add Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) better yet Pretend you are of North American Indian descent in Canada or the United States. Can you morally resist internment (Reservations), up to and including use of potentially deadly force? Edited January 18, 2013 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 better yet Pretend you are of North American Indian descent in Canada or the United States. Can you morally resist internment (Reservations), up to and including use of potentially deadly force? That one brings with it a lot of baggage that I frankly do not understand. A large proportion of them would actively resist any opportunity to leave the reservation system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 That one brings with it a lot of baggage that I frankly do not understand. A large proportion of them would actively resist any opportunity to leave the reservation system. you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 you think? I'm a tiny percentage of Cherokee, so I hold very little weight when I say: Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 you think? I know. Or at least I know that some do think that way. I cannot comment on how many do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) there are huge injustices in the reservation system, but they're not "interned" the way the Japanese were. a Native American has every right to move away from a reservation if they wish, the reservation is the only place they're allowed what's left of their unjustly limited sovereign rights as nations that hold treaties with our government, though. fighting for territorial sovereignty is a whole separate issue... for instance, I do recognize the legitimacy of the claim of the Lakotah Republic to the territory they claimed when they told the State Department they wanted to withdraw from the treaties (of course the elected tribal government didn't want to cause trouble and wasn't involved in that), however, there's no way to negate the rights of the people who presently live there forcing them to be ruled by the Lakotah, at a certain point you can't right historical wrongs and there's certainly no reason to give racially based precedence to anyone white, black, or native. so really they should have an overlapping kind of jurisdiction in that area and people could voluntarily choose to bee under their jurisdiction or under US jurisdiction, so that a Lakotah citizen in trouble with US law would have the backing of a Lakotah embassy of some sort... but this is all getting very far from the point... the point is that internment means imprisonment, which is not exactly the reservation's issue. if someone is going to kidnap you, you have every moral right to resist with lethal force as you fear your life may be in danger (luckily it was not for the Japanese, but they didn't know that any more than the Jews of Germany knew it, ie they didn't, and if the war hadn't gone as well for us, while I doubt there would've been systematic annihilation like the holocaust, I'm sure those camps wouldn't have been supplied with food and necessary supplies if we were being bombarded and losing badly, had we lost the war I totally believe those interned Japanese would've faced huge atrocities over the course of the war)... so yeah, they had every right to defend themselves and their family and to be perfectly honest, the whole country really should've revolted against such a thing . this is why organizations like Oath Keepers, even though they sometimes are tied in with some iffy or strange groups, are absolutely essential. No police or military officer should ever obey an order to inter people the way the Japanese were interred. there is a criteria for armed revolt against the government listed in the Catechism that calls on people to evaluate whether they have a reasonable chance for success (as well as whether it could cause more harm than good, et cetera)... the rebellious heart in me always felt that was a bit of a cowardly criteria, but it definitely makes sense in many situations. if you're faced with overwhelming odds you have to figure out the best way to respond and sometimes it's just trying to negotiate through it the best way you can. if you go down guns blazing to avoid internment camps (that had every potential to turn into concentration camps), that's heroic. but it's also heroic to go in meekly and in peace, don't live by the sword (but also if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one ;) ) and evaluate what the best situation is. if in doubt, I suggest trying non-violence unless it's already been established clearly in your mind that it's moved beyond the Japanese internment stage and towards the Jewish concentration camp stage. There comes a point at which good men must stand up to defend the innocent, their families and friends and homes and their very rights as human beings, like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, don't discount that such times can come but don't be too willing to jump into them. there's no perfect answer, but ultimately you're justified in fighting against the kidnapping of yourself and your family as any act of violent kidnapping is presumably life threatening. Edited January 20, 2013 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." 48 "We must obey God rather than men": 49 When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. 