The treatment of Modern native populations and their rights on Land and other issues.

[SLN445]

I think this is the right place:

This is something that has been bugging me for a while now, becoming more evidence in my country by the continual presence in media of disputes over Native titles and even protests in my local area.

Should the native populations of countries have rights on land they used to own (well not technically as the idea of owning land wasn't around then in a lot of cases), but is now owned by the descendents of settlers, immigrants and the government that took it from them?
If so how much rights should they have? just a say in what happens on that land or regaining control completely ect?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Yeah... no. After the institutionalization of Private Property around a certain piece of land(accompanied by it's legal enforcement) I can't really see any intrinsic ''rights'' that precede those of the institutionalization... let's take into consideration that most of those places where the natives claim possession are usually places where no clear authority existed on a legal or political basis(South American countries being the most common case for such claims and restitution demands) up until the colonists showed up organized the contracts that divided and parceled the land.

It's however, logical that if a region decides to legally recognize the existence of the natives possession through the creation of a ''legally bonding document'' between the government and them it can be done. I'm instrumentally opposed to the recognition of ''above or below the law'' classes of citizens, especially in countries with no defined identity where the belief in universal and unalienable rights is still shaky and therefore said legally granted ''special rights'' would actually damage the cohesion of communities.

[DaVinci]

I think this is the right place:

This is something that has been bugging me for a while now, becoming more evidence in my country by the continual presence in media of disputes over Native titles and even protests in my local area.

Should the native populations of countries have rights on land they used to own (well not technically as the idea of owning land wasn't around then in a lot of cases), but is now owned by the descendents of settlers, immigrants and the government that took it from them?
If so how much rights should they have? just a say in what happens on that land or regaining control completely ect?

Difficult theme. Imo. one must look always first into the history to understand the backgrounds.
Speaking of the (violent) colonisation of America, middle&south from on 16th century, north from on 17th century, the natives majorily welcomed the first europeans. First as different issues occured, open violence broke out about the expansion and kind of usage. As natives didn't know the kind of ownership as europeans did, the then european occupation of land used by natives for generations, natives applied imo. a kind of self-defence, a trial to conserve their natural rights (even not contract rights) to keep ("own") the grounds, where they settled, hunted, fished and partly cultivated land for centuries. Later, the native right was considered by official law (of the ex-occupants) as right to own land by law (contract) in the same european sense. So natives got official rights to own certain lands by contract, limited, but still, which were often violated (the contracts), as settlers needed (took) more land. However, american territory was taken by force by europeans from the natives, that's a historical fact.

If we compare that though with europe (or other areas), different european powers conquered different land-areas, and when peace was agreed, the land remained by the conquerer or was given back, by contract. And this imo. is important - the agreement by contract.

Back to america, afaik, in a lot of cases, a real peace agreement, with agreed land rights, between both parties was not taken - so in those cases, one could say, natives could make claims about land, which originally was "owned" by them. On the other side, no, because first today, imperial acts (occupying and colonising by force) is considered as illegal act along international law. Formerly, the victor decided, what would happen about the land in question.

All in all, i would say, every case must be viewed and investigated uniquely.

[Phier]

About the only people who can claim without much doubt they are 100% the original "owners" of their land are the Australian Aborigines.

Just about every other group stole it from someone else at some point in history.

[Imperial]

About the only people who can claim without much doubt they are 100% the original "owners" of their land are the Australian Aborigines.

Just about every other group stole it from someone else at some point in history.

Thread should have ended here.

[SLN445]

To give a couple of examples:

> When building near waterways on your Property, you are required not only to seek Council approval but also that of the local Aborigine group (if i remember correctly)
> In a nearby town, a payment of 20,000 is to be made when wanting to build your house otherwise you may be forced to do a search for "Artifacts" on your property at a considerable higher cost.

[Claudius Gothicus]

To give a couple of examples:

> When building near waterways on your Property, you are required not only to seek Council approval but also that of the local Aborigine group (if i remember correctly)

This is the kind of stupid Bullcrap that has sourrounded many places where previous ''aboriginal populations'' existed, you can't have 2 authorities... and directly undermines the legitimacy of the Democratically Elected Local Councils. The main basis of Modern States is that everyone's vote is valued equally regardless of creed, race, ethnicity or social background.

