Trump tells minority Congresswomen to "go back where they came from"

[Straha]

Whether its right or not, the reality is that if the First Nations were to make a serious attempt at decolonializing the US via dissolving it and/or taking back their lands, they would fail. And if they tried it via violence, they would be wiped out. The federal government, state governments and the (likely large) majority of the population simply would not let that occur, nor would any other nation make any serious attempt to help them.

The only real practical alternative is what they are doing right now: continue negotiations, continued lawsuits and standing up for their treaties, continue to draw attention to their issues (both internally and internationally), and push for more autonomy / material needs / rights in the process.

Doesn't this present a much bleaker picture than what Straha paints? One wherein not only is the US, to borrow theological terms, totally racist but also utterly racist?

It's interesting that there's been such a complete 180 in the thread over the course of seven pages. Originally it was "The US isn't racist, and overt racism represents a real departure from the American spirit that is deeply troubling." Now it's "The US may squat on stolen land, but so help you, if you so much as dream of trying to engage in some restorative justice, even with a legal protections and an educational campaign, there will be rivers of blood before the settlers give up an inch of what they have now. Be happy with what little progress you've made, because it's better than nothing."

And then people wonder why 'Send her back' doesn't seem so out of character.

[Darth Yan]

While I myself remain skeptical as to how much of the US electorate could be persuaded to go along with various of the schemes floated in this thread, I do think we've seen a variety of degrees as to how much land and population transfer should take place.

Limited transfers of title under the framework of eminent domain with very little in the way of displacement is one thing, and sounds fairly low-impact, but this strikes me as a far cry from the dissolution of the US, or even an extra-constitutional reconfiguration of the same, particularly to the degree that would satisfy those who consider its existence in the present form not distinct from the genocidal acts which helped to fill out its borders. By this point I'm not altogether certain who is advocating what along this axis, but the room for degree seems worth noting to me.

In my case, I do not propose eminent domain as a solution - just as part of an existing framework of laws, akin to the right of states to decide who is a citizen. I do so because I find the arguments of 'yeah but what if people don't want to go' silly: We have laws for that. If you break the law, you can be forcibly dispossessed. So long as the law that establishes this is just, then why on earth would we view it as any more significant in the context of newly restored Indigenous states than when an existing government does it? This, I propose, constitutes a racist double standard, as it seeks to deny to Indigenous states the same legal agency and authority that existing states possess, and has overtones of the idea that the alternative to the existing order of white supremacist states founded on genocide is a breakdown of the rule of law and the idea of legitimate and lawful governance.

There's rather less difference in degree between myself and Straha, I think, than you think. I'm slightly more moderate than Straha - but only just. We simply have different emphasis of argument, which makes there appear to be a wider disparity.

Whether its right or not, the reality is that if the First Nations were to make a serious attempt at decolonializing the US via dissolving it and/or taking back their lands, they would fail. And if they tried it via violence, they would be wiped out. The federal government, state governments and the (likely large) majority of the population simply would not let that occur, nor would any other nation make any serious attempt to help them.

The only real practical alternative is what they are doing right now: continue negotiations, continued lawsuits and standing up for their treaties, continue to draw attention to their issues (both internally and internationally), and push for more autonomy / material needs / rights in the process.

This is why every serious proposal for decolonization is not 'rise up! Do it now!' but 'we must systematically engage with the settler population to try and bring about justice'. There is an assumption on the part of anti-decolonization posters that those of us in favour of it view it as something that can happen tomorrow, without any serious change in the belief of the majority. This belief, as already repeatedly stated, is incorrect. We make no such claims, we do not claim that somehow the Indigenous peoples of America, Australia, etc can take on the settlers in a civil war or that somehow it's just going to magically happen without enormous amounts of hard yakka. What we do claim is the audacious hope that actually, most people are fundamentally not evil - most people wish to see justice done, to be kind, and to live as equals. That, with this goodness, we can continue to struggle and to bring about a better world through legal and political reforms, and that in order to do so, the existing states and, most crucially, the attitudes that enable them to exist as they do will need to be dismantled.

This is why we find it unconvincing when people tell us what the 'practical alternative' is, as though what you define as the 'practical alternative' is not in fact an integral part of the decolonization effort. What you tell us to do - which, in a nutshell, is to settle for a world in which people are not desirous of justice, not kind, and not interested in equality - we are already doing. You tell us to be practical, and in doing so, you tell us to abandon the dream of a better world.

I can't speak for Straha, Effie, or the decolonization activists I know in person. I can, however, speak for myself as an Australian, as a whitefella in the Bundjalung Jugun who fervently hopes to one day be able to call himself a Bundjalung whitefella as much as an Australian, as a Freemason. And I say fuck that.

You really think people are going to be okay with dissolving the USA? Wow. No. People will definitely get violent when faced with that. And ALL nations are based on stealing land from others. By that logic the Turks should give up Istanbul and Anatolia or the Brits should find the few people of pure Celtic descent and uproot the angalo saxons.

People don’t want to give up their nations. And that you think they would speaks volumes

Whether its right or not, the reality is that if the First Nations were to make a serious attempt at decolonializing the US via dissolving it and/or taking back their lands, they would fail. And if they tried it via violence, they would be wiped out. The federal government, state governments and the (likely large) majority of the population simply would not let that occur, nor would any other nation make any serious attempt to help them.

The only real practical alternative is what they are doing right now: continue negotiations, continued lawsuits and standing up for their treaties, continue to draw attention to their issues (both internally and internationally), and push for more autonomy / material needs / rights in the process.

Doesn't this present a much bleaker picture than what Straha paints? One wherein not only is the US, to borrow theological terms, totally racist but also utterly racist?

It's interesting that there's been such a complete 180 in the thread over the course of seven pages. Originally it was "The US isn't racist, and overt racism represents a real departure from the American spirit that is deeply troubling." Now it's "The US may squat on stolen land, but so help you, if you so much as dream of trying to engage in some restorative justice, even with a legal protections and an educational campaign, there will be rivers of blood before the settlers give up an inch of what they have now. Be happy with what little progress you've made, because it's better than nothing."

And then people wonder why 'Send her back' doesn't seem so out of character.

Except that’s not what is happening. We realize that on a practical level the full restorative justice you seek is impossible. Some restoration can be done but asking to turn back the clock and asking people to abandon their nation is laughably idiotic. It’s unfair but the ink has dried on that score

[loomer]

You really think people are going to be okay with dissolving the USA? Wow. No. People will definitely get violent when faced with that.

People will get violent when faced with the prospect of voluntarily, democratically dissolving an unjust state of affairs? If this prospect is sufficient to induce violence, then all hope is lost and Indigenous peoples and their allies ought to start bombing the shit out of settlers.

You may choose: Either it is possible for the injustice to be remedied peaceably through education, legal reform, and democracy, or it is impossible, and the only route left is violence. Most decolonization advocates do not wish for violence - but we aren't unconditional pacifists, either.

And ALL nations are based on stealing land from others. By that logic the Turks should give up Istanbul and Anatolia or the Brits should find the few people of pure Celtic descent and uproot the angalo saxons.

