Should Native Americans receive reparation paychecks?

[Bob Maxey]

Treaties and the law:

I am not so sure treaties cannot be enforced. This idea being offered in this thread that says they can

 

[A.Nonymous]

Treaties and the law:

I am not so sure treaties cannot be enforced. This idea being offered in this thread that says they can

 

[Bob Maxey]

They can be enforced, but only to the extent that there's a 3rd party willing to enforce them.

Cite a source, please

 

[A.Nonymous]

Cite a source, please

I think it just follows logically. Let's say the US signs a treaty with Canada saying it will not dam a certain river. Then it turns around and dams that river. The US is clearly in the wrong. How can Canada force the US to uphold their end of the deal? They can gripe to the US all they want, but the US obviously has no interest in upholding the deal. Now, if they turn to the UN, then they may get somewhere.

Edit: Just realized the other option that Canada has would be to actually go to war with the US and destroy the dam themselves. Obviously that's a less palatable option.

 

[Frisco]

I agree. #122 is poorly written, but absolutely brilliant.

lol .. I meant your post #120, of course. That's why I quoted it earlier.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I think it just follows logically. Let's say the US signs a treaty with Canada saying it will not dam a certain river. Then it turns around and dams that river. The US is clearly in the wrong. How can Canada force the US to uphold their end of the deal? They can gripe to the US all they want, but the US obviously has no interest in upholding the deal. Now, if they turn to the UN, then they may get somewhere.

Edit: Just realized the other option that Canada has would be to actually go to war with the US and destroy the dam themselves. Obviously that's a less palatable option.

We would never mess with Canada. Besides, they had it coming, so there. Smiley.

Leave the UN out of it. They want a few things you will not like. We do not need a World Government. When it arrives, I'll bury Old Glory and cry. No UN, chant it with me, N O U N.

Canadians are likely smart enough to get it in writing, not in treaty form. And I am not a lawyer, so who knows. Anyway, we would never do that to Canada. We can

 

[A.Nonymous]

We would never mess with Canada. Besides, they had it coming, so there. Smiley.

Leave the UN out of it. They want a few things you will not like. We do not need a World Government. When it arrives, I'll bury Old Glory and cry. No UN, chant it with me, N O U N.

Canadians are likely smart enough to get it in writing, not in treaty form. And I am not a lawyer, so who knows. Anyway, we would never do that to Canada. We can

 

[tommy_ed]

You're missing my point. You are arguing that what the feds should've done is go in there with guns drawn and blast the bejesus out of the Native Americans and take their land that way.

you can tell you're really starting to grasp for straws when you have to make up things. i've clearly stated three times now that this isn't what i have been saying, and then went on to explain it to you. rather than explain it again, i'll ask that you go back and re-read the other few times

We have two situations here. In the first situation, historical records clearly describe and delineate where native lands are. The US goes to the natives and signs a treaty they never uphold and steal the land. The natives should be entitled to reparations for this.

In the second situation we have historical records that clearly describe and delineate where native lands are. The US goes in with guns and shoots everyone and takes the land. The natives should NOT be entitled to reparations for this.

no. in the situation your second example describes, there are not specific land boundaries. it would be along the lines of "the natives were in this area and the whites in the other area" no specific boundaries are drawn with which to enforce.

Please show me the legal precedent for the different kinds of treaties. It does not exist. As far as the courts are concerned there is only one kind of treaty.

THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF TREATIES ?

What is a Treaty? - Indian Country Wisconsin\


from the second link:

The United States negotiated several different types of treaties with tribes. Some, such as the 1778 Delaware treaty, were designed to cement alliances between the United States and Indian communities. The United States also made peace treaties with tribes. After the War of 1812, the United States made several treaties with the tribes of the Midwest that had allied with the British against the Americans. The United States also brokered peace treaties between Indian tribes. The 1825 and 1830 treaties negotiated at Prairie du Chien were written to establish peace between warring tribes such as the Ho-chunk, Menominee, Santee Dakota (the Sioux), and the Sauk and Fox.
The most common United States treaties with Indian tribes were for land cessions. The U.S. was required by its own laws to purchase land from the Indians, and they did so using treaties. In these treaties, federal commissioners often used dishonest means to acquire Indian lands as they did with the Ho-chunk in 1837. Even when federal officials did not use deception, they often exerted tremendous pressure on the tribes to give up their lands. Tribes were often impoverished and heavily indebted to fur traders, and the United States often promised large sums of money and offered to pay their debts in exchange for land. Faced with economic hardship and unrelenting pressure, tribes almost always conceded and sold their lands to the United States.

First of all, you're talking about something that is happening right now. If I presented evidence showing that an ancestor of yours with held the rent 150 years ago should I be able to force you to pay that rent today with interest? Of course not. It's over a century in the past.

the major difference between the situation you just described and the native american one is that you're referring to individuals, while this situation refers to two groups, both of them still in existence. not to mention the situation in itself is entirely different

Second of all that lease agreement depends 100% on a 3rd party being willing to enforce it. If you don't pay me I can go to the local authorities, make a claim in small claims court, get a judgement and get my money that way. The validity of that lease is 100% dependent on the local authorities being willing to enforce that lease.

again, different. you're referring to individuals. when two nations form a treaty, there is no third party.

