[HN Gopher] Three NorCal Tribes Announce Nation's First Indigeno... ___________________________________________________________________ Three NorCal Tribes Announce Nation's First Indigenous Ocean Protection Area Author : genter Score : 53 points Date : 2023-09-22 20:12 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (lostcoastoutpost.com) (TXT) w3m dump (lostcoastoutpost.com) | gatvol wrote: | Agree with the ecological preservation objectives, hard disagree | with handing over of sovereignty, whatever that actually means,to | a group based on their ethnicity / ancestry. | hypeit wrote: | They're indigenous, nothing is being "handed over" it's land | that they were forced to live on when they were forced of their | original land in the area. They already have sovereignty. | arcticbull wrote: | A lot of people were forced to leave a lot of land all over | the world. Borders shifted constantly within Europe. People | were constantly expelled and relocated. Now of course they | shouldn't have been, but that was a long time ago and we've | generally agreed not to do that anymore. | | Should former Roman land be given to the Italians? Should the | Louisiana purchase be undone because it was the result of a | military defeat in the Napoleonic Wars? Should the non-first- | nations parts of California be returned to the Mexicans | because it was ceded in the Mexican-American War under the | Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? What framework do you propose we | use to decide which land is worthy of sovereign rule - and | which isn't? Which groups are worthy of sovereignty, and | which aren't, and on what basis? | | I think all groups should be represented within the | government and there's no reason to revisit the question of | sovereignty because there's no framework that makes sense. | There's no easy place to stop that isn't totally arbitrary. | rfwhyte wrote: | To take things a step further, all the various North | American indigenous groups have been waring, slaving and | migrating their way across the continent for millennia, | just like every single other people group on earth for all | of history, so it's almost certain that whatever indigenous | "Nation" is claiming a given piece of land "Stole" it from | some other indigenous "Nation" at some point in the past, | yet we never hear them talking about returning "their" land | to those "Rightful owners" do we? | zopa wrote: | Tribes were sovereign, signed treaties that enshrined | sovereignty--within limits,to be sure--and continue to exercise | that sovereignty. Nothing is being handed over, it's always | been there. | | Interestingly the idea that tribal membership is based on | ancestry originated with Europeans and (white) Americans, more | than native tribes. Historically (generalizing wildly), tribal | membership is about citizenship in a community much more than | it is about who ones' grandparents were. Blood quotient was a | US legal concept that reflected the American fondness for | racial categories. A Navajo friend has Scottish and Arab | ancestors who'd married into the tribe, just to give an | example. Or check out _The Unredeemed Captive_, for a practice | that would make no sense if tribal membership were racial. | | Communities often want to continue as communities, in a way | that's only possible with self-determination. That can land as | either a left- or a right-flavored interest, depending on who's | asking and the overall context. But it's too big a part of | human nature to brush aside. | krapp wrote: | Native tribes are and have always been sovereign entities, that | didn't end with European colonization. The degree to which the | US government acknowledges this has varied over time, | obviously, but as recently as the SCOTUS case on the Indian | Child Welfare Act (Haaland v. Brackeen[0,1]), it has at least | recognized that sovereignty exists. | | [0]https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v- | bracke... | | [1]https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures- | news/details/supreme... | jker wrote: | A close read of the statement suggests that this is more of a | feel-good thing and not much to worry about. If those tribes | get actual sovereignty over those waters, they'll soon find | them full of Chinese fishing trawlers. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Agree with the ecological preservation objectives, hard | disagree with handing over of sovereignty, whatever that | actually means,to a group based on their ethnicity / ancestry. | | I'm sure many people in the various tribes object to the | handing over of _most_ of their sovereignty over to the USA | based on the guns held to their head (and where land was | retained, it often being not merely a small subset of their | land, but often _completely different and worse land_ ) but | their vigorous excercise of the sovereignty they retain is not | a "handing over" of anything to them "based on their | ethnicity", even to the extent that there is a rearrangement of | sovereign rights between the three relevant sovereigns (state, | federal, and tribal) such that there is something being handed | over at all. | TinkersW wrote: | I grew up in the area, those shores aren't tribal lands other | than a few tiny bits. And most of it is already preserved | shore/ocean, so this just appears to be a land grab attempt. | | I agree that this area should be protected, but giving it to a | few people based on ancestry is ridiculous. | constantly wrote: | Out of curiosity how far back are you choosing to go to | designate something as a tribal land? | markisus wrote: | Isn't this how most nations work? If one's parents are | American, they inherit all the rights due to Americans, | including the ability to run for political office. This gives | the descendants of Americans sovereignty over a chunk of land | in North America known as the United States. | lacker wrote: | In the California part, most of this area is already parkland. | Redwood National & State Park, Del Norte Coast State Park, Tolowa | Dunes State Park. | | The Resighini Tribe is about 40 people, Tolowa Dee'ni is about | 110 people. The biggest one is Cher-Ae Heights, 130 people. The | largest tribe in the area is the Yurok, around 3000 people. So | this is just a small subset of the local indigenous groups making | this declaration. | | These smaller tribes talk about conservation and the environment, | but their main activity is running this casino: | | https://www.funattheheights.com/ | | I do think it is important to preserve the natural beauty of | Northern California, but I think the state and national park | systems are doing a pretty good job of it, and I wouldn't want to | turn the parks over to some local casino operators. | zopa wrote: | https://archive.ph/pDyh7 | pphysch wrote: | Does this mean the tribes are basically (unilaterally?) claiming | economic rights over these waters? | | It's not clear from this article if this statement is explicitly | supported by the CA gov. | dheera wrote: | I mean, they were here before the CA gov, it's just that the CA | gov has more firepower, tasers, and handcuffs, so we listen to | them. | | Otherwise I wish the natives would give us some tax cuts too. | pphysch wrote: | I'm not taking sides, I'm trying to understand the politics | of this announcement. | peyton wrote: | I think they run the casinos up around Redwood. | genter wrote: | I'm trying to understand it too. | | > We do not seek the permission of other governments | | > these waters are also claimed by the State of California, | who through its California Natural Resources Agency | Pathways to 30x30: Accelerating Conservation of | California's Nature Report, support the concept of | Indigenous Marine Stewardship | | So I guess the State of California theoretically supports | IMSAs, but does the state support this one? Does the state | need to approve an IMSA for it to be official? Or are | tribes independent enough that they can just declare it? | jker wrote: | The statement notes that the waters are "also claimed" by the | California state government, which "supports the concept" of | tribal stewardship. This whole thing seems pretty | insubstantial. | happytiger wrote: | Good question. I have no idea. I doubt there is precedent! | | And I can't wait to see how this gets legally tested -- native | rights haven't been properly respected and these kinds if tests | are deeply important in restoring rightful sovereignty and | tribal agency to our hosts and neighbors. | | I'm chuckling as I imagine they're going to do a better job of | protecting and managing the Earth than the government of | California and Oregon have done over the last 150 odd years. | redavni wrote: | "We do not seek the permission of other governments and can no | longer wait to act to preserve and protect this culturally and | ecologically important place" | | This is SOP for California politics. CA jurisdictions have been | ceding territory to Indian tribes for a while. This is purely | an economically motivated cash grab layered under miles of | politically correct double-speak. There is an indian tribe in | Montana that has a massive coal mine that wanted to run a rail | line to a port through the area that was shut down last year. | This is possibly another strategy to do the same thing. | genter wrote: | I don't know what economic value this part of the ocean has. | There aren't any fish left. We're currently in the planning | stage of a wind farm here, but that's in deeper water outside | of this zone. | zopa wrote: | Sure but also; | | > and be it further resolved, these waters are also claimed | by the State of California, who through its California | Natural Resources Agency Pathways to 30x30: Accelerating | Conservation of California's Nature Report, support the | concept of Indigenous Marine Stewardship | | Do you have any evidence pointing towards this being a money | grab? That's a serious accusation. | genter wrote: | Note that this includes the mouth of the Klamath River, which is | currently undergoing a major restoration project: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37338753 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-22 23:00 UTC)