View Full Version : Loyal v. Murphy - Possibility of Indian Reservations in Oklahoma



Pages : [1] 2

Zuplar
09-08-2018, 09:40 PM
Not sure if anyone has seen this, but I learned about it this week and found it extremely interesting. I found out it from law enforcement as it was talked about at a conference and what would happen to Oklahoma jurisdiction if reservations are “reinstated” in Oklahoma. Apparently this is something that could have wide ranging effects on how the state operates, but looks to be decided later this year or next year.

https://newrepublic.com/article/147472/grisly-murder-case-turn-half-oklahoma-back-tribal-lands

aDark
09-10-2018, 08:36 AM
Not sure if anyone has seen this, but I learned about it this week and found it extremely interesting. I found out it from law enforcement as it was talked about at a conference and what would happen to Oklahoma jurisdiction if reservations are “reinstated” in Oklahoma. Apparently this is something that could have wide ranging effects on how the state operates, but looks to be decided later this year or next year.

https://newrepublic.com/article/147472/grisly-murder-case-turn-half-oklahoma-back-tribal-lands

Thank you so much for sharing. This is massively interesting. If the Supreme Court sides with the tribes on this issue it would have a monumental impact on how Oklahoma and it's Courts operate going forward. I wonder if this would open floodgates for building of Casinos in areas which were previously believed to be outside of the tribe's control.

Zuplar
09-10-2018, 09:22 AM
Thank you so much for sharing. This is massively interesting. If the Supreme Court sides with the tribes on this issue it would have a monumental impact on how Oklahoma and it's Courts operate going forward. I wonder if this would open floodgates for building of Casinos in areas which were previously believed to be outside of the tribe's control.

What this could do is essentially split the state in 2. All the reservations would, which if they went with 1889 boundaries, would effectively have jurisdiction over the Eastern portion of the state, including Tulsa. It would become the largest reservation by population in the US. I can tell you this, I wouldn't want to be living in these parts of the state if they are made back to reservations.

CloudDeckMedia
09-10-2018, 09:37 AM
This isn’t the only case. “Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians v. Gov. Snyder” is an 1855 Michigan dispute in which the tribe claims that the land was wrongfully taken from them, and they seek to impose tribal governance over 337 square miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. They don’t seek ownership of the land directly, but to reassert tribal law. The result would be to replace existing councils, boards & commissions with tribal equivalents, the tribe would assess & collect all property taxes, set & enforce zoning laws, and so on. This is happening - property owners I know have paid tens of thousands APIECE into legal defense funds.

aDark
09-10-2018, 09:49 AM
What this could do is essentially split the state in 2. All the reservations would, which if they went with 1889 boundaries, would effectively have jurisdiction over the Eastern portion of the state, including Tulsa. It would become the largest reservation by population in the US. I can tell you this, I wouldn't want to be living in these parts of the state if they are made back to reservations.

Admittedly, I haven't studied Indian law in many years. But, my understanding is that if the lands were deemed "Indian lands" then jurisdiction of Indian affairs matters would indeed return to the tribes. However, property ownership would not change. Therefore, a return to "reservations" isn't a fair statement. Yes, you'd have tribal members once again resolving tribal disputes in their own courts or federal court, as opposed to say Tulsa County. Beyond that, the privately owned lands would simply stay where they currently are. Now, if a nation owned some property which was not "on the reservation" previously (aka, they didn't have jurisdiction to build a casino) they could now operate that land as if it was and had always been Indian land. Does this make sense?

In short, I don't think half of the state becomes a reservation in the modern understanding of the term.

Zuplar
09-10-2018, 10:37 AM
Admittedly, I haven't studied Indian law in many years. But, my understanding is that if the lands were deemed "Indian lands" then jurisdiction of Indian affairs matters would indeed return to the tribes. However, property ownership would not change. Therefore, a return to "reservations" isn't a fair statement. Yes, you'd have tribal members once again resolving tribal disputes in their own courts or federal court, as opposed to say Tulsa County. Beyond that, the privately owned lands would simply stay where they currently are. Now, if a nation owned some property which was not "on the reservation" previously (aka, they didn't have jurisdiction to build a casino) they could now operate that land as if it was and had always been Indian land. Does this make sense?

In short, I don't think half of the state becomes a reservation in the modern understanding of the term.

