Should America honor all treaties with the Indian Nations?

yes, with US government compensation I would have no issue.

 

And with zero compensation?

 

Why would the government compensate you for land that you stole?

 

Right? Just because I received stolen goods does not mean that I am obligated to receive any sort of reimbursement when I have to surrender it

 

if it was zero compensation, then the government is guilty, as it would not be the government making good on its deal, but me. That would be just as wrong as the government taking the land from the Native Americans in the first place. I’m not sure you understand what honoring an agreement means.

 

because it would not have been permitted if the government honored its agreement. As a citizen of the United States, it falls on them. Common sense.

 

No law and entitles any possessor of anything stolen for any sort of recompensation no matter if they did not steal it to begin with.

It appears it's the government that doesn't understand what honoring an agreement means.

It is completely naive to think the government is going to somehow retroactively give the land back to the native Americans.

Almost every nation on Earth was settled through conquest of some other people at some point in its past.

 

That would depend how tribal lands ended up in your sticky fingers. Why are you assuming it's the government? If you know that the land was stolen somehow it seems like you participated in some sort of land swindle fraud in which case you don't get any compensation for criminal behavior.

 

that makes zero sense. So, you expect the average guy living in his house to know with what tribe and what agreement was violated? I’m pretty sure the average American doesn’t even know of the existence of most tribes.

 

as i stated in previous posts I don’t expect them to give back all lands, but to give back a reasonable amount that will affect the least number of non-native Americans possible. There is tons available, and reasonable deals can be made. Those people who do get affected can be justly compensated for their loss. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

 

And they would be paid by the tax dollars of other taxpayers....

Sort of a meaningless shell game

 

Not for those of other sovereign governments.

 

Well with the scenario that you depicted, any American that had to give their land up and be recompensated by tax dollars, only comes from the tax dollars of other Americans that did not give their land up.

The government doesn't make any money of its own, they just print fiat currency and tax the hell out of the citizens.

 

True, but I assume any institution or any person who does a land acknowledgement has already researched the issue to know that they are on stolen land. If you know you are on stolen land, what's your moral obligation?

 

I don’t see the issue. People pay for things with taxes all the time whether they approve or not. If we approved, they wouldn’t have to tax us to pay for it.

 

sounds like a ridiculous assumption.

 

What else should people pay for that they were not directly involved in?

Should we just go around the world picking reparations recipients?

 

”Honor” - hmmm.

 

Of course. All it is, is handing over the jurisdiction to a different government.
People always seem to think that it means that everybody living on it must be removed. But that's uncalled for.

 

We should honor treaties except in those cases where either the Indians' individual Tribal Governnments and the U. S. Government "changed the deal", or made subsequent modifications and/or "deals" that had the effect of obviating the letter and intent of the treaties as originally written.

 

It's a ridiculous assumption that someone who KNOWS that he's in possession of stolen property shouldn't return it to the rightful owner?

It's more moral issue than legal one at this point, but I see where you are on this.

 

I never said the individual knows, I said the government knows. And yes, if the government KNOWS they stole it from the Native Americans, and they have the ability to give it back without causing undue hardship to lots of people, they absolutely should. I think fair compensation by the government for those being affected in the transfer is perfectly reasonable. I think you are trying to imply things that I am not saying.

 

At this point, we are prejudiced. The promises are now ancient and invalid. What was then is not what is today.
Imagine your great grandfather promised to give $10 to someone. He dies before doing so.
The $10 is used to generate wealth. The person promised the $10 has great grandkids that are all broke. They never did anything. Or they did a lot and certainly don't need that $10. By the time the great grand kids are around of the one that was to pay the $10? They turned that $10 into $1 billion. And the owed great grand kids want that $1 billion.
We have statutes for a reason. It isn't just to hold the great grand kids accountable for an ancient debt. Proximate cause isn't there.
You also have prejudice. Who is to say the other family would have turned the $10 into a billion? Or that the $10 was an important ingredient of how the $1 billion was generated? Or assuming it had something to do with the billion, it didn't become that by itself. How much did it matter to today's billion?
Land? Indians recently got a ton of Oklahoma property. Even if taken 200 years ago from them, the value of that Oklahoma land today exists because of the efforts of others. Seems like an unjust enrichment to one party to the expense of others that don't owe it.
But today, land is less important than the value people bring to it. So, we'll live. Just irksome.

 

I'm trying to understand your position. And it's akin to someone who's caught with stolen goods, and when the police confiscate it, demands restitution.

 

Except it was the police who stole it in this case.