That's my point exactly. Who is the third party here to enforce the treaty?

there isn't one. which shows how much you know about treaties such as these...

 

[tommy_ed]

I think the Indians thought they were dealing with honorable men when they signed these treaties. I also think the government knew the Indians were outnumbered and if the Indians complained and it came time to cross swords, the Indians would suffer greatly.

you're exactly right bob! it's really sad to read about how even after everything, the indians would trust us time and time again. they truly were an honorable civilization. if anyone here hasn't already, then they should really read the book Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee. Phenomenal account of the native american history in the west.

here is it on amazon
.

 

[A.Nonymous]

you can tell you're really starting to grasp for straws when you have to make up things. i've clearly stated three times now that this isn't what i have been saying, and then went on to explain it to you. rather than explain it again, i'll ask that you go back and re-read the other few times

You're ignoring my point. You are arguing that we should offer reparations for documented cases where the feds got Native Americans to sign their land away, but we should not offer reparations for documented cases where the feds killed, maimed and tortured Native Americans to drive them off their land. That seems inconsistent to me.

You argue that the only reason that is is because we have no way of knowing where the land boundaries were before the feds began the killing, maiming and torturing, but that is wrong because..............

no. in the situation your second example describes, there are not specific land boundaries. it would be along the lines of "the natives were in this area and the whites in the other area" no specific boundaries are drawn with which to enforce.

So you mean to tell me that if you wanted to know where Native Americans were living in Oklahoma in 1852 the ONLY source would be legal documents and land surveys? 'Cuz that is not even close to being accurate. There are hundreds and thousands of newspaper articles, journals, diaries, etc..... that clearly document exactly where the Native Americans were living at any given time. You could very, very, very clearly delineate from historical records EXACTLY what land was taken by force right down to just a few feet. Would take very, very little work at all for a trained historian.

the major difference between the situation you just described and the native american one is that you're referring to individuals, while this situation refers to two groups, both of them still in existence. not to mention the situation in itself is entirely different

Again, you are incorrect. Please look at contract law. The same principles that govern contract law between individuals are the exact same principles that govern contract law between companies, between states/provinces and between countries. Currently the state of Colorado is in a bickering match with my state over water rights along their shared border. There are lots of contracts involved and both sides allege the other is screwing them. Who will settle this dispute? A 3rd party. In this case the federal government and the federal courts. Those contracts are 100% legally binding because the Federal Government of the United States is willing to enforce them and adjudicate disputes as well.

again, different. you're referring to individuals. when two nations form a treaty, there is no third party.

Again, the same principles apply. Why does the UN exist? It is a 3rd party that can resolve disputes amongst member nations. There are other reasons of course, but that is one of the primary ones.

there isn't one. which shows how much you know about treaties such as these...

Your expertise on treaty law is based on what?

There always must be a 3rd party to enforce any agreement. It's a basic legal principle.

 

[tommy_ed]

You're ignoring my point. You are arguing that we should offer reparations for documented cases where the feds got Native Americans to sign their land away, but we should not offer reparations for documented cases where the feds killed, maimed and tortured Native Americans to drive them off their land. That seems inconsistent to me.

You argue that the only reason that is is because we have no way of knowing where the land boundaries were before the feds began the killing, maiming and torturing, but that is wrong because..............

sigh... im saying the type of reparation i've been talking about (giving them the land which was agreed to be theirs back) can't be done in that manner. the way you're describing their land being taken is ironically demonstrating how little you know on the subject.-
First of all, 80% of the time we didn't "kill, maim, and torture native americans to drive them off their land"... what almost always happened was this: the natives would be living in a certain area. a few white people would see this area and think "hey, this would be a great place to live" and build a cabin. then a couple more people would build a cabin. the indians would at this point either A. - simply move to another location (most of them thought there was plenty of land for all people to live in, which was why they didn't understand how valuable the land was to us) or B- attack the settlers, resulting in a militia attack, years of war, and then usually a peace treaty (not always a land treaty).. you see in those situations, there was never a specific land boundary. the reason i don't think reparations would word in those situations is because of the exact same thing you argued - the people whose families were maimed, killed, etc. aren't alive anymore. The only way you could say they are still being effected today is to say that they don't own the land anymore, BUT there's no way of proving which land they should be entitled to. In LAND cessession treaties however (remember, there are different types of treaties ) there are specific boundaries, and both parties saying that the natives own said piece of land.

Again, you are incorrect. Please look at contract law. The same principles that govern contract law between individuals are the exact same principles that govern contract law between companies, between states/provinces and between countries. Currently the state of Colorado is in a bickering match with my state over water rights along their shared border.

we're not talking about companies we're talking about nations. there is no "world police" to act as a third party. and don't mention NATO because im pretttttty sure they didn't exist in the 17-1800s

Your expertise on treaty law is based on what?

the years of reading i've done on the native american history with the U.S. government. read up on it, you'll learn a lot about treaties.

There always must be a 3rd party to enforce any agreement. It's a basic legal principle.

not a treaty between two nations.

