Does that mean we should continue down that same path? Or that the victims of it should stop their bellyachin', since that is the inevitable "way of the world"?
Okay, here it is, simply. Freeze territories where they are. It's usually too impractical to "go back" to some previous position. If there is an active conflict, the aggressor must return from whence they came. Period. Questionable cases, well there should be a statute of limitations of sort. 20-50 years maybe. We can discuss those case-by-case.
Despite what many people think, at first blush, it would seem that Native Americans have it far better than other vanquished peoples. They have semi-autonomy, for pity sake, inside the territory of their conquerors. But, at the same time in many, many ways Native Americans are worse off than blacks by the measures of birth weight, education, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse and a host of others social measures. We don't need to expand this separatism, if anything we need to work to mainstream Native Americans. Keeping them stored out of the way on reservations abrogates our responsibility as people to improve their conditions.
In 300 years should we STILL have reservations where Navajos can tend sheep in 3rd world conditions, a practice that they started after the Spaniards arrived. Or have any of the "Horse Culture" indians hunting from horseback (another practice started after they captured runaway Spanish horses). I don't know, that just seems dumb.
Countries where former aggressors and former vanquished mixed seem to be the most stable. Keeping and actively maintaining separate identity only serves to continue the hostility between both sides. |
