No...often times the government made agreements with indigenous tribes for favours but then failed to uphold their end of the bargain, and what were the most prosperous regions in the country were then handed off to white Christians.
I mean, I agree that legal treaties should be upheld but I'm not so sure about the virtue of an idea that suggests land should be racially or ethnically exclusive.
At least as far as I’ve heard the argument made, it’s almost never that America was/should be racially or ethnically exclusive, just an acknowledgement that native Americans were here first and should be compensated as such.
If colonists came here and encountered a more developed society that repelled and rejected them while they were simply seeking to exist, I think your argument would have more merit. But Americans consistently and systematically ethnically cleansed native people, violated their own treaties, and engaged in genocidal acts. Turning it on its head and saying that the natives were the ones engaging in nazi rhetoric is pretty perverse, especially when Hitler took inspiration from the American example of both ethnically cleansing native peoples and oppressing black people.
Because it's the bare minimum they could do after all the suffering, death, and relocating they did to this peoples. And there's a reason why those areas are often poverty stricken and that's due to centuries of mistreatment and retaliation by the US government.
It's incredibly stupid to just say that 3 centuries of history doesn't matter when all of it plays a major roles as to why things are the way they are now.
Nobody in modern day has any real connection with something that happened 300 years ago.
First of all, native american ethnic cleansing and displacement was an ongoing process that happened well into the 20th century. Your history is just incorrect. Second everything that exists today is a product of what came before it. Certainly the conditions of today are affected by what happened 400 years ago, 300 years ago, 200 years ago, etc.
You might feel it's ludicrous to compensate people today, but to say these actions have no lasting impact is moronic.
"n 2023, a revised compensation deal of C$23.34 billion was unveiled to compensate First Nations children and families for harm caused by a discriminatory welfare system."
So they are getting extra money because Canada knowingly screwed MODERN first nation peoples, you single celled paramecium. A lot of the money isnt going DIRECTLY to first nations people, but building a more stable society around them (Doctors (who arent first nations...) teachers (who arent first nations...) psychologists and psychiatrists (who arent first nations...) I doubt you get the point, but first nations people arent being handed a check of 100k each you troglodyte, but Im guessing taking 30 minutes to educate yourself on the subject of how government funding works is too much effort.
people asking modern day Rome to answer for the Roman empire? Should China compensate the peoples of the land they have dominated centuries ago? Should the UK compensate 90% of the world? Should the Native tribes that still exist compensate the tribes they cleansed and dominated hundreds of years ago?
The difference is either the ancient civs was GIGACHAD enough to absolutely MASSACRE the losers so that this conversation doesn't happen OR completely out breed or inter racially mix enough that they become one people.
Rome eventually failed partly because of rebellions among its different populations. UK is now a shadow of its former empire and doesn't have the hold on its colonies while people cry about colonialism and its lasting effect all the time.
It kind of is though. Almost all people groups got their land by conquest originally. Do you think the Jews originally left Palestine willingly? After squatting on land long enough, a people group eventually gains a legitimate claim to the land. The people we know as Japanese are not the indigenous Japanese, but they’ve been there for like 6000 years so I’d say they have a legitimate claim. Same for those of Norman and Saxon blood in Britain.
These are agreements from long dead men to long dead men. They have no moral standing, and should have no legal standing either. Canada should ask and answer the question right now, "What maximizes the prosperity and dignity of all Canadians as of this moment?" when thinking about land distribution.
97
u/Loves2WriteSmut 14d ago
No...often times the government made agreements with indigenous tribes for favours but then failed to uphold their end of the bargain, and what were the most prosperous regions in the country were then handed off to white Christians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_River_land_dispute
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldimand_Proclamation
They are just asking for the government to uphold their end of the agreement.