[Eran]

You are "stressing" the NAP under a set of circumstances that would challenge any legal framework.

Clearly, liberal government-imposed legal framework hasn't benefited NA to the extent you seem to advocate.

As I pointed above, historic injustices are inherently difficult to resolve. The difficulty of resolving them grows with time. This is a fact that applies to all legal/justice systems.

Beyond a certain point, even a theoretical restoration of rights (or restitution of past wrong-doing) becomes impossible, as the examples of the Bantu Expansion and the Anglo-Saxon occupation of Britain clearly illustrate.

To view the difficulty of an NAP-based justice system to deal with historic injustices as in any way peculiar or indicative of dishonesty by its adherents is disingenuous.

[Pants-of-dog]

....

To view the difficulty of an NAP-based justice system to deal with historic injustices as in any way peculiar or indicative of dishonesty by its adherents is disingenuous.

You are correct in that all legal systems will screw over minority communities. I just found it amusing that a system that supports property rights as more important than anything else would still ignore the property rights of minority communities.

[Eran]

The issue isn't ignoring the property rights of minorities, but rather addressing the violations after several centuries have passed.

Libertarian literature (e.g. Rothbard on both Native Americans and Palestinians) treats European displacement of natives as criminal. In the context of contemporary American liberal thought, while the treatment of Native Americans is also typically considered criminal, that of Palestinians is much more ambiguous.

It is easy to suspect liberals as disingenuous, as none, to my knowledge, seriously propose a program of comprehensive restoration of lands to Native Americans.


The difference between us isn't so much regarding the characterisation of the original treatment of NA by whites, but rather the identification of the relevant aggrieved unit. I suspect you think of the relevant unit as the community or tribe. The lands belonged to the tribe. The tribe exhibited continuous existence. The tribe deserves its lands back.

I, on the other hand, think of the relevant unit as individuals, even if, at the time, those individuals pooled their ownership rights into an undifferentiated whole. It was individual NA persons who were the subject of criminal activities. Those individuals are no longer alive. And while their descendants are alive today, the moral and legal link between the ancestors and their contemporary descendants is much less clear.

[Pants-of-dog]

The issue isn't ignoring the property rights of minorities, but rather addressing the violations after several centuries have passed.

Libertarian literature (e.g. Rothbard on both Native Americans and Palestinians) treats European displacement of natives as criminal. In the context of contemporary American liberal thought, while the treatment of Native Americans is also typically considered criminal, that of Palestinians is much more ambiguous.

But not so criminal that anyone should actually have to pay for it.

It is easy to suspect liberals as disingenuous, as none, to my knowledge, seriously propose a program of comprehensive restoration of lands to Native Americans.

I support a plan wherein the gov'ts of North America respect the treaty rights and obligations that are part of the signed contracts between the different nations. Even the natives themselves realise it is unfeasible to return everyone to the Old World, but we should minimally pay for the use of the land.

The difference between us isn't so much regarding the characterisation of the original treatment of NA by whites, but rather the identification of the relevant aggrieved unit. I suspect you think of the relevant unit as the community or tribe. The lands belonged to the tribe. The tribe exhibited continuous existence. The tribe deserves its lands back.

I, on the other hand, think of the relevant unit as individuals, even if, at the time, those individuals pooled their ownership rights into an undifferentiated whole. It was individual NA persons who were the subject of criminal activities. Those individuals are no longer alive. And while their descendants are alive today, the moral and legal link between the ancestors and their contemporary descendants is much less clear.

I understand this. I hope you understand why this seems like a rationalisation for not returning stolen property. While you may see it as individuals, the actual historical contracts (i.e. the treaties) saw it as a contract between groups, and that is also how the natives saw it, and how the British Crown at the time saw it.

[Eran]

But not so criminal that anyone should actually have to pay for it.

Why are you focusing so exclusively on ancient land injustices?

Are you similarly advocating compensating African Americans for slavery? Jewish, Japanese, Irish, Italian Americans for past discrimination? How about compensating the victims of the American Atomic Bombs? The innocent victims of the Vietnam and current American military actions?

Shouldn't we try and compensate the victims of Soviet communism? Of British colonialism? How about the common Native American practice of killing each other in battle? Shouldn't we compensate the victims of some NA tribes by other tribes?

There is nothing special about one particular set of injustices (land confiscation of NAs) as compared with the countless historic instances of injustice.

