Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land?

Yes
1
5%
No
16
84%
Alter it in some way (explain)
2
11%
#15105899
Pants-of-dog wrote:@annatar1914

Thanks for the info. I did not see that when I looked it up.

I have no trouble giving the Black Hills to the Cheyenne, and giving back the more eastern lands to the Lakota.


You're welcome.

My point being, that ''giving'' and ''taking'' throughout history comes from the near universal strife, conquest, and displacement of some human beings by other human beings. It's simply that some are more powerful and/or more resourceful than others in getting what they want. Doesn't make it right to say that and admit that it is a fact. But when you go about trying to establish ''Justice'' in this and other cases, you will (if you yourself have some power) wind up ruining things carrying it too far ....There's very little justice in our ''justice'' anyways.

After all, why not ''give'' it back to the Kiowa? The Arikara? Or just leave it in the sovereignty it is presently under?
#15105901
@annatar1914

Yes, people who steal land often use that as a justification.

Previous events that no longer have an impact on modern life are not justifications for previous events that do have an impact on current life.

The fact that the US stole the land (according to the laws of the USA, no less) is not changed by the fact that the land was stolen before.
#15105904
@Pants-of-dog

Yes, people who steal land often use that as a justification.


Not a ''justification'', but an unalterable fact, particularly that of the long-ago past.

Previous events that no longer have an impact on modern life are not justifications for previous events that do have an impact on current life.


Is that in itself a kind of moral dodge, to say piously that we moderns are better than those who proceeded us? Is that not itself a kind of historical displacement of peoples and cultures?

The fact that the US stole the land (according to the laws of the USA, no less) is not changed by the fact that the land was stolen before.


True, but also irrelevant, as for one thing I seriously doubt any sane American Indian is willing or able to mount an insurrection against the United States of America at this point or into the foreseeable future. So when both parties accept the results of the theft, the theft in their eyes no longer is truly a theft.
#15105987
Pants-of-dog wrote:@annatar1914

Since the Lakota have not accepted it, it is then still theft.


If we are dealing in matters of formal law, which interestingly is the law of the power that presently has the land, their legal concepts, you might be correct.

But because I'm still speaking in terms of pure power, then it has been ''accepted'' by the Lakota, because it is not possible to enforce any sovereignty over the land claimed not least because the tribe members are US Citizens and the tribe has bound itself to accept the results of US law and not just past treaties signed when they were not.
#15106072
Pants-of-dog wrote:@annatar1914

At this point, I am not clear what your argument is. I think it might be due to the fact that you incorrectly assume that the Lakota are not trying to exercise sovereignty over the land.


No, you're evading by pretending that my position is something it's not, unless I'm mistaken about your intention.

The Lakota, as US Citizens and accepting the decisions of US Courts of Law in their legal matters both as persons and as a collective body (their tribe) are incapable of ever exercising what would be considered full sovereignty over this particular piece of land or any other land, for that matter. This isn't just the Lakota, but everybody.

Despite the fact that they will not take the settlement money from the last court case over the issue, it's irrelevant because they (like every US citizen or group of US Citizens) went to court with the legal presumption that the US Government, as represented by the Court, was legally sovereign over the decision making process.
#15106163
Pants-of-dog wrote:@annatar1914

The US court system decided that the Black Hills were Lakota territory. It is the Us government that refuses to accept the decision of US courts.


I believe that you are mistaken, in that the US courts would have settled the deal except the usual sticking point in most matters-the money. So things continue as they were before.
#15106176
Pants-of-dog wrote:@annatar1914

Please clarify your argument, and please provide evidence for said argument. Thank you.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... of_Indians

They refused the money that was offered as a form of reperations after the Supreme Court decision, instead forming a ''steering committee'' that mainly seems to engage in a lot of internal political infighting and cannot agree on what to do next, while the interest bearing account held by the BIA continues to accrue money for the Sioux tribes-if they ever agree to take it.

In other words, they implicitly accept the sovereignty lies with the United States while holding out for more money or a better deal later, by a ''refusal'' for the time being.
#15106189
Pants-of-dog wrote:@annatar1914

I see. You seem to think that you know what their real motives are. Since this is unverifiable speculation, I am not going to address it.


Actions speak louder than words. The reason for this is because when one intends to do something, we do it. When we don't intend to do something, it's because we don't really intend to act and we put up rationalizations for our failure to do so. ''motives'' in this case as in others are kind of irrelevant.

Your failure to address what I'm trying to tell you is a rationalization for the fact that you really have nothing to address my comments with.
#15106203
Native Americans should reconsider what they ask for. For example. By treaty the Lakota are authorized on surgeon provided by the federal government. They are not authorized nor should they expect completely free health care which no other US citizen has.

The Lakota should pay for their own law enforcement. Not expect the federal government to pay for their entire police force at taxpayer's expense.

The Lakota should pay for their own schools not expect the US government to pay for their entire school system.

The Lakota should not be allowed to vote in US elections if they want to consider their own property sovereign.

The Lakota should pay for their own people's university educations, not expect the people of the state in which they pay no taxes to offer them in state tuition or no tuition at all.

There is more. If we are to enforce the treaties to the letter of the law then these "nations" need to stop feeding at the government's tit.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Our county health department has made a call for 2[…]

The End of Lukashenko is near.

And what will that achieve? Increasing Western in[…]

I hope it's real, and it works.

Depends where you live to be honest. In Russia yo[…]