Ah. So we now move into the inevitable 'but all nations are rooted in conquest!' argument. We do not advocate for the position that all lands must be returned everywhere - we are specifically concerned with lands stolen under the aegis of colonization and its concomitant policy of racial inferiority and discovery doctrines of various forms. Other land thefts may be unfair, unjust, etc, but are not our concern, as they did not occur under the aegis of colonization.

I ask you two questions:
First, why do you insist that decolonization must involve 'uprooting'?
Second, if everyone else is doing something wrong, does that mean you ought to? If your neighbour beats his dog, ought you beat yours, or would you prefer to be better than him?

People don’t want to give up their nations

And people who renounce citizenship? Zanzibar? Tanganyika? Australia's independent colonial states? The pre-unification Italian states? What we propose is not 'giving up your nation'. It is transforming our nations into new and better ones - no different to when people have freely and willingly traded in their membership in one state for its successors after the merging of territories.

I'd also like for you to start actually addressing my arguments, rather than simply screeching about violence and how all nations steal.

Except that’s not what is happening. We realize that on a practical level the full restorative justice you seek is impossible. Some restoration can be done but asking to turn back the clock and asking people to abandon their nation is laughably idiotic. It’s unfair but the ink has dried on that score

Again - people are not being asked to abandon their nation. Kindly either refute my proposals, or stop repeating the fallacious claim that they are.

[Darth Yan]

You really think people are going to be okay with dissolving the USA? Wow. No. People will definitely get violent when faced with that.

People will get violent when faced with the prospect of voluntarily, democratically dissolving an unjust state of affairs? If this prospect is sufficient to induce violence, then all hope is lost and Indigenous peoples and their allies ought to start bombing the shit out of settlers.

You may choose: Either it is possible for the injustice to be remedied peaceably through education, legal reform, and democracy, or it is impossible, and the only route left is violence. Most decolonization advocates do not wish for violence - but we aren't unconditional pacifists, either.

And ALL nations are based on stealing land from others. By that logic the Turks should give up Istanbul and Anatolia or the Brits should find the few people of pure Celtic descent and uproot the angalo saxons.

Ah. So we now move into the inevitable 'but all nations are rooted in conquest!' argument. We do not advocate for the position that all lands must be returned everywhere - we are specifically concerned with lands stolen under the aegis of colonization and its concomitant policy of racial inferiority and discovery doctrines of various forms. Other land thefts may be unfair, unjust, etc, but are not our concern, as they did not occur under the aegis of colonization.

I ask you two questions:
First, why do you insist that decolonization must involve 'uprooting'?
Second, if everyone else is doing something wrong, does that mean you ought to? If your neighbour beats his dog, ought you beat yours, or would you prefer to be better than him?

People don’t want to give up their nations

And people who renounce citizenship? Zanzibar? Tanganyika? Australia's independent colonial states? The pre-unification Italian states? What we propose is not 'giving up your nation'. It is transforming our nations into new and better ones - no different to when people have freely and willingly traded in their membership in one state for its successors after the merging of territories.

I'd also like for you to start actually addressing my arguments, rather than simply screeching about violence and how all nations steal.

Except that’s not what is happening. We realize that on a practical level the full restorative justice you seek is impossible. Some restoration can be done but asking to turn back the clock and asking people to abandon their nation is laughably idiotic. It’s unfair but the ink has dried on that score

Again - people are not being asked to abandon their nation. Kindly either refute my proposals, or stop repeating the fallacious claim that they are.

I insist they involve uprooting because contrary to what you believe no nation is going to dissolve itself voluntarily to undo a crime that occurred years ago. You might convince some people with education but not a lot. They’ll feel bad that the crime happened and even be open to some restoration but fully dissolving their borders and recreating old nation states? That’s as likely as the Easter Bunny popping up out of the earth and bringing world peace. Also as broomstick pointed out each tribe has different wants and needs

[loomer]

I insist they involve uprooting because contrary to what you believe no nation is going to dissolve itself voluntarily to undo a crime that occurred years ago. You might convince some people with education but not a lot. They’ll feel bad that the crime happened and even be open to some restoration but fully dissolving their borders and recreating old nation states? That’s as likely as the Easter Bunny popping up out of the earth and bringing world peace. Also as broomstick pointed out each tribe has different wants and needs

Again, I will thank you to actually address my points. Let me propose the following to you:

The colonization of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and so on constituted the theft of Indigenous lands.
This theft created a delict of the underlying law and morality of CANZUS as it is currently understood.
The ongoing theft constitutes an additional delict of this law and morality.
Such delicts, where it is possible to do so, should be made good on through the restoration of what was, or restitution for what cannot be restored.

Which of these four propositions do you disagree with? I expect your answer to accompany an actual refutation or concession of my other points.

[Straha]

It's interesting that there's been such a complete 180 in the thread over the course of seven pages. Originally it was "The US isn't racist, and overt racism represents a real departure from the American spirit that is deeply troubling." Now it's "The US may squat on stolen land, but so help you, if you so much as dream of trying to engage in some restorative justice, even with a legal protections and an educational campaign, there will be rivers of blood before the settlers give up an inch of what they have now. Be happy with what little progress you've made, because it's better than nothing."

And then people wonder why 'Send her back' doesn't seem so out of character.

Except that’s not what is happening. We realize that on a practical level the full restorative justice you seek is impossible. Some restoration can be done but asking to turn back the clock and asking people to abandon their nation is laughably idiotic. It’s unfair but the ink has dried on that score

1. It's hard for you to say that when the second full sentence in your post is "People will definitely get violent when faced with that."

2. Again, we're back to "Time has gone by, and it's complicated, so we're going to give up on anything approaching a real attempt at restorative justice." which is just appalling as a moral framework.

3. I'll level with you mang, I'd go deeper on this with you but in this thread you ignore multiple point-by-point nuanced discussions to just group them together and respond with zero-effort screeds that show little to no comprehension of the preceding post. Hell, in the course of me writing this post you just did it again to loomer, and trotted out Broomstick's (already answered) points just like you trotted out Civil War Man's (already answered) point previously in a repeat act of utter laziness. This is just plain ole disrespectful to our time, to the argument, and frankly to the heavy matters being discussed. When you take this thread seriously I'll take you seriously.

[Darth Yan]

Loomers posts show good intentions but ignore practicality. Like it or not nations like the US NEVER dissolve peacefully. They can reform but the kind of mass division where the army and resources are divided between the various states? Yeah He also implied the average it workers livelihood doesn’t depend on stolen land. If his house was built on land that was part of a Native American nation it sure as shit does.

You can make changes, you can even restore some land. But the dissolution of the US? Never going to happen.

[Straha]

Loomers posts show good intentions but ignore practicality. Like it or not nations like the US NEVER dissolve peacefully. They can reform but the kind of mass division where the army and resources are divided between the various states? Yeah He also implied the average it workers livelihood doesn’t depend on stolen land. If his house was built on land that was part of a Native American nation it sure as shit does.

