[ExI] it's the yoga! was: RE: The Doomsday Clock

[Adrian Tymes]

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2018 9:57 AM, "Dave Sill" <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> No, we can't undo the damage that's been done. But we can stop inflicting
>?> more and we can leave them the fuck alone.
>>
>>
>> What exactly would this entail?
>
>  "Stop inflicting damage" would entail not forcing native Americans to
> relocate, not stealing their land, etc. "Leaving them alone" would entail
> leaving them alone.  Stop meddling in their affairs. Stop telling them how
> to live.

Define "meddling in their affairs" and "telling them how to live".
For instance, must they obey our laws when they are in our cities?

Yes, it really does drill down into such details.

>> One person's "we've done it this way longer than I've been alive" can be
>> another's "violating our sacred ways", whether or not said ways have slim to
>> no documentation of actually being ancient.
>
> What business is it of ours whether some practice is ancient or not?

"Because it's ancient" is often used as a justification: if it was
pre-existing, then the redress requested is to revert to that state.

>>   Both of them involve one party being aware of and caring about another
>> for a potentially infinite period of time ("forever" and "it will never be
>> okay to resume inflicting damage").
>
> Leaving people alone should be the default. It shouldn't be a burden to
> remember not to violate someone's rights. "Oh, crap, I forgot I'm not
> supposed to steal my neighbor's stuff and rape his wife!."

We are not today stealing from Native Americans, nor raping them, to a
much larger degree* than we are stealing from and raping anyone else
who we today call our citizens.  What treatment would you have us give
them, that even needs bringing up as something we do not already
extend to everyone?

* Language chosen to deter "but all taxation is theft" derails.  We're
talking about relative treatment, not treatment of Native Americans in
isolation.

>>   The distinction is whether the one party must give more or different
>> care and attention to this specific other party than to any other ordinary
>> fellow member of the first party's civilization.
>
> I'm not talking about giving native, or African Americans, or ... different
> care. I'm talking about respecting other people's rights.

And we are.  An argument could be made for dismantling reservations
and otherwise undoing all laws that today give Native Americans
special or preferential treatment, but that would seem to be the
opposite of what you are calling for.

If that is what you are calling for, then you should explicitly call
for that.  Many people will read "leave them alone" as "exile them all
to the reservations and forbid them from returning, so we no longer
interact with them".