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.
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 .
No it isn't. History has a way of repeating itself, and I can't recall where ANYONE voluntarily decided to put themselves on a reservation.
Now...people of like minds have joined communes and compounds, which I have no problem with. But setting up a reservation? I don't know. Sounds not much different than a detention camp.
No it isn't. History has a way of repeating itself, and I can't recall where ANYONE voluntarily decided to put themselves on a reservation.
Now...people of like minds have joined communes and compounds, which I have no problem with. But setting up a reservation? I don't know. Sounds not much different than a detention camp.
I mean according to the link I just posted , the Timbisha Shoshone tribe did apparently set up their own reservation in a voluntary fashion after being federally recognized .
Detention camps are by definition involuntary , so their existence doesn't apply to this discussion at all , unless one is attempting to make the claim that setting up a reservation/autonomous zone/whatever else will inevitably lead to it transforming into a detention camp .
A claim which I've already addressed .
FWIW ( again at the risk of repeating myself ) my proposal isn't at all limited to allowing the formation of new " reservations " as properly understood per se .
In short new zones with partial political autonomy , such as local neighborhoods electing to form their own police force , are part of it as well and I'm curious to read the opinions of people on that ( including yours ) what with this discussion seeming to have gotten bogged down in the reservation aspect of it .
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.
Sure there's a difference , but the principle of voluntarily doing so remains the same .
FWIW it seems to me that many other members of other minority racial groups would more than happily accept the sorts of extended rights I've proposed , especially with regard to partial political autonomy with respect to forming grassroots community based police forces , so why deny them the same sort of rights that legally recognized Native American tribes already enjoy ?
Of course it's also true that I've written that the majority racial group in this country should receive the same right as well ( which many seem to have objected to specifically ) and while they are most certainly entitled to their opinion , I'd like to point out that it's my firm belief that rights should be applied equally to all ( in the psychiatric sense ) capable adult citizens who belong to legitimate ( i.e. non criminal ) groups .
I mean if you're going to allow Group X to do something , then you should allow Group Y to do so as well , because failing that will open the door to discontent that can be easily whipped up by radicals particularly in such a volatile political climate as our current one .
In short my standpoint stems from the philosophy of equal rights for all , as opposed to a crypto White Supremacist philosophy that advocates in favor of extending the right of political autonomy in order to further oppress racial minorities , as some may think it stems from .
Last edited by Lionel Fauquier; 09-18-2020 at 09:24 AM..
I mean if you're going to allow Group X to do something , then you should allow Group Y to do so as well , because failing that will open the door to discontent that can be easily whipped up by radicals particularly in such a volatile political climate as our current one .
So far, you've advanced only the benefits of your proposal. It would be frivolous to make such a far reaching proposal without also considering possible downsides.
So, which downsides do you accept as a reasonable*price to pay, and which did you reject as having compensating factors that counterbalanced the downsides?
OP, people can do that anyway. Case in point: the Amish. And the Russian Old Believers.
The term "reservation" doesn't apply here. Reservations were created on the principle of land reserved by Native peoples from the vast territory originally inhabited and used by them, that they signed treaties to relinquish (this does not imply that the process was voluntary, just clarifying. And in some cases, the land they were assigned to wasn't on their ancestral turf, but in many cases, it was). Also, reservations have quasi-sovereign status. I don't think you intend to include that right in your proposal. They also, in some respects, aren't subject to some US laws. So again, I'm sure you don't intend to "extend" such a situation to all and sundry. You probably don't intend to bar state governments from having authority over the "autonomous communities" you propose, or from collecting property taxes on those communities' land, either. So a different term is needed for your concept.
Now that that's clarified, I ask you: what exactly do you mean by "autonomous communities"? "Autonomous" in what way? Economically? Legally? Tax-policy-wise? Isn't what you're proposing, basically a commune? How is your concept different from that? What if half the South decided it wants to be one of your "autonomous communities"? Haven't we already dealt with that scenario before? What if one or more "autonomous communities" decides they want to allow polygyny or child marriage? See what I mean about the need to explain your definition of "autonomy"? You need to really think this through.
More info needed. Thanks.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 09-18-2020 at 09:54 AM..
OP, people can do that anyway. Case in point: the Amish. And the Russian Old Believers.
