Giving public lands back to Native Tribes is a horrible idea, amirite?

In the US we have native reparations- they're called casinos lol. The local tribe - less than a 1,000 members - in my area opened casinos 15 years ago, made a few $100 million, launched a whole business empire across the region, and just started buying back their land and restoring it to its natural habitat. They also gave millions away each year to schools all over the region, teach their native language to all kids in the local school, partnered with health authorities to open drug/alcohol centers, buy land and build affordable housing for tribal members living off the reservation. I could go on- they are an absolute powerhouse.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Does not sound like any tribal lands I've been around. Care to be more specific?

by alanisdibbert 9 months ago

This is what they mean when they say the indigenous people are the best custodians of the land and the people who live there. You love to see it.

by NeighborhoodSea 9 months ago

Have you ever been to tribal lands?

by Anonymous 9 months ago

They have not. They look to the Mohegan casinos and ignore reservation land is actually among the poorest in the nation usually

by Long_Restaurant 9 months ago

Exactly

by gleasonadolf 9 months ago

I grew up in the reservation town and went to school with the tribe. Before the casino, drug addiction and alcoholism was rampant. Everyone had an uncle or someone that would be passed out on the streets somewhere on the weekend. We partied on the rez all the time (because no police) and I'm surprised any of us survived. We were all pathetically poor, but the rez was really, really poor. It so incredibly awesome to see how much they have helped their community. It is night and day. Not only did they help tribal members, they helped non-natives in their community too. I couldn't be prouder to call them my friends and neighbors. They rock!

by Anonymous 9 months ago

This makes my heart swell for your people, I am so happy for the positive changes you've gotten to experience.

by NeighborhoodSea 9 months ago

I don't think being indigenous automatically qualifies you to be a great custodian of the land lol. There was a story a few years ago near me where a bunch of kids got hospitalized for tetanus because they swam in a pond where the friendly neighborhood reservation chop shop had been dumping stolen cars and parts they couldn't use or sell. Being indigenous possibly means through your culture and upbringing you will be motivated to be a custodian, and pursue the right education and career to enable you to do so, which I think is awesome and powerful and we need more of.

by sydneeschuster 9 months ago

So you base this opinion on and entirely because of one anecdote to the contrary? This isn't a valid counter point, especially when you ask yourself why people turn towards criminal acts such as dumping parts and cars.

by NeighborhoodSea 9 months ago

No I'm just saying a platitude about "indigenous people being the best custodians of the land" isn't doing them or anyone justice. Natives that take it upon themselves to become preservers of nature and culture do it through sheer hard work, willpower and an upward battle against their tragic histories. It's not inherit in their DNA or anything. Plus there's millions of other folks that aren't native also doing their best to preserve and restore nature all over the world, and it's not good to minimize their efforts just because they're not indigenous to North America. Celebrate the success, but it's a team effort across nations and peoples to undo the damage that has been done.

by sydneeschuster 9 months ago

I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole

by Anonymous 9 months ago

it is not right to take land that every citizen can enjoy and give it to a small number of people Isn't this exactly what happened to them???

by Firm_Ostrich_9069 9 months ago

The crown lands arent exclusive to a small number of people

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Them, who? No one alive was wronged.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Yes, and was it right?

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

Of course not but if you get robbed you would typically want your stuff back, right? If someone steals your car the police aren't going to let them keep it because it turns out they like driving it and will probably take care of it better than you.

by Firm_Ostrich_9069 9 months ago

Now do Israel Palestine

by Anonymous 9 months ago

What's your point? I'm pretty sure anyone who is in favor of reparations for native Americans would also be in favor of land reparations for Palestinians

by ora58 9 months ago

It's a beautiful thing when you expose people as "current-thingers"

by Anonymous 9 months ago

But what if one tribe robbed it from another tribe and then we give the land back to the wrong tribe? Maybe we can all be Americans, that would be nice. Or Canadians, in the case of Canada.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Canadians are technically Americans.

by TargetParticular1356 9 months ago

In the legal system, it's common for a convicted thief to not only serve time, but to also pay recompense to the victim. Are you saying that it's theft to take recompense from a thief?

by Sharonorn 9 months ago

Is it wrong to take away the phone someone stole and giving it to its actual owner?

by Waelchiayana 9 months ago

The "owner" stole the phone from another "owner" who did the same. It's basic history lmao