50 2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. That's decent general guidelines to consider. reasonable hope of success is relative and there comes a point when a hopeless cause is justified, but overlooking that criterion should not be taken lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 there are huge injustices in the reservation system, but they're not "interned" the way the Japanese were. a Native American has every right to move away from a reservation if they wish, the reservation is the only place they're allowed what's left of their unjustly limited sovereign rights as nations that hold treaties with our government, though. fighting for territorial sovereignty is a whole separate issue... for instance, I do recognize the legitimacy of the claim of the Lakotah Republic to the territory they claimed when they told the State Department they wanted to withdraw from the treaties (of course the elected tribal government didn't want to cause trouble and wasn't involved in that), however, there's no way to negate the rights of the people who presently live there forcing them to be ruled by the Lakotah, at a certain point you can't right historical wrongs and there's certainly no reason to give racially based precedence to anyone white, black, or native. so really they should have an overlapping kind of jurisdiction in that area and people could voluntarily choose to bee under their jurisdiction or under US jurisdiction, so that a Lakotah citizen in trouble with US law would have the backing of a Lakotah embassy of some sort... but this is all getting very far from the point... the point is that internment means imprisonment, which is not exactly the reservation's issue. if someone is going to kidnap you, you have every moral right to resist with lethal force as you fear your life may be in danger (luckily it was not for the Japanese, but they didn't know that any more than the Jews of Germany knew it, ie they didn't, and if the war hadn't gone as well for us, while I doubt there would've been systematic annihilation like the holocaust, I'm sure those camps wouldn't have been supplied with food and necessary supplies if we were being bombarded and losing badly, had we lost the war I totally believe those interned Japanese would've faced huge atrocities over the course of the war)... so yeah, they had every right to defend themselves and their family and to be perfectly honest, the whole country really should've revolted against such a thing . this is why organizations like Oath Keepers, even though they sometimes are tied in with some iffy or strange groups, are absolutely essential. No police or military officer should ever obey an order to inter people the way the Japanese were interred. there is a criteria for armed revolt against the government listed in the Catechism that calls on people to evaluate whether they have a reasonable chance for success (as well as whether it could cause more harm than good, et cetera)... the rebellious heart in me always felt that was a bit of a cowardly criteria, but it definitely makes sense in many situations. if you're faced with overwhelming odds you have to figure out the best way to respond and sometimes it's just trying to negotiate through it the best way you can. if you go down guns blazing to avoid internment camps (that had every potential to turn into concentration camps), that's heroic. but it's also heroic to go in meekly and in peace, don't live by the sword (but also if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one ;) ) and evaluate what the best situation is. if in doubt, I suggest trying non-violence unless it's already been established clearly in your mind that it's moved beyond the Japanese internment stage and towards the Jewish concentration camp stage. There comes a point at which good men must stand up to defend the innocent, their families and friends and homes and their very rights as human beings, like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, don't discount that such times can come but don't be too willing to jump into them. there's no perfect answer, but ultimately you're justified in fighting against the kidnapping of yourself and your family as any act of violent kidnapping is presumably life threatening. "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian."- Henry Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 Interestingly enough, the Native Americans have tried the whole armed resistance thing before. It did not go very well for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Interestingly enough, the Native Americans have tried the whole armed resistance thing before. It did not go very well for them. The natives at your local friendly casino are betting it will go very well for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 The natives at your local friendly casino are betting it will go very well for them 78 day standoff that they got nothing out of except further hatred? Yeah, awesome. Worked out great. That was exactly what they wanted. http://youtu.be/QFes1gmPEMc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The Mohawk are a great people, shame on you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) The Mohawk are a great people, shame on you Wat. Please point out where I said anything to the contrary. I am not the one making cracks about casinos. Edited January 21, 2013 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Wat. Please point out where I said anything to the contrary. If you had been exiled from your homeland maybe you would see. I am not the one making cracks about casinos. Casinos are Detrimental, 99.9% of the Gambling establishment Patrons are Non-Native Americans. Casinos don't make up for the way native Americans have been Euthanized. Edited January 21, 2013 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 You are making zero sense right now. Not that it should even make a difference, but my own family has close ties to the Native American community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now