 

[A.Nonymous]

sigh... im saying the type of reparation i've been talking about (giving them the land which was agreed to be theirs back) can't be done in that manner. the way you're describing their land being taken is ironically demonstrating how little you know on the subject.-
First of all, 80% of the time we didn't "kill, maim, and torture native americans to drive them off their land"... what almost always happened was this: the natives would be living in a certain area. a few white people would see this area and think "hey, this would be a great place to live" and build a cabin. then a couple more people would build a cabin. the indians would at this point either A. - simply move to another location (most of them thought there was plenty of land for all people to live in, which was why they didn't understand how valuable the land was to us) or B- attack the settlers, resulting in a militia attack, years of war, and then usually a peace treaty (not always a land treaty).. you see in those situations, there was never a specific land boundary. the reason i don't think reparations would word in those situations is because of the exact same thing you argued - the people whose families were maimed, killed, etc. aren't alive anymore. The only way you could say they are still being effected today is to say that they don't own the land anymore, BUT there's no way of proving which land they should be entitled to. In LAND cessession treaties however (remember, there are different types of treaties ) there are specific boundaries, and both parties saying that the natives own said piece of land.

Please, please, please, please double check your history. It is very well documented that Native Americans were forceably driven off their lands many, many times. There is tons of historical evidence out there documenting exactly where Native Americans lived at any given time. It would not be very difficult at all to draw up a map of exactly where Native Americans were living at any given time. Not hard at all. But that information is apparently irrelevant to this argument for some reason. I could very easily prove that as of Dec 18th, 1823 Native Americans lived on XYZ patch of land. Very, very easy to prove. But irrelevant apparently because that land was not taken from them by treaty. The white man crowding them out doesn't count. Feds forceably throwing them out doesn't count. Swindling them through treaties we never intended to abide to does count.

It's interesting that you argue that the Native Americans who were killed wouldn't get reparations in the first place because they weren't alive any more. Nice argument.

we're not talking about companies we're talking about nations. there is no "world police" to act as a third party. and don't mention NATO because im pretttttty sure they didn't exist in the 17-1800s

Um, ever heard of the UN?

the years of reading i've done on the native american history with the U.S. government. read up on it, you'll learn a lot about treaties.

So let's say I agree to buy a piece of land from you. I move on to that land and set up residence. I build a house. I start living there. I never pay you a dime. I'm in clear breach of our agreement and there can be no question about it. What will you do to to get your money? Remember, there are no 3rd parties you can appeal to as 3rd parties have no place in contract law according to you.

not a treaty between two nations.

Can you cite the legal precedence for this? The UN regularly mediates treaty disputes between nations. They're not a 3rd party in those situations?

Side note - Please do Bob and I a favor and don't attribute my comments to him. The poor guy has a hard enough time trying to defend the stuff he does say without having to defend the stuff he doesn't say. Also, I'm not entirely sure I want my comments associated with him.

 

[tommy_ed]

Please, please, please, please double check your history. It is very well documented that Native Americans were forceably driven off their lands many, many times. There is tons of historical evidence out there documenting exactly where Native Americans lived at any given time. It would not be very difficult at all to draw up a map of exactly where Native Americans were living at any given time. Not hard at all. But that information is apparently irrelevant to this argument for some reason. I could very easily prove that as of Dec 18th, 1823 Native Americans lived on XYZ patch of land. Very, very easy to prove. But irrelevant apparently because that land was not taken from them by treaty. The white man crowding them out doesn't count. Feds forceably throwing them out doesn't count. Swindling them through treaties we never intended to abide to does count.

yes i know they were forceably driven off their lands plenty of times, but you've been acting like that was the case every time. in the scenario you depict, it would be impossible to discern what tribes should be given what land, as most of the situations you refer to entail multiple sects, tribes, etc., most of which didn't consider the said land as their homelands even at the time. as ive mentioned multiple times, they believed the land was big enough for all, and didn't agree with the concept of owning until they realized they must abide by our rules in order to keep lands. for the last damn time i never said it doesn't "count" i said theres no way to prove that both parties agreed to ownership, which would be the only thing that could hold up in court. let me reiterate since you seem to skim a lot: I DON'T THINK IT'S OKAY. IF THERE WAS A LEGAL WAY TO DISCERN WHO'S LAND WAS WHO'S, THEN IT WOULD APPLY. but good luck tracking down the chalogawtha sect of the shawnee tribe today. see what i mean?

the reason it's important for both parties to agree is because you and i both know the only way the government is going to admit they are at fault is if there's a signed written agreement by them stating one thing, and then there is proof that they didn't follow through. its the sad truth...i believe they should be able to get reparation for the situations where they were driven off lands, but i don't think it will ever happen. and that makes me upset, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

It's interesting that you argue that the Native Americans who were killed wouldn't get reparations in the first place because they weren't alive any more. Nice argument.

there you are twisting my words around again. i said:

the reason i don't think reparations would word in those situations is because of the exact same thing you argued - the people whose families were maimed, killed, etc. aren't alive anymore.

in other words, the descendants of those people arent currently being effected by those acts. you do realize this was the EXACT point you made earlier, right?

Um, ever heard of the UN?

as i mentioned (and you apparently ignored), they weren't around in the 17-1800s.