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

I don't know who the original owner was, I just know who I wronged

by Waelchiayana 9 months ago

Again this analogy falls flat when you remember you did not wrong anyone. I'd agree if it was right after the genocide happened but it's been 200 some years minimum and by doing this you'd be wronging countless others

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

I didn't but I'm benefiting from it when I shouldn't

by Waelchiayana 9 months ago

Return of stolen property is called justice.

by SuspiciousExpert7459 9 months ago

Hard to call it "property" when it's empty land. North America was very nomadic and travelled a lot for hunting purposes, there's no real logic to where they could draw the lines, because otherwise the entire country is "theirs?" What are we gonna do? All just pack up and leave? Their only claim to ownership was "we were here first"

by Anonymous 9 months ago

So? Do you live on every inch of land at your house? If you're not using the back corner of your lot, can I just come and use it myself?

by SuspiciousExpert7459 9 months ago

Why are the white men who took it more deserving of keeping it?

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Long dead, as are the people who were stolen from. Every country in the world is on land of a previous owner.

by zokeefe 9 months ago

Their ancestors live on and in the lands stolen from indigenous communities and nations. White people today are not guilty of the crimes committed by their ancestors but they are culpable when still benefiting from those crimes.

by NeighborhoodSea 9 months ago

Holding white people (or anyone really) responsible for wrongs of people who they may or may not be related to at all (most likely not) that happened 200 years ago is a huge stretch in logic

by Anonymous 9 months ago

And the indigenous communities and nations stole the land from other indigenous communities and nations before that. I guess we could try and do some sort of massive global genetic survey to finally decide who's descended from the first people to inhabit an area and who needs to go back where their ancestors come from. Africa would get very crowded, and everywhere else would be empty.

by scottie95 9 months ago

We do not need to go back 3000 years to determine who was wronged, we have much more recent travesties to account for. The exchange of land between indigenous peoples through conquest and expansion is not the same as settler colonialism stealing all of the land from every indigenous tribe and nation and I think it's ridiculous to have to point that out. Your argument is only obfuscation and is not a solution.

by NeighborhoodSea 9 months ago

I mean, some of them are. A good number of tribes are completely gone and those that remain have populations in the thousands. It wouldn't really make sense to hand over an entire state of territory to a couple thousand people. This is a good example of something that simply can't happen in reality and it is more of an idealistic talking point than anything else.

by Particular-Owl-7529 9 months ago

If we gave all the lands in the world back to people who lost it at some point in history, then everybody would have to move out of everywhere.

by SubstantialTwo 9 months ago

It's not your land to have is the point. You as a non native person would be a guest

by Anonymous 9 months ago

African people havent colonized Europe or taken European lands.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Spain would disagree

by Expensive-Rub 9 months ago

The land was "taken back".

by Anonymous 9 months ago

We are talking about an indigenous population getting land back from their colonizers. You are talking about immigration to Europe

by Anonymous 9 months ago

We are talking about an Indigenous population getting land back from their colonizers

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Yes if the property is land stolen from the indigenous population.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

No. If you came and took the land from those people that they were living on. Colonized them and then oppressed them until very recently that is a very specific example. Migration is not colonization.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Everyone who fought over those lands has been dead for at least a century. Humanity's entire history is full of bloodshed and violence. Native Americans were killing each other long before the white man showed up, slavery predates the concept of race and chattel slavery by like, quite a bit, christians and muslims have been killing each other for centuries, empires existed in every part of the world. It's still eurocentric to look at all the things europeans did and act as if they were unique evils. as if the British were somehow uniquely evil, rather than just the next link in a chain of imperialism that stretches back to Sumer. The only thing different is the scale, which is due less to any sort of greater malice and more to progress of technology. I say all this just to illustrate the point that if we go into the business of what land belongs to who, of punishing the descendants of monsters, there is no person on earth who wouldn't be complicit. and i'm all for fixing the systemic inequality that has been perpetuated by centuries of european imperialism. However, any instance where one group has their land taken because the other group feels they deserve it more is going to perpetuate the cycle of violence, of the group who had it taken feeling like they deserved it, then time passes and they demand it back, around and around the wheel turns.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

I disagree with you and I think people use language like this to minimize harm. Part of fixing systemic inequality is prioritizing the harmed and if we cant do that and instead just pretend this is the natural way of life we cant move forward

by Anonymous 9 months ago

How am I a guest if I was born here?

