[Pants-of-dog]

I think you have real problem with this plan. You are asking the U.S. to honor a treaty with an aboriginal tribe that in many instances acquired the lands in question by force. As an example, is there justice in the U.S. returning ownership of the Black Hills to the Lakota who stole it from the Cheyenne? I don't think signed contracts between thieves means much to the previous victims. Maybe they should ask to see the original deed.

It must be fun to make stuff up like this. In your alternate history, did the Lakota steal it from the Cheyenne when they were allies during the Black Hills War?

[Eran]

Colonial oppression:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11 ... ts-spread/

From what I managed to understand, the dispute is over compensation and assistance in building alternative houses following a sewage flood. Clearly an unfortunate dispute, but "colonial oppression"?

Death from disease:

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheets/aian.htm

To be clear, this isn't communicable disease, but diabetes, due to "modifiable risk factors such as obesity and inactivity".

So the NA are, in effect, dying of their own idleness. And people still think the right solution is to throw more money at them!

Stolen land:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

A local tribe is having a dispute with a municipality over some land the latter wants to use to expand a gulf course.

This is the kind of petty land dispute that should (and was) settled in court. I couldn't find any information explaining the original court decision (against the NA), and without that information, it would be rush to pre-judge the case.

Please note that all my examples are either ongoing or happened within our lifetimes.

So your cherished legal democracy is failing to protect the property rights of an oppressed minority, Hardly shocking. Yet while libertarians are much more likely to side with Aboriginals whose land is being confiscated by government than would be liberal democrats (who routinely support various forms of eminent domain confiscations), you have an issue with us over our attitude towards centuries-old disputes!

Note that my reservations regarding respecting NA claims was focused on ancient disputes and claims, not modern and ongoing ones. Over the latter, I have much more sympathy.

So, despite the fact that there is a greater access to culture, there still more problems associated with reserve life simply due to the extreme poverty.

Yet you seemed to view disconnection with ancestral culture as one cause for poverty.

But then, as you note, they are faced with the task of maintaining their culture by themselves, which is more difficult.

They did that well enough for hundreds of years, living in much greater poverty than they do today.

I realize before 1492, obesity and inactivity weren't major problems. People were more likely to die of starvation and exhaustion.

The chief who is on a hunger strike is doing so partly because the gov't has been so behind in its housing payments that her people have to live in plywood shacks through a northern Canadian winter yet again.

Interesting. Does government routinely pay for housing of people living in that general area?


You seem to be conflating active acts of naked aggression against NA in the past (which we libertarians abhor and reject) with insufficient monetary assistance to an idle and obese community, obsessed with its past, and refusing to take positive action to care for itself in the 21st century.

[Pants-of-dog]

From what I managed to understand, the dispute is over compensation and assistance in building alternative houses following a sewage flood. Clearly an unfortunate dispute, but "colonial oppression"?

That is merely the latest symptom in a long litany of issues. This is why the whole Idle No More campaign is going on.

To be clear, this isn't communicable disease, but diabetes, due to "modifiable risk factors such as obesity and inactivity".

So the NA are, in effect, dying of their own idleness. And people still think the right solution is to throw more money at them!

Rather than insult the victims for their "laziness" please note instead that obesity, diabetes, and other malnutrition issues are symptoms of poverty.

A local tribe is having a dispute with a municipality over some land the latter wants to use to expand a gulf course.

This is the kind of petty land dispute that should (and was) settled in court. I couldn't find any information explaining the original court decision (against the NA), and without that information, it would be rush to pre-judge the case.

I met one of the people involved. Her name is Waneek Horn-Miller. She is an Olympian athlete who won a medal for Canada many years after she was stabbed in the chest by a soldier's bayonet during the crisis. Please note that she was carrying her 4 year old sister on her chest at the time.

This, like the previous links, is merely one symptom of a long series of such actions.

So your cherished legal democracy is failing to protect the property rights of an oppressed minority, Hardly shocking. Yet while libertarians are much more likely to side with Aboriginals whose land is being confiscated by government than would be liberal democrats (who routinely support various forms of eminent domain confiscations), you have an issue with us over our attitude towards centuries-old disputes!

Note that my reservations regarding respecting NA claims was focused on ancient disputes and claims, not modern and ongoing ones. Over the latter, I have much more sympathy.

The "ancient" disputes are still going on.

And I do not believe that libertarians are any more likely to help natives. More likely, libertarians will make rationalisations based on how natives use land, or how long it as been since it was stolen, or simply indulge in racism.

Yet you seemed to view disconnection with ancestral culture as one cause for poverty.