So let's say I agree to buy a piece of land from you. I move on to that land and set up residence. I build a house. I start living there. I never pay you a dime. I'm in clear breach of our agreement and there can be no question about it. What will you do to to get your money? Remember, there are no 3rd parties you can appeal to as 3rd parties have no place in contract law according to you.

ok. you have to stop this. you're simply ignoring my points and making up things in order to construct an argument. as i stated earlier (this redundancy is getting to be unbelievable, you really need to start either reading through my posts or stop ignoring parts) this type of treaty is between two nations, not two individuals. two individuals are bound by the laws of the nation in which they reside. two nations don't abide by anyone but their own agreement. in other words, that situation is irrelevant.

Side note - Please do Bob and I a favor and don't attribute my comments to him. The poor guy has a hard enough time trying to defend the stuff he does say without having to defend the stuff he doesn't say. Also, I'm not entirely sure I want my comments associated with him.

haha sorry just noticed that one. copied the wrong tag!


now can you do me a favor, and instead of reading this for the sake of arguing, just read it. read it for the sake of the actual discussion and not just to look for a way to twist my words around. neither of us are going to convince the other one, so there's no point in continuing this battle.
it's gotten to the point where you're disagreeing with me on anything. I know this because earlier you've made points that you are now arguing against simply because i've agreed with them. (i.e., someones descendant receiving reparations because of a murdered family member.)
you continually disregard or ignore certain parts of my statements in order to make another argument or example, and im starting to think it's being done purposely.
so please dude, let's just take a breath and get back to actually discussing the issue rather than simply trying to prove each other wrong for the sake of doing it

 

[A.Nonymous]

yes i know they were forceably driven off their lands plenty of times, but you've been acting like that was the case every time. in the scenario you depict, it would be impossible to discern what tribes should be given what land, as most of the situations you refer to entail multiple sects, tribes, etc., most of which didn't consider the said land as their homelands even at the time. as ive mentioned multiple times, they believed the land was big enough for all, and didn't agree with the concept of owning until they realized they must abide by our rules in order to keep lands. for the last damn time i never said it doesn't "count" i said theres no way to prove that both parties agreed to ownership, which would be the only thing that could hold up in court. let me reiterate since you seem to skim a lot: I DON'T THINK IT'S OKAY. IF THERE WAS A LEGAL WAY TO DISCERN WHO'S LAND WAS WHO'S, THEN IT WOULD APPLY. but good luck tracking down the chalogawtha sect of the shawnee tribe today. see what i mean?

It would be very, very easy to track down exactly what land was owned by the Chalogawtha sect of the Shawnee tribe. It would be no easier or harder to track down their descendents than it would be to track down the descendents of any tribe.

the reason it's important for both parties to agree is because you and i both know the only way the government is going to admit they are at fault is if there's a signed written agreement by them stating one thing, and then there is proof that they didn't follow through. its the sad truth...i believe they should be able to get reparation for the situations where they were driven off lands, but i don't think it will ever happen. and that makes me upset, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

Why are written agreements more valuable as historical records than anything else?

as i mentioned (and you apparently ignored), they weren't around in the 17-1800s.

Which is EXACTLY my point. The treaties are worthless as there is no 3rd party has any interest in enforcing them and the parties involved have no interest in honoring them.

ok. you have to stop this. you're simply ignoring my points and making up things in order to construct an argument. as i stated earlier (this redundancy is getting to be unbelievable, you really need to start either reading through my posts or stop ignoring parts) this type of treaty is between two nations, not two individuals. two individuals are bound by the laws of the nation in which they reside. two nations don't abide by anyone but their own agreement. in other words, that situation is irrelevant.

No, it's not. It's exactly the same. The legal principles that govern contracts between two individuals are IDENTICAL to the legal principles that govern contracts between two countries. If I am wrong, please link me to the legal precedent.

Let's go back to a previous example I used. Let's say the US and Canada sign a treaty where the US agrees to not dam a certain river so as not to affect Canadian agriculture in the area. The US welshes on the deal and dams the river. The US is clearly in the wrong. Where does Canada go to get the US to honor it's treaty?

now can you do me a favor, and instead of reading this for the sake of arguing, just read it. read it for the sake of the actual discussion and not just to look for a way to twist my words around. neither of us are going to convince the other one, so there's no point in continuing this battle.
it's gotten to the point where you're disagreeing with me on anything. I know this because earlier you've made points that you are now arguing against simply because i've agreed with them. (i.e., someones descendant receiving reparations because of a murdered family member.)

Please show me a case where a descendant has received reparations from the family of their relatives killer. To my knowledge that has never happened, nor would I support it if I did. If that has happened, please link me to the articles about it. If I've said I would support that, then please link me to the post where I said that. Please cite the posts where I've agreed with you and then turned aground and disagreed. I have a hard enough time defending the things I do say without being accused of saying things that I haven't.

you continually disregard or ignore certain parts of my statements in order to make another argument or example, and im starting to think it's being done purposely.
so please dude, let's just take a breath and get back to actually discussing the issue rather than simply trying to prove each other wrong for the sake of doing it

What am I ignoring? I'm pointing out that legally there are HUGE issues with enforcing contracts that happened over a century ago and where the more powerful party in the contract has no interest in abiding by them. I pointed out the GIGANTIC problem of actually paying the reparations out to people. I pointed out that there is NO 3rd party to enforce the contracts and that is absolutely needed in any contract. If there is no one to enforce the contract then any reparations are completely moot. In order to get damages in contract law you must have a breach, damages done because of the breach and a 3rd party that has the authority and ability to award said damages to the wronged party. But you claim that this legal principle does not apply on an international level. I'm now extremely curious why it does not. Please address several points for me.