by willarenner 9 months ago

This is literally the rhetoric of the far right. I guess you support expelling Poles from western Poland, then?

by Anonymous 9 months ago

This is literally not rhetoric from the far right because they're not advocating for indigenous people

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Of course they are (and all of them of course claim to be indigenous even when it makes no sense). Like, indigeneity and primordialism are classical ultranationalist tropes.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

In the US and Canada the far right is not advocating for the indigenous community.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

So? The point is the supposed left is adopting the language and the blood and soil beliefs of the far right.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

No theyre not. And it's ok if you dont get what the Land Back movement in America is and that's why youre confused

by Anonymous 9 months ago

"Nuh uh". They are though. It's literally the same ideology except applied to native Americans. (Not that original, either. Bolivian fascism for example used to be enamored of the Aymara and Quechua.) That doesn't change how reactionary and stupid the ideology is. Particularly when it's wedded to religious beliefs about "sacred lands".

by Anonymous 9 months ago

They're not. and if you arent interested in learning that's ok. I did try to search BdV but nothing came up.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Bund der Vertrieben.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

You also tellingly haven't said anything about Poles in western Poland, or Czechs in Sudety.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Because we are talking about the Land Back movement in the US and Canada. Is there a Land Back movement in Poland and Czechia?

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Yes, there is the BdV, a rather miserable far-right organisation.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Ok and how does that align with the land back movement in the Americas?

by Anonymous 9 months ago

You sound like a kid crying because they have to give back the candy they stole from the convenience store. It's not supposed to make you feel warm and fuzzy. It doesn't matter if you could "benefit more". It's making something right. That said, I don't think this opinion is unpopular. Most people when polled on things like reparations object to them because they feel they are being punished for something people did hundreds of years ago.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Punishing people who had nothing to do with the genocide and giving it to the tribe that genocided the most recent tribe before them isn't "right". End of story. Again using this example a lot since it's my local history there were calls to give Iroqouis groups land by lake erie. Low and behold the Erie tribe was there before them and no longer exist because the Iroqoius killed them all.

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

Your opinion is not unpopular.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Seems to be here. And that doesn't prove any point lmao

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

It does prove a point. If an opinion is popular it it is, definitionally, not unpopular

by Sharonorn 9 months ago

The notion that giving land back to the Native Americans is a horrible idea is not at all an unpopular opinion; there is no homeowner in this country who is volunteering to give their property back to the First Nations. That's why it hasn't happened. What you are presenting as an unpopular opinion, is the opinion of the vast majority of Americans

by Sharonorn 9 months ago

Thank you, exactly

by Anonymous 9 months ago

If you inherit $1 million from an uncle, and it turns out that money was the proceeds of a bank robbery, and the government retrieves the money, are you being punished?

by Sharonorn 9 months ago

Who cares what's right and wrong. The US conquered the land fair and square. If the natives want it so bad, how about they just take it back? Oh wait, they can't because they lost. That's how nations are formed, hone. We can't cater to the losers of history.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Just proving my point that this is not an unpopular opinion.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Do you feel that Russia should be allowed to conquer and kill anyone they want in Ukraine?

by Additional-Hippo 9 months ago

^ average amerikkkan

by Anonymous 9 months ago

conquered the land fair and square. Baby that's an oxymoron

by Waelchiayana 9 months ago

You realize the US goverment owns 90% of the west? It gets used for cattle ranches who dont even pay the grazing fees and destroy the land.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

This idea is so stupid. If you start with that, there is no end in sight. All land in Europe is won by conquest, nobody is thinking of giving it back. That would be a grave mistake of history. God people are stupid.

by Schroedernona 9 months ago

This is the equivalent of me robbing you and then saying it's wrong for you to want your money back

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Maybe learn some history about how all countries in the world came to be. This is just the dumbest idea ever.

by Schroedernona 9 months ago

I know how the world came to be, however the discussion is if it's right or not. Would you say Russia's in the right for invading Ukraine because that's how the world came about?

