Loyal v. Murphy - Possibility of Indian Reservations in Oklahoma

[CloudDeckMedia]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[gopokes88]

I’ll say it again, there is no chance 0, zip, nata the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Indians. It’s at bare minimum a 5-4 if not 9-0. The State is sovereign under the US Constitution. It’s fun to think about but it’s really not that complicated.

[CloudDeckMedia]

I’ll say it again, there is no chance 0, zip, nata the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Indians. It’s at bare minimum a 5-4 if not 9-0. The State is sovereign under the US Constitution. It’s fun to think about but it’s really not that complicated.

Fun to think about until you’re paying $10,000+ per property owner into a legal defense fund. I know people in Michigan who have paid that, and their lawsuit isn’t even in full discovery yet. It is lowering buyer demand and property values.

[Midtowner]

Some of y'all seem to think this affects who actually owns the land. It doesn't. This is about criminal justice jurisdiction over Indians. This simply greatly expands the role that the Northern and Eastern Federal District Courts will have in Indian Country. It probably also means that Tribes will be able to build gaming operations anywhere within their historic boundaries. It does not mean that homeowners will be dispossessed by tribes.

[dankrutka]

Again, a lot of alarmist over-the-top responses that seem to think I or others suggested kicking all people out of their houses. Did someone suggest that?

But, the “we” forced “them” off their land so it’s “ours” is pretty telling. You realize you don’t have to side with the white theft of land in the 16th through 20th centuries. In fact, “we” could include all people finding modern solutions to historical problems.