Yeah that makes sense. I was basing my thoughts on what I had read in a few other articles in this, in which they were making the assumption that it would revert to reservations in the traditional sense. What you talk about seems more likely and wouldn't be nearly as bad.

aDark
09-10-2018, 12:45 PM
Yeah that makes sense. I was basing my thoughts on what I had read in a few other articles in this, in which they were making the assumption that it would revert to reservations in the traditional sense. What you talk about seems more likely and wouldn't be nearly as bad.

I think it would still have significant impact. Especially from a taxation standpoint. Imagine a tribal member living on several acres which, as of today, has no special qualities. Does that land immediately revert back to "reservation" status thereby preventing the city from taxation of property? Does that land maintain zoning regulations or is that outside of the city/county's jurisdiction?

If the lands did revert back to a traditional "reservation" it would be mass chaos. I'm not suggesting what was done was right or that it shouldn't be - just making an observation.

I know one thing for certain, if the 10th circuit ruling is upheld the Eastern District Court of Oklahoma just got a LOT busier!

Zuplar
09-10-2018, 01:37 PM
I think it would still have significant impact. Especially from a taxation standpoint. Imagine a tribal member living on several acres which, as of today, has no special qualities. Does that land immediately revert back to "reservation" status thereby preventing the city from taxation of property? Does that land maintain zoning regulations or is that outside of the city/county's jurisdiction?

If the lands did revert back to a traditional "reservation" it would be mass chaos. I'm not suggesting what was done was right or that it shouldn't be - just making an observation.

I know one thing for certain, if the 10th circuit ruling is upheld the Eastern District Court of Oklahoma just got a LOT busier!

And see that's where I was thinking, everyone who owns land in these potential "reservations" would now be subject to tribal jurisdiction as opposed to the state of Oklahoma. I can't imagine that flying, but the case in general is interesting because it sounds like the 10th Circuit ruling has already said that congress didn't dissolve them properly, and the main question is what exactly are the boundaries of these reservations.

Just one more reason that the upcoming Supreme court nomination is so important.

gopokes88
09-10-2018, 02:29 PM
It's interesting but there is no chance the SC is ruling in favor of the tribes.

Midtowner
09-10-2018, 04:07 PM
I think they stand a better chance than you think. I would hope Congress would intervene here and return things to the status quo.

Zuplar
09-10-2018, 04:56 PM
I think they stand a better chance than you think. I would hope Congress would intervene here and return things to the status quo.

I agree. They’ve waited this long to raise questions about it doesn’t make sense to reverse it now.

dankrutka
09-10-2018, 05:17 PM
I'm not an expert on any of this, but I have quite a different take on the article as it seems like the Muscogee Creek Nation has a pretty solid case.

First, it's important to eastablish that land was stolen from Indigenous Nations as the article points out in a couple places:


Until now, state and federal officials assumed those boundaries no longer existed. To prepare Oklahoma for statehood in the late nineteenth century, Congress stripped the Creek Nation and other tribes in the territory of their courts, governments, and laws. The federal government also compelled the Creek to convert their tribal lands into allotments for private ownership by the tribe’s members, with the surplus land to be sold to white settlers.

To re-gain their stolen lands and sovereignty would only be just. And, for those claiming that this would somehow lead to some unprecedented chaos:


“This is something that almost all other tribes in this country have outside of Oklahoma, and this would put Oklahoma tribes on an equal footing with Indian tribes elsewhere,” Judith Royster, a University of Tulsa law professor who specializes in Indian law, told me.

However this gets worked out, it's long past due and I fully support Indigenous soveriengty for Oklahoma's nations. Indigenous Nations can work with state and county governments on solutions that make sense. No one would want chaos. There seems to be a lot of sensational accounts from oil and gas, which is typical of their lobby which just used similarly absurd and self-interested arguments during the teacher's strikes. However, it seems likely that:


Royster disputed that interpretation, telling me that the immediate impact on civil matters for Oklahomans would be minimal. “Nothing’s going to happen to my property, nothing’s going to happen to my day-to-day life,” she said. “Nobody except criminals and the federal courts are going to see any immediate changes because of this.”

This case actually seems pretty straightforward. The state surpassed their jurisdiction and this case is fixing that. But maybe this can also return Indigenous sovereignty that was "stripped" away in illegal and unethical ways.