You can make changes, you can even restore some land. But the dissolution of the US? Never going to happen.

Were this another era of the board this would be the time period when there would be demands of DR4 and DR5 on you. It isn't, but at this point I'm not sure why you even take yourself seriously.

1. Nations that prove you wrong:

- India
- Pakistan
- Czechoslovakia
- Tanganyika
- South Africa
- The USSR
- The Belgian Congo
etc. etc. etc.

2. I find statements like yours interesting because, fundamentally, they're not statements of historical fact. (Indeed, they're simply flat wrong.) They're ransom demands. You sit on something taken from people via violence, something near and dear to their heart and something which they are far worse off without. You then issue statements threatening to destroy it via violence unless the people you've taken it from comply. In that light, I suppose, it's no wonder that you imagine decolonizers as potential Dessalines gunning for your existence.

3. You said before that you understood your white privilege. At this point, I simply don't believe you. The crux of white privilege is that white privileges and grievances are legitimated while the grievances of PoC are reflexively delegitimated until they meet (often impossible) barriers of proof. Say what you will, but everyone else in this thread at least seems to grasp that the United States lives in the wake of two foundational genocides for which it has both never sought to truly atone and by which it continues to enrich itself. You scoff at the grievances of native folk (I believe at one point you even claimed that Natives on reservations 'have opportunities' as a reason why the genocide was past tense), you emphasize the potential grievances of white folk as being enough to end all potential discussion in this field, and you engage in both personal acts of White Fragility and emphasize that fragility as a threat to others should people try to take these movements seriously (coupled with outrageous fearmongering.) In that context, how do you think people who care about decolonization and racial/social justice are going to read your petulant obstinance? And how do you think it should be read?

[Effie]

You really think people are going to be okay with dissolving the USA? Wow. No. People will definitely get violent when faced with that. And ALL nations are based on stealing land from others. By that logic the Turks should give up Istanbul and Anatolia or the Brits should find the few people of pure Celtic descent and uproot the angalo saxons.

People don’t want to give up their nations. And that you think they would speaks volumes

Except that’s not what is happening. We realize that on a practical level the full restorative justice you seek is impossible. Some restoration can be done but asking to turn back the clock and asking people to abandon their nation is laughably idiotic. It’s unfair but the ink has dried on that score

The Turkish conquest of Anatolia or the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England are not in any way comparable to the United States and Canada's treatment of indigenous people. If they were somewhat closer, I would be speaking a language heavily inflected with Anishnaaabe words and grammar, eating Nish-derived foods, using Nish cultural references frequently, at least as cognizant of Anishaaabeg history and mythology as the typical Brit is of Roman Britain. And so would everyone around me, barring the ignorant and recent immigrants.

[Straha]

The Turkish conquest of Anatolia or the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England are not in any way comparable to the United States and Canada's treatment of indigenous people. If they were somewhat closer, I would be speaking a language heavily inflected with Anishnaaabe words and grammar, eating Nish-derived foods, using Nish cultural references frequently, at least as cognizant of Anishaaabeg history and mythology as the typical Brit is of Roman Britain. And so would everyone around me, barring the ignorant and recent immigrants.

Here's a thought experiment I find interesting in this regard. In the United States if you're in any town with a decent sized population (35k+) you're pretty much guaranteed to find a Mexican Restaurant, a Chinese Restaurant, and usually you're not far away from something like an Indian or Thai restaurant. In towns not much larger it's not unreasonable to find Ethopian or South American food, and you're almost guaranteed to have on hand cuisine in the French tradition along with a variety of other European foods.


With that in mind, how many Native American restaurants can you name, and where can you expect to find them?

[Broomstick]

Your response appears to be to first emphasize that Axis crimes were worse (albeit in a way that suggests that Japanese civilians in Hiroshima were more responsible for Pearl Harbor than French colonists were for slavery on Haiti, curiously enough) and then to say it's not about what's worse. An intriguing rhetorical approach.

It is YOU who want to make this a pissing match about who was hurt worst in history. I have not, at any time in this thread said "A is worse than B" or "Group 1 was worse than Group 2". That is ALL you reading something into my posts that is not there. I am saying that you need to look at actual historical events to see the potential outcomes of actions we take today, and if you're actually trying to address a grievance you need to do this without making it a tally of who has been most hurt/offended/persecuted/etc. In other words, whataboutism is bad for this discussion.

As a slight divergence for analogy purposes: when a country ends a civil war there are a number of different things that can be done to the losing side. The losers can be wiped out. They can be relegated to the status of permanent second-class citizens. They can be re-integrated into the larger whole. They can be given quotas or set-asides in government. They can be barred from serving in government. All of these alternatives have been tried as some point or other, with varying results. When a current conflict of that sort is being settled it is possible to look at how this has happened historically to gain insight as to the best method to be used in ending the conflict for the involved parties.

Likewise, one can look at history for the consequences of both brutal oppression and of various sorts of uprising attempting to correct the problem. Discussing a Haitian massacre, the Battle of Wounded Knee, various peasant uprisings over the centuries in Europe, and so on could all have some relevance to the subject at hand, but mentioning any of them does not automatically constitute a contest of who suffered more than whom. Except in the heads of some people who incapable of seeing any side of a discussion but their own viewpoint. Looking at, discussing, and attempting to understand other viewpoints DOES NOT mean you agree with them, but by doing so you may find actually finding a solution to long term problems is more likely.

"If the situation had played out differently, if those French people had, as an example, been deported/expelled rather than killed then there might have been less fear of Haiti/black slave uprisings which might have had knock-on effects down through the years. Maybe blacks would have been treated better because of less fear. Or maybe slavery would have endured longer as an institution due to some paradoxical thing."

This is an utterly bizarre statement. I really don't know where to begin with it, beyond simply noting the utter absurdity of the notion that the monstrous brutality of slavery wasn't systemic in origin.

You are really thick when it comes to reading comprehension, aren't?

WHERE does any of my statement say that slavery was NOT "systematic in origin"? Are you even reading the same words I am writing? None of that paragraph has anything to do with the ORIGIN of slavery. It was talking about the consequences of one massacre during a slave rebellion, a massacre that had international repercussions at the time in many slave-holding nations. Due to the brutality of the murder of French Haitians down to infants it caused fear of "blacks" to rise, the result being, at least in the US, the passage of laws making it more difficult to free slaves, allow free black people to remain free, and so forth lest the black man rise up and murder the white women and children. If the massacre had not occurred and rather the French being deported MAYBE there would have been less fear and fewer such laws, allowing easier freeing of slaves, more free black people, and less oppression (NOT absent repression - the system still would have sucked in so many ways). Paradoxically, less brutal and vicious slavery might have meant fewer abolitionists a generation or two later and slavery enduring longer, which is what I was getting to with paradoxical effects. Or maybe things would have sucked just as hard and it would have made no difference.