No. Eran, you are the one who assumed that poverty is the problem.

They did that well enough for hundreds of years, living in much greater poverty than they do today.

I realize before 1492, obesity and inactivity weren't major problems. People were more likely to die of starvation and exhaustion.

No offense, Eran, but you do not seem to know much about the subject.

Interesting. Does government routinely pay for housing of people living in that general area?

Government regularly helps white communities to develop housing. They only help native communities when forced to by courts.

You seem to be conflating active acts of naked aggression against NA in the past (which we libertarians abhor and reject) with insufficient monetary assistance to an idle and obese community, obsessed with its past, and refusing to take positive action to care for itself in the 21st century.

And you seem to have gone from discussion of the underlying issues to insulting a group of people who have been marginalised and oppressed for the last 500 years.

Have a pleasant day, Eran.

[MrAnthrope]

It must be fun to make stuff up like this. In your alternate history, did the Lakota steal it from the Cheyenne when they were allies during the Black Hills War?

Sorry, I'm only repeating what numerous historians have made up. But those who were there cannot be assumed unbiased and those who were not there were not there so I won't argue the point. Since your knowledge of the subject seems to be the baseline here, I can do nothing but concede. You're right, I'm wrong.

I will also ignore your ad hominem remark because this is obviously an emotional topic for you. (If you are just an ass, I withdraw this comment.)

Now that that bagatelle is resolved, would you mind explaining why you value the government that produced those injustices over the equities of libertarian principles? You have already explained why the NAP won't work or is inconsequential or leaves a ring around the tub. Do you think you will convince a libertarian to trade principles for majority whim?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry, I'm only repeating what numerous historians have made up.

Oddly enough, the internet seems to have no record that such animosity existed between the Lakota and the Cheyenne. This would make sense since the Cheyenne did not even exist as a group until after Europeans arrived.

But those who were there cannot be assumed unbiased and those who were not there were not there so I won't argue the point. Since your knowledge of the subject seems to be the baseline here, I can do nothing but concede. You're right, I'm wrong.

I will also ignore your ad hominem remark because this is obviously an emotional topic for you. (If you are just an ass, I withdraw this comment.)

An ad hominem is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone says the other person is wrong because of some horrible trait of th eother person.

I never made any insulting remarks about you. Nor did I claim that your argument was wrong because of it.

Now that that bagatelle is resolved, would you mind explaining why you value the government that produced those injustices over the equities of libertarian principles? You have already explained why the NAP won't work or is inconsequential or leaves a ring around the tub. Do you think you will convince a libertarian to trade principles for majority whim?

I don't think that the gov't is really all that much better than the libertarians.

To me, it is simply a different set of rationalisations for taking away their land.

[Eran]

And you seem to have gone from discussion of the underlying issues to insulting a group of people who have been marginalised and oppressed for the last 500 years.

Upon re-reading, I recognise my statement was offensive in a way I didn't intend it to be.

What concerns me is precisely the conflation of genuine oppression (i.e. men with guns driving you out of your home) to bureaucratic neglect (we are not getting as much government support as the white folks).

[Pants-of-dog]

When the level of bureaucratic neglect is so high that the Red Cross has to fly in emergency shelters and provisions, and if that same bureaucratic neglect leads to serious problems in infrastructure and lack of schools and hospitals, if it leads to such serious poverty that drug abuse and alcoholism reach almost epidemic proportions, you don't need guns.

[Eran]

Two comments.

First, I don't understand why neglect leads to poverty. It generally doesn't. I have, throughout my life, been "neglected" by the various governments under which I lived as it comes to shelter and provisions. So have my entire family, and the vast majority of people around me.

What is so different about NAs that they even require emergency shelters and provisions?


Second, in another debate, I argued that minorities may well find themselves neglected by majority-dominated political forces. You objected. Care to review and revise your objection?

[Pants-of-dog]

Two comments.

First, I don't understand why neglect leads to poverty. It generally doesn't. I have, throughout my life, been "neglected" by the various governments under which I lived as it comes to shelter and provisions. So have my entire family, and the vast majority of people around me.

What is so different about NAs that they even require emergency shelters and provisions?

Well, they have had all their land stolen from them and it has yet to be returned.

The monies they promised in return for letting us live here was not given to them, nor has it been.

They were (and arguably still are) the targets of systematic approaches to wiping out their cultures.

Until recently, they were legally second class citizens. They are still unable to legally access social services that the rest of Canadians take for granted.