1. If a 3rd party is not needed in an international contract, where is the precedent for this? Who mediates disputes on an international basis. You say you know contract law and I'm in no place to dispute your claim. Can you point me to the legal precedent or any legal case that establishes that international contract law is completely and totally different from individual contract law?

2. How do you propose to pay out said reparations? Who is going to pay them and who is going to receive them given that the guilty parties are long since dead and the wronged parties are long since dead.

I'd be happy with answers to either of these questions.

 

[tommy_ed]

It would be very, very easy to track down exactly what land was owned by the Chalogawtha sect of the Shawnee tribe. It would be no easier or harder to track down their descendents than it would be to track down the descendents of any tribe.

actually it wouldn't. do you know how many different places these tribes lived in in the ohio/kentucky country? which land would we be referring to as theirs? the land they were living to in 1767 or the land they were living on in 1812? which sects would be given what lands? what about when certain sects were formed on one plot of land and later split, who gets that land? see what i mean here, it would be impossible.

Why are written agreements more valuable as historical records than anything else?

because nothing else would hold up in court for these specific cases. you have to remember who the defendant it. the united states government. you can't go at the government with a couple diary entries and expect to win.

Which is EXACTLY my point. The treaties are worthless as there is no 3rd party has any interest in enforcing them and the parties involved have no interest in honoring them.

so by this reasoning, you're saying that no treaty/agreement/contract of any kind for any reason was valid before 1945 (this is when the UN was formed) and furthermore, that any treaty between nations not under the control of the UN or a similar organization are not valid???

No, it's not. It's exactly the same. The legal principles that govern contracts between two individuals are IDENTICAL to the legal principles that govern contracts between two countries. If I am wrong, please link me to the legal precedent.

the difference is this:
an agreement between two individuals is always bound by the country in which they reside. in other words, the agreement they make will always be based upon these laws. (legal precedence)if there is a disagreement, this is settled by the third party (yes, notice the difference here. in an agreement between two individuals there is always a 3rd party).

an agreement between two countries isnt the point, but rather an agreement between two sovereign nations, more specifically the US and the natives. in this case, there is no common law to abide by, (no solid legal precedence) so the agreement is formed in a specific way for the individual case. the problem here is there is no mediating, or 3rd party. once thing you have to remember is that this is a very unique case. mainly because one of the sovereign nations, while still existing, has for the most part been enveloped into the other. most native americans are now tax paying US citizens, but at the same time are still a member of their tribe.

different.

Let's go back to a previous example I used. Let's say the US and Canada sign a treaty where the US agrees to not dam a certain river so as not to affect Canadian agriculture in the area. The US welshes on the deal and dams the river. The US is clearly in the wrong. Where does Canada go to get the US to honor it's treaty?

first of all, lets use an example that would mirror the N.A. scenario. because this doesn't really apply to land being agreed to belong to one nation/another. So let's say this:
Let's say the US and Canada are arguing over a tract of land. They sit down and sign an agreement saying "land plot A" (previously belonging to canada) is to be sold to the United States for X amount of dollars, and the current citizens are to relocate to "Land plot B", where they will be required to live off of a monthly salary distributed by the US (and are not allowed to work for their own money). So to sum it up, Canada sells plot A for $, those ppl move to plot B and all is well, as long as the US pays them their monthly salary. NOW let's say the US stops paying this salary, forcing the Canadians on this land to do something. Who do they go to? There is no one in this situation. So they go to war. Canada loses. Now fast forward years later, the US makes the canadians all US citizens. They are now bound by the laws of the US. so doesn't this mean those same laws would bound the US to abide by its treaty, therefore giving them the land it was agreed they would own?

apparently i'm right. the United States Supreme Court agrees with me anyway...i would say they would kno more about it than either of us...

Please show me a case where a descendant has received reparations from the family of their relatives killer. To my knowledge that has never happened, nor would I support it if I did. If that has happened, please link me to the articles about it. If I've said I would support that, then please link me to the post where I said that. Please cite the posts where I've agreed with you and then turned aground and disagreed. I have a hard enough time defending the things I do say without being accused of saying things that I haven't.

This:

If you're dead and my family is dead shall we toss your kid in jail for the crime? Or perhaps your kid should pay me some sort of reparations?

then later this:

It's interesting that you argue that the Native Americans who were killed wouldn't get reparations in the first place because they weren't alive any more. Nice argument.

i already explained in the last response that the latter comment was a reply to a misconstrued statement (i was referring to the descendants of those wronged, who are not effected by the crime)
but i was referring to the fact that you at first said the exact same thing, that someone shouldn't receive reparations for a family member who was murdered years ago, but then in that last response you say "nice argument", ironically in response to me saying pretty much the same thing you did, that no one should receive reparations for someone who was killed years ago.

