
' I mean anything can potentially turn violent depending on the way people go about achieving it , so the only counter I can offer is that I quite clearly stand for peace .
As for irrelevance , while it's true that I've mentioned Native American reservations many times now , I haven't suggested at all that these newfangled ones in my proposal be patterned after them , which makes the issue of the history of how reservations came to be in this country not particularly pertinent .
History isn't destiny after all .
Also my vision isn't utopian in the slightest since ( as I've also written ) it wouldn't be a perfect system .
You cited the establishment of Native American reservations as having set the "legal precedent" for your proposal. I'm sure that, at the time, there were many Americans who believed that establishing these reservations was some kind of ideal way of addressing the same problems in the same way that you have been talking about here.
I would attempt to find out which of these many so-called voluntary reservations are that you spoke of, but I'm too lazy and I prefer to wait for you to present them to us.
You cited the establishment of Native American reservations as having set the "legal precedent" for your proposal. I'm sure that, at the time, there were many Americans who believed that establishing these reservations was some kind of ideal way of addressing the same problems in the same way that you have been talking about here.
I would attempt to find out which of these many so-called voluntary reservations are that you spoke of, but I'm too lazy and I prefer to wait for you to present them to us.
That's correct , but the intention of my doing so was to point out that it conceivably wouldn't be illegal to extend the right of forming reservations to all other legitimate demographic groups/it probably wouldn't put Congress on the shaky ground of trying to pass a bill that has no legal precedent .
I'll certainly get back to you two on the issue of voluntary reservations having been formed or with the discovery that my previous claim was actually false though .
P.S. At the risk of sounding like a broken record , I'd like to state that I really wouldn't mind one bit if not one reservation/autonomous zone/whatever else was formed and that political/racial/social relations in the US cooling off again would be my dream .
It's just that there seems to be quite a few very angry people out and about these days who I think could use a break from the confines of the US's mainstream political structure , which is why I think giving them the right to form reservations/zones/whatever else wouldn't be a bad idea .
As an Indian, I think people have the right to segregate by culture but not arbitrarily by skin color. I live in a diverse upper middle class neighborhood and would NOT want to only live among my own kind. Yet, I do not want section 8 lower class housing in my neighorhood either. As a libertarian, I say, live and let live!
The problem with reservations is simple; are their residents entitled to governmental social welfare. If the reservations are self-sufficient fine. Applying that rule to new generations is problematic and probably unconstitutional. Also, speaking of the constitution, would members somehow contract away their free speech rights if they don't like the way things are going on the reservation?
It seems I've managed to find one detailed example of a Native American tribe lobbying for a reservation of their own and succeeding : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbisha
The link also states that they were one of the first tribes to secure tribal status through the BIA's Federal Acknowledgement Process , which could very well mean they aren't the only tribe whose members pushed to have a reservation of their own .
There definitely seem to be more than a few currently federally unrecognized tribes in California who are lobbying for the right to be recognized and who may very well establish reservations/some form of local political autonomy once being recognized as well : https://therevelator.org/native-amer...-protect-land/
I for one certainly support their efforts and I don't see why other demographic groups shouldn't be be afforded the same sort of rights , particularly if some of them feel that the mainstream American political process/society isn't properly meeting their needs .
It seems I've managed to find one detailed example of a Native American tribe lobbying for a reservation of their own and succeeding : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbisha
The link also states that they were one of the first tribes to secure tribal status through the BIA's Federal Acknowledgement Process , which could very well mean they aren't the only tribe whose members pushed to have a reservation of their own .
There definitely seem to be more than a few currently federally unrecognized tribes in California who are lobbying for the right to be recognized and who may very well establish reservations/some form of local political autonomy once being recognized as well : https://therevelator.org/native-amer...-protect-land/
I for one certainly support their efforts and I don't see why other demographic groups shouldn't be be afforded the same sort of rights , particularly if some of them feel that the mainstream American political process/society isn't properly meeting their needs .
Quoted from your linked wiki article:
Quote:
Despite their federal tribal recognition and diminutive 1982 reservation, the Timbisha still faced difficulty and conflict with the Death Valley National Park's National Park Service in regaining more of their ancestral lands within the Park. After much tribal effort, federal politics, and mutual compromise, the Timbisha Shoshone Homeland Act of 2000 finally returned 7,500 acres (30 km2) of ancestral homelands to the Timbisha Shoshone tribe.
There is a marked difference between indigenous peoples petitioning a government to return to them their ancestral lands, and separatist movements demanding that the government provide them with the equivalent of a government-sanctioned gated community.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-18-2020 at 07:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No subsidies