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Not comparable at all. Imagine Russia taking part of Ukraine and Ukraine in 250 years asking for it back. That's just not how things work. The victor takes the spoils. You can't ask for it back in 200 years. It's a very narrow-minded look on how things work in life. None of the people living today have anything to do with what happened in the past, definitely if it's this long ago.

by Schroedernona 9 months ago

Not the equivalent. Firstly the tribes the US government stole from had stolen it from other tribes. Look up what happened to the Erie tribe for example. Secondly this is more like my 7th great grandpa robbing your 7th great grandpa and demanding payment

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

Even if it's generational robbery it's still robbery. You can't just say it's not right for them to have their rightful land back after we killed them, broke the treaties, and then stole their land

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Again one thing to keep in mind is they stole the land from a different tribe. Look at what happened to the Erie indians. Look what happened to the Dakota Tribe. Each of them were colonized or conquered by neighboring tribes. That's like you complaining about me 7th great grandfather robbing your 7th great grandfather who robbed another great grandfather

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

"we"? How old are you?

by scottie95 9 months ago

No land back unless they will build mega towers like they did in Canada. MOAR HOUSING!

by Anonymous 9 months ago

There was something on the ballot in everett wa (I think) about native land. Wasn't paying close attention, was for anything that gave back. I know we sold our church and property and one of the stipulations was passing it through the tribes for approval. They had until a certain date, they didn't do anything, so sale went through. (Housing hope putting in low income housing for seniors)

by Anonymous 9 months ago

I live in an area surrounded by native owned land and businesses, funded by casino properties owned by a tribe locally. The tribe is one of the wealthiest in the country, and each member of their reservation makes ~$87,000 a month just because they're living there. The tribe has done incredible things for the surrounding land, returning property to its former glory. They've also given billions in donations, built recycling facilities, maintain one of the most advanced fire and police services in the state, help surrounding governments, and offer their employees unrivaled wages and health care programs. Basically, as a force in the state they do mostly all good with their profits, especially in the realm of land conservation. Yes, they develop on this land sometimes. The last few developments have been waste recycling facilities, visitors centers, road infrastructure that benefits the entire region, and a hospital.

by modesta33 9 months ago

… Well. The opinion is unpopular, I'll give you that…

by Dismal-Pea 9 months ago

I know it must be weird seeing an actual unpopular opinion here.

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

The problem is that you're not refusing to engage with their view of the issue. Your concern is that you can't fish in the land, their concern is someone building a pipeline in their sacred land. Every price is small when you're not the one paying it I guess. It's telling that your issue with it is a hypothetical and theirs is a real one.

by hackettrogers 9 months ago

Not a hypothetical a park was recently closed in Minnesota and given to Natives. Crownland was given to a Native Tribe. Guess what? No more non natives. Besides they can develop the land and guess what happens. They develop the land

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

Oh uau, one park. How did you survive? I guess you won't even look up why they did and you just assume every tribe would do it to every meter of land?

by hackettrogers 9 months ago

its just finally following the treaties we made with them

by Anonymous 9 months ago

I agree, and that this is promoted by the nominal left just shows how much leftists today buy into some pretty reactionary ideas about blood and soil. I doubt it would mean much to the average native Canadian, too, but it would certainly mean white Canadian leftists can stroke themselves over how good they are.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

It wasn't ours to take in the first place.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

"Oh no but think of the tourists! Those poor people who can't enjoy the view of the stolen land! How will they ever survive without their little hike on what is probably someone's sacred land covered with the blood of their ancestors?"

by Waelchiayana 9 months ago

And by making up for said wrong you will be giving it to a group that will not be making it up for their wrong. Instead you are taking away nature from everyone to give it to someone who stole it from a different tribe. End of story is I want nature to be accessible to everyone. Not just tribes

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

you will be giving it to a group that will not be making it up for their wrong. Because they share your opinion, don't you see that? You're complaining about them acting like you're acting Instead you are taking away nature from everyone to give it to someone who stole it That's exactly what the US did End of story is I want nature to be accessible to everyone. Not just tribes So do I but I can't just enter anyone's home, kill them and declare their house a public place can I?

by Waelchiayana 9 months ago

LOL.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Op complaint "it's not right to take land that every citizen can enjoy and give it to a small number of people" lmao

by croninvince 9 months ago

It was their land to begin with. Settlers stole it.

by Albinbruen 9 months ago

They stole it from other groups. No idea why people believe native americans were just sitting around never hurting eachother. The Erie indians had their land stolen by the Iroqouis. The Iroqouis had their land stolen from the french.

by RegularCare7322 9 months ago

Ya cant just go stealing land after signing treaties that this land and your statehood are recognized. What is the point of treaties or the concept of popular sovereignty etc then?

by Dry_Win_7779 9 months ago