Make no mistake - aside from Haiti NO black uprising ended chattel slavery of Africans. All the other nations that (eventually) banned it did so because the majority of white people could be persuaded to end the practice. In some cases it was because slavery was no longer economically viable. In other cases, it was because a bloody war was fought over whether or not to have slavery, at least in part. If you can't engage the majority/more powerful group in the solution it is just not going to happen most of the time. If you continually paint the dominant/more powerful at the irredeemable evil bad guys that's not going to happen.

Getting back to an earlier topic: the ONLY way large-scale restoration of land rights among Native populations is going to happen is if you get the more numerous and wealthier conquers to go along with it, and the only way that is going to happen is if you find a way to persuade them that 1) it's just and 2) it's not going to have predominantly negative consequences for them and their children.

[Straha]

Make no mistake - aside from Haiti NO black uprising ended chattel slavery of Africans. All the other nations that (eventually) banned it did so because the majority of white people could be persuaded to end the practice. In some cases it was because slavery was no longer economically viable. In other cases, it was because a bloody war was fought over whether or not to have slavery, at least in part. If you can't engage the majority/more powerful group in the solution it is just not going to happen most of the time. If you continually paint the dominant/more powerful at the irredeemable evil bad guys that's not going to happen.

This is an interesting rhetorical turn for me. Because if people like Effie, loomer, and I actually thought that the US was irredeemable, why would we bring up decolonization and latent racism in threads like this? If it's absolutely inevitable, unavoidable, and can simply never be fixed then engaging in political discussions like this is pointless because politics could never ever solve these problems. The only solution would be mass destructive violence as some afro-pessimists advance or grim acceptance coupled with attempts at moderation, weirdly enough not far off from what people like Darth Yan and Tribble were talking about.

The entire point of discussions like these is that we can change these systems and find real systemic solutions to try and redress these problems.

Getting back to an earlier topic: the ONLY way large-scale restoration of land rights among Native populations is going to happen is if you get the more numerous and wealthier conquers to go along with it, and the only way that is going to happen is if you find a way to persuade them that 1) it's just and 2) it's not going to have predominantly negative consequences for them and their children.

If only there were conversations about this and what this might entail going on in public areas. And I mean real discussions broaching the philosophical and legal implications and concepts behind decolonization. And not just in the hallowed halls of academia, but in open spaces dedicated to discussing general matters of the common weal and recent events. Perhaps as part of larger broad, but potentially self-selecting, communities. But, hey, that's just a pipedream, right?

[Effie]

Your response appears to be to first emphasize that Axis crimes were worse (albeit in a way that suggests that Japanese civilians in Hiroshima were more responsible for Pearl Harbor than French colonists were for slavery on Haiti, curiously enough) and then to say it's not about what's worse. An intriguing rhetorical approach.

It is YOU who want to make this a pissing match about who was hurt worst in history. I have not, at any time in this thread said "A is worse than B" or "Group 1 was worse than Group 2". That is ALL you reading something into my posts that is not there. I am saying that you need to look at actual historical events to see the potential outcomes of actions we take today, and if you're actually trying to address a grievance you need to do this without making it a tally of who has been most hurt/offended/persecuted/etc. In other words, whataboutism is bad for this discussion.

As a slight divergence for analogy purposes: when a country ends a civil war there are a number of different things that can be done to the losing side. The losers can be wiped out. They can be relegated to the status of permanent second-class citizens. They can be re-integrated into the larger whole. They can be given quotas or set-asides in government. They can be barred from serving in government. All of these alternatives have been tried as some point or other, with varying results. When a current conflict of that sort is being settled it is possible to look at how this has happened historically to gain insight as to the best method to be used in ending the conflict for the involved parties.

Likewise, one can look at history for the consequences of both brutal oppression and of various sorts of uprising attempting to correct the problem. Discussing a Haitian massacre, the Battle of Wounded Knee, various peasant uprisings over the centuries in Europe, and so on could all have some relevance to the subject at hand, but mentioning any of them does not automatically constitute a contest of who suffered more than whom. Except in the heads of some people who incapable of seeing any side of a discussion but their own viewpoint. Looking at, discussing, and attempting to understand other viewpoints DOES NOT mean you agree with them, but by doing so you may find actually finding a solution to long term problems is more likely.

"If the situation had played out differently, if those French people had, as an example, been deported/expelled rather than killed then there might have been less fear of Haiti/black slave uprisings which might have had knock-on effects down through the years. Maybe blacks would have been treated better because of less fear. Or maybe slavery would have endured longer as an institution due to some paradoxical thing."

This is an utterly bizarre statement. I really don't know where to begin with it, beyond simply noting the utter absurdity of the notion that the monstrous brutality of slavery wasn't systemic in origin.

You are really thick when it comes to reading comprehension, aren't?

WHERE does any of my statement say that slavery was NOT "systematic in origin"? Are you even reading the same words I am writing? None of that paragraph has anything to do with the ORIGIN of slavery. It was talking about the consequences of one massacre during a slave rebellion, a massacre that had international repercussions at the time in many slave-holding nations. Due to the brutality of the murder of French Haitians down to infants it caused fear of "blacks" to rise, the result being, at least in the US, the passage of laws making it more difficult to free slaves, allow free black people to remain free, and so forth lest the black man rise up and murder the white women and children. If the massacre had not occurred and rather the French being deported MAYBE there would have been less fear and fewer such laws, allowing easier freeing of slaves, more free black people, and less oppression (NOT absent repression - the system still would have sucked in so many ways). Paradoxically, less brutal and vicious slavery might have meant fewer abolitionists a generation or two later and slavery enduring longer, which is what I was getting to with paradoxical effects. Or maybe things would have sucked just as hard and it would have made no difference.

Make no mistake - aside from Haiti NO black uprising ended chattel slavery of Africans. All the other nations that (eventually) banned it did so because the majority of white people could be persuaded to end the practice. In some cases it was because slavery was no longer economically viable. In other cases, it was because a bloody war was fought over whether or not to have slavery, at least in part. If you can't engage the majority/more powerful group in the solution it is just not going to happen most of the time. If you continually paint the dominant/more powerful at the irredeemable evil bad guys that's not going to happen.

Getting back to an earlier topic: the ONLY way large-scale restoration of land rights among Native populations is going to happen is if you get the more numerous and wealthier conquers to go along with it, and the only way that is going to happen is if you find a way to persuade them that 1) it's just and 2) it's not going to have predominantly negative consequences for them and their children.

So, the generally accepted history of emancipation nowadays, for several decades now, sees it as driven by the slaves themselves, who by engaging in what is called the slave general strike, forced the Union to adopt emancipation as a war aim by forcing a choice between actively defending slavery by returning escaped slaves reaching Union lines to slavery, or accepting the reality of self-emancipation.

And this in turn forced the Reconstruction Amendments through a Congress which never had enough Radicals to force them through on their own, via a progressive radicalization of the war itself and the goals of the war.

So in that sense, a slave uprising, without getting into the nitty-gritty of Fort Wagner or the Battle of the Crater or the battle of Mobile Bay, did kill slavery in the United States.

However, you have accepted neo-Confederate histories of slavery which insist that it was something other than the necessity of forcibly keeping people reduced to the status of objects which created the hideous brutality of slavery, so I am not surprised that you are not up to date in this area too.

