Rights of Native Americans/multi-culturalism vs. separatism.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not long ago I created a thread titled "A enraging expose from Jon Oliver on voting rights.". This thread was about a video from Jon Oliver's show Last Week Tonight on the lack of voting rights for certain parts of the US such as Guam and Puerto Rico. Somehow, the thread developed into a debate on the rights of Native Americans and the merits of multiculturalism vs. ethnic/cultural separatism (including the idea of a separate state for Native Americans), among other things. I argued that it is better for different races, ethnicities, and cultures to coexist under the same system of laws and government, though I also accepted that existing agreements creating reservations for Native Americans should be honoured until such time as Native Americans are willing to renegotiate them. There's a lot more that would take a long time to summarize here (you can read it in the prior thread), but that's pretty much the core of my position. Since I feel that this discussion is worth its own thread, I've decided to create one.

The previous thread in question: bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=162754

Edit: It occurs to me that this thread might fit in the Science, Logic, and Morality forum. If a moderator feels it would be better off their, my apologies.

[Simon_Jester]

My feeling is as follows.

The existing body of international law on human rights recognizes ethnic cleansing as one of the greatest possible evils- even if it is done without mass killing, simply by driving the people off the land.

There is a growing awareness, especially when it comes to treatment of indigenous ethnicities, that wiping out the culture of a vulnerable minority is, if less bad than killing them, still very bad indeed. Furthermore, we often find that the prosperity and well-being of a minority hinges on their ability to build up a healthy culture of their own- in the absence of such a culture, social bonds break down, nihilism and aimlessness set in, and the minority tends to fall into poverty traps.

So to me, the heart of the question "to separate or to unite" is "what leaves people better off?" The idea that it is better for everyone to be under the same laws is an idea, a particular notion about what constitutes 'fairness' that you happen to harbor.

Ideologies are less important than people. Especially ideologies that make prescriptive claims about "what is to be done" with minority groups, but that do not include any major philosophical contributions from those minority groups.

And because ideologies are less important than people, if the people would be better off with enough local autonomy to resist being dominated and placed at a permanent disadvantage... then that is what they should have.

[AniThyng]

Not about native americans specifically, but you have to realize by now that secular, impartial laws of the sort you envision are not at all universal - and rightly or wrongly, it is terribly convenient that the laws you favour as being ideal to enforce happen to be the laws that follow your particular brand of liberalism - and it requires other cultures/philosophies to adapt to yours. Where does Sharia stand for example? No doubt you will say that it must drop the parts that conflict with secular western law, as Church law has - which is perhaps fine, because the west has broken/moved past the laws of the western church (but clearly not all of it), so something has to give way, and it's convenient that from your perspective it is Islamic law that has to bend.

[The Romulan Republic]

My feeling is as follows.

The existing body of international law on human rights recognizes ethnic cleansing as one of the greatest possible evils- even if it is done without mass killing, simply by driving the people off the land.

Yes, and rightly so. But I'm not sure how this is relevant, since I am not in any way advocating either killing anyone or driving anyone off their land.

I'm happy to debate this subject but I'd prefer an honest debate.

There is a growing awareness, especially when it comes to treatment of indigenous ethnicities, that wiping out the culture of a vulnerable minority is, if less bad than killing them, still very bad indeed. Furthermore, we often find that the prosperity and well-being of a minority hinges on their ability to build up a healthy culture of their own- in the absence of such a culture, social bonds break down, nihilism and aimlessness set in, and the minority tends to fall into poverty traps.

I do not advocating eliminating any culture. Cultures sometimes have to compromise to coexist equally in the same society and accountable to the same legal system (and that compromise should work both ways), but I believe that considerable diversity can coexist in a united society under a common legal system.

Perhaps you feel that if a minority group has to live alongside others and be accountable to the same laws, their culture will be destroyed, but that is not my intent.

So to me, the heart of the question "to separate or to unite" is "what leaves people better off?" The idea that it is better for everyone to be under the same laws is an idea, a particular notion about what constitutes 'fairness' that you happen to harbor.