The term "reservation" doesn't apply here. Reservations were created on the principle of land reserved by Native peoples from the vast territory originally inhabited and used by them, that they signed treaties to relinquish (this does not imply that the process was voluntary, just clarifying. And in some cases, the land they were assigned to wasn't on their ancestral turf, but in many cases, it was). Also, reservations have quasi-sovereign status. I don't think you intend to include that right in your proposal. They also, in some respects, aren't subject to some US laws. So again, I'm sure you don't intend to "extend" such a situation to all and sundry. You probably don't intend to bar state governments from having authority over the "autonomous communities" you propose, or from collecting property taxes on those communities' land, either. So a different term is needed for your concept.
Now that that's clarified, I ask you: what exactly do you mean by "autonomous communities"? "Autonomous" in what way? Economically? Legally? Tax-policy-wise? Isn't what you're proposing, basically a commune? How is your concept different from that? What if half the South decided it wants to be one of your "autonomous communities"? Haven't we already dealt with that scenario before?
More info needed. Thanks.
While the Amish ( and some other religious groups I think ) do reserve some special rights ( such as being exempted from registering for Selective Service ) , the only groups I'm aware of in the US that reserve some form of political/legal autonomy in the form I'm describing are certain federally recognized Native American tribes .
I could be wrong about this by the way , in which case feel free to correct me , but I'm honestly not aware of any other groups having this sort of right .
As for being in favor of extending quasi sovereign status to such newfangled communities , I'd actually be all in favor of it as long as said newfangled communities would be in favor of it .
With respect to the issue of autonomy it could in any one or all of those forms you've mentioned .
In short a community could elect to have economic/political/legal autonomy or it could just elect to have political autonomy as well as autonomy in an even more narrower/more specific way .
The best example of that narrower/more specific way would be my ( already used ) example of a mostly Black American urban neighborhood voting in favor of establishing their own police force that would function separately from that of the city's police force , while still allowing the city the retain control over all other functions in the neighborhood if ( say ) the behavior of the city's police force was the only issue they happened to have with the local authorities .
So far, you've advanced only the benefits of your proposal. It would be frivolous to make such a far reaching proposal without also considering possible downsides.
So, which downsides do you accept as a reasonable*price to pay, and which did you reject as having compensating factors that counterbalanced the downsides?
Good Question !
Here follows the main drawbacks to my proposal as I see them ( in no particular order ) :
1. Actually getting it off the ground , what with it being a relatively novel concept and especially considering the fact that so many people in this country are in my way or the highway mode regarding politics .
2. The issue of certain people finding themselves in newfangled communities whose policies they don't agree with having to move and/or put up with policies they don't agree with .
3 . Issues relating to outsiders visiting such communities , for example to visit family members , could also pose another set of problems relating to ( say ) legal jurisdiction .
There are probably plenty of other issues I'm overlooking as well , but here are these downsides for now .
While the Amish ( and some other religious groups I think ) do reserve some special rights ( such as being exempted from registering for Selective Service ) , the only groups I'm aware of in the US that reserve some form of political/legal autonomy in the form I'm describing are certain federally recognized Native American tribes .
I could be wrong about this by the way , in which case feel free to correct me , but I'm honestly not aware of any other groups having this sort of right .
Exactly. That was my point; unless you're proposing to extend those rights to whomever, you shouldn't be calling these "reservations".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Fauquier;
As for being in favor of extending quasi sovereign status to such newfangled communities , I'd actually be all in favor of it as long as said newfangled communities would be in favor of it .
With respect to the issue of autonomy it could in any one or all of those forms you've mentioned .
In short a community could elect to have economic/political/legal autonomy or it could just elect to have political autonomy as well as autonomy in an even more narrower/more specific way .
The best example of that narrower/more specific way would be my ( already used ) example of a mostly Black American urban neighborhood voting in favor of establishing their own police force that would function separately from that of the city's police force , while still allowing the city the retain control over all other functions in the neighborhood if ( say ) the behavior of the city's police force was the only issue they happened to have with the local authorities .
OP, the bolded aren't going to happen. You need to be realistic. The federal government (do you understand the concept of federalism?) isn't going to let that happen, nor would state governments. (Remember what happened to those Mormon fundie communities, that allowed child marriage & polygyny?) So, your topic here is basically a thought experiment, not a realistic proposal.
And with that, I'll be putting this thread to bed.
Thank you to all who particpated!
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.
Thanks.