What am I ignoring?

click below and ill show you.

Spoiler

So I have done wrong by legally purchasing a home in an area I choose to live in? I did not defraud anyone. I did not defame anyone.

why do you keep assuming im saying you "did" something?? im saying they would own the land it was agreed they should own

Ok. I did nothing wrong. I committed no crime. Why should I pay a penalty when I've done nothing wrong?

they are paying land taxes just like you pay to the federal gvt. no one is saying you are paying them because of wrongs done to them.

or

then your city does not apply to this situation. like i said earlier, the natives didn't consider all of the land to be theirs. at a certain point they realized that in order to keep land for themselves they would have to abide by the white man's terms. thus, the necessity of a signed treaty.

no. in those there are no specific contracts detailing the land's boders, acreage. etc. and there is no signed agreement of ownership.

So, by your logic, the US should not have tried to swindle them out of their land by signing contracts that they had no intention to uphold. Instead they should've come in with guns and forced them to leave their land. Then it's ok and we would not even be having the reparations discussion.

notttt sure how you got that out of what i've been saying. i'm saying we should have honored the signed agreements in the first place...

If, 200 years ago, we grabbed guns and horses and violently threw Native Americans off land they had lived on for centuries and burned their homes and belongings in the process, that's ok.

please quote where i said that was okay? i didn't. i simply said there's nothing that would hold up in court if there's no signed documents.

There are eyewitness accounts, news stories, diaries, etc.... If it was a court case it would be a slam dunk to prove that the white man illegally forced the Native Americans off their lands at gunpoint and arguably committed war crimes in the process
But since the Native Americans didn't agree to have their women raped, their homes burned and their land taken, it's legally ok.

yea it would be an easily made case that people were unlawfully and immorally removed from their homes, the problem is that there is no proof of exactly what land belongs to who.

we came in, raped their women, killed their children, maimed their men and forced them to leave, but since we never legally acknowledged on paper that the Native Americans owned the land it's ok.

let's not forget a couple posts earlier where i had said:

please quote where i said that was okay? i didn't. i simply said there's nothing that would hold up in court if there's no signed documents.

so i follow with:

where did i say it was okay? where did i say it wasn't illegal?i said the opposite on both counts actually. the only point i made was that there are no documents stating the specific land boundaries, therefore there is nothing that can be done legally.

You are arguing that what the feds should've done is go in there with guns drawn and blast the bejesus out of the Native Americans and take their land that way. That is what should've happened. Instead they signed treaties that they didn't even bother to uphold.

i've clearly stated three times now that this isn't what i have been saying, and then went on to explain it to you. rather than explain it again, i'll ask that you go back and re-read the other few times

You are arguing that we should offer reparations for documented cases where the feds got Native Americans to sign their land away, but we should not offer reparations for documented cases where the feds killed, maimed and tortured Native Americans to drive them off their land.

The only way you could say they are still being effected today is to say that they don't own the land anymore, BUT there's no way of proving which land they should be entitled to. In LAND cessession treaties however (remember, there are different types of treaties ) there are specific boundaries, and both parties saying that the natives own said piece of land.

do you see how many times i made a point, you ignored it, then i had to go back and repeat myself with pretty much the same point. or you played dumb, acting like you didn't understand, and making me explain every little detail so you could try to find a point to counter-argue with? it gets pretty old...

1. If a 3rd party is not needed in an international contract, where is the precedent for this? Who mediates disputes on an international basis. You say you know contract law and I'm in no place to dispute your claim. Can you point me to the legal precedent or any legal case that establishes that international contract law is completely and totally different from individual contract law?

your problem is that your confusing current methods with the 17-1800s. Treaties between the US and native american tribes are different than a modern day international contract or agreement. for one thing, there is no mediator, such as the UN. It's up to the two agreeing parties to hash things out. That's just the way it was back then. (surprised you don't know that). So do you want me to demonstrate cases showing you how American Indian/US Gvt treaties are different than me selling you my house today???? because i would think you would understand there's gonna be some differences there...

2. How do you propose to pay out said reparations? Who is going to pay them and who is going to receive them given that the guilty parties are long since dead and the wronged parties are long since dead.

I'd be happy with answers to either of these questions.

i never once said they should receive money. in fact i said, they shouldn't receive money. and i've already told you that MULTIPLE TIMES. im about to honorably bow out of this debate if you don't start paying attention. it's frustrating to have to reiterate things to no foreseeable end.

 

[andywarno]

Well they already receive tens of thousands of dollars apiece in the form of free college educations. If one can prove that they are at least 25% Native American that is.

But IMO, of course they shouldn't receive anything. The land didn't belong to anybody; neither European nor native.

I've never understood this debate. Under whose authority did any of the world's land belong to anybody? In this world, what's yours is yours only if you're able to fight for it and keep it. It's very simple. And I never understood the naive notion that all the native people wanted to do was be friends and show the settlers how to grow corn by putting fish on the ground. No, some of the things we did (like the trail of tears) weren't very nice, but one must remember: they fought EACHOTHER. Both factions initiated conflicts of all sorts, and over all kinds of things, and in the end, the Europeans came out on top.