The Turkish conquest of Anatolia or the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England are not in any way comparable to the United States and Canada's treatment of indigenous people. If they were somewhat closer, I would be speaking a language heavily inflected with Anishnaaabe words and grammar, eating Nish-derived foods, using Nish cultural references frequently, at least as cognizant of Anishaaabeg history and mythology as the typical Brit is of Roman Britain. And so would everyone around me, barring the ignorant and recent immigrants.

Here's a thought experiment I find interesting in this regard. In the United States if you're in any town with a decent sized population (35k+) you're pretty much guaranteed to find a Mexican Restaurant, a Chinese Restaurant, and usually you're not far away from something like an Indian or Thai restaurant. In towns not much larger it's not unreasonable to find Ethopian or South American food, and you're almost guaranteed to have on hand cuisine in the French tradition along with a variety of other European foods.


With that in mind, how many Native American restaurants can you name, and where can you expect to find them?

Well, there's always your nearest powwow... Which points to another effect, of the "excluded middle" in American eating and restaurants. Native people might have it strongest of all.

[Nicholas]

I have found this a quite interesting discussion and wanted to make a couple of points about it.

First of all, I think much of the argument stems from the confusion of three distinct concepts within the discussion:

1) Sovereignty - Being the lawful government of a territory, including a monopoly on legal violence and the right to collect taxes and create and enforce law.
2) Ownership - The control of a piece of land and the right to use it or not as you see fit within the restrictions of the law.
3) Residence - The ability to reside within a specific territory.

The colonization of the United States denied the Native population all three at the same time. This is cited as its unique feature and also causes much of the confusion when people talk about decolonizing the United States because readers assume that those advocating decolonization intend to reverse all three. That is clearly not what is meant but the failure to distinguish clearly among them continues to cause confusion.

My own sense is that the surviving native populations right of residence has already been restored, since they are no longer prohibited from living outside of reservations and are granted the rights of United States citizens.

The issue of the native ownership of land is part of the larger question of reparations for harm done in the past and its continuing effects on people today. It should be handled within that context and I am prepared to acknowledge that justice requires reparations although I am selfish and evil enough not to be at all enthusiastic about the idea.

As regards sovereignty, it was transferred to the United States by right of conquest. This is the normal procedure by which sovereignty has historically been transferred and is morally legitimate. The only alternative widely accepted today is the sovereignty resides with the people living in a territory, and that is generally not Native Americans today. The only reason we can talk about doing justice by restoring native sovereignty is that the colonization of the United States was so successful at destroying native cultures and history that a naive individual looking at what we know about North American history can conclude that the persons living there when the Europeans arrived had a right to the territory. Based on the history of Europe it seems far more probably that sovereignty over every valuable bit of North America had been transferred by conquest many times before Europeans arrived so the owners when Europeans arrived had no more right to sovereignty then the people who took it away from them do. This is where the analogy to Europe is appropriate because the difference between Europe and the United States is that we have a knowledge of Europe's history before 1500 and therefor more awareness of just how often sovereignty changed hands by conquest and therefor how utterly impossible it is to find any person or people who have a clear moral claim to sovereignty over a territory.

As a final point I would like to say that while the ideal of an equal negotiation between the non-native people currently living in the United States and the native population is appealing it is also impossible. Negotiations are always unequal when the two parties have radically different amounts of power. Unless the power differential changes what Native Americans can get out of such negotiations will always be what the majority of Americans are prepared to give them. I wish you luck in persuading the non Native American population of the United States that they ought to give up control over the laws under which they live and the institutions which have the power to tax them. No taxation without representation has always been a big thing for Americans.

Nicholas

[Effie]

Native people are sovereign by US law. Treaties are not signed with non-sovereign entities. So Native sovereignty has, according to the US government, not been extinguished. There is an uphill struggle in getting the US to acknowledge its own laws, alas.

[Straha]

As regards sovereignty, it was transferred to the United States by right of conquest. This is the normal procedure by which sovereignty has historically been transferred and is morally legitimate.

The rest of your post is... well.. questionable. But this is really a cornerstone that it falls apart around.

I realize you're ducking into this conversation late, but the entire point was that it there was no 'conquest.' There was no declaration of war, no political goals, nothing of the sort. Europeans declared the Americas to legally be Terra Nullis, uninhabited land without pre-existing owners and belonging to the people who came in and took it under the pre-existing doctrine of discovery. This was enshrined in American law via the Supreme Court, and has served as a basis of American property law ever since. As such, claims that this fits into a historical concept of conquest are ludicrous. The direct analog is ethnic cleansing, and if you want to build a legal claim around legitimating ethnic cleansing, I believe the legal term as a response to that is 'Yikes'.

( I see Effie posted about Treaties already, so I'll remove my section on that here except to underline that the notion that none of what the US and the colonies did in North America fits inside the historical legal framework you're claiming.)

[Straha]

I'll add, as an aside, one of the most interesting lines of decolonization has been in Australia under the Mabo doctrine, which officially rejected the idea that Australia was Terra Nullis and allowed for the recognition of Native Title as both pre-existing and contemporaneous, even when settler title existed. It's actual effect has been somewhat moderate, but there's real potential there and it represents an interesting line of legal flight to go down in a decolonial strategy.

[Broomstick]

I find it interesting that anti-decolonization posters like yourself routinely return to the idea that the process must involve the 'forced relocation of massive amounts of people' when it is, again, not something being sought except where unavoidable by all but the extreme fringe of decolonization proposals. No such forced relocation is suggested except in the marginal areas, in which case the ordinary legal system can be employed, with its well-established tradition of the employment of coercive sanctions up to and including violence to obtain its ends. In this regard, such relocations are no different to eminent domain seizures.

First of all - why do you assume I am "anti-decolonization"? I am raising possible problems with accomplishing restoration of land rights, I am nowhere saying I am opposed to doing this. I don't think it's likely to happen any time soon, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to the idea in theory.

First, there is the fear that new (or if your prefer, the restored owners) will become the New Oppressors.

It certainly can happen, and it is of course a risk - but it's a risk that is worth taking in the furtherance of justice and humanity.

I used the word "fear" for a reason, not "risk". It is a fear, which means it is felt in a highly emotional place. Given that there are examples in history of "the worst" coming to pass it is not an entirely irrational fear, either. South Africa would definitely be a place to look at, to see how these fears were addressed and calmed sufficiently to allow the place to continue as a viable nation. Studying history isn't just about studying the worst cases, after all. No one is going to willingly sign up for a situation where they or their children are going to be the oppressed, no matter what justice might be involved. At some point the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" thing has to stop so we don't all wind up blind and toothless. The difficulty of doing that should not be minimized. Among other things, it involves the acknowledgement that not everything can be set right and there is no perfect justice.

Second, there are people who will, indeed, want to become the New Oppressors.

Yes, and? Those people refused to comply with the directives of land owners and to sign valid, lawful leases. Why is it especially noteworthy when tenants who refuse to sign a renewed lease are evicted? It happens every day across the world.