It is an ideal that makes sense because otherwise you have the law being enforced unequally, reinforcing the idea that people should be separated and treated differently based on, for example, race (i.e. racism), and probably causing resentment and making people ask "If others are not accountable to certain laws, why should I be?". At that point, you don't really have a united country and you might as well go for outright secession, except that if we created a separate country for every different minority group we'd see every country on Earth torn apart and a great increase in that forcible expelling people from their land that you rightly condemn.

Ideologies are less important than people. Especially ideologies that make prescriptive claims about "what is to be done" with minority groups, but that do not include any major philosophical contributions from those minority groups.

I choose my ideology precisely because I believe that it benefits people. What would an ideology that did not benefit people be but an empty exercise in pride and/or spite?

And what makes you suggest that I am against contributions from minority groups being included? If I think an idea works, I don't care where its from. A legal and political system that incorporated ideas from many different sources wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Frankly, this is just you insinuating I'm a white supremacist who only values western ideas, which is either proof of idiocy on your part, proof of a gross failure to communicate what I actually think on my part, or a contemptable straw man.

And because ideologies are less important than people, if the people would be better off with enough local autonomy to resist being dominated and placed at a permanent disadvantage... then that is what they should have.

I'm not convinced that it would be better. Which is precisely the point of this debate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not about native americans specifically, but you have to realize by now that secular, impartial laws of the sort you envision are not at all universal - and rightly or wrongly, it is terribly convenient that the laws you favour as being ideal to enforce happen to be the laws that follow your particular brand of liberalism - and it requires other cultures/philosophies to adapt to yours.

Of course I am aware that my values are not universal, and I would appreciate it if you do not condescend. And of course the laws that I think would work best are the ones I support- otherwise I wouldn't support them.

And I have already stated that I believe that cultural adaptation is something that should work both ways. As for who should compromise what... well, that's a very lengthy and detailed discussion. Obviously.

Where does Sharia stand for example?

While I don't have a great knowledge of Sharia, I'm sure that it has some ideas I would agree with (any comprehensive, functioning legal system will probably have some common features). However, I am against law based on religion as a rule, as it must discriminate against non-believers if it is imposed on them and must lead to problems I discussed above if it is adopted by only part of a society. In this, I hold it in the exact same regard as I do Christian law or any other form of theocracy, or for that matter state-imposed atheism.

Also, secular law and government is perhaps the greatest protection of freedom of religion, as it demands that no one faith can gain supremacy over others.

You see, the goal of enforcing the law even-handidly is not to suppress other cultures. It is to ensure that no culture is at a disadvantage, among other things.

No doubt you will say that it must drop the parts that conflict with secular western law, as Church law has - which is perhaps fine, because the west has broken/moved past the laws of the western church (but clearly not all of it), so something has to give way, and it's convenient that from your perspective it is Islamic law that has to bend.

My values bend, in a sense, quite a bit to accommodate my legal principles, or at least certain values take a back seat to other ones. I do not believe in using the law to impose all my morals. For example, I think that getting drunk is morally wrong, but I do not support prohibition. Why? Because it is not appropriate to use the law as a means of imposing your morality. Only as a means of protecting peoples' rights, freedom, and safety in an evenhanded manner.

Probably one of the most important principles is that legal and moral are not and cannot always be the same thing.

[cosmicalstorm]

I'm wondering if Europe will have problems with large areas trying to secede from the rest of society and staking down their own flag and getting their own local militia?
Is that a crazy suspicion?

[Knife]

All cultures change, they are not static. Either by themselves or by influence by other cultures. Why it is wrong to destroy cultures, is it not as wrong to artificially put in stasis a culture?

When it comes to Native American's, the more our culture and society moves on, why would not most of them want to abandon shit holes in the deserts with poor funding, infrastructure, and prospects (Yes I know why those are that way) and move to some where... well more modern? Do you force those people to stay 'in their cultures'?

