Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!rang From: rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes Subject: Re: Chippewa Spearfishing Update Message-ID: Date: 19 Jan 90 16:35:16 GMT References: <1586@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> <12685@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> <523@smcnet.UUCP> Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu Distribution: na Organization: UW-Madison CS department Lines: 74 In-reply-to: byoder@smcnet.UUCP's message of 19 Jan 90 05:19:46 GMT In article <523@smcnet.UUCP> byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) writes: >Why is it right that people whose ancestors lived here before >ancestors of other people should have some kind of "extra rights" >because of their race? Shouldn't indians have all the same-but-no-more >rights as anyone else? They don't have extra rights because of their race. They have extra rights because they're descended from people who signed a treaty with the U.S. government. In exchange for land "owned" (squatters rights?) by the Native American tribes, the government gave the Native Americans certain rights (such as the right to continue hunting and fishing on non-reservation lands). The treaties were presumably written in such a way that these rights pass on to the descendants of the original signatories (otherwise there wouldn't be all this fuss). >> They [anti-treaty groups] have >> claimed that in the interest of "Equal Rights for Everyone", no >> group should have "extra rights". > >What is invalid about claims like those? Would you argue if I said >that you have fewer rights than someone else? It depends on what's meant by rights. I *don't* have the right to walk into your house and take out some furniture to sell, say--that's just theft. On the other hand, if you were married (and in a marital property state), your wife would have that right. Similarly, if I agreed with a friend of mine that he could use my house during the summer, in exchange for my use of his summer cabin, I don't feel that the average person on the street should be allowed to use my house, just because my friend is. After all, we made a bargain and traded our rights, in a sense. >A hundred >years ago (roughly) we had laws that gave special status to slaves too >(we even had a few of them 20 years ago), were those laws proper? The issues in question (i.e. fishing rights) aren't just laws--if they were, they could easily be overturned. They're treaties: agreed to by both parties. If both parties agree to dissolve the treaties, fine; I see no problem with that. >the US was founded on the idea that all people have equal rights >and should not be treated differently based on irrelevant factors >such as ancestry. Native Americans are not being treated differently based on their race; they're being treated differently because their ancestors were living here first, and agreed to give the newcomers some of "their" land. Actually, they aren't really being treated differently at all--treaties and contracts apply to all Americans. My ancestors didn't have something valuable to give to the government, so they didn't get any special rights (though they did get free rail passage in exchange for opening farmland). I don't see a contradiction. >You mean like the agreements that ensured that no blacks could >move into your neighborhood? When did the blacks sign these agreements? >As long as you are talking about universal rights, you are right, if you >are talking about rights based on race, you had better be ready for a >lot of disagreement. As I pointed out earlier, these rights aren't based on race. They're based on an agreement made with their ancestors. Not the same thing. Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+