Here's a problem with, for example the recent restoration of Salamanca to Seneca control: The non-native residents purchased housing - not rented or leased, PURCHASED - under the assumption (which until 1990's was, apparently, also held by courts, banks, and other entities) that while the land belonged to the Seneca what was built on the land belonged to the non-natives who paid for it. Then, in the 1990's not only did the courts hold that the Seneca held the land (which, actually, was never in disputed) but also the "improvements", that is, everything built on the land, which had been built under the assumption that those who built the stuff owned the stuff. The non-natives who had, in some cases, sunk the majority of their wealth into those "improvements" saw this as theft - which is why it wound up in court. No one objected to signing a lease to stay on the land - that had been the practice for 100 years already - but the objection was to being "forced" to sign a lease to stay in a home bought/built/owned by a person, that the person had paid property taxes on for all the years they were there, that had (from their viewpoint) been given to someone else. Those people lost all the equity in those properties. Hell, yes, they were angry. They had, in fact, played the game according to the rules everyone else did... until the game changed in 1990 without any input from them. They feel they have been lied to. (I'm sure the Seneca can empathize with that, even if they still want to assert their ownership claim).

Now, there are ways to deal with these things. For example, these "improvement owners" could be fairly compensated, with the Seneca paying something for the "improvements" that sit upon the land (the Seneca aren't what you'd call rich, but they aren't penniless, either) either as a lump sum or via regular payments. There could be an arrangement where non-natives who had made these "improvements" under the assumption of ownership could continue to "own" them and pay only rent on the land beneath for the rest of their lives, but any heir or new "owner" would not be an owner but a new lessee under the post-1990 understanding. Maybe there's another alternative I haven't thought of. Or you could just say "sucks to to be you, you put your life savings into this but someone else owns it now". But if you do the last of those choices there is no way to avoid extended bitterness.

There probably is no way to do these things without pissing someone off along the way. There are no perfect answers to any of this Gordian knot of injustice that has built up over centuries. I am suggesting, though, that seizing the property of one group to "atone" for the seizure of property of another group centuries ago is probably not the ideal approach to a long term solution to the grabbing.

Which is not to say these things should not be done. There seems to be an assumption in this thread that anyone raising the specter of problems is somehow opposed to justice and restoration of rights. That is an erroneous conclusion. Saying "hey, there are going to be problems" is not the same as being in favor of those problems, or saying that something could not be done.

And yet it so often seems to be raised as precisely that action should not be taken, because it is naive, impossible, and so forth. So while I appreciate that it may not be intended to refute the proposals, it unfortunately often either is intended to, or inadvertantly has the effect of advancing that argument.

So we should just ignore these problems and questions? Forbid pointing out that there are difficulties to achieving justice either short or long term?

I am in no way saying that this can't be done - I have in fact posted about baby steps in that direction which demonstrate that this sort of restoration is possible. I will also continue to point out that it is very, very difficult to scale up and I will continue to ask for details on how people plan to do this.

There the problem of negotiating with a vastly stronger and wealthier entity. One of the long standing problems with Natives in the US is that even the most organized of them (and some of them, like the Iroquois, had longstanding multi-tribal alliances that pre-dated the colonial era) were and still are at a constant disadvantage vs. both the many States and the over-arching Federal Government (back to the Seneca again - they've been fighting the State of New York for centuries in the Federal Courts because New York keeps trying to assert sovereignty over the Seneca nation. Most recently, a 2007 dispute when New York kept trying to collect state sales tax on a group that legally isn't part of New York State - rather as if New York attempted to collect state tax on towns in the province of Ontario, Canada or regulate the tourist industry on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls).

Certainly, but this again is not a unique issue to the proposed restored Indigenous states. Many nations have to negotiate with stronger and wealthier entities - many nations do it successfully, some do not.

The problem is the disparity of power and wealth. There are very few situations where nations as poor and as lacking in power as Native Americans have to negotiate with a superpower like the United States. France disagreeing with Germany is a fairly equal contest. The US and China disagreeing likewise. But how has, for example, Guatemala faired against the US? (Hint: it's where we get the term "banana republic") And Guatemala is considerably wealthier and more powerful than Native American nations.

Personally, I'd much prefer for the word "justice" to have such power that a disparity of power and wealth would not matter. But we don't live in that world.

Again, certainly. But just as there is a risk that not all restored Indigenous states may wish to join the defence pacts, there is a possibility - a fairly good one, in fact - that they will. Again, this is not a risk unique to the idea of restoring Indigenous statehood and sovereignty, and the usual recourses to prevent wars of aggression remain available - whether they be defensive pacts or international law. In the case of the dissolved America, whatever common federations arise will likely also be nuclear capable, which is a fairly reliable tool for telling others to fuck right off - afterall, as you yourself point out, this restructuring doesn't take place in a vacuum, and nuclear weapons infrastructure is one of many assets to be considered and divided between the emergent states unless total disarmament is part of the process.

You're still talking about dismantling the United States, one of the most powerful entities on the planet. It would be at least as destabilizing as the dissolution of the USSR. I'm not saying it's going to cause WWIII - I rather doubt it would - but it's going to have international ramifications. EVERY nation that currently has a treaty/agreement/etc. with the US is going to have that unilaterally ended. Which is pretty much everyone. What happens to Japan? The US has pledged to defend Japan so that it need not have a standing military as other nations do - but if there is no US then what? Japan is left vulnerable. What happens to South Korea? What about NATO? The North American Trade Agreement will no longer exist... and recreating it will require negotiating with possibly hundreds of different sovereign entities. The world will become much less certain for quite awhile.

You are correct that some older agreements will probably continue (including some, like the Iroquois Confederacy, that pre-date the existence of the USA and currently has about 125,000 people between the US and Canada, so it's also an example of a pre-existing trans-national Native group). Quite a few of these Native nations already issue their own passports for international travel, have police forces, and so forth. There is certainly a lot of infrastructure already in place. No matter what, though, dissolving the US is going to be a mess.

Not the least because there are other deep divides - there have been rumblings of secession of various regions for generations due to all sorts of reasons, including disputes between groups of European descent. Once you dissolve the current Union you're going to have all sorts of breakaways, from socialist communist mini-enclaves to attempts to set up religious theocracies to racial "homelands" (not just white - some groups of African descent want apartheid, too) to other stuff I haven't though of at the moment.

So if Mexico does decide it wants a slice of California, good luck to them - they'll have quite a fight on their hands.

I'd prefer there not be a fight at all.

International law is distinct from the law of states, of which land seizure is a well-recognized principle - hence, the weakness of international law has no bearing on the availability of land seizure as a legal remedy for treaty obligation. As you acknowledge, it's well recognized - and when I refer to it, I refer to it in the context of a nation's internal laws. The history of illegal actions by the US government towards the Indigenous peoples is irrelevant to the capacity for the newly formed Indigenous states to utilize legal remedies to seize land as and when necessary to fulfill treaty obligations and constitutional requirements, in the same way that people breaking the law around homicide does not render those laws flimsy or helpless.