Perhaps we should take a tip from history and heed the dangers of letting massive groups of other cultures take as they please without giving back culturally, socially, or economically. And yes, I'm looking at you lllegal Mexican immigrants.

 

[Frisco]

Well they already receive tens of thousands of dollars apiece in the form of free college educations. If one can prove that they are at least 25% Native American that is.

But IMO, of course they shouldn't receive anything. The land didn't belong to anybody; neither European nor native.

I've never understood this debate. Under whose authority did any of the world's land belong to anybody? In this world, what's yours is yours only if you're able to fight for it and keep it. It's very simple. And I never understood the naive notion that all the native people wanted to do was be friends and show the settlers how to grow corn by putting fish on the ground. No, some of the things we did (like the trail of tears) weren't very nice, but one must remember: they fought EACHOTHER. Both factions initiated conflicts of all sorts, and over all kinds of things, and in the end, the Europeans came out on top.

Perhaps we should take a tip from history and heed the dangers of letting massive groups of other cultures take as they please without giving back culturally, socially, or economically. And yes, I'm looking at you lllegal Mexican immigrants.

You brush close to a point I've heard some Native Americans make, about what we (and modern Native Americans) call "land." That notion was, according to some Native Americans, not understood by them during European's first contact with them. Over time they came to see what the (mostly) white people were driving at: that the Earth, the thing that brings forth and nurtures those who allow it to and work with it, can be seen by some as a sort of jigsaw puzzle of territories and places where this or that group of people say they "own" it the same way they say they might own a horse, plow or butter churn.

"Owning" the Earth, or portions thereof, was as strange to them as saying they "owned" the sky.

But there were tribes on this continent who felt that for the betterment of their clan they needed to spawn warriors, mostly the best hunters in the early days, who would try to drive off any not in that clan. As with all population mixes around the planet, no tribal behavior along those lines of aggression or lack thereof was common to all of them. Pueblo Indians were one way and Apaches were another way.

But we wiped out all of their cultures, one by one, over the course of about three hundred years.

Yes, that same thing happened in varying degrees when the Romans invaded and conquered areas of Europe, and it happened when this or that dynasty established itself in Asia, etc.

But the United States professed at its inception, at its beginning, that it was going to be different here. There was some idealism having to do with freedom for all, equality for all, etc. What was left to do was actually come around to admitting, once it was too late, that the natives here (and the blacks "imported" from Africa) were just has human with exactly the same heart and soul structure that any European had, and that yes, we messed up and need to try our best to help them heal.

 

[A.Nonymous]

actually it wouldn't. do you know how many different places these tribes lived in in the ohio/kentucky country? which land would we be referring to as theirs? the land they were living to in 1767 or the land they were living on in 1812? which sects would be given what lands? what about when certain sects were formed on one plot of land and later split, who gets that land? see what i mean here, it would be impossible.

Actually it would be very, very, very easy to determine that on June 4th, 1857 the feds threw the Native Americans off their land. It would be very easy to determine exactly what land the natives were on before they were forceably evicted. Would be very, very easy. It would be just as easy to determine what lands were seized by violent methods as it would be to determine which lands were seized by bogus treaties.

because nothing else would hold up in court for these specific cases. you have to remember who the defendant it. the united states government. you can't go at the government with a couple diary entries and expect to win.

You base this on what legal precedent? Diary entries, newspaper articles, journals, interviews, etc..... are all legally considered to be eyewitness testimony. There are well established legal guidelines and precedents concerning the usage of all of these things in court. You can easily establish a case based on all of these things.

so by this reasoning, you're saying that no treaty/agreement/contract of any kind for any reason was valid before 1945 (this is when the UN was formed) and furthermore, that any treaty between nations not under the control of the UN or a similar organization are not valid???

I'm saying (as I've said a million times before) that a treaty is ONLY valid as long as both parties agree to it or a 3rd party is willing to enforce it. This is a legal principle that is long established in common law.

Countries have made treaties and agreements for centuries. Precedent has long been established. The lack of a 3rd party to enforce an international contract has been an issue every since countries were formed. You will find numerous examples in history of treaty violations and the wronged party then appealed to other countries to come to their aid.

an agreement between two countries isnt the point, but rather an agreement between two sovereign nations, more specifically the US and the natives. in this case, there is no common law to abide by, (no solid legal precedence) so the agreement is formed in a specific way for the individual case. the problem here is there is no mediating, or 3rd party. once thing you have to remember is that this is a very unique case. mainly because one of the sovereign nations, while still existing, has for the most part been enveloped into the other. most native americans are now tax paying US citizens, but at the same time are still a member of their tribe.

What legal precedent do you base this argument on? You are arguing that established precedents and traditions governing international contracts do not apply here. What legal precedent are you basing this argument on? I spent a summer studying legal theory when I was planning on becoming a lawyer. I'm extremely interested in the legal theory and precedent behind your argument here.

In the case here we have one party who does not want to honor the agreement. The other party does not have the power to enforce the agreement. There is no 3rd party to enforce the agreement. From a legal perspective, the agreement is therefore invalid.