Not addressing anyone particularly, just musing.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm wondering if Europe will have problems with large areas trying to secede from the rest of society and staking down their own flag and getting their own local militia?
Is that a crazy suspicion?

well, there's the Basques and the situation in Ukraine. Is that what you mean?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm wondering if Europe will have problems with large areas trying to secede from the rest of society and staking down their own flag and getting their own local militia?
Is that a crazy suspicion?

If you're referring to Islam, you're probably wrong, at least for the near future. But if you're referring to the various ethnicities scattered around Europe... well, we already have Scottish separatism and separatists in Spain and that whole debacle in the Ukraine, so yeah, you have a point.

[The Romulan Republic]

All cultures change, they are not static. Either by themselves or by influence by other cultures. Why it is wrong to destroy cultures, is it not as wrong to artificially put in stasis a culture?

When it comes to Native American's, the more our culture and society moves on, why would not most of them want to abandon shit holes in the deserts with poor funding, infrastructure, and prospects (Yes I know why those are that way) and move to some where... well more modern? Do you force those people to stay 'in their cultures'?

Not addressing anyone particularly, just musing.

It is certainly true that cultures change over time, but this should happen, for lack of a better word, naturally, not because an outside authority demanded that it happen. The only time the government has a right to interfere in peoples' culture/beliefs is when said beliefs are dangerous or harmful (like cults with child brides)/in violation of existing law. The law should never, ever be used as a weapon to destroy someone's way of life.

As for Native Americans, I don't think anyone here is saying they should be forced to stay on reservations any more than we're saying they should be forced to leave them. I certainly hope not.

But you raise a good point about the shittiness of conditions on reservations. That's something that should be addressed by the government just as much as any other form of poverty.

[General Zod]

All cultures change, they are not static. Either by themselves or by influence by other cultures. Why it is wrong to destroy cultures, is it not as wrong to artificially put in stasis a culture?

When it comes to Native American's, the more our culture and society moves on, why would not most of them want to abandon shit holes in the deserts with poor funding, infrastructure, and prospects (Yes I know why those are that way) and move to some where... well more modern? Do you force those people to stay 'in their cultures'?

Not addressing anyone particularly, just musing.

Pretty sure we're the ones responsible for putting them in those shitholes after reneging on contracts negotiated in good faith.

[Knife]

It is certainly true that cultures change over time, but this should happen, for lack of a better word, naturally, not because an outside authority demanded that it happen.

I'm pretty sure that is how 99% of most cultures change though. Culture has a sense of inertia and only changes when it has to from some in/outside force.

The only time the government has a right to interfere in peoples' culture/beliefs is when said beliefs are dangerous or harmful (like cults with child brides)/in violation of existing law. The law should never, ever be used as a weapon to destroy someone's way of life.

I can understand and agree with that, I also don't think it should keep a way of life alive if no one is really interested in doing it either.

As for Native Americans, I don't think anyone here is saying they should be forced to stay on reservations any more than we're saying they should be forced to leave them. I certainly hope not.

Again, I agree.

But you raise a good point about the shittiness of conditions on reservations. That's something that should be addressed by the government just as much as any other form of poverty.

I'm not an expert in the treaties, and I do think we should help them with infrastructure, but I'm unsure if that is our gig or not. Certainty they could be helped with 'foreign aid' though at the very least.

Pretty sure we're the ones responsible for putting them in those shitholes after reneging on contracts negotiated in good faith.

I know, I alluded to such in my post. That said it was also 150 years ago. Do you think all parties should renegotiate those treaties now? I think I would be ok with that.

[loomer]

Referendum among themselves as to what laws to utilize and what political status to claim is the only genuinely democratic approach to the problem. If they decide on seperatism, good for them. If not, good for them. The only hitch will be matters of economic and legal agreements, e.g. the creation of a shared commercial code for trans-border industry, as these enclave states will be totally reliant on their surrounding state for access to the greater world. But, I'm biased - I'm a strong supporter of the aboriginal sovereignty movements here in Australia and actually a secessionist (on the state level, not federal) myself.

