Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Bomb#20]

Okay, then from WHAT do such "rights" derive in your opinion?
* FWIW, I am not pretending to have an answer to that question - at least not a one-size-fits-all answer.

I agree with that -- real estate is complicated and I don't think there's a simple answer, other than "all the various ways land rights are established". Democracy, treaties, eminent domain, adverse possession, squatters' rights, purchase, inheritance, bankruptcy, ...

But I would not 100% disallow inherited rights in cases where the progeny of former "rights holders" still exist as a group within that territory.

Well, what does it mean for a group to inherit land rights from a group? It clearly doesn't mean an individual acquires an individual right by inheritance from a group that had had a group right to the land -- no self-appointed representative of the group gains a right to unilaterally deploy the land as he sees fit against the wishes of the rest of the group.

And it likewise doesn't mean that being the same ethnicity as the group that collectively owned the land gives you any more rights than people of different ethnicity -- for instance, the U.S. courts have ruled that the Cherokee Nation isn't allowed to define membership racially, and has to treat the descendants of the Cherokees' black pre-Civil-War slaves equally. The ethnic Cherokees' ancestors came to America ten-thousand-odd years ago, and the black people's ancestors came to America in the 17th to 19th centuries, and they all have equal rights to any communal Cherokee land. Some of the ethnic Cherokee are racists who aren't happy about that; well, if they didn't want black people in their tribe they should have picked better ancestors who didn't enslave anyone.

So if inherited group rights aren't rights based on who your ancestors are, what are they based on? In these kinds of cases, I think they're basically treaty rights -- the U.S. government entered a treaty with a tribe, and the terms of the treaty determine what if any extra rights tribal membership confers. But treaties don't trump the Constitution. A tribal government can't deny its black members equal protection of the law.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Again, what is collective blame if not to blame people for the behavior of other people, just because they belong to some group chosen somehow?

Of course, one may properly blame many people for their own individual wrongdoings, even if said wrongdoings involve the participation in a joint endeavor. But that is another matter, and not what some of us object to.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And is also incompatible with the same relative moralities they bang on about.

Who bangs about relative moralities?

If ethics is wishy-washy and tribal or wishy-washy and personal, or wishy-washy and just-so established then collective punishment, blame, or responsibility cannot be proclaimed to be absolutely wrong.

True, assuming there is no absolute core in addition to those tribal variations.

I don't believe that, though.

Neither do I.

 

[Worldtraveller]

This issue of the definition of a native seems to be a derail for the purpose of distracting from the issue of the OP.

It's not a derail; its purpose is to rebut the OP and more particularly to rebut a specific line of argument several posts offered in support of the OP.

Once upon a time there was a widespread movement called "liberalism" that favored equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed or color; but that went out of fashion decades ago and the old discredited theory that what your rights are depends on your race, creed and color became all the rage again. There's now a popular narrative according to which some ethnic groups have superior rights to others, on account of supposedly being here "first", which is supposed to make those natives somehow more native than other natives, the latter natives' immigrant ancestors having been more recent immigrants than the immigrant ancestors that the nativer natives are descended from. For example, the new narrative assigns a more native native superior rights to make unilateral land-use decisions, decisions that insufficiently native natives are supposed to give extra respect to on account of his superior firstness and superior nativeness.

Puncture the narrative and you puncture the claim of superior rights.

This post reminds me of that line in Falcon and Winter Soldier series (to somewhat paraphrase): "Not a single thing you just said is correct."

 

[Worldtraveller]

I don't know where you get the idea that Native rights are superior rights. Perhaps if you gave a specific example we can see if what you are describing are treaty, property, and customary use rights.

And bear in mind that a number of treaties have been explicitly broken, a clear example of "the white man" demanding special rights not offered, nor peacefully agreed on, usually at the business end of a weapon.

Not sure about Canada, but in the US, there is not a single Indian Treaty that the US government hasn't violated (usually multiple/ongoing times).

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know where you get the idea that Native rights are superior rights. Perhaps if you gave a specific example we can see if what you are describing are treaty, property, and customary use rights.

And bear in mind that a number of treaties have been explicitly broken, a clear example of "the white man" demanding special rights not offered, nor peacefully agreed on, usually at the business end of a weapon.

Not sure about Canada, but in the US, there is not a single Indian Treaty that the US government hasn't violated (usually multiple/ongoing times).

So I guess my point is, why is this now considered arson and not eviction and lawful demolition?

