University of California announces free tuition for all Native Americans.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Both Israel & China annexed another people's land when most of the world observed international treaties and rules.

They're still free to leave if they don't like it, regardless of how unjustified those land grabs are.

Canada & the USA predate most of these conventions, so the idea of them giving up land makes as much sense as say... Germany getting Alsace–Lorraine back from France.

It doesn't need to make any sense if people want to give First Nations land. They could do so for whatever reason. From their perspective, these governments are course-correcting because people believe amerinds did not have legal recourse.

With all the money we give them, they could take it and just buy a small piece of Mexico to call home and we would be equal.

They're not going to leave especially when they are getting these handouts. There are nearly 1 million First Nations across Canada alone. What makes Mexicans or Brazilians any more receptive to receiving amerinds?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They're still free to leave if they don't like it, regardless of how unjustified those land grabs are.

The Palestinians cling onto UN Resolution 242, which has saw Israel return land to Egypt before in exchange for peace. Not to mention, they were forced to withdraw from Lebanon when local resistance proved too much to handle.

As feeble as it looks, it's clearly not impossible for Palestine to get back territory of their own. Either diplomatically or through continued resistance.

In comparison, there's absolutely no chance at all Canada or the USA voluntarily cease to exist. The USA literally fought a civil war just to keep its Southern half and Canada entered a state of emergency when Quebec tried to break away in the 1970s. The Indians would have to declare war against the U.S/Canadian armies which they stand no chance of winning.

It doesn't need to make any sense if people want to give First Nations land. They could do so for whatever reason. From their perspective, these governments are course-correcting because people believe amerinds did not have legal recourse.

See the above example. Palestinians can technically fight a war of resistance or go through diplomatic channels to earn territory. Nobody in the international community really cares about the Indians or wants to sponsor them in a fight against two really powerful armies.

They're not going to leave especially when they are getting these handouts. There are nearly 1 million First Nations across Canada alone. What makes Mexicans or Brazilians any more receptive to receiving amerinds?

That's my point. They can take the handouts they already have and use it to establish a new community elsewhere. As for Brazil/Mexico being more receptive? They're not. But if they show up with even just $50 million funny money, that's more than enough to live in their own gated communities and enjoy a higher standard of living.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Regardless of whether or not there is legal precedent for them to get their territory back, that still doesn't prevent them from leaving if they wish to.

On your other point, there is no need for the USA and Canada to cease to exist, nor for tribals to go to war with these countries to receive land. If the monetary drain is so unbearable, these countries could give one-time reparations (including territory) to recognized Indian groups. Just because there isn't a resolution prompting the return of land doesn't at all mean that people wouldn't be willing to give Indians land. That doesn't mean that they necessarily should.

If it is their wish to go to Mexico. Africa, or wherever and start new Indian communities there, they're free to do so. But as long as the government is willing to protect and fund these people, they're not going anywhere. Even if they are nuisances, there are far greater ones that whites are facing.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Regardless of whether or not there is legal precedent for them to get their territory back, that still doesn't prevent them from leaving if they wish to.

Technically, there is another group of Palestinians who did leave (by force). The refugees from the original 1948 war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees

To this day, they still demand a right of return, especially as Israel continues to seize their property (i.e settlers who keep entering the West Bank, destroying Palestinians farms etc).

There's a lot more nuance involved why the Palestinians aren't just leaving.

On your other point, there is no need for the USA and Canada to cease to exist, nor for tribals to go to war with these countries to receive land. If the monetary drain is so unbearable, these countries could give one-time reparations (including territory) to recognized Indian groups. Just because there isn't a resolution prompting the return of land doesn't at all mean that people wouldn't be willing to give Indians land. That doesn't mean that they necessarily should.

Where have you been? We give these groups money all the time on the basis that they EXIST. There is absolutely no obligation for this to continue, since the money goes straight to corrupt Chieftains who funny enough, refuse to spend it on their own people. It's the same Africa-tier politics that ends up going nowhere.

But as long as the government is willing to protect and fund these people, they're not going anywhere.

But here's the thing, we don't have to. Just like how illegal immigrants cross the border and by chance, they stay instead of being turned back. That's actually a failure on our part, because we're helping other people through the goodness of our hearts, but the other side is only interested in being a burden to society. And ignoring the issue only makes it easier for our enemies to exploit us.

The only solution is for a Nationalist government to give them an ultimatum. Either accept they'll never get all their land back and just be normal citizens, or revoke their citizenship/Indian status and treat them like any trespasser.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We're writing in circles so I'll just say this.

You're right about there being no obligation to support Indians, and you are right in that the people do not have to protect and fund them. But the majority do believe they are obliged to. Like you said, it is done because people feel bad about the poor Indians. When people have a good reason to stop feeling bad about them, a government with the appropriate power and support could force Indians to make their journey to Mexico, Africa, or wherever.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I'm aware that most people go along with it. But the same "majority" also goes along with demographic replacement and other harmful beliefs, so it's still important to call them out.