[AniThyng]

Not about native americans specifically, but you have to realize by now that secular, impartial laws of the sort you envision are not at all universal - and rightly or wrongly, it is terribly convenient that the laws you favour as being ideal to enforce happen to be the laws that follow your particular brand of liberalism - and it requires other cultures/philosophies to adapt to yours.

Of course I am aware that my values are not universal, and I would appreciate it if you do not condescend. And of course the laws that I think would work best are the ones I support- otherwise I wouldn't support them.

My bad, that was on me, I apologize. The point that it's still convenient that everything else being equal it is still other cultures that are being asked to adapt to western liberalism stands.

And I have already stated that I believe that cultural adaptation is something that should work both ways. As for who should compromise what... well, that's a very lengthy and detailed discussion. Obviously.

Where does Sharia stand for example?

While I don't have a great knowledge of Sharia, I'm sure that it has some ideas I would agree with (any comprehensive, functioning legal system will probably have some common features). However, I am against law based on religion as a rule, as it must discriminate against non-believers if it is imposed on them and must lead to problems I discussed above if it is adopted by only part of a society. In this, I hold it in the exact same regard as I do Christian law or any other form of theocracy, or for that matter state-imposed atheism.

The problem is the same logic is used by some proponents of Sharia law - we can't very well have two systems of punishment for criminals. Unfortunately instead of then concluding that the solution is to not impose religious law on not-believers and deny secular justice to the religious, they conclude that we should therefore scrap secular law and impose religious law on everyone*...

In that sense a dual track justice system is a compromise.

*This may be a bit of a strawman though, as most serious proposals for sharia law implementation posit that it will only be applied against muslims. But opposition to it tends to go in either "next step is to make it universal" or "you can't have 2 justice systems" but either way the net result is that the Sharia side is the one that has to compromise or change.

Also, secular law and government is perhaps the greatest protection of freedom of religion, as it demands that no one faith can gain supremacy over others.

You see, the goal of enforcing the law even-handidly is not to suppress other cultures. It is to ensure that no culture is at a disadvantage, among other things.

No doubt you will say that it must drop the parts that conflict with secular western law, as Church law has - which is perhaps fine, because the west has broken/moved past the laws of the western church (but clearly not all of it), so something has to give way, and it's convenient that from your perspective it is Islamic law that has to bend.

My values bend, in a sense, quite a bit to accommodate my legal principles, or at least certain values take a back seat to other ones. I do not believe in using the law to impose all my morals. For example, I think that getting drunk is morally wrong, but I do not support prohibition. Why? Because it is not appropriate to use the law as a means of imposing your morality. Only as a means of protecting peoples' rights, freedom, and safety in an evenhanded manner.

Ensuring no culture is at a disadvantage is an ideal, but the reality of it is that the prime benefactor would be the stronger or more influential culture that benefits. It's pretty interesting to go back and look at that Austria and Islam thread though because it's an interesting related situation.

Probably one of the most important principles is that legal and moral are not and cannot always be the same thing.

True.

And what makes you suggest that I am against contributions from minority groups being included? If I think an idea works, I don't care where its from. A legal and political system that incorporated ideas from many different sources wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Frankly, this is just you insinuating I'm a white supremacist who only values western ideas, which is either proof of idiocy on your part, proof of a gross failure to communicate what I actually think on my part, or a contemptable straw man.

I would be interested to hear what non-western ideas that you value, actually...not because I think you are actually a white supremacist or anything, but because it's one thing to talk about how you value input from all cultures, and quite another to actually apply that input.

[ray245]

My bad, that was on me, I apologize. The point that it's still convenient that everything else being equal it is still other cultures that are being asked to adapt to western liberalism stands.

Why can't we form some sort of value judgement on culture? Sure, we can't view one's own culture as being inherently superior, but I also doubt the notion of all culture as being equal sort of undermines the whole value of one's own culture. If the main basis of accepting a specific culture as the right way to live, there ought to be some form of justification beyond this being the tradition that was taught by my parents. That process alone would require us to view some culture as inferior.

