[BigSteve]

And since the deal is off, it should no longer be your land.

Well, let them come take it back...

[Pants-of-dog]

So you do not disagree that US people and their government are bot dealing fairly with their landlords, and are simply asserting that you can enact whatever injustices you want because you have the power.

This is why indigenous people do not care if you care.

[SolarCross]

So you do not disagree that US people and their government are bot dealing fairly with their landlords, and are simply asserting that you can enact whatever injustices you want because you have the power.

This is why indigenous people do not care if you care.

I don't think the indigenous can fairly claim to own every single inch of the US when virtually all of it was wild at the time. That said they probably did lose some land unfairly and improperly. I don't know there is much chance of that being reversed though. It is probably a lost cause.

Knavery seems to be so much the striking feature of its inhabitants that it may not in the end be an evil that they will become aliens to this kingdom.
- King George III speaking of the USians

[Drlee]

Well POD. Please outline what injustices the US has imposed on Native Americans in, say, the last 50 years. Please tell us that. I do not grant that widespread or even common abuses have or are occurring. Native Americans enjoy a protected class at taxpayer's expense. They are offered benefits, free healthcare for example, that no other citizens get. They are exempt from a considerable amount of tax yet they can vote in state elections. Their tribal enterprises are exempt from federal tax yet the federal government pays for their law enforcement, fire protection, ambulances, and as I said, health care. (Including drugs by the way.) And all of this is a dramatic escalation of the meager provisions of the treaties they signed.

Reservations are inherently racist. They are patently unfair.

No POD. Though there are many poor reservations around being a native American is a pretty good gig.

And I offered a number of reasons why specific cash reparations are counterproductive in the extreme. The are virtually senseless. But I am not going to explain my reasons yet again until you post that you read my long post previously. You have a habit of one-line questions, frequently asking people to explain what they have already explained.

As to Big Steve's use of the term Alphabet. I am with him on this. There has been considerable huddling under the same umbrella by people who, quite frankly, really have no place there. I believe that now we are to use the term L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+. Good grief. Is there no kink we are not going to offer protected status to? Is there nobody left who is not some kind of victim? What is an A? Asexual or Ally? And the plus sign (and this is the height of idiocy) signifies "anyone else who is not included in the others." By the way, Q went from being "questioning" to "queer". Whatever that means. Now we have the further absurdity of "queer culture".

Make no mistake. I do not support anyone being deprived of their rights because of their sexual orientation. Full stop. But someone who identifies as an "ally" just to be in the 'movement', in addition to being maybe a touch sycophantic, does not deserve any particular notice on my part. At least not because they want to join, what is for them, a kind of a club.

Everyone should be aware that people, all people, are at least initially wary of the "other". This is not necessarily vice. It is often just a matter of time before they come around.

We need to stop discriminating against our fellow Americans. I find the fake Christians who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage reprehensible. They are narrow minded bigots. But there are limits. Just because it gives one pleasure to stick a tail up their ass and get some little guy to ride them does not mean the rest of us need to respect this and treat them like a racehorse.

[Hindsite]

We need to stop discriminating against our fellow Americans. I find the fake Christians who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage reprehensible.

The Christians were not refusing to bake a cake for them. It was the way they wanted it decorated that was objectionable. Perhaps they should have taken the cake and decorated it themselves or got someone else to do it, instead of making a big stink about it. Christians should have a right to practice their religion as they see fit. The gay couple were the ones that were wrong in my opinion.

[Hong Wu]

Well, after I embarrassed myself by just assuming that someone had to be in favor of LGBT reparations if they can keep the thread going this long (they couldn't possibly be in here just calling people names all day, right?) it turns out that Elizabeth Warren wants a form of reparations for LGBT couples.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/elizabeth ... eparations

Guess I called it after all...

[Rich]

The whole cake stunt demonstrates how Gay supremacists actually trust in the basic decency of Christians. I mean seriously how many Gay people would trust Muslim bakers to make a cake for them? I'm taking about real Muslims here, not fake-Muslim, Cultural Marxists like Ilhan Omar pretending to be Muslim.

By the way I'm a big supporter of Gay rights, I'd like to join a gay pride march in Gaza as long as we had IDF protection

[Pants-of-dog]

Well POD. Please outline what injustices the US has imposed on Native Americans in, say, the last 50 years. Please tell us that. I do not grant that widespread or even common abuses have or are occurring. Native Americans enjoy a protected class at taxpayer's expense. They are offered benefits, free healthcare for example, that no other citizens get. They are exempt from a considerable amount of tax yet they can vote in state elections. Their tribal enterprises are exempt from federal tax yet the federal government pays for their law enforcement, fire protection, ambulances, and as I said, health care. (Including drugs by the way.) And all of this is a dramatic escalation of the meager provisions of the treaties they signed.