Zuplar
09-10-2018, 05:22 PM
Dan your take has been my thoughts, you just did a much better job expressing that.

aDark
09-11-2018, 09:39 AM
And see that's where I was thinking, everyone who owns land in these potential "reservations" would now be subject to tribal jurisdiction as opposed to the state of Oklahoma. I can't imagine that flying, but the case in general is interesting because it sounds like the 10th Circuit ruling has already said that congress didn't dissolve them properly, and the main question is what exactly are the boundaries of these reservations.


Well, the tribal jurisdiction would still only control tribal issues. I.E. a Native American attacks a Native American on tribal lands = tribal court. A Native American attacks a Native American on non-tribal land, like a Walmart parking lot = state court. If a Native American attacked a non-Native American it would not be a tribal court affair. That's why the case is so interesting, it's only arguably in the wrong the jurisdiction because both parties are Native American. So, if the supreme court did pass this law the old boundaries would be revived but that would not result in non-Natives being hailed into tribal court. But, the situation where a Native American attacked a Native American in a Walmart parking lot *would* now be decided in tribal court (or federal court). When I took Federal Indian Law at OU CoL we studied the intricacies of tribal court v. state court in depth. I will look for my old outline and post the table which simplifies this situation. It's super interesting.

Midtowner
09-11-2018, 10:29 AM
But maybe this can also return Indigenous sovereignty that was "stripped" away in illegal and unethical ways.

The holdings are pretty uniform that tribal sovereignty can be stripped by Congress. The issue here is whether Congress did that. I think Congress' intent in passing numerous laws related to stripping tribal governments of authority, forbidding tribal councils from meeting, etc., while you may not like it, Congress' intent isn't difficult to divine. If the SCOTUS upholds this, I hope for swift action from Congress to set things straight.

Zuplar
09-11-2018, 01:35 PM
Well, the tribal jurisdiction would still only control tribal issues. I.E. a Native American attacks a Native American on tribal lands = tribal court. A Native American attacks a Native American on non-tribal land, like a Walmart parking lot = state court. If a Native American attacked a non-Native American it would not be a tribal court affair. That's why the case is so interesting, it's only arguably in the wrong the jurisdiction because both parties are Native American. So, if the supreme court did pass this law the old boundaries would be revived but that would not result in non-Natives being hailed into tribal court. But, the situation where a Native American attacked a Native American in a Walmart parking lot *would* now be decided in tribal court (or federal court). When I took Federal Indian Law at OU CoL we studied the intricacies of tribal court v. state court in depth. I will look for my old outline and post the table which simplifies this situation. It's super interesting.

Thanks for that clarification, I think I understand it as best as I can.

dankrutka
09-11-2018, 01:41 PM
The holdings are pretty uniform that tribal sovereignty can be stripped by Congress. The issue here is whether Congress did that. I think Congress' intent in passing numerous laws related to stripping tribal governments of authority, forbidding tribal councils from meeting, etc., while you may not like it, Congress' intent isn't difficult to divine. If the SCOTUS upholds this, I hope for swift action from Congress to set things straight.

Right, which is why the entire history of U.S. relations with Indigenous Peoples should be upended and thrown out. Should we keep relying on precedents grounded in racism, injustice, and greed?

BoulderSooner
09-11-2018, 01:42 PM
Well, the tribal jurisdiction would still only control tribal issues. I.E. a Native American attacks a Native American on tribal lands = tribal court. A Native American attacks a Native American on non-tribal land, like a Walmart parking lot = state court. If a Native American attacked a non-Native American it would not be a tribal court affair. That's why the case is so interesting, it's only arguably in the wrong the jurisdiction because both parties are Native American. So, if the supreme court did pass this law the old boundaries would be revived but that would not result in non-Natives being hailed into tribal court. But, the situation where a Native American attacked a Native American in a Walmart parking lot *would* now be decided in tribal court (or federal court). When I took Federal Indian Law at OU CoL we studied the intricacies of tribal court v. state court in depth. I will look for my old outline and post the table which simplifies this situation. It's super interesting.

This is not correct. In the reservation the state would have 0 jurisdiction Only federal court and tribal court. Including state highway patrol and county sheriffs (unless changed to tribal sheriffs)

Midtowner
09-11-2018, 07:59 PM
Right, which is why the entire history of U.S. relations with Indigenous Peoples should be upended and thrown out. Should we keep relying on precedents grounded in racism, injustice, and greed?