The big problem would arise when one's basis for accepting one culture does not extend beyond accepting the notion that it is part of one's tradition. Never mind the fact that traditions are often altered and twisted to fit the current cultural needs, but it also becomes a problem because such culture would be less universal as well. I would think that traditionalism is anti-thesis of universalism because this kind of culture has less argumentative power than a set of cultures that doesn't rely on traditions as much. How do you convince others that your culture should be accepted by them if they weren't raised as part of that culture?

[AniThyng]

My bad, that was on me, I apologize. The point that it's still convenient that everything else being equal it is still other cultures that are being asked to adapt to western liberalism stands.

Why can't we form some sort of value judgement on culture? Sure, we can't view one's own culture as being inherently superior, but I also doubt the notion of all culture as being equal sort of undermines the whole value of one's own culture. If the main basis of accepting a specific culture as the right way to live, there ought to be some form of justification beyond this being the tradition that was taught by my parents. That process alone would require us to view some culture as inferior.

The big problem would arise when one's basis for accepting one culture does not extend beyond accepting the notion that it is part of one's tradition. Never mind the fact that traditions are often altered and twisted to fit the current cultural needs, but it also becomes a problem because such culture would be less universal as well. I would think that traditionalism is anti-thesis of universalism because this kind of culture has less argumentative power than a set of cultures that doesn't rely on traditions as much. How do you convince others that your culture should be accepted by them if they weren't raised as part of that culture?

We can form value judgements about anything and everything we want. Getting others to accept those value judgements as valid is the trickly part. I mean we already have a sort of global culture - at its most shallow level its defined by American pop culture. Islam too claims to be a universal religion, with markedly less success (well they have an awful PR problem. People like to rag on white people being Islamophobic, but let's be honest, you can find Islamophobic Malaysian Chinese, and we bloody live in a country that's 65% muslim! Admittedly so does America have a PR problem, but if we let America's military adventures define our ability to enjoy american cultural output, we can't very well be talking about episode VII can we?)

[ray245]

We can form value judgements about anything and everything we want. Getting others to accept those value judgements as valid is the trickly part. I mean we already have a sort of global culture - at its most shallow level its defined by American pop culture. Islam too claims to be a universal religion, with markedly less success (well they have an awful PR problem. People like to rag on white people being Islamophobic, but let's be honest, you can find Islamophobic Malaysian Chinese, and we bloody live in a country that's 65% muslim! Admittedly so does America have a PR problem, but if we let America's military adventures define our ability to enjoy american cultural output, we can't very well be talking about episode VII can we?)

Yeah, but part of the appeal of western liberalism has to do with the rise of the west in the world and its associated benefits. However, if we were to treat issues like gay marriages merely as the product of western culture as opposed to universal culture, it becomes an attempt to avoid dealing with the arguments behind such human rights. I've known too many people who embraced western pop culture while at the same time refusing to views subjects like gay marriages as mere western values that eastern cultures should not accept.

That shows a lack of understanding about liberalism which often rejects certain traditional western values as well. On one hand we have one major culture in the world that tries to question traditional values as much as possible, while on the other hand, we have things like wahabism that tries to based its culture on traditionalism. To view liberalism as mere western culture is perhaps not a good way to understand it.

[General Zod]

I know, I alluded to such in my post. That said it was also 150 years ago. Do you think all parties should renegotiate those treaties now? I think I would be ok with that.

I think it would be best if they were the ones to initiate any sort of renegotiations, or it could look like we were trying to screw them over again.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, but part of the appeal of western liberalism has to do with the rise of the west in the world and its associated benefits. However, if we were to treat issues like gay marriages merely as the product of western culture as opposed to universal culture, it becomes an attempt to avoid dealing with the arguments behind such human rights. I've known too many people who embraced western pop culture while at the same time refusing to views subjects like gay marriages as mere western values that eastern cultures should not accept.

That shows a lack of understanding about liberalism which often rejects certain traditional western values as well. On one hand we have one major culture in the world that tries to question traditional values as much as possible, while on the other hand, we have things like wahabism that tries to based its culture on traditionalism. To view liberalism as mere western culture is perhaps not a good way to understand it.

Put this way.