I am for forcing an identifiable person who acted criminally against another identifiable person to compensate the victim. This is NOT an option currently open to us in this context.

I support a plan wherein the gov'ts of North America respect the treaty rights and obligations that are part of the signed contracts between the different nations. Even the natives themselves realise it is unfeasible to return everyone to the Old World, but we should minimally pay for the use of the land.

In the abstract, that sounds good. But why the sudden retreat from your principle? When I presented feasibility as an obstacle to rectification of historic injustices, you claimed I was, effectively "selling out".

I hope you understand why this seems like a rationalisation for not returning stolen property. While you may see it as individuals, the actual historical contracts (i.e. the treaties) saw it as a contract between groups, and that is also how the natives saw it, and how the British Crown at the time saw it.

I support, as a matter of principle, the correction of the much-more-recent injustice whereby Palestinians were displaced by Jews. So did Murray Rothbard. Do you?

For my education, can you give me a specific example of a treaty violated by the British Crown (or the US or Canadian governments) which you feel could feasibly be fulfilled?

[Pants-of-dog]

Why are you focusing so exclusively on ancient land injustices?

I am not. I am focusing on the issue of native Americans because of the title of the thread.

I am for forcing an identifiable person who acted criminally against another identifiable person to compensate the victim. This is NOT an option currently open to us in this context.

However, there is the option of forcing the institution who acted criminally against another identifiable community to compensate the victim.

In the abstract, that sounds good. But why the sudden retreat from your principle? When I presented feasibility as an obstacle to rectification of historic injustices, you claimed I was, effectively "selling out".

Because your arguments were also advocating getting away with not paying these things either.

I support, as a matter of principle, the correction of the much-more-recent injustice whereby Palestinians were displaced by Jews. So did Murray Rothbard. Do you?

I refuse to discuss the Israel/Palestine issue. Both sides have disgusted me to the core.

For my education, can you give me a specific example of a treaty violated by the British Crown (or the US or Canadian governments) which you feel could feasibly be fulfilled?

All of them. None of the demands are onerous. The most difficult issue is the lump sum payment for all the things the gov't should have been paying for all this time, and I think we can agree that spending money is not really that much of a problem for gov't.

[Eran]

However, there is the option of forcing the institution who acted criminally against another identifiable community to compensate the victim.

At a cost of acting criminally against other people, alive today, either through confiscating their real property to return to NAs, or through confiscation of their personal property (through taxation) to compensate the distant descendants of those originally aggrieved.

What makes you think that such policy is, on the balance, more just than doing nothing?

I refuse to discuss the Israel/Palestine issue. Both sides have disgusted me to the core.

This is the problem with group-think. Only a group-level thinking sees only two sides to the conflict. In fact, there are at least as many parties involved as there are Palestinian refugees. Have those refugees "disgusted you"? Or are you identifying the interests, motives and moral choices of the Palestinian leadership with that of hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees?

All of them. None of the demands are onerous. The most difficult issue is the lump sum payment for all the things the gov't should have been paying for all this time, and I think we can agree that spending money is not really that much of a problem for gov't.

Are we going to net from that compensation payment the amounts already paid to the tribes over the years and decades?

How do people propose to value the lands confiscated? Through their current value, or their historic value?

[Nunt]

I find this whole argument that a way of organizing society cannot be just if it does not have the ability to perfectly set straight any past injustices. Such an argument is rather pointless because no system can know and set straight all passed injustices. The libertarian idea of property rights will only set things straight when there is clear evidence of wrong doing. Obviously, mistakes will be made. But other generalized redistributional plans will unavoidably also make mistakes. I assume you would plan that the US government should tax its citizens in order to pay repairs to injured communities. But such a plan can only lead to more injustices because you would be punishing people whose ancestors 1) may not have contributed to the injustice, 2) may have suffered as well from similar injustices, 3) may not even have migrated to the us when the injustices took place. And even those whose ancestors contributed directly to the injustice, there is no way of knowing whether over those hundreds year have directly benefited from it. For example, if someone's grandfather stole millions but then spent it all on himself, why should his grandchild have to pay back the money when he never saw a penny of those millions?

With a libertarian solution you would at least make sure that you do not further do injustice to innocents living today. Other plans will definately harm people alive today for the benefit of people who have been dead for years. You would be doing something, but you have no way of knowing (the knowledge simply does not exist) whether you are alleviating injustices or creating further injustices.