Creating parallel authorities undermines said system.

> In a nearby town, a payment of 20,000 is to be made when wanting to build your house otherwise you may be forced to do a search for "Artifacts" on your property at a considerable higher cost.

That's more logical, if the law was passed by a democratically elected institution that represents all.

[SLN445]

That's more logical, if the law was passed by a democratically elected institution that represents all.

It may be, but it generally seems to be a "Give us money or we will force you to pay 3 times as much for a bogus search".
Its not a council thing either.

[chilon]

The main basis of Modern States is that everyone's vote is valued equally regardless of creed, race, ethnicity or social background.

I don't see this as the main basis of modern states historically. Even now in USA, the electoral college is not at all based on everyone having an equal vote. For all Federal elections residents of small states have more power per vote than residents of large states. Going back further the Federal system was explicitly designed to not all the common man to vote because the 'founding fathers' didnt trust the common man.

The Kamehameha Schools of Hawaii only accept people of Native Hawaiian ancestry, and have had minimal legal incidents, apparently people just let that slide.

People "let it slide" because the Kamehameha schools were set up by the last Hawaiian Royal Family and even the 'haoles' living in Hawaii have to respect the fact that westerners really took advantage of the native Hawaiians. Kamehameha Schools are a way to provide an opportunity to the local Hawaiian (Hawaii has really poor public schools). Its not like non-native Hawaiians are screwed either, they can go to Punahou or Iolani.

We came here with good intentions (kind of) then realized they were (at least by our standards) totally insane murderous bastards.

Now that is some revisionist history right there. "Good intentions"? Colonialism and Imperialism qualifies as "good intentions" to you? Native Americans were "totally insane murderous bastards" and the colonists never acted like totally insane murderous bastards?

The Slave Trade was mostly our fault, the Indian Depopulation was not. We exploited it, we didn't directly cause it.

If the Europeans didn't get lucky with the advantage in superior diseases then they would have gone to war to with the natives to cause that depopulation. Just look at things from the Trail of Tears to good ole Teddy Roosevelt's attitude towards natives. The early USA colonists perpetrated a great many intentional evils against the native Americans (I could really go on and on about what the English descendants perpetrated in just California let alone all the rest of the country).

[Claudius Gothicus]

I don't see this as the main basis of modern states historically. Even now in USA, the electoral college is not at all based on everyone having an equal vote. For all Federal elections residents of small states have more power per vote than residents of large states. Going back further the Federal system was explicitly designed to not all the common man to vote because the 'founding fathers' didnt trust the common man.

I meant the ''equality of the vote'' in two senses, the first one is in the sense that the individual(in a Liberal System) is recognized with rights regardless of intrinsic characteristics(such as Kin, ethnicity, class or religion) and the Law is considered ''egalitarian'' because legally, everyone is dispossesed of these ''instrisic characteristics'' in front of the law.

The second meaning is that the vote also counts as the same for everyone and the reason why someone has the power of an Elector is beyond his ''kin, race, ethnicity or religion'', and in a certain sense, the kind of ''priviledges'' that apply to them are derived from the Function or the Role and not from the person itself(just like a Senator or a Representative or the President).

[DaVinci]

To give a couple of examples:

> When building near waterways on your Property, you are required not only to seek Council approval but also that of the local Aborigine group (if i remember correctly)
> In a nearby town, a payment of 20,000 is to be made when wanting to build your house otherwise you may be forced to do a search for "Artifacts" on your property at a considerable higher cost.

For the second point, i can tell you, that this is a normal process, and most likely has nothing to do with your OP, but i even wonder why the government allows construction with an official "bribe", rather it should be ensured by investigation, that there are no artefacts which could be destroyed by construction, given the case, that area is known for artefacts.

For the first case, that is similar but more dificile and often subject of disputes, ie. could belong to the part 'neighborhood rights', if those can matter. I doubt at least that it has something to do with your OP.

[SLN445]

For the second point, i can tell you, that this is a normal process, and most likely has nothing to do with your OP, but i even wonder why the government allows construction with an official "bribe", rather it should be ensured by investigation, that there are no artefacts which could be destroyed by construction, given the case, that area is known for artefacts.

