In before "if it’s not written down, it’s not history. "
Of course Columbus is an important part of USA history, as his voyages started European settlement of the New world
The recognized Tribes are sorta like small states. They are no longer Sovereign nations.
?
Yes. That is the point. Because of Europeans, they are 'no longer Sovereign nations". We refused to recognize them as such, using words such as “tribe” to minimize their organizational capacity.
Again, they say they are. I’m not going to ignore their voices.
The various states call themselves “Sovereign” also. None pretend they can issue their own passports or money, declare war, perform international diplomacy, etc. Nor do the Tribes.
While this is true, the same can be said for Queen Isabella of Spain, and we don’t celebrate her. I’m not suggesting that you are advocating for keeping Columbus Day as a holiday, but Max will probably use your response in support of that.
As a Italian-American day, it’s not so bad. But to honor the man? No.
Garibaldi Day would be much more appropriate for an Italian-American day.
Hell, he, at least, actually lived in America for a little while.
I meant it in a binary sense, either you have it all or you don’t. No matter about the terminology, the point was that tribal governments are bound by federal U.S. law and are on the level of states rather than nations.
If I had a sharper mind I would have denied that states had sovereignty in the sense I was using the word. But let that aside, the point is that domestic states and tribal governments are comparable, rather than tribal governments and nation-states.
Of course you can extricate American identity from Floridian identity. You asked me whether the Floridian identity would be changed if Florida wasn’t part of the U.S., and I answered yes. If you had asked me whether the U.S. national identity would be changed if Florida wasn’t part of the U.S., I would answer no.
You see, the American identity is a property of the Floridian identity and not the other way around. There are many kinds of American-ness because each inhabitant of this country has their own individual identity, but there is only one singular national identity, which is itself only a small part of any individual.
I apologize for missing these, I’m not sure how that happened.
I consider identifying with European colonists and explorers, rather than the indigenous peoples they fought against, to be inextricably part of the national identity.
Are you at all aware of what that sounds like?
I am not entirely aware what you have in mind. My opinion extends to other conflicts such as the Revolutionary or Civil war. I think identifying with the rebels in the war of Independence, and the Union in the Civil war, are “inextricably” part of the national identity. From what I have read, the end of the Civil war precipitated a major identity crisis across the South.
~Max
We have a fundamental disagreement over the proper subject of “American history”. Is it a history of the region or a history of the nation? The course in my school was not “American history” but “U.S. History”, abbreviated “ush” or “APush”, and the focus on prehistoric or pre-Columbian peoples only extended to such a basic understanding as was necessary to provide background for the history of the United States, the nation. The peoples of Hawaii, for example, were mostly covered late in the course as background for U.S. involvement on the archipelago. The migrations of peoples across Oceania was a topic covered in World History, the previous year.
This is all secondary to the topic at hand, a tangent upon a tangent, but interesting nonetheless. I made an argument about the national identity, not the history of the region that is now the United States. I do not believe identifying with the people who lived on the land long before our nation came to be is an inherent part of the national identity, because I think the root of a national identity is people, not land. During the early history of the United States, and its direct predecessors, those people were the ones doing the colonizing, and identifying our nation with those people is (in my opinion) a core part of the national identity.
~Max
Why? The indigenous peoples they fought against are still around. You think they should identify with the people who killed their ancestors? This is the crux of your argument, and it’s pretty awful.
You seem to want to reduce all of history to a single, correct, majority narrative. It’s a inherently unfair, dishonest, and morally bankrupt approach. It ignores anyone who was wronged, ignored, or disadvantaged and as such is a poor approach to history.
That is literally how assimilation works. I don’t pretend to have deep insight into the internal debate a Native American may have had back in the day when they had to opt-in to become U.S. citizens, and I have some thoughts about how we forced their assimilation, but once you are a citizen, yes, you should consider the national identity to be part of your identity and in this case you are a citizen of the nation which killed some of your ancestors.