That doesn't really make sense. This case isn't indicative of our entire history of relations with indigenous people. This is just a potential massive legal shift based upon a ruling no one wanted, which might convey legal responsibilities onto tribes in such a way that law enforcement and jurisdictional issues for half of this state, including Tulsa are completely upended. Congress could simply act to set things back in order. If you want to read racism, injustice and greed into that, cool on you. I'm just all about not having to pay 6 sets of Bar dues every year and having to learn six different procedures for everything. 7 if you count CFR courts.

And please spare me the hyperbolic moral outrage. I don't play that game.

dankrutka
09-11-2018, 10:34 PM
I want to make sure I understand your argument. Are you claiming that Muscogee Creek Nation sovereignty is NOT a historical issue? Did you believe the article to be factually incorrect? Several people in the article seem to contradict your conclusions about the implications of this case, but you don’t really address their points in your post.

I’m not an expert on this topic so I’m happy to learn and discuss. Is your dismissiveness really necessary?

Midtowner
09-11-2018, 11:36 PM
Having read the briefs, it appears that Congress' clear intent was to disestablish tribal governments in Oklahoma, wipe out a lot of sovereignty because several of the tribes were on the wrong side of the Civil War. We've been operating under the assumption that all of that was valid for 125+ years.

Yes, I think Congress, if the Supreme Court says there is something invalid, should restore us to the status quo, I don't think is unreasonable. I also don't think that tribal governments are ready for that sort of responsibility.

Zuplar
09-12-2018, 06:43 AM
I agree, if the tribes wanted to argue sovereignty, they should have done it back then. Waiting all this time is absurd and not realistic IMO.

bombermwc
09-12-2018, 06:52 AM
One interesting point would be that because we have operated this was for 125 years, we've now operated this way, longer than those tribes had that land hre in OK. Remember, most tribes here now were force-migrated here from other areas. Like the Chicksaw being from northern AL, MS, Southern TN, etc.

The lines have changed over the years on which tribe was where in OK as well, so it depends on which version of the "treaties" they decide are valid and which aren't. Then they'd have to decide why that is the case to prevent other legal battles.

The migration into Oklahoma is why this issue is so much more complex as there are very few tribes that have actual historic claims to the land. Those that got moved here in the late 1800's simply aren't ancestral. And their traditions and ways of life dramatically changed once they got here. These issues didnt come up as much because after those changes, many people in those tribes integrated with the surrounding communities rather than staying with their tribal ways. That right there can be seen as a choice to abandon the claims of that ancestry. So now, generations later, we're coming back to someone trying to force the claim back on something their family gave up long ago.

Hell, my family came here from Europe. They made the choice to leave behind what they had across the pond. But now if i want it, should i be in my rights to take it from whomever has it now? Granted, that's not a pure apples to apples comparison, but i only say that because the number and deepness of the issues tied to this are so great, that i feel like the court will decide NOT to reinstate anything. And as the court is going to be leaning Republican (oh, im sorry "conservative"), then I see that as even less of a chance of the court siding with the tribes. Wouldn't want all those old disgruntled white guys giving up their fake version of the 1950's now would we?

OKCRT
09-12-2018, 04:18 PM
Maybe the Gov. needs to pay the tribes a lump some for the land that they forced the tribes to take and then forced them to open to settlers. Like eminent domain?

Midtowner
09-12-2018, 06:41 PM
This isn't going to be about Republican vs. Democrat special interests. This is going to be about how strict construction/originalist vs. interpretive judges construe laws.

mugofbeer
09-12-2018, 07:14 PM
Maybe the Gov. needs to pay the tribes a lump some for the land that they forced the tribes to take and then forced them to open to settlers. Like eminent domain?

Don't think the government hasn't paid money to members of some tribes. l can't speak for which tribes or if this continues, but when l was in college, there were many Native Americans from several tribes whose college costs were paid by the government. l recall some of them saying they got annual government checks.

tulamokom
09-12-2018, 07:22 PM
Don't think the government hasn't paid money to members of some tribes. l can't speak for which tribes or if this continues, but when l was in college, there were many Native Americans from several tribes whose college costs were paid by the government. l recall some of them saying they got annual government checks.

As a registered member of the Delaware Nation, I can say that the scholarships most likely came through the BIA. As for the annual government checks, no. No such thing exists. They may have per capita payments from their tribes. I received a check fr $4770 when I turned eighteen for my share of land that was purchased by the government. What a rip off. Our lands constituted New York City all the way to Philadelphia.

mugofbeer
09-12-2018, 07:34 PM
As a registered member of the Delaware Nation, I can say that the scholarships most likely came through the BIA. As for the annual government checks, no. No such thing exists. They may have per capita payments from their tribes. I received a check fr $4770 when I turned eighteen for my share of land that was purchased by the government. What a rip off. Our lands constituted New York City all the way to Philadelphia.