Laws against homicide are only effective if there is a strong enough government to enforce the law. You are talking about not only dissolving the Federal government but also the State governments. Who will be left? The Native nations do not have standing armies. They do not have arsenals. They do have tribal laws and tribal courts and tribal police... but, say, the Navajo and Hopi (two of the larger and better organized Native Nations in the region) do not have the capacity to suddenly take over law enforcement for New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. Not to mention that some of the state governments - which DO have arsenals in the form of the National Guard for that state - are already adversarial vs. the Native Nations and are currently held in check by the Federal government and its courts.

So... how do you plan to deal with the problems arising from your proposed plan of dissolving the Union?

Wars between the new states are possible, of course, as are violent insurrections - but violent insurrections against a lawful and legitimate government fall within the ambit of those governments to respond with the coercive sanctions appropriate to the situation, and there is no particular reason to believe the same disparity will exist between the new states as between Indigenous communities and the US government at present.

First - oh, yeah, wars between the various US states not only are possible but have historically occurred. Not just the big US Civil War, but others as well. Granted, the Toledo War was nearly bloodless (at least one person got stabbed, but I don't think anyone actually died) but given the current state of the USA I'd expect some definite conflicts once the lid of the Federal government is removed and some long-standing issues are allowed to boil over.

But - as the on-going conflict between New York State and the Seneca illustrate - there's going to be plenty of issues between the new entities your proposal creates. New York State, despite the intervention of the Federal government, keeps trying to impose sovereignty over the Seneca (and other Iroquois groups within its borders) in various ways. Take away the Federal government and there will be more of that, not less. Who is going to keep the peace while the process of re-forging the national landscape of North America takes place? The Native Nations are still out-numbered and out-gunned, and not nearly as wealthy. This will certainly give them massive incentive to make alliances, but will it be enough?

[MarxII]

I realize you're ducking into this conversation late, but the entire point was that it there was no 'conquest.' There was no declaration of war, no political goals, nothing of the sort. Europeans declared the Americas to legally be Terra Nullis, uninhabited land without pre-existing owners and belonging to the people who came in and took it under the pre-existing doctrine of discovery. This was enshrined in American law via the Supreme Court, and has served as a basis of American property law ever since. As such, claims that this fits into a historical concept of conquest are ludicrous. The direct analog is ethnic cleansing, and if you want to build a legal claim around legitimating ethnic cleansing, I believe the legal term as a response to that is 'Yikes'.

I wasn't fully aware of this; wouldn't it run up against the cessions of land which were formalized by treaty?

[Straha]

I realize you're ducking into this conversation late, but the entire point was that it there was no 'conquest.' There was no declaration of war, no political goals, nothing of the sort. Europeans declared the Americas to legally be Terra Nullis, uninhabited land without pre-existing owners and belonging to the people who came in and took it under the pre-existing doctrine of discovery. This was enshrined in American law via the Supreme Court, and has served as a basis of American property law ever since. As such, claims that this fits into a historical concept of conquest are ludicrous. The direct analog is ethnic cleansing, and if you want to build a legal claim around legitimating ethnic cleansing, I believe the legal term as a response to that is 'Yikes'.

I wasn't fully aware of this; wouldn't it run up against the cessions of land which were formalized by treaty?

Yes. It's one of the reasons why treaty rights are often ignored (indeed, treaties with Native Tribes were retroactively classified as being 'domestic' despite having historically been handled and treated as matters of foreign policy) and how the legal term 'domestic dependent nations' (which, if you parse it through, is nonsensical) came to be applied to Native Tribes.

[Broomstick]

It pairs nicely with the whole 'but what if they turn around and become oppressors because of what we did!' argument, too. I honestly don't see how that particular line can lead anywhere but full genocide - if the fear is a valid reason to continue an unjust situation, then it must be sufficiently severe that pre-emptive self defence is justifiable as well - and so we slide right back into 'and now, we must kill their children' territory as a logical consequence, bringing us full circle to the deplorable massacres.

Or - as someone else already noted - a people can learn from the mistakes of the past or other nations and realize that by not treating other people like shit and vermin you lower the chances of nasty massacres down the line. If you don't want to fear oppression don't oppress other people.

[Broomstick]

And yet, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas was a French General in the French Revolution, a black man born in Haiti (in slavery, because his mother was a slave even if his father was a white master) who rose to brigadier general in the French army as a freed black man. So... um... I guess not ALL Frenchmen were unable to recognize a freed slave as a free man or relegate him to the permanent role of servant during that time period (Dumas died in 1806, two years after the 1804 massacre. True, Napoleon did shit on the man's family and deny them a military pension but as the two men had butted heads multiple times in real life that might well have been due more to personal animosity than racial prejudice.

I'm genuinely not sure what your argument is here?

The French in 1800 were not monolithic clones. In fact, slavery had ended in France at the time, so by bringing the young Thomas-Alexandre to France his slavery ended (after which his white father saw that he was educated and got him into the military). Meanwhile, in Haiti chattel slavery was in full force in all its ugliness.

Like, is the example of one person who was able to partially escape social categorization supposed to somehow prove that the French weren't trying to impose systemic chattel slavery on the black population of Haiti?

Dumas did not "partially" escape - he became a brigadier general and at one point the his only superior was Napoleon. One of his sons was accepted into the French Academy and achieved world-wide fame as an author which he still enjoys today, his other son was a successful playwright. Black people in France have had disadvantages, yes, but nowhere near what they did in the US and the colonies which is why quite a few people of African descent from the US have traveled to France for either part or the remainder of their lives (this was actually fairly common up through the 1970's). While not claiming France is perfect, France itself was better for people of African descent than many other countries, and especially better than any New World colony or nation. Including French New World colonies which, in regards to slavery, were pretty fucking horrific.

This just strikes me as absurd. No one would take seriously the claim that Frederick Douglas' ability to be a writer and influence politicians would mean that the United States in the 1840s and 50s wasn't systemically and horrifically racist.

I wasn't talking about Frederick Douglas or the United States, I was talking about Thomas-Alexandre Dumas and France and Haiti. The French and the French society in France in 1800 had definite differences from the French and French society at the same time in Haiti. So saying the French were "unable to recognize a freed slave as a free man" not only didn't apply to Haiti at the time (which did have a class of free colored even if they were a minority) but applied much less so to France back in Europe. People of African descent, even those born into slavery somewhere else, could achieve significant social status (even if they still had problems of bias) and wealth in France. Indeed, the French could recognize a freed slave as a free man, to the point that any slave from anywhere else who entered the territory of France was considered a free man (which was a damn sight better than the bullshit Dredd Scott case in the US).

Haiti is a bit more complicated than simply white vs. black, master vs. slave. Not the least because it was not unusual for a financially successful free black to become a slave owner, pre-revolution the mixed race creoles held a level of society for themselves, and post-revolution dominated politically and economically those whose ancestry was mostly or exclusively African. Post-revolution, the creoles became the new oppressors, keeping the masses poor and uneducated. One oppressive group replaced by another.