If the answer is "we have weapons", or "there are more of us", the underlying principle of those applications is "might makes right", and the response is "asymmetrical warfare by whatever means works until sanity is restored".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Collective blame implies wrongdoing on part of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Collective blame implies wrongdoing on part of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

No, it does not. Collective blame can be applied that way, but does not in it's basic form make an implication. I provided the counter-example.

 

[bleubird]

Fuck the RCC. They probably have Jewish treasurer in a vault somewhere.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Collective blame implies wrongdoing on part of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

No, it does not. Collective blame can be applied that way, but does not in it's basic form make an implication. I provided the counter-example.

No, you did not.

Again, what is collective blame if not to blame people for the behavior of other people, just because they belong to some group chosen somehow?

Of course, one may properly blame many people for their own individual wrongdoings, even if said wrongdoings involve the participation in a joint endeavor. But that is another matter, and not what some of us object to, and not what is being discussed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not sure about Canada, but in the US, there is not a single Indian Treaty that the US government hasn't violated (usually multiple/ongoing times).

So I guess my point is, why is this now considered arson and not eviction and lawful demolition?

If the answer is "we have weapons", or "there are more of us", the underlying principle of those applications is "might makes right", and the response is "asymmetrical warfare by whatever means works until sanity is restored".

Words have meaning, and the behavior of setting buildings on fire when there is a law passed by the government that says it is arson seems to make it so - not in all possible cases, as one can imagine a government declaring that the actions of the enemy which cause fires are arson or whatever, but this is not one of those hypothetical cases, and there seems nothing that prevents it from being arson.

But the question would be why is arson unethical in this case?

Well, several reasons. But in particular, because it significantly harms people the arsonists know or should know are not guilty of the crimes committed in those churches. Because it implicitly blames the innocent. Because it probably endangers innocent lives and health too - no one died, but fires have a non-negligible risk of having serious unintended consequences. And so on.

 

[laughing dog]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Collective blame implies wrongdoing on part of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

 

[laughing dog]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Again, what is collective blame if not to blame people for the behavior of other people, just because they belong to some group chosen somehow?

We have been through this before. In this particular case, saying the the gov't of Canada and the RCC bear some responsibility for the treatment and deaths of these children does not mean that every living Canadian citizen and Catholic are responsible. No one in their right mind would come to such a conclusion.

It means that the gov't of Canada and the RCC as institutions are bring held responsible for the actions taken under the name.

 

[Jarhyn]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Again, what is collective blame if not to blame people for the behavior of other people, just because they belong to some group chosen somehow?

We have been through this before. In this particular case, saying the the gov't of Canada and the RCC bear some responsibility for the treatment and deaths of these children does not mean that every living Canadian citizen and Catholic are responsible. No one in their right mind would come to such a conclusion.

It means that the gov't of Canada and the RCC as institutions are bring held responsible for the actions taken under the name.

And the actions taken under their name today, namely continuing to keep the bodies and record hidden.

 

[Bomb#20]

Once upon a time there was a widespread movement called "liberalism" that favored equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed or color; but that went out of fashion decades ago and the old discredited theory that what your rights are depends on your race, creed and color became all the rage again. There's now a popular narrative according to which some ethnic groups have superior rights to others, on account of supposedly being here "first", which is supposed to make those natives somehow more native than other natives, the latter natives' immigrant ancestors having been more recent immigrants than the immigrant ancestors that the nativer natives are descended from. For example, the new narrative assigns a more native native superior rights to make unilateral land-use decisions, decisions that insufficiently native natives are supposed to give extra respect to on account of his superior firstness and superior nativeness.

Puncture the narrative and you puncture the claim of superior rights.

I don't know where you get the idea that Native rights are superior rights. Perhaps if you gave a specific example we can see if what you are describing are treaty, property, and customary use rights.

I don't know where you get the idea that I said Native rights are superior rights. They are not superior rights, and that should be obvious to anyone whose moral judgment hasn't been broken by tribalist indoctrination. I said there's a popular narrative according to which Native rights are superior rights. These are fictional rights existing only in the minds of a subculture; the courts aren't recognizing them as treaty, property, and customary use rights. It would be nice to suppose this is because judges by and large are more intelligent than the public, or because constantly dealing with the facts of actual cases leads judges to recognize that reality has a liberal bias; but I suspect it may simply be because of the inertia of the legal system. As old judges retire and young judges are appointed from the ranks of the indoctrinated, maybe courts will start ruling that Native rights are superior rights.