[Pants-of-dog]

At a cost of acting criminally against other people, alive today, either through confiscating their real property to return to NAs, or through confiscation of their personal property (through taxation) to compensate the distant descendants of those originally aggrieved.

What makes you think that such policy is, on the balance, more just than doing nothing?

Because the original owners still have a valid legal claim, while the current owners do not. Moreover, the original owners are currently suffering issues related to poverty that would be resolved if restitution came to pass.

Are we going to net from that compensation payment the amounts already paid to the tribes over the years and decades?

How do people propose to value the lands confiscated? Through their current value, or their historic value?

The current template is to give them what the land was originally valued at, plus the amount of money they would have made off the land of they had been allowed to keep it in the first place.

[Eran]

Because the original owners still have a valid legal claim, while the current owners do not. Moreover, the original owners are currently suffering issues related to poverty that would be resolved if restitution came to pass.

First, we are not talking about the original owners, but their remote descendants.

The validity of their legal claim is precisely in question.

Second, there is no reason to expect that a one-off (or ongoing) payments will in any material way resolve their poverty issues. On the contrary - there is every reason, logical and historical, to expect that continued reliance on unearned income will continue to hold these people captive in endless poverty.

We would be doing them no favour.

The current template is to give them what the land was originally valued at, plus the amount of money they would have made off the land of they had been allowed to keep it in the first place.

How does one determine the latter? Are we talking interest income? Appreciation in the value of this specific land? Or what?

[Pants-of-dog]

First, we are not talking about the original owners, but their remote descendants.

The original owner is a community. That community still exists. Your viewpoint that gives possession only to individuals is inapplicable in this context.

Second, there is no reason to expect that a one-off (or ongoing) payments will in any material way resolve their poverty issues. On the contrary - there is every reason, logical and historical, to expect that continued reliance on unearned income will continue to hold these people captive in endless poverty.

We would be doing them no favour.

So, if I continue to pay my landlord my rent payments, am I oppressing my landlord by getting them dependent on my handouts? Should I liberate my landlord by not paying them?

How does one determine the latter? Are we talking interest income? Appreciation in the value of this specific land? Or what?

I am not sure exactly how the courts determine it.

[Eran]

So, if I continue to pay my landlord my rent payments, am I oppressing my landlord by getting them dependent on my handouts? Should I liberate my landlord by not paying them?

There is a huge difference in practice, even if not in principle.

The corrupting effect of regular payments to a community as akin to the regular payments from a trust fund to a wealthy heir. While the latter is legitimate, responsible parents are cautious about the effect such payments may have on the professional and character development of their children.

In the context of a wider community, no similar precautions are likely to be taken.

The evidence clearly indicates that NA who choose to remain as dependants of their tribe (and, ultimately, the Federal government) are much poorer, over time, than those who choose to stand on their own two feet.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is a huge difference in practice, even if not in principle.

The corrupting effect of regular payments to a community as akin to the regular payments from a trust fund to a wealthy heir. While the latter is legitimate, responsible parents are cautious about the effect such payments may have on the professional and character development of their children.

In the context of a wider community, no similar precautions are likely to be taken.

The evidence clearly indicates that NA who choose to remain as dependants of their tribe (and, ultimately, the Federal government) are much poorer, over time, than those who choose to stand on their own two feet.

Please present this evidence, then.

My experience has been that those NA indigenous groups who are more immersed in their native cultures tend to do better.

[Eran]

The only comparisons I am aware of are between NA living on vs. off reservations.

Here is a USDA study. On page 13, following Exhibit 5 ("Prevalence of Poverty in Decennial Census Years, By Race") in which the 1989 Percent of Families on Poverty amongst American Indians was 27.0, comes the statement:

"The trend in poverty on reservations was similar to the trend among all Native Americans - through at a much higher level."

Specifically, the relevant percentage of families below poverty on reservations was 51% in 1989.

Reasoning and anecdotal evidence (see here for one example) suggests two primary causes for the difference.

First, Reservation lands are communally rather than privately held, causing a "tragedy of the commons" with very little individual incentive to work and improve land productivity.

Second, ongoing Federal support payments create a culture of dependency depressing initiative and self-help efforts.

Finally, one would naturally expect self-selection - those Native Americans with the most initiative, skills, work ethics and drive are more likely to leave the reservations.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your ideologically biased guesses are incorrect.