For the first case, that is similar but more dificile and often subject of disputes, ie. could belong to the part 'neighborhood rights', if those can matter. I doubt at least that it has something to do with your OP.

Its a native group receiving cash so they don't impose their rights on someone private land. Considering this is a built up area and the likely hood of any "Artifacts" is incredibly unlikely (though considering a broken sea shell can be considered an artifact...) makes this a pure way to make a free income.

For the first part, neighborhood rights would suggest that they were still part of the local community and thus would be effected by any construction, not living in a completely different area and only having the choice in the matter due to having ancestors in the area.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Yes, they have a right to it, but a right extends to the strength of your armed forces.

[Col. Tartleton]

The Indians got their land by waging genocide on other Indians who in turn had culled the previous owners for ten thousand years of brutal tribal warfare before we ever got here and waged war against them, then gave them chances to become modernized. It's not our fault that we were dealing with stone age hunter gatherers. They weren't exactly push overs either. Down with the reservations. They're Americans now. The ones who left the reservations did well for themselves. The ones who stayed on the reservations are poor and backwards. It's a self imposed ghetto.

[DaVinci]

The Indians got their land by waging genocide on other Indians who in turn had culled the previous owners for ten thousand years of brutal tribal warfare before we ever got here and waged war against them, then gave them chances to become modernized. It's not our fault that we were dealing with stone age hunter gatherers. They weren't exactly push overs either. Down with the reservations. They're Americans now. The ones who left the reservations did well for themselves. The ones who stayed on the reservations are poor and backwards. It's a self imposed ghetto.

I seldomly have read a more untrue and one-eyed view of that matter. Discussing this historically with you seems to be a non-case, in the sense, makes no sense at all. Maybe it would help to buy and read some unbiased history books, which analyse the colonisation of american lands, and the further periods, in a proper way. And besides this, you are offtopic (as so often).

[DarthShizNit]

To the victor goes the spoils.

[Col. Tartleton]

I seldomly have read a more untrue and one-eyed view of that matter. Discussing this historically with you seems to be a non-case, in the sense, makes no sense at all. Maybe it would help to buy and read some unbiased history books, which analyse the colonisation of american lands, and the further periods, in a proper way. And besides this, you are offtopic (as so often).

The point is that native populations have no special right to the land. My heritage (while primarily later immigrants) has been American since the colonies. I have descent from a militia colonel in the revolution and his family had been here for generations. I think 300+ years makes me a native American.

Where are my special privileges? Can I put a claim on the land where the old family plantation was in Maryland? And while we're at it, I want my slaves back.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The point is that native populations have no special right to the land. My heritage (while primarily later immigrants) has been American since the colonies. I have descent from a militia colonel in the revolution and his family had been here for generations. I think 300+ years makes me a native American.

Being born, nurtured and educated in the USA makes you a native to the land. For you to be considered otherwise there would have to be another factor in the middle, like living in an ethnic ghetto completly sheltered from mainstreem culture and drown in poverty.

That's basically the idea of living in the Americas, and being different from Europeans, that whoever is born and raised in here is native to these lands.

[Col. Tartleton]

Being born, nurtured and educated in the USA makes you a native to the land. For you to be considered otherwise there would have to be another factor in the middle, like living in an ethnic ghetto completly sheltered from mainstreem culture and drown in poverty.

That's basically the idea of living in the Americas, and being different from Europeans, that whoever is born and raised in here is native to these lands.

Exactly. Which is why the Indians shouldn't be called Native Americans (especially collectively since they were never united). I'm a Native American. They're a Native American. Ethnically I'm pretty much Irish and Ashkenazim with some other factors. They're ethnically Haudenosaunee or Očhéthi Šakówiŋ, etc, and most of them have intermarried to an extent. Which is good. It's horrible what happened to the Indians. But it was horrible what happened to the Irish and Jews. It's all the same thing. Everyone ed everyone over. Who has conquered but never been conquered? The Mongols? That worked out well for them. They're still poor and live in tents and eat milk and cheese all day.

[Himster]

It depends on the size of their guns. Always has.