My problem with Western liberals saying that their ideals are universal isn't so much because I want to create protected niches half a world across for alternate ways of organizing a civilization.

It's that this claim reeks of privilege in the context of talking about how a small, chronically oppressed minority ought to live.

You seldom if ever hear about Indians on a reservation talking airily about how all the white people should be reorganized into tribes of on the order of ten thousand people, that all share strong ties to a particular locale and culture and within which the religious, political, and social lines of authority are strongly commingled.

But you routinely hear about white people talking about how to 'fix' the Indians.

And that's largely attributable to the fact that whites are far more numerous and far richer, whereas Indians have a huge list of problems and disadvantages that make it a cruel joke to even talk about the idea of all of America being reorganized along the lines that the Native Americans are now organized.

But by that very fact, it is very arrogant to step in with one's position of wealth and say that the local autonomy of a people should be erased. Especially when that very autonomy was the only protection their ancestors had against the abuses of your ancestor.

Realistically, there are a lot of minority groups in the world that are not treated fairly and, so far as we can tell, never will. To fix that requires that we start by giving the minority group enough of a voice that they can represent themselves effectively. Sometimes that takes regional political autonomy or the like.

[Thanas]

I don't think Ray has ever advocated "fixing" indians, Simon.

Amd I find that when liberals talk about universal ideas, they mean "the very basic rights every society should agree on". I think any society worth its damn could handle at least some degree of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom from oppression and some degree of democracy.

[loomer]

That's one of the awkward things about recognizing cultural relativism. It can make it hard to justify enforcing western concepts on the rest of the world, even if they're pretty much the closest thing to a genuine 'universal good' that Western society will ever come up with. At the same time, when we do try and enforce them, it ends up causing all kinds of problems because the cultures we push them on don't always have the framework necessary to take, run with, and use those universal goods wisely and well. It's a bloody hard spot to be in, but fortunately it won't matter soon because the Chinese will run everything and we'll be stuck into an Asian socio-cultural model we don't quite fit into.

[Thanas]

I don't think there is anything in the basic western model that is incompatible, for even China had it throughout its history permutations or variances of it. There is nothing "basic chinese" or "basic african" that precludes them from achieving those basic rights. For example, even in Spain of all places, where democracy was a foreign concept for nearly 2000+ years, democracy eventually worked. There is nothing biological that prevents people from adopting it. Heck, Japan did (granted with limits, granted tainted by nationalism, but they got at least some parts right).

The hindrances are the power of elites and traditions and corruption.

[AniThyng]

I don't think there is anything in the basic western model that is incompatible, for even China had it throughout its history permutations or variances of it. There is nothing "basic chinese" or "basic african" that precludes them from achieving those basic rights. For example, even in Spain of all places, where democracy was a foreign concept for nearly 2000+ years, democracy eventually worked. There is nothing biological that prevents people from adopting it. Heck, Japan did (granted with limits, granted tainted by nationalism, but they got at least some parts right).

The hindrances are the power of elites and traditions and corruption.

Yeah I think we all know there is nothing biological about it. I don't think anybody has brought biology into it, except when using biological race as an imperfect synonym for nation and/or culture.

[Thanas]

And if there is nothing biological to it then any culture can adopt those values. Which was my larger point, but I forgot to make it.

[AniThyng]

And if there is nothing biological to it then any culture can adopt those values. Which was my larger point, but I forgot to make it.

On the subject of westernization - I'm not even necessarily against it as such, i mean it's hard to be when english is my first language and i have never worn traditional chinese clothing in my entire life, but it's really really easy to see how much we have taken from western culture and how what western culture takes from us is nowhere on near the same level (food? astrology and butchered new age religious-spiritual concepts? yoga? pokemon?) To use the Japanese example - one moment Japan is closed to the world, the next moment even the emperor is wearing western clothing and doing it seriously, not to mock or as a costume but as an attempt to appear and project a modern image.

It may well be a net positive in the end, but it wouldn't hurt I think to acknowledge that the cultural transfer TRR refers to is rather one sided. What good ideas have westerners adopted from eastern cultures?