Please, please, please, please, please give me the legal precedent for your argument here. I have asked several times. You're claiming that precedent from treaty law does not apply. Based on what?

first of all, lets use an example that would mirror the N.A. scenario. because this doesn't really apply to land being agreed to belong to one nation/another. So let's say this:
Let's say the US and Canada are arguing over a tract of land. They sit down and sign an agreement saying "land plot A" (previously belonging to canada) is to be sold to the United States for X amount of dollars, and the current citizens are to relocate to "Land plot B", where they will be required to live off of a monthly salary distributed by the US (and are not allowed to work for their own money). So to sum it up, Canada sells plot A for $, those ppl move to plot B and all is well, as long as the US pays them their monthly salary. NOW let's say the US stops paying this salary, forcing the Canadians on this land to do something. Who do they go to? There is no one in this situation. So they go to war. Canada loses. Now fast forward years later, the US makes the canadians all US citizens. They are now bound by the laws of the US. so doesn't this mean those same laws would bound the US to abide by its treaty, therefore giving them the land it was agreed they would own?

No. Not in the least. The contract was violated. Canada went to war to enforce the contract. They lost. The contract is therefore invalid. It's really not all that different than if they had appealed to the UN and lost the appeal.

apparently i'm right. the United States Supreme Court agrees with me anyway...i would say they would kno more about it than either of us...

The US Supreme Court is a third party who is enforcing the contract.

This:


then later this:

Are you really going to take what is clearly sarcasm and construe that as an argument? Really?

i already explained in the last response that the latter comment was a reply to a misconstrued statement (i was referring to the descendants of those wronged, who are not effected by the crime)
but i was referring to the fact that you at first said the exact same thing, that someone shouldn't receive reparations for a family member who was murdered years ago, but then in that last response you say "nice argument", ironically in response to me saying pretty much the same thing you did, that no one should receive reparations for someone who was killed years ago.

So, no one should receive reparations for someone who was killed years ago. However people should receive reparations for property that was stolen years ago. Makes sense to me. (BTW, that was sarcasm.)

click below and ill show you.

Please re-read that and look at all the sarcasm and stuff taken out of context.

your problem is that your confusing current methods with the 17-1800s. Treaties between the US and native american tribes are different than a modern day international contract or agreement. for one thing, there is no mediator, such as the UN. It's up to the two agreeing parties to hash things out. That's just the way it was back then. (surprised you don't know that). So do you want me to demonstrate cases showing you how American Indian/US Gvt treaties are different than me selling you my house today???? because i would think you would understand there's gonna be some differences there...

Treaties between countries are not new. Common law is not new. Laws governing international treaties are not new. And yes, I would like to see a precedent that says that contracts signed between the US and Native Americans are not bound by the same common law principles that bind any other contract. Legally speaking there are no differences. Contract law is contract law.

i never once said they should receive money. in fact i said, they shouldn't receive money. and i've already told you that MULTIPLE TIMES. im about to honorably bow out of this debate if you don't start paying attention. it's frustrating to have to reiterate things to no foreseeable end.

Fine. What should they receive? What should we give them?

 

[A.Nonymous]

But the United States professed at its inception, at its beginning, that it was going to be different here. There was some idealism having to do with freedom for all, equality for all, etc. What was left to do was actually come around to admitting, once it was too late, that the natives here (and the blacks "imported" from Africa) were just has human with exactly the same heart and soul structure that any European had, and that yes, we messed up and need to try our best to help them heal.

The offense in question happened several hundred years ago. There's no question it was wrong. Isn't the best way to heal not go back and pick over and revisit old wounds? Isn't it best to just move forward?

 

[Frisco]

The offense in question happened several hundred years ago. There's no question it was wrong. Isn't the best way to heal not go back and pick over and revisit old wounds? Isn't it best to just move forward?

If we're to use "wounds" as an analogy: It depends on the wounds, of course. In the case of scarred over wounds, such as those suffered by (mostly white) pioneers as they pushed through wilderness, battled disease, rogue citizens with guns, lawlessness and the elements themselves, yes, you're correct; we must move on, and we have.

But if the wound is still open and bleeding, no, we can't move on, we must begin a healing process. To continue the analogy with regard to Native Americans, all we've done is allow gangrene to set in; just look at the situation on those reservations (bringing up the casinos on some doesn't work in this discussion because that money is horded by a few.. we need to completely revamp the system that allows that).

 

[tommy_ed]

A. Nonymous, i can tell our argument is going to continue to go nowhere, and i'm going to respecfully bow out. I'm not admitting you're right, and I'm not proclaiming that I'm right either. I'm just tired of a debate with you that's going nowhere. Too many things repeatedly taken out of context and ignored, and to be frank I'm sick of repeating and having to explain each and every point when I know you understand what I'm saying in the first place. Don't ask for examples, because I've already shown them to you.

Nice having a discussion with you, and I'll see ya around the forums

 

[Frisco]

A. Nonymous, i can tell our argument is going to continue to go nowhere, and i'm going to respecfully bow out. I'm not admitting you're right, and I'm not proclaiming that I'm right either. I'm just tired of a debate with you that's going nowhere. Too many things repeatedly taken out of context and ignored, and to be frank I'm sick of repeating and having to explain each and every point when I know you understand what I'm saying in the first place. Don't ask for examples, because I've already shown them to you.

Nice having a discussion with you, and I'll see ya around the forums

Great point in time to end the thread: