Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j1jja36 wrote

[removed]

−46

CompetitiveSex t1_j1jk0va wrote

Oh no the treaty that our people had to be subjected to racism, removal of their land, and genocide is being expanded for current times.

29

ReedoToledo t1_j1k6tq0 wrote

Except that it's completely not

7

Salt-Artichoke5347 t1_j1k6xt9 wrote

It literally is. It is just positive racism. It is giving people special treatment based on race.

−14

jmc1996 t1_j1kso1x wrote

The US government has made historical treaties with foreign nations. The United States would receive certain benefits and these nations would receive certain benefits in exchange. While those nations have been effectively absorbed into the United States, they do still have sovereignty and they are autonomous legal entities with legal citizens. Tribal benefits do not go to people simply on the basis of ethnicity.

Plenty of people will argue that these treaties are unfair or one-sided or poorly upheld, and any of those may be true, but they are standing treaties. These benefits go to the citizens of those nations. There are thousands and thousands of citizens of tribal nations who are white or black or other races.

This is not a policy based on race or aimed at a particular race, any more than NAFTA is a policy based on race. The former chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, has predominately European ancestry for example, and he and his family are certainly eligible for the various tribal benefits.

4

Salt-Artichoke5347 t1_j1ksubb wrote

These are not foreign nations or they would have their own passports and wouldn't be american citizens

0

jmc1996 t1_j1ky4qy wrote

At the time that they were absorbed into the United States, passports were not in common use and their citizens were not American citizens. It was only in 1924 that Native Americans were given American citizenship.

3