You take a single fact: poverty is higher on reserves than in other places, and then without any evidence at all, you assume it has to do with private property ownership and welfare because it fits well with your ideology.

Meanwhile, you have empirically verified studies looking at indigenous health that explicitly point out that:

" It has become widely accepted in mainstream health
literature and, to some extent, practice that a “silo” approach to prevention and treatment
of ill-health fails to address the complexity of most health issues. This is particularly true
for Aboriginal peoples, who have historically been collectivist in their social institutions and
processes, specifically the ways in which health is perceived and addressed"

http://www.nccah-ccnsa.ca/docs/social%2 ... Report.pdf

In other words, health practitioners have found that ignoring the collective and cultural aspects has led to worse health outcomes.

There is also the issue that most indigenous people who have lost ties with their culture often end up with drug and alcohol problems. Often because they are residential school survivors.

[Eran]

My family has "lost ties with its culture" (that of observant Jews living in Eastern Europe). So have countless other Jews and a much larger number of non-Jews.

America is full of Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Korean people who have also "lost ties with their culture", yet have thrived economically.

Moreover, how does the cultural explanation address the difference between on-reservation Natives (presumably maintaining stronger ties to their culture and tradition) vs. off-reservation ones?



My "ideology" isn't the question. I have found that certain consistent universals characterise the relation between social circumstances and economic prosperity. One is the value of well-protected private property and predictable relation between individual effort and individual prosperity, in contrast with communal property and weakened (or non-existent) relation between effort and prosperity.

This relation is both empirically observable and logically sound. It is no surprise that it applies in the context of government-supported, non-private-property owning reservation-bound Native Americans.

[Pants-of-dog]

My family has "lost ties with its culture" (that of observant Jews living in Eastern Europe). So have countless other Jews and a much larger number of non-Jews.

America is full of Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Korean people who have also "lost ties with their culture", yet have thrived economically.

I see. Have any of these people suffered invasion, had all their land stolen from them, had their populations decimated by disease, been oppressed by colonialism, and been targets of cultural genocide?

Moreover, are they still dealing with many of these issues, as native Americans are?

Moreover, how does the cultural explanation address the difference between on-reservation Natives (presumably maintaining stronger ties to their culture and tradition) vs. off-reservation ones?

First, your assumption that urban indigenous people are cut off from their culture is incorrect.

Secondly, the difference between those groups is solely economic, and the vast economic differences between isolated rural areas and cities is obvious and is just as present in non-natives.

My "ideology" isn't the question. I have found that certain consistent universals characterise the relation between social circumstances and economic prosperity. One is the value of well-protected private property and predictable relation between individual effort and individual prosperity, in contrast with communal property and weakened (or non-existent) relation between effort and prosperity.

This relation is both empirically observable and logically sound. It is no surprise that it applies in the context of government-supported, non-private-property owning reservation-bound Native Americans.

No, it is not empirically sound.

By the way, it is not gov't support any more than me paying my landlord is gov't support. The monies given to indigenous communities is not welfare. It is rent. This is what the treaties are all about.

[Eran]

I see. Have any of these people suffered invasion, had all their land stolen from them, had their populations decimated by disease, been oppressed by colonialism, and been targets of cultural genocide?

The Jews suffered a Holocaust.

The Irish suffered a major famine.

Many Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants suffered persecution, war, starvation.

None of which is relevant for understanding those Native Americans actually alive today, none of whom personally suffered any of the above.

Moreover, are they still dealing with many of these issues, as native Americans are?

Why and in what sense are Native Americans today still dealing with colonial oppression, death from disease and having their ancient ancestors' land stolen from them? NAs alive today have been born into a secure and stable life in which their civil rights are adequately protected, their cultural heritage enriched by universal and Western culture, safe from disease and any traces of colonialism.

How are the experiences of their ancestors, whom they have not even known, relevant to their lives?

First, your assumption that urban indigenous people are cut off from their culture is incorrect.

My assumption is that those NAs living amongst their tribes-people in a reservation are likely to have stronger connections to their national culture than would those living amongst the general population.

If the current problem is associated with dispossession from their ancient culture, the problem would be more severe off-reservation than on-reservation, in direct contradiction to the evidence.

Secondly, the difference between those groups is solely economic, and the vast economic differences between isolated rural areas and cities is obvious and is just as present in non-natives.

So much of the economic condition of reservation-based NAs is due to their voluntary choice to stay in the reservation, right?