My opinion is no different in the case of a child of a Confederate soldier or of a victim of the Holocaust. (ETA: to clarify, I am not suggesting that the Confederates were wronged like victims of the Holocaust. Only that such a person would have to come to terms with the fact that their nation killed their ancestors)
~Max
What you actually said, which I was responding to, was:
In response to which, I pointed out a cite that says, among other things,
573 sovereign tribal nations (variously called tribes , nations , bands , pueblos , communities , and Native villages ) have a formal nation-to-nation relationship with the US government.
So rather than your mistaken guess, apparently based on nothing, that no tribes claim sovereignty, there are 573 of them.
The Federal BIA says there are 574; and further says
tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government. [ . . . ]
A federally recognized tribe is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that is recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States [ . . .]
Furthermore, federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty)
I note now that you also said:
Have you never heard of dual citizenship?
I am trying to think of calm, cool, collected, words to deal with this and failing. Maybe I’ll come up with some later.
I have and that would be the case for all members of federally recognized tribes. However,
A nation where every individual is legally bound to follow the laws of another nation, is not a nation that exercises supreme governmental power, which was what I meant in the post you quoted. Your citation does not counter my point, which was that no tribal nation claims to have supreme power to govern themselves, and if they did, I would argue they were not or did not wish to be part of the United States.
~Max
That’s not how tribal or state sovereignty works. You can have sovereignty in some aspects and not others, at various levels.
That doesn’t make them not sovereign. You don’t have to be a nation state to exercise sovereignty.
This is not compatible with this:
If it’s changed, it’s not the same identity. Hence current Floridian identity is dependent on American identity, not vice versa. Change the national identity, and the Floridian identity changes. That’s classic dependence.
That’s clearly bollocks, because there are whole swathes of Americans whose identity is not bound up in European anything other than as oppressors/rapists/slavers/killers/colonizers.
Leaving aside the “fought” bit (which is just buying into some stereotypes), why on Earth would, for instance, a Black American want to identify with European colonists? Why would they not want to identify with fellow victims of colonialism?
Are you also saying Black American identity can’t be American identity?
It sounds like a white supremacist stance, is what I have in mind.
There are whole states full of people who would call absolute bullshit on that. Not just the Southerners, either, but all those people whose states didn’t even exist until after the CW.
Suffice to say they got over it.
.
Meh. They claim sovereignty. The US Government says they have sovereignty. You can make up your own definition, I suppose; but you’re in disagreement will all the nations involved.
Unfortunately, I don’t think many of them have.
Whether Max thinks this makes everybody who doesn’t identify with the Union during discussions of the Civil War not an American, I have no idea. (Though I think a better case could be made for that than for saying that anyone who doesn’t identify with Columbus and the conquistadors isn’t American.)
This is arguing about definitions and not substance. Won’t you drop it? I made my point in other words.
I do not see a contradiction.
N is a property of F (alternately F is dependent on N)
Change N and you will change F. (You can not extricate F from N)
Change F and you will not necessarily change N. (You can extricate N from F)
N=national identity
F=Floridian identity
~Max
You seem to be conflating personal identity with national identity. My question to the average American was whether this historical act was ours, as a nation, not if you personally did X or approve of it.
You may as well argue that South Africa (your country, right?) never imprisoned Mandela, &etc!
Black American identity is an ethnic and not a national identity. They have nothing to do with each other. Someone who identifies as a Black or African American can also identify as an American national, or perhaps they identify as a French and not American national because they live in France. Or maybe they identify as both because of dual citizenship. The two identities are independent.
Well, some parts of what I’m saying do sound that way. But I think I have distanced myself from white supremacism as commonly understood.
~Max
Why are you just repeating what I said back to me?
Extrication is a commutative property. If you absolutely can’t extricate F from N, then you can’t extricate N from F.
Of course you will. Part of American identity is its flaccid wang and the Man who resides there. Excise that to Nova Hispanola and you will have changed American identity in some small fashion. Remove the Florida weird and it’s a different America.