Does it differ depending on the tribe and what may have been negotiated in the past?

tulamokom
09-12-2018, 07:36 PM
No.

mugofbeer
09-12-2018, 07:54 PM
No.

Interesting, and maybe something changed but in the 3 years l was in the dorms, there were a lot of happy guys when check time came. lts been a lot of years but l suspect there are some individual differences between tribes.

tulamokom
09-12-2018, 08:39 PM
Interesting, and maybe something changed but in the 3 years l was in the dorms, there were a lot of happy guys when check time came. lts been a lot of years but l suspect there are some individual differences between tribes.

No, once again. I guarantee you that those checks were tribal per capita checks. This is how the myth of "Indian money" gets started.

dankrutka
09-12-2018, 08:59 PM
The idea that Indigenous Nations don’t have claims to land because of removal is absurd considering they were promised the land. Indian Territory was agreed to forever be Indigenous lands. The U.S. government used the Civil War as an excuse to again break their agreements, and of course the all-white Supreme Court and almost all-white Congress upheld the theft. Indigenous Peoples didn’t just now start fighting for sovereignty. They always have been fighting for it. The paternalistic attitude in this thread bemoaning what Indigenous Nations can handle is ironic considering the state of Oklahoma right now. Again, this case seems to being framed in alarmist ways to dismiss Indigenous claims.

tulamokom
09-12-2018, 09:23 PM
The young United States signed the first treaty with my tribe, the Lenni Lenape, aka Delaware with the Treaty of Fort Pitt. British troops had landed and were going to put down the rebellion once and for all. A panicked George Washington plead with our tribe to fight arguably the best military of the time. Remember that there was no standing army at this time, only poorly trained militia. We agreed to his pleas and sent our best warriors forward as shock troops, slowing the British advance enough for the militia to organize. There was also a provision of the treaty that stated that there would be a Native State with our tribe as the leader of the state. Obviously, that portion of the treaty wasn't ratified by congress. In summation, without my tribe's sacrifice there would be no United States.

Plutonic Panda
09-12-2018, 10:16 PM
“In summation, without my tribes sacrifice there would be no United States”

That is a hilarious statement and one you will never be able to prove.

tulamokom
09-12-2018, 10:29 PM
“In summation, without my tribes sacrifice there would be no United States”

That is a hilarious statement and one you will never be able to prove.

Don't believe me? Research the Treaty of Fort Pitt.

Midtowner
09-12-2018, 11:19 PM
The idea that Indigenous Nations don’t have claims to land because of removal is absurd considering they were promised the land. Indian Territory was agreed to forever be Indigenous lands. The U.S. government used the Civil War as an excuse to again break their agreements, and of course the all-white Supreme Court and almost all-white Congress upheld the theft. Indigenous Peoples didn’t just now start fighting for sovereignty. They always have been fighting for it. The paternalistic attitude in this thread bemoaning what Indigenous Nations can handle is ironic considering the state of Oklahoma right now. Again, this case seems to being framed in alarmist ways to dismiss Indigenous claims.

Oh the moral signaling!! The tribes did side with the confederacy. Rebellion has consequences.

CloudDeckMedia
09-13-2018, 06:39 AM
Promises are made in time of war and broken afterwards, and alliances change. Afghan & Iraqi translators were promised emmigration to the US and were later denied. We supported the Taliban in their war with the Soviets, and now they’re our enemy. We’ve been enemies of the French, Germans and Japanese over time, but now they’re our allies. Our Soviet ally is now our enemy. This is what nations and powers have done throughout history.

Midtowner
09-13-2018, 07:20 AM
Are you really comparing tribes which call towns like Seminole their capitol to the Soviet Union

Zuplar
09-13-2018, 07:40 AM
Wow this thread has really went off the rails.

Lets stick to this case.

Zuplar
09-13-2018, 07:41 AM
Are you really comparing tribes which call towns like Seminole their capitol to the Soviet Union

And for what it's worth the capitol of the Seminole Nation in Oklahoma is actually Wewoka, not Seminole.

CloudDeckMedia
09-13-2018, 07:54 AM
Are you really comparing tribes which call towns like Seminole their capitol to the Soviet Union

Of course not. Reread my first sentence.

tulamokom
09-13-2018, 07:55 AM
My take on the decision is that our tribal reservations (land that is put into federal trust) boundaries are more fluid than we thought. Tribes may be able to purchase more land to put into trust thus expanding our land base.
In spite of the "so what, we screw our allies over" thought, my tribe has fought for the United States in every conflict it has been in. We tribes take such mutual defense pacts quite seriously. And yes, most of the Five Civilized fought for the Confederacy. My tribe fought for the U.S. by joining the U.S. Indian Home Guard, the Second Unit, to be precise. We fought so well that Confederate forces out in western Oklahoma sued for peace.

CloudDeckMedia
09-13-2018, 07:56 AM
Wow this thread has really went off the rails.

Lets stick to this case.

I think a broader discussion is relevant, but perhaps in another thread not devoted to the specifics of this case. That was my point, and sorry to threadjack.

dankrutka
09-13-2018, 11:12 AM
“In summation, without my tribes sacrifice there would be no United States”

That is a hilarious statement and one you will never be able to prove.

I'm not even sure where to start with a comment like this. You dismiss someone's very personal and accurate history and don't even provide any evidence for your dismissive claims. You can do better than this.

It seems like a lot of posters in this thread know very little about Indigenous Histories and the ways that Indigenous lands were stolen through fraudulent and broken treaties throughout American history. Moreover, Indigenous Peoples played incredibly important roles in the shaping of the United States and also in resisting the U.S. onslaught and fighting to maintain sovereignty into the present. If nothing else, check out Harrah, Oklahoma native Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz' An Indigenous Peoples History of the United States (https://www.amazon.com/Indigenous-Peoples-History-ReVisioning-American/dp/0807057835). While there are a lot of great social studies teachers and history professors, there has been so much miseducation for so long regarding Oklahoma and U.S. History that you often have to re-educate yourself by learning about/from different historical perspectives.

The reason these historical issues came up in this thread is because some posters were making inaccurate or incomplete historical claims related to sovereignty issues.

OKCRT
09-13-2018, 11:25 AM
I think the tribes should be compensated for the land. Obviously don't think they will regain rights to the land after all these years but they should be compensated and I would be willing to wager that is exactly what will happen. Returning the land to a reservation would create chaos and anarchy on so many levels I just don't see how it could be done.

Maybe they should get a % of the property taxes for the next 130 years or a per acre price lump sum? It needs to be a fair process this time.

tulamokom
09-13-2018, 11:49 AM
I think the tribes should be compensated for the land. Obviously don't think they will regain rights to the land after all these years but they should be compensated and I would be willing to wager that is exactly what will happen. Returning the land to a reservation would create chaos and anarchy on so many levels I just don't see how it could be done.

Maybe they should get a % of the property taxes for the next 130 years or a per acre price lump sum? It needs to be a fair process this time.

There are already reservations in Oklahoma. You may have noticed that when you drive I-40 or I-44. Due to the destruction of the Dawes act there will never be huge reservations like the Dine reservation. But there may be more tribally owned businesses pop up that will be open to the public. We do not wish for vengeance and retribution but we do wish to live in peace and prosper with our neighbors.

HangryHippo
09-13-2018, 12:23 PM
There are already reservations in Oklahoma. You may have noticed that when you drive I-40 or I-44. Due to the destruction of the Dawes act there will never be huge reservations like the Dine reservation. But there may be more tribally owned businesses pop up that will be open to the public. We do not wish for vengeance and retribution but we do wish to live in peace and prosper with our neighbors.
Are you not currently?

Zuplar
09-13-2018, 12:31 PM
There are already reservations in Oklahoma. You may have noticed that when you drive I-40 or I-44. Due to the destruction of the Dawes act there will never be huge reservations like the Dine reservation. But there may be more tribally owned businesses pop up that will be open to the public. We do not wish for vengeance and retribution but we do wish to live in peace and prosper with our neighbors.

This is incorrect. The only "reservation" in this state is the Osage Reservation, and that at times has come under scrutiny whether it is truly a reservation in such as say the Navajo nation in Northern Arizona. What you referring to with those signs along the interstate are tribal jurisdictional areas.

okccowan
09-13-2018, 12:44 PM
The Osage Reservation was found to have been disestablished by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals several years ago. The Tenth Circuit recently found the Creek Reservation had NOT been disestablished, though that is the case before the Supreme Court right now. Under the Supreme Court cases, Solem and Parker, only Congress can disestablish a reservation.

