OK Velkyn, do you think that giving back all of the territory claimed by the USA to the natives is the right thing to do? Why or why not?
Do you think it's going to happen? Why or why not?
well, let’s see what you actually said, joe
In my opinion they are lucky to have the reservations. Their land was never truly their land, as we demonstrated by taking it from them so easily. If they want it back, they are welcome to fight us for it. Otherwise, when they leave the reservation and step onto US territory they are subject to US law. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act should be repealed.
I think that giving back the land is indeed the ideal right thing to do. The Native Americans should never have been colonized in the first place. I do not go with the delusion that some group “deserves” something more than another. However, ideals don’t work well in an imperfect world where we have 300+ million living in the United States at the moment. The reservations, which have become sovereign land in many if not all cases, were almost always on the worst possible land that the “European-Americans” didn’t want. This has lead to very bad conditions on a lot of these places, which have effectively become ghettoized, one group being segregated and limited in economic mobility. What needs to be done is that the reservations get the resources they, and we, need them to have. Everyone needs a “we”, not an “us” and “them”. Will this happen, yes, I think it will eventually, when we get over this nonsense of people being “different”, and that some group has some “right” to a chunk of land.
Now, to get to what you said earlier. You say that Native Americans are lucky to have the reservations, and that the land was never “truly” theirs to begin with since they couldn’t hold it. Quite a pathetic invocation of might equals right.
I know, you have said you don’t care about what others think. Golly, you are just so tough and macho
But that’s a sad thing. Because might equals right is the position of a bully, Joe. It is opposed to justice and fairness, the empathy toward your fellow man which has made human society work and is always the right side of history. By your argument, it’s the Africans fault that they couldn’t keep those with a higher technology they got from pure luck on where they lived, from enslaving them. It’s the victims fault that the predator got him.
Now, like most bullies, I’m sure that as soon as someone smacks you on the nose you’d run away, and likely running behind the very societal conventions that have been put in play to enforce justice and fairness, despite your insistence that might always makes right. If a member of the Dine decided to kick you out of your house and you couldn’t resist them, I don’t for one minute doubt that you’d be crying foul. Like a bully, as long as you think you have the upper hand, you spew and bluster on how you’d welcome a fight. I’ve dealt with bullies for a very long time, Joe, and I know how it goes. I see your supposed outrage abut the eagles as being just smoke and mirrors to cover your desire for your way to be the only way.
I don’t like religion at all. I think that the killing of eagles for religion is ridiculous. But, I also don’t like the idea that anyone is prevented from doing what they want as long as it harms no others (more on that in a minute). As monkey said, this reinstates the rights of Native Americans, it does not give them special ones. This is where I wasn’t thinking when I also though it should be addressed by the FFRF. Bald eagles, and golden eagles, are protected, for returning them to an unendangered status and a rather silly idolization of them by the US. They can be killed to protect livestock. They can be killed for education purposes or science. They are quite numerous now so there is no reason that a eagle can’t be killed just like a chicken for a Santeria ceremony. I do qualify that I always require humaneness, but death is death.
Does it harm an eagle? Yep, and my filet mignon puts a real hurt on a cow. My omnivorousness is important to me and the religion is important to the believer. As long as they stay out of my way, they may believe what they want, and I will exercise my rights to show that they are wrong. But I’m not going to say that they “can’t” do something that I essentially do too.