I'm not sure how nuances and complexity in Haiti rise to rebut the claim that slavery, and the concept of a free Haiti, were racially coded and part of an order of white supremacy.

It certainly had its origins in white supremacy but, as I said, there were free people of color in Haiti, they were an essential part of the civil service and society (whites were outnumbered at least 10:1), and some of them were significant slave owners in their own right. The oppressed becoming the oppressor. Which, again, leads to the fear on the part of the controlling faction that if the current status quo is altered they will become the oppressed - look, given the chance the black man will own slaves, too, and he's just as brutal as a white master!

I'm also not sure how Haiti's failings, in the context of a prolonged and devastating struggle of 20 years coupled with a monumental effort of economic and political isolation by the European world, somehow rise to a defense of the American (or Australian, or Canadian, etc.) Status Quo.

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not trying to defend the status quo. I am saying that if you try to alter it there will be problems. Of course, NOT altering it means problems, too.

And Haiti - for all its problems - is not what I'd consider a "failure". It does represent a successful slave uprising that was not subsequently over-turned and the former slave re-subjugated by the prior owners. That doesn't mean it's paradise, either, far from it - it has a LOT of entrenched, serious problems (none of which were helped by the reaction of other nations towards it for the next century and more). It remains an independent nation. The rebellion was successful. The actual details of running the nation afterward... yeah, lots of problems.

2. Massive treaty violation continued well into the 60s and 70s, notably through daming and water infrastructure projects. No effort has been made to undo this damage on the US government's part. Nor has any effort been made to structurally change how the US deals with Native Tribes.

No, the US government is not in the habit of demolishing damns and hydroelectric power. For anyone. And yes, EVERY treaty the US government has had with Native nations has been broken to some extent, if not entirely.

But there's a reason you said "in the the 60's and 70's" and not further. Since that time things have started to improve. Again, this is in no way saying things are great, that there aren't still terrible injustices, and there aren't still massive problems. But the US Federal government is starting to uphold Native rights in the courts and enforce them. Let's at least acknowledge there has been some change in the proper direction even if not nearly enough. In current US society it is at least possible to make these changes whereas a century ago it just wasn't going to happen at all. If you want your redress then hooray, at least now it is possible for this to happen. Better yet, possible without widespread bloodshed or open war although it will be a long, slow process.

What makes you think the trend is going in the right direction? As recently as DAPL not only were treaty rights run over roughshod and violated, but the call to ignore them was a frontispiece of the Trump campaign, and they were certainly not respected by Obama until well after he was a lame-duck and even then in only the most cursory of manners. Nobody is saying things are different now. It's more that we live in the aftermath of a highly successful campaign of ethnic cleansing. Things are different, not necessarily better.

Well, for one thing, the Seneca got Salamanca back. Including structures that had been added to it. They were also upheld in their right to control access to their lands, were able to enforce agreements to share tollway funds with them, and got to tell the State of New York to go to hell when it tried to collect state taxes. In other places - Minnesota and Michigan regarding wild rice cultivation, fishing and hunting rights in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest - Native nations are having their rights regarding resources upheld. There's that whole business of casinos - the Natives started dominating legal gambling outside Nevada and New Jersey because they were able to legalize it when the surrounding US regions still outlawed it, and having it was a major advance of the notion that Native groups make the law on their own lands rather than the folks around them doing so. All of this has improved the economy of the Natives involved.

Again - I am in no way trying to oversell this. There are still festering problems like Pine Ridge and any number of Native towns plagued by unemployment and drug use. The point is that it is now possible for Native nations to gain ground and have their rights upheld. Which was simply not existent a century ago. That's the change, and that's the positive. It's a small glimmer of hope. Definitely, it needs to be improved and built upon, it's not nearly enough.

[Broomstick]

For what I'd suggest. Return land when actually possible. Find out what each tribe wants and how to achieve it (since they have differing wants and needs). Work for it when possible. If there's something like a dam that benefits people than you have a problem.

In at least some instances the problem isn't just the existence of a damn (and loss of use of the land) but that other people are getting wealthy exploiting something on land that rightfully belongs to a Native group. In at least one instance I heard of (I'm trying to recall the name of the tribe so I can look up the information) the Natives recognize that the hydroelectric project is here to stay but have tried to discuss getting some of the revenue from that power plant... which would seem a reasonable compromise when the land can't be returned to the original owners. If they can't have the land back then getting some of the profits from the exploitation of it would seem just.

If some rich asshole has his summer home evict the bastard. If it means uprooting neighborhoods try to find a middle ground instead; allow integration.

Salamanca, NY actually is a bit of a testing ground for that. Some folks accepted the new arrangement without argument, signed new leases, and got on with life (Salamanca, even if it is on Seneca land and controlled by the Seneca nation, is still 80% non-native in population so obviously some people stayed). Some did not. So yes, this sort of thing is possible. The problem would be scaling it up and making it widespread.

It's not going to be easy but like it or not the ink has largely dried. You can make some changes but others are irreversible.

Yes.

A mess centuries in the making is not going to be fixed in one generation. Or even two. Some things won't be fixed at all even with the best of intentions and all the will in the world. This is where the expression "don't discard the good in search of the perfect" comes in. It's not a matter of a perfect solution but the best solution possible.

[Broomstick]

The only real practical alternative is what they are doing right now: continue negotiations, continued lawsuits and standing up for their treaties, continue to draw attention to their issues (both internally and internationally), and push for more autonomy / material needs / rights in the process.

Would you say that this approach has been particularly helpful thus far in light of things such as the pipeline protest, high incidence rates of drug and alcohol abuse, rampant unemployment, and shockingly low life expectancies on some reservations?

It has not been successful on some reservations. On others, it has actually had some positive effects and increased wealth for the Natives (often functioning as a guaranteed basic income for tribe members).

There are also problems with corruption and nepotism on the various reservations that increased wealth has, in some cases, exacerbated.

I'd also like to point out there there are problems not just with the Natives living on reservations but anywhere in the US. Only about 1/5 of Natives live on reservations, the rest are scattered from rural areas to big cities, but mostly urban and suburban areas. About 25 years ago someone looked into where the Natives who originally lived in the area that is now Chicago went. The answer: they didn't go anywhere, they're still living in Chicago. Mostly in the Uptown neighborhood. But they still have problems with poverty, unemployment, and prejudice. Many don't know which tribe they come from, or have mixed heritage. How are we going to compensate them for the wrongs in their past and the wrongs done to their ancestors?

[Patroklos]

Has anyone considered a US territory fractured into dozens to hundreds of polities, now completely disrupted and poor regardless of what color combinations of people live where, won’t be a place the diminutive population of Native Americans will be able to compete in?

North America would become a lawless basketcase and essentially subject to the same forces that disposed the natives in the first place. Only now on an unprecidented scale. Ironically, and unfortunately, the diminished state of native wealth and relative power means the only thing holding them together as anything other than any other random <1% minority group is the US government. Without it and it’s engorcement of treaties there is no scenario where there lot gets better as separate sovereign entities. They would be re-conquered or absorbed or abandoned in short order.

EDIT: missed a page, you did.