Jersey Boss
09-13-2018, 12:54 PM
I think the tribes should be compensated for the land. Obviously don't think they will regain rights to the land after all these years but they should be compensated and I would be willing to wager that is exactly what will happen. Returning the land to a reservation would create chaos and anarchy on so many levels I just don't see how it could be done.

Maybe they should get a % of the property taxes for the next 130 years or a per acre price lump sum? It needs to be a fair process this time.
I agree with your sentiments that the tribes should be compensated for the land. Where I disagree however would be the property tax source. This was a screw up by the federal government, and they are the entity that needs to make the tribes whole. To take money from the primary source of school funding is flat out wrong.

CloudDeckMedia
09-13-2018, 01:39 PM
The devil is in the details. If a house at 1234 Main Street is taken from its current non-native owner and returned to the tribe, who pays, how much, and who decides what amount is correct? The US government would have an incentive to minimize the value it has to pay, financially harming the homeowner who wasn't alive 150 years ago. When the tribe becomes the owner 1234 Main Street, it will be exempt from property taxes, placing additional burdens on schools. Should native children be allowed to attend those non-native public schools free of charge, or should they attend their own tribal public schools. Would those schools be defined as an unconstitutional, "separate but equal" type of school (confirmed in Plessy v. Ferguson, but overturned in Brown v. Board of Education), or does it not matter because a native school is part of a sovereign nation unrelated to the US government? Macroeconomically, thousands (millions?) of now-"homeless" families are looking for houses to buy, driving prices sky high, meaning that their cash settlement amount (remember - the equity they had in their houses after repaying the mortgage and closing costs) won't buy them a comparable house to what they had before. Further, because the mortgage and title industries were almost wiped out by these changes, lenders now require much more equity in future mortgage loans, so only the wealthiest non-natives could afford houses. That suppresses demand, driving prices down. But since non-whites wouldn't want to buy tribal land, they would have to move to or establish new towns & cities beyond tribal claims, but not until ALL disputes could be determined across the US, and that may not be known for a half-century or longer.

Plutonic Panda
09-13-2018, 01:49 PM
I'm not even sure where to start with a comment like this. You dismiss someone's very personal and accurate history and don't even provide any evidence for your dismissive claims. You can do better than this.

It seems like a lot of posters in this thread know very little about Indigenous Histories and the ways that Indigenous lands were stolen through fraudulent and broken treaties throughout American history. Moreover, Indigenous Peoples played incredibly important roles in the shaping of the United States and also in resisting the U.S. onslaught and fighting to maintain sovereignty into the present. If nothing else, check out Harrah, Oklahoma native Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz' An Indigenous Peoples History of the United States (https://www.amazon.com/Indigenous-Peoples-History-ReVisioning-American/dp/0807057835). While there are a lot of great social studies teachers and history professors, there has been so much miseducation for so long regarding Oklahoma and U.S. History that you often have to re-educate yourself by learning about/from different historical perspectives.

The reason these historical issues came up in this thread is because some posters were making inaccurate or incomplete historical claims related to sovereignty issues.Dan, I am not trying to come as disrespectful to anyone’s culture, but universally it goes without saying, making a statement that something would’ve have happened if something didn’t especially that long ago just because you believe that is a long stretch.

I will still search up and read about the information and give a response to him/her whenever I have time. I’m not doubting that the natives didn’t help us or play an extremely important part, but to say the United States wouldn’t be the country it is today because we would be under British control which is exactly what he implied if the natives didn’t help us is something he can’t prove. Neither can you. Or anyone else. There are so many different variables that could have came into play that would have helped us won. Not saying that I believe we would have won, but how could you possibly know that?

Plutonic Panda
09-13-2018, 01:55 PM
And Dan, if you mean to imply the land should given back to the natives, speak for yourself, but I dont agree with that. I am not living off of any racist or horrible or whatever legacy people want to claim that this country was founded on. This is our land now and we took it by force. The people here now have no obligation to return it. We should all accept what happened and live in peace and love one another. Continuing to take land and giving it to other people you think deserve is kind of an oxy moron like wanting more war as an excuse to end war.