Reservations are inherently racist. They are patently unfair.

No POD. Though there are many poor reservations around being a native American is a pretty good gig.

And I offered a number of reasons why specific cash reparations are counterproductive in the extreme. The are virtually senseless. But I am not going to explain my reasons yet again until you post that you read my long post previously. You have a habit of one-line questions, frequently asking people to explain what they have already explained.

If you wish to provide evidence that all is fair and good, be my guest.

At this point, though, you guys are still imposing land and cultural regimes on them at gunpoint, and there is no legal basis for the USA.

As to Big Steve's use of the term Alphabet. I am with him on this. There has been considerable huddling under the same umbrella by people who, quite frankly, really have no place there. I believe that now we are to use the term L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+. Good grief. Is there no kink we are not going to offer protected status to? Is there nobody left who is not some kind of victim? What is an A? Asexual or Ally? And the plus sign (and this is the height of idiocy) signifies "anyone else who is not included in the others." By the way, Q went from being "questioning" to "queer". Whatever that means. Now we have the further absurdity of "queer culture".

Make no mistake. I do not support anyone being deprived of their rights because of their sexual orientation. Full stop. But someone who identifies as an "ally" just to be in the 'movement', in addition to being maybe a touch sycophantic, does not deserve any particular notice on my part. At least not because they want to join, what is for them, a kind of a club.

Everyone should be aware that people, all people, are at least initially wary of the "other". This is not necessarily vice. It is often just a matter of time before they come around.

We need to stop discriminating against our fellow Americans. I find the fake Christians who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage reprehensible. They are narrow minded bigots. But there are limits. Just because it gives one pleasure to stick a tail up their ass and get some little guy to ride them does not mean the rest of us need to respect this and treat them like a racehorse.

No one cares about the initials used in LGBT+ phrasing. This is a non-issue.

[Drlee]

If you wish to provide evidence that all is fair and good, be my guest.

I see. You have no evidence.

At this point, though, you guys are still imposing land and cultural regimes on them at gunpoint, and there is no legal basis for the USA.

Evidence?

I don't expect any. Evidence is something you only expect from others. Your claim is preposterous on the face of it.

No one cares about the initials used in LGBT+ phrasing. This is a non-issue.

Why would you post this nonsensical statement less than 10 posts after someone did care? Clearly, yet again, you have not read the thread.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you are not allowing indigenous communities to exercise their sovereignty and land claims, then you are unilaterally imposing your own.

Since you guys are not allowing indigenous communities to exercise their sovereignty and land claims, this unilateral imposition of laws is oppressive.

————————-

No one who is actually trying to get equality for sexual minorities cares about the initials. It is simply an abbreviation for “those sexual and gender minorities who have historically and contemporarily been marginalized and oppressed by the mainstream”.

[LaDexter]

We owe "reparations" to queers because Barack and Michael Robinson aren't rich enough yet off the taxpayer....

[Drlee]

If you are not allowing indigenous communities to exercise their sovereignty and land claims, then you are unilaterally imposing your own.

Since you guys are not allowing indigenous communities to exercise their sovereignty and land claims, this unilateral imposition of laws is oppressive.

Gibberish. What sovereignty are they unable to exercise? Examples rather than broad and unsubstantiated claims.

What land claims? Native Americans have the same access to the courts as any other citizens.

Here is what evidence looks like:

5-20-19 The Hill: The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a Wyoming hunter charged with off-season hunting, ruling 5-4 that a 150-year-old treaty between a Native American tribe and the United States was still active and protected the man's rights.

But Tahdooahnippah also thinks it is significant that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart who has voted against tribal claims in the past, has joined the majorities in the last two tribal cases.

“The clear message from the last couple of cases is that the treaties do matter,” he adds. “They are obviously sometimes pretty old. They can be written in arcane language. But ... they do bestow rights upon people that are citizens of both the states they live in and their tribes.”

So it would appear that your statements are not very well informed to say the least.

Oh yea. I forgot. A federal court just ruled that about 1/2 of Oklahoma, home to 1.8 million people, mostly white, belonged by treaty to the Cherokee tribe. With Gorsuch recused on this case because it came from his previous court, if the SCOTUS breaks on ideological lines, there is about to be an enormous upheaval in Oklahoma.

[Pants-of-dog]

[
Gibberish. What sovereignty are they unable to exercise? Examples rather than broad and unsubstantiated claims.

What land claims? Native Americans have the same access to the courts as any other citizens.