As for a specific example, here's one: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...l-Disobedience&p=917381&viewfull=1#post917381

"If someone built something on your land without your permission, do you have the right to remove it as you see fit?"​

I'm pretty sure the author would not have written that, if we were talking about some random American burning down a mosque built in America without his permission because he was angry about 9/11. Being a member of a population with a grievance doesn't make group-owned land "your land" or entitle you to take unilateral action against those who build without "your permission", unless you have superior rights to the rest of us.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't know where you get the idea that Native rights are superior rights. Perhaps if you gave a specific example we can see if what you are describing are treaty, property, and customary use rights.

And bear in mind that a number of treaties have been explicitly broken, a clear example of "the white man" demanding special rights not offered, nor peacefully agreed on, usually at the business end of a weapon.

The treaties were not broken by "the white man"; "the white man" did not demand special rights; "the white man" is not claiming it was right to break the treaties; and the theory that Native rights are superior rights is not being pushed by "the Native man". These things were done by particular individuals, not by some "the <insert race here> man" archetype who exists only in the minds of racists; and as far as I can tell, the great majority of the folks demanding special rights for "the Native man" are white folks.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know where you get the idea that Native rights are superior rights. Perhaps if you gave a specific example we can see if what you are describing are treaty, property, and customary use rights.

And bear in mind that a number of treaties have been explicitly broken, a clear example of "the white man" demanding special rights not offered, nor peacefully agreed on, usually at the business end of a weapon.

The treaties were not broken by "the white man"; "the white man" did not demand special rights; "the white man" is not claiming it was right to break the treaties; and the theory that Native rights are superior rights is not being pushed by "the Native man". These things were done by particular individuals, not by some "the <insert race here> man" archetype who exists only in the minds of racists; and as far as I can tell, the great majority of the folks demanding special rights for "the Native man" are white folks.

The treaties continue to be broken.

The treaties continue to be broken by particular individuals, on behalf of a group. Either the group rejects the offenders, and quits the offending behavior of it's ranks, or the group is complicit.

 

[Emily Lake]

But you and Emily and AM want to play fuck-fuck games.

I assure you, I have no interest in sexual relations with you.

 

[Arctish]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Collective blame implies wrongdoing on part of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

Loren has no problem holding the individual Palestinians responsible for the actions of Hamas and regularly conflates individual Jewish settlers with Israel.

Whatever metrics he's using to allocate blame among the Catholic Church of Canada and individual Canadian Catholics are probably pretty fuzzy. .

 

[Bomb#20]

Not sure about Canada, but in the US, there is not a single Indian Treaty that the US government hasn't violated (usually multiple/ongoing times).

So I guess my point is, why is this now considered arson and not eviction and lawful demolition?

1. Because the arsonist didn't own the land. Being the same ethnicity as the landowning group does not make you the personal landowner. This was not an action voted on openly by the lawful tribal government; it was some hothead.

2. Even if it had been a decision of the lawful tribal government, it was not reviewed by appellate courts to check whether it was a discriminatory action being taken in violation of the parishioners' right to free exercise of religion and therefore unconstitutional.

And, most importantly,

3. The so-called "eviction" and "demolition" were not carried out by sheriff's deputies and professionals with the skill set to make sure nobody got hurt; the arsonist was relying on his own incompetent opinion that the buildings were unoccupied. He could easily have killed somebody.

There seems to be a widespread notion that destroying property as a protest counts as civil disobedience. "Non-violent and non-destructive are two different things. Also, not everyone defines acts of violence as things that can be done to inanimate objects like buildings or institutions.", according to somebody upthread. That's garbage. My father knew a guy who was murdered by a gang of Viet Nam War protestors who thought blowing up an "unoccupied" building that was partly used for military research would be a good way to make their political point. Well guess what? Somebody was working late that night, a post-doc who wasn't even doing military research and wasn't even in the part of the building used for military research. The idiot "protesters" got confused about where to put their bomb and blew up the physics lab.

If the answer is "we have weapons", or "there are more of us", the underlying principle of those applications is "might makes right", and the response is "asymmetrical warfare by whatever means works until sanity is restored".

But that's not the answer; and I think you knew that. Reasons 1, 2 and 3 above are all painfully obvious, and if you didn't figure them out for yourself you certainly should have.