I disagree on principle. If there were any tribes left that claimed sovereignty - I don’t think there are after an act of Congress granted them all citizenship - I would argue those tribespeople were not Americans.
My conception is that Native American identity, like my Floridian identity, is distinguished from the national identity.
~Max
It was an example of how forgetful Americans are about the origins of our country. Columbus Day is, in my opinion, an effective reminder.
I don’t believe there are a significant number of people who identify as Native Americans without blood relation. Furthermore I believe this is because the tribes themselves by and large distinguish their own people from others by blood relation.
The United States, in contrast, has a multicultural population.
~Max
I understand this argument, but I disagree with both premises and have already posted counter-assertions, most recently the second paragraph of #134 (Columbus did influence U.S. history) and the first paragraph of #140 (most Native American history is not our [meaning U.S. national] history) respectively.
~Max
You really need to step back and try to see how you sound here. It’s not good.
That was not the point I was making in the post you quoted. The point of the holiday, to me, is to commemorate the meeting of peoples from the two hemispheres, and to reflect on its legacy: the good and the bad that has come of it - one of those things being the United States itself.
I have already written that I am not particularly attached to the name of the holiday, here:
~Max
I fear no amount of mere introspection will change my mind on the subject, (at least not without first seeing a different perspective), given that I spent a week doing so for this topic already. I don’t believe in any theory of inherent racial superiority, nor do I support personal or cultural genocide, nor am I somehow concerned about a future where America is predominantly non-white; these are in my opinion the detestable elements of white supremacism.
~Max
Your ignorance in this matter is staggering.
Especially since you keep posting as if you knew something about the subject.
So call it Civilizations In Collision Day.
What you may nevertheless be stuck on is the idea that “white European” is somehow what is “normal”; as you seem intent on putting everybody else out of the mainstream of American society.
From your cite,
The US Constitution recognizes that tribal nations are sovereign governments, just like Canada or California.
California is not a sovereign government, it is bound by the United States Constitution. Hence the concept of dual sovereignty. And tribes are clearly differentiated from foreign governments like Canada. The article you cited is using the term “sovereign” in a different sense than I was, or it is wrong. (Or I am wrong, as you say, but I am not convinced)
ETA: Not to write a thesis on the idea, but my understanding of the sovereignty of federally recognized tribes is that they are effectively on the level of state governments. Originally they were on the level of a foreign government, and treaties were conducted with the tribes. But in 197X the United States granted every individual U.S. citizenship, and granted federal birthright citizenship for anyone born on reservations, thus every single person in those tribes is bound by the United States Constitution and federal laws, even if they might have treaty rights which say otherwise, unless citizenship to the U.S. is forfeited. The tribal nations may still technically have the right to pass local laws that ignore federal laws or the federal Constitution, but since every individual is a U.S. citizen, the United States always has federal jurisdiction when such a law is enforced or threatened to be enforced.
(I tend to think that granting automatic citizenship for all rather than opt-in citizenship per tribe was a bad move.)
This comment seems to have come out of left field. I don’t know in what sense you think I think of “white European” as “normal”, so I couldn’t tell you whether I’m stuck on that or not. But I agree that just because some two thirds of the U.S. population identify as white doesn’t mean people who identify otherwise are not part of mainstream American society.
~Max
Correction, 1924.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens/
~Max
Honestly I’m not sure if Canada is a sovereign state, I just don’t know enough about their particular system of government and its relationship with the British parliament and the provinces. So I assume they are. They certainly are treated like a sovereign state by the U.S., and by all means the government of Canada is a foreign government from the perspective of the U.S.
~Max
That just seems wackadoodle. We modern Americans, with or without any Native ancestry, live on lands that Native Americans had occupied for thousands of years before our time. We use thousands of their placenames, we see the hills and lakes they saw, we feel the weather patterns they felt (modulo anthropogenic modifications). Many of our ancestors directly adopted, and passed down to their descendants even through the early days of industrialization, aspects of Native clothing, craft, technology and lore.