Basically, four generations we came with guns to take the land, three generations we came with laws to take away their rights, two generations ago we came with schools to take away their children, a generation ago we came with neglect to take away their homes and schools, and this generation we came with laws to take whatever is left.

Now, they rarely come with guns anymore (but as I mentioned when discussing Ms. Horn-Miller, it still happens in our day and age) but most of these oppressions are still happening.

Second, in another debate, I argued that minorities may well find themselves neglected by majority-dominated political forces. You objected. Care to review and revise your objection?

Oddly enough, indigenous groups are probably the only minority in Canada that continue to suffer such persecution. That's not to say that Canada has not, in the past, shoved Japanese and German Canadians into internment camps.

[Eran]

Many groups arrived in the new world with no land, money or ties to their past culture. They have typically been discriminated against, both officially and informally.

Yet most of those groups have flourished, without access to government aid, without being paid for their past lands, without any government assistance at all.

Moreover, statements such as "we came with neglect to take away their homes and schools" puzzle me. How do you "come with neglect"? Don't you mean to say "we left them alone"?

You seem to equate (or at least treat as belonging to the same class) active prosecution (as when men with guns come and force you off your land) with neglect (as when some people don't get as much public support as others), and refer to both as "oppression". Seriously?

[Pants-of-dog]

Many groups arrived in the new world with no land, money or ties to their past culture. They have typically been discriminated against, both officially and informally.

Yet most of those groups have flourished, without access to government aid, without being paid for their past lands, without any government assistance at all.

They have not been oppressed nearly to the same extent.

None of them have, for example, been forcibly relocated to reservations.

None of them have been subjected to laws that only gave them the right to vote if they deliberately acted "white" and gave up their culture.

None of them were subject to the Indian Act, which is exactly a good example of over-regulation that you can use in your debates against me, preventing them from buying and selling goods without the permission of the white Indian Agent.

Moreover, statements such as "we came with neglect to take away their homes and schools" puzzle me. How do you "come with neglect"? Don't you mean to say "we left them alone"?

You seem to equate (or at least treat as belonging to the same class) active prosecution (as when men with guns come and force you off your land) with neglect (as when some people don't get as much public support as others), and refer to both as "oppression". Seriously?

Again, it comes back to the whole landlord/renter agreement: should I leave my landlord alone and stop paying her?

Yes, they are both oppression. If you promise a group adequate housing, and then you make it very difficult for them to get their own, and then you willfully neglect your promises until the housing is such that it presents a danger to the other party, then it is as bad as pointing a gun at them.

Much the same way that if you and I sign a contract and you do your part and I do not, such that I benefit from the arrangement and you do not, I have stolen from you.

[Eran]

I definitely believe the part about the Indian Act. Being answerable to a government agents in your decisions is bound to slow down any attempts to improve your lot.

On the other issues, however, I don't buy.

Do you have any idea how many times Jews have been persecuted, run off their land and houses, been restricted from engaging in various occupations and generally suffered from discrimination?

After centuries of that, they arrive in the New World with the shirts on their backs. They still face discrimination, no government help, no land. They don't know the language and have very little by way of useful skills.

Yet three generations later, they are thriving.

The same story can be told about Chinese, Indian and many other minorities.

None of them were promised (let alone received) ANY payments from the government. Yet they all flourished.

What lesson should one draw from that comparison?

[Kman]

It just occured to me that the biggest conspiracy theorists in western society today are not 9/11 truthers or Alex Jones, it is all the leftists who believe that the reason minorities dont succeed is because of this mythical oppression created by white people. It is a giant vast conspiracy by white people to keep the blacks and indians down, if only this massive conspiracy did not exist the blacks and indians would be just as wealthy as the whites.

[Pants-of-dog]

I definitely believe the part about the Indian Act. Being answerable to a government agents in your decisions is bound to slow down any attempts to improve your lot.

On the other issues, however, I don't buy.

Do you have any idea how many times Jews have been persecuted, run off their land and houses, been restricted from engaging in various occupations and generally suffered from discrimination?

After centuries of that, they arrive in the New World with the shirts on their backs. They still face discrimination, no government help, no land. They don't know the language and have very little by way of useful skills.

Yet three generations later, they are thriving.

The same story can be told about Chinese, Indian and many other minorities.

None of them were promised (let alone received) ANY payments from the government. Yet they all flourished.

What lesson should one draw from that comparison?

That people are unaware of the fact that gov'ts keep oppressing indigenous people far more than they oppress other minority groups?

Jews have been able to vote in Canada since the 1870s. In the 1870s, Metis people were being shoved off their land at gunpoint during the Red River Rebellion.