Midtowner
09-13-2018, 02:14 PM
And for what it's worth the capitol of the Seminole Nation in Oklahoma is actually Wewoka, not Seminole.

Yeah.. I just think of the whole are as Seminole.. I've practiced in those tribal courts. Their courthouse is a ways out of town at Mekusukey Mission.

Midtowner
09-13-2018, 02:22 PM
The devil is in the details. If a house at 1234 Main Street is taken from its current non-native owner and returned to the tribe, who pays, how much, and who decides what amount is correct? The US government would have an incentive to minimize the value it has to pay, financially harming the homeowner who wasn't alive 150 years ago. When the tribe becomes the owner 1234 Main Street, it will be exempt from property taxes, placing additional burdens on schools. Should native children be allowed to attend those non-native public schools free of charge, or should they attend their own tribal public schools. Would those schools be defined as an unconstitutional, "separate but equal" type of school (confirmed in Plessy v. Ferguson, but overturned in Brown v. Board of Education), or does it not matter because a native school is part of a sovereign nation unrelated to the US government? Macroeconomically, thousands (millions?) of now-"homeless" families are looking for houses to buy, driving prices sky high, meaning that their cash settlement amount (remember - the equity they had in their houses after repaying the mortgage and closing costs) won't buy them a comparable house to what they had before. Further, because the mortgage and title industries were almost wiped out by these changes, lenders now require much more equity in future mortgage loans, so only the wealthiest non-natives could afford houses. That suppresses demand, driving prices down. But since non-whites wouldn't want to buy tribal land, they would have to move to or establish new towns & cities beyond tribal claims, but not until ALL disputes could be determined across the US, and that may not be known for a half-century or longer.

This case seems to be more about law enforcement and tribal jurisdiction than actually taking property from private property owners. I'm not sure what you're describing is a remote possibility.

CloudDeckMedia
09-13-2018, 02:43 PM
This case seems to be more about law enforcement and tribal jurisdiction than actually taking property from private property owners. I'm not sure what you're describing is a remote possibility.

Changing the government from US to native would trigger a mortgage default, forcing the sale of the house, and beginning a journey down a similar path. Tribal lenders would appear, but what homeowner would borrow funds from the tribe that caused all of this? The migration from tribal lands begins. Unless we've seen this actually happen in modern times in a western country, we have no way to know where that path will lead.

Midtowner
09-13-2018, 03:45 PM
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. Different kinds of government can coexist. City, county, state, federal. Insert tribal in that continuum and you haven't done anything to take fee simple title away from non-natives. The state, city and federal governments all conceptually share in exercising concurrent jurisdiction over the same territory. Sometimes, they even exercise concurrent authority, i.e, the County Sheriff and the City Police can both enforce state laws.

My understanding is that crimes between Native peoples or crimes where there was a native victim or defendant would be handled federally. Tribal courts would handle crimes where both the defendant and victim are Indian except in the cases of major crimes. These reservations would still be part of the United States. Your mortgage is probably fine. I don't read anything here which would take your fee simple interests in Eastern Oklahoma and all of Tulsa and give it to the Tribes.

tulamokom
09-13-2018, 04:06 PM
And Dan, if you mean to imply the land should given back to the natives, speak for yourself, but I dont agree with that. I am not living off of any racist or horrible or whatever legacy people want to claim that this country was founded on. This is our land now and we took it by force. The people here now have no obligation to return it. We should all accept what happened and live in peace and love one another. Continuing to take land and giving it to other people you think deserve is kind of an oxy moron like wanting more war as an excuse to end war.

Wrong. The reality is that tribes ceded land to the government in exchange for provisions for health care and education. In our case, my tribe has never been at war with the US, so how could they take the land by force? The truth is that the land was gained through broken treaties.

Plutonic Panda
09-13-2018, 04:13 PM
Wrong. The reality is that tribes ceded land to the government in exchange for provisions for health care and education. In our case, my tribe has never been at war with the US, so how could they take the land by force? The truth is that the land was gained through broken treaties.
I could have worded that better, but the the interactions between white settlers and the government were less than peaceful. I’m certainly no expert in history and not trying to claim I am. But you don’t have to be an expert to refute a claim like yours.

tulamokom
09-13-2018, 04:41 PM
I could have worded that better, but the the interactions between white settlers and the government were less than peaceful. I’m certainly no expert in history and not trying to claim I am. But you don’t have to be an expert to refute a claim like yours.

You are welcome to your humble opinion as am I.