But you think that their history simply remains irrelevant to US history up to the point where they were formally inducted into the US political structure in some capacity? That makes no sense at all to me.
I don’t agree that national history should be confined to the history of the nation’s officially constituted government and its actions.
Nor do I agree with you about the appropriateness of reinforcing the self-serving myth of American “national identity” which defaults to representing only or overwhelmingly white people of European descent. As I pointed out back in post #127, that version of “national identity” was deliberately constructed by white people who were culturally soaked in pervasive assumptions of white supremacy, and who deliberately marginalized, disempowered and silenced non-white people because of that.
Just because they couldn’t see past the blinkers of their own racial prejudice to envision a more inclusive “national identity” doesn’t mean that we’re not allowed to.
Considering the depth of knowledge you’ve otherwise shown in this thread, I’m going to take the statement of the people themselves about whether they’re sovereign over your opinion that they’re wrong.
I didn’t say irrelevant, the next sentence after what you quoted reads in part, “their history is ours only so far as […] their actions influenced our history”. Naming a place or designing clothes/agricultural techniques are actions, sometimes by Native Americans, that influenced U.S. history and are therefore to that extent part of U.S. history.
~Max
Do you also think that state sovereignty renders state citizens “not Americans”?
Tribal membership and tribal sovereignty are orthogonal to American citizenship. Tribal sovereignty still exists even if all the residents are US citizens.
So your Floridian identity would be unchanged if Florida were a province of Greater Hispanolia instead?
And you didn’t answer these questions, which were not at all rhetorical:
No.
While that is true,
This is not true in any practical sense. I do think that it may be technically legal for a tribe to pass a law repugnant to U.S. federal law, but the tribe would not be able to enforce it. Tribes do not even own the land they occupy, that is federal land set aside as tribal reservations… U.S. citizens who attempt to deprive other U.S. citizens of their federal rights, on federal land, is a matter subject to federal jurisdiction. This has the practical effect of depriving Native American governments of sovereignty.
I think it would be changed. I used the word “distinguished”, not “independent”.
~Max
The Mississippian culture was already essentially gone before the first Spaniard left Mexico for the North. All that were destroyed were sad remnants.
I understood it to be in decline, but my understanding is that there was a heavy, culture-destroying population drop following the de Soto expedition due to epidemics. Leaving only the Natchez, which were dispersed by the French later on.
~Max
Some sovereignty. It’s not a binary. Tribal sovereignty exists under the federal system, same as state sovereignty does.
The same principle applies to states. See e.g. state marijuana laws.
Which renders this inconsistent:
If you can’t extricate the American-ness from the Floridian-ness, one is just a subset of the other. Which goes back to my observation (that you also failed to address) that you’re very much mistaken that there’s one kind of American-ness.
In fact, I’d wager there’s more than 300 million ways to be American. When you said this (my bolding)
you were unconsciously being more accurate than you knew.
And I’ll note that you still haven’t answered those 2 questions…
Again, applying that kind of deliberate filter to reject any engagement with any Native American history unless it directly impacted the US as a political entity just seems ridiculously nitpicky.
ISTM that it doesn’t matter if a particular Native tribe lived and flourished and went extinct in what is now part of the US without ever seeing a white person. They are still part of American history, because that land is now American and they were a part of the land. Why the pointless insistence on excluding their legacy and their memory?
We’d already established that your understanding of pre-Columbian Native American history was practically non-existent, shallow Wiki dives aren’t going to make that any less obvious.
The Mississipian cultural collapse predates Columbus. What the epidemics decimated was the descendent population, some still clinging to Late Mississipian culture, others already culturally shifted. But the larger part of the cultural complex was already gone. Still playing chunkey and the occasional Morning Star sacrifice, or a couple of mound-raisings at Grand Village is not the same thing.