Let me know when they have their lands and government back. Thanks.

Here is what evidence looks like:

5-20-19 The Hill: The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a Wyoming hunter charged with off-season hunting, ruling 5-4 that a 150-year-old treaty between a Native American tribe and the United States was still active and protected the man's rights.


But Tahdooahnippah also thinks it is significant that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart who has voted against tribal claims in the past, has joined the majorities in the last two tribal cases.

“The clear message from the last couple of cases is that the treaties do matter,” he adds. “They are obviously sometimes pretty old. They can be written in arcane language. But ... they do bestow rights upon people that are citizens of both the states they live in and their tribes.”

So it would appear that your statements are not very well informed to say the least.

I fail to see how those two court cases show that colonialism is over and that a respectful dialogue between a Washington and indigenous nations has commenced.

Oh yea. I forgot. A federal court just ruled that about 1/2 of Oklahoma, home to 1.8 million people, mostly white, belonged by treaty to the Cherokee tribe. With Gorsuch recused on this case because it came from his previous court, if the SCOTUS breaks on ideological lines, there is about to be an enormous upheaval in Oklahoma.

That seems like a clever way for a whole bunch of Oklahomans to steal Cherokee lands and other rights.

[Drlee]

Let me know when they have their lands and government back. Thanks.

This is just stupid. I was certain you would post exactly this.

Tell you what. The Carthiginians are never getting their land back either. Nor are the Aztecs (if you could find one.) Nor are the Picts or Mongols. And horror of horrors, the Neanderthals have been completely assimilated or wiped out.

Resting an argument on some absolutely idiotic notion that somehow there is even a shade of a chance to restore tribal lands (especially since no living memory could define where they even are) is simply a device to bitch and wail against the wind.

The fact is that Native Americans have rights and properties denied to other Americans. They are a privileged class. Though my family once owned land in Virginia that was confiscated because of loosing the civil war does not in any way lead to the notion that I was deprived though I suppose that I could sue. The difference would be that my suit would not be heard and Native American one would.

Your use of these childish techniques has led to you being a bit of a joke here. When and if you every get ready to have an adult debate let me know. In the meantime thanks for the laugh with my coffee this morning.

[LaDexter]

Anyone who wants "reparation" can get one - a one way plane ticket OUT OF THE US FOREVER.

That's the "reparations" I support.

If you hate the US, then LEAVE.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is just stupid.

How so?

If indigenous communities in the USA are not allowed to own their traditional lands or exercise their traditional governments because you guys have made it illegal and enforce it at gunpoint, then my claim is correct.

[Drlee]

If indigenous communities in the USA are not allowed to own their traditional lands or exercise their traditional governments because you guys have made it illegal and enforce it at gunpoint, then my claim is correct.

This is not true though.

Besides. Go back far enough in history and you can find a grievance against any group. Why don't you whine about the poor unfortunate Athenians? Where are Celtic land claims now? The bloody Brits killed the Scotish Queen and occupied their country. An occupation that remains to this day.

You just need to get real dude.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is not true though.

Yes, it is.

Besides. Go back far enough in history and you can find a grievance against any group. Why don't you whine about the poor unfortunate Athenians? Where are Celtic land claims now? The bloody Brits killed the Scotish Queen and occupied their country. An occupation that remains to this day.

If any of this involve ongoing oppression right now, like Us oppression of indigenous people, then we should also do something about those. Is that the case for any of these?

You just need to get real dude.

Yes, ignoring actual ongoing problems seems to be the more realistic option for most US citizens.

[Drlee]

If any of this involve ongoing oppression right now, like Us oppression of indigenous people, then we should also do something about those. Is that the case for any of these?

There is no ongoing oppression of indigenous people. I have asked you for evidence and you fail to provide it. I, on the other hand have given evidence of their prevailing in court, having much better government benefits than non indigenous people and recognized sovereignty.

But you simply will repeat your playground assertion again. Without evidence your arguments are irrelevant.

Now. Can we get back on topic again?

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no ongoing oppression of indigenous people.

Yes, there is.

I have asked you for evidence and you fail to provide it.

I provided it, but you simply pretended it was not true.

I, on the other hand have given evidence of their prevailing in court,

...and then I pointed out how these minor cases have no impact on the reality of the ongoing colonialist relationship between Washington and the indigenous communities in the USA.

having much better government benefits than no indigenous people

Lol, no.

1% of non-indigenous US residents have no access to clean water and sanitary waste.

This jumps to 13% for indigenous people.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/616.html

and recognized sovereignty.

No. There is some limited recognition of some sovereignty, but nothing like a respectful dialogue and equality between nations.