After all, nobody is forcing them to stay there, and many of the people sharing the same background, race, cultural heritage and history have chosen not to stay on reservations, thereby greatly improving their standard of living.

By the way, it is not gov't support any more than me paying my landlord is gov't support. The monies given to indigenous communities is not welfare. It is rent. This is what the treaties are all about.

This distinction goes to the ethical aspect, but not the human consequences of living off external support divorced from your individual effort.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the same problem would be expected from rich heirs living off their trust fund. If you don't have to work to make a living, even a modest living, many people will choose not to work. Or will make less of an effort to work.

[Pants-of-dog]

The Jews suffered a Holocaust.

The Irish suffered a major famine.

Many Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants suffered persecution, war, starvation.

None of which is relevant for understanding those Native Americans actually alive today, none of whom personally suffered any of the above.

None of these groups suffered all of these problems.

And as I have already mentioned, there are thousands of indigenous people alive today who have lived through many of these things. Perhaps millions.

Why and in what sense are Native Americans today still dealing with colonial oppression, death from disease and having their ancient ancestors' land stolen from them? NAs alive today have been born into a secure and stable life in which their civil rights are adequately protected, their cultural heritage enriched by universal and Western culture, safe from disease and any traces of colonialism.

How are the experiences of their ancestors, whom they have not even known, relevant to their lives?

Colonial oppression:

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

Chief Teresa is currently undergoing a hunger strike in order to force a meeting with the Canadian gov't about ongoing treaty violations.

Death from disease:

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

Diabetes has been emerging as a major public health concern among Native American communities in the United States for the past 40 years. The Pima Indians in Arizona currently have the highest recorded prevalence of diabetes in the world. On average, American Indian and Alaska Native adults are 2.6 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites of similar age. A new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) reveals dramatic increases among young American Indians and Alaska Natives and raises concerns about the impact of diabetes on future generations of Native Americans.

Stolen land:

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

The Oka Crisis was a land dispute between a group of Mohawk people and the town of Oka, Quebec, Canada which began on July 11, 1990 and lasted until September 26, 1990. One person died as a result. The dispute was the first well-publicized violent conflict between First Nations and the Canadian government in the late 20th century.

The crisis developed from a local dispute between the town of Oka and the Mohawk community of Kanesatake. The town of Oka was developing plans to expand a golf course and residential development onto land which had traditionally been used by the Mohawk. It included pineland and a burial ground, marked by standing tombstones of their ancestors. The Mohawks had filed a land claim for the sacred grove and burial ground near Kanesatake, but their claim had been rejected in 1986.

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

My assumption is that those NAs living amongst their tribes-people in a reservation are likely to have stronger connections to their national culture than would those living amongst the general population.

If the current problem is associated with dispossession from their ancient culture, the problem would be more severe off-reservation than on-reservation, in direct contradiction to the evidence.

First, you started this comparison by using only economic status as your metric for success and well being. Then you compared rural and urban natives and noted that urban natives have more money. You have then decided that the one and only problem (poverty) can be solved by simply moving to the city.

It's not that simple.

Yes, reservations will have larger communities and thus make it easier for culture to be transmitted. However, reservations are the poorest areas in North America. It is, in many ways, like the developing world: no potable water, inadequate housing, limited medical resources, etc.

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.

So much of the economic condition of reservation-based NAs is due to their voluntary choice to stay in the reservation, right?

After all, nobody is forcing them to stay there, and many of the people sharing the same background, race, cultural heritage and history have chosen not to stay on reservations, thereby greatly improving their standard of living.

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

This distinction goes to the ethical aspect, but not the human consequences of living off external support divorced from your individual effort.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the same problem would be expected from rich heirs living off their trust fund. If you don't have to work to make a living, even a modest living, many people will choose not to work. Or will make less of an effort to work.

I see. You think they get paid not to work.

The payments that the gov't are supposed to be making are for things like hospitals, schools, clean water, electricity, and other things that you take for granted every day. 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.

The residents of Attawapiskat (her home) would love to be employed making houses, for example, but the people who are supposed to pay for the materials have decided to ignore their contractual obligations.

[MrAnthrope]

I support a plan wherein the gov'ts of North America respect the treaty rights and obligations that are part of the signed contracts between the different nations. Even the natives themselves realise it is unfeasible to return everyone to the Old World, but we should minimally pay for the use of the land.

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.