It means instead of having the US federal government (or other settler colonial equivalent) as the law of the land, it would be whatever tribal government or nation that you currently reside in. The tribal government would have their own set of laws that you would have to obey and set of customs that you would have to respect. For example, Thanksgiving and the 4th of July aren’t happening on any Indigenous land, but there would be replaced with Indigenous holidays that have meaning towards the particular Indigenous nation. Instead of teaching lies like how George Washington didn’t have teeth from his Black slaves, history would focus on the history of the particular Indigenous nation.
In terms of the settlers currently living on Indigenous land, most likely they would be a naturalization process where the settlers would be classified as immigrants who have to apply for Indigenous citizenship in order to become a citizen of that particular tribal nation. Current enrolled tribal members would be the original citizens of the decolonized land. Black people would most likely be automatically granted citizenship as well since none of the Indigenous people I follow and works I’ve read classify Black people as settlers.
As immigrants, the ex-settlers would be granted a set of rights but also barred from various forms of political participation like voting just like immigrants of every other nation. They would have the choice of applying for Indigenous citizenship, and if they qualify for Indigenous citizenship and pass the Indigenous citizenship test, they would be considered an Indigenous citizen under the Indigenous government.
I think people here are confusing citizenship with ethnicity (and race). In a free and sovereign Lakota Republic, you could have a German Lakota in the sense of a Lakota citizen of German descent. Using Hawaii as an example, there were Chinese immigrants who moved to the Kingdom of Hawaii where they were granted Hawaiian citizenship, and when the US illegally annexed Hawaii, the Chinese Hawaiians became Chinese Americans (technically there was a legal limbo since the US didn’t grant Chinese people US citizenship so those Chinese Hawaiians were Chinese ??? for a while). And when Hawaii becomes free and sovereign again, those Chinese Americans would go back to being Chinese Hawaiians.
The immigrant status doesn’t make much sense to me, but I guess the indigenous people had to go through something like that when the settlers took the land, so that’s fair.
What about all the land belonging to first nations that were completely wiped out? Thinking about the east cost specifically. Do you just give it to the nearest tribe that still has extant members able and willing to form a government? The indigenous political landscape of today bears little resemblence to its historical antecedents. Mostly on account of the genociding. Many cultures have been rolled together into new collective indigenous identities, and they cannot be meaningfully separated back into their pre-colonial constituent parts. Why would anyone besides indegenous people themselves support what you’ve proposed over the abolition of nation-states entirely, with all land collectively belonging to everyone? Seems like correcting one historical injustice while not meaningfully addressing the failures of the current system, while also introducing a whole new set of problems.
It means instead of having the US federal government (or other settler colonial equivalent) as the law of the land, it would be whatever tribal government or nation that you currently reside in. The tribal government would have their own set of laws that you would have to obey and set of customs that you would have to respect. For example, Thanksgiving and the 4th of July aren’t happening on any Indigenous land, but there would be replaced with Indigenous holidays that have meaning towards the particular Indigenous nation. Instead of teaching lies like how George Washington didn’t have teeth from his Black slaves, history would focus on the history of the particular Indigenous nation.
In terms of the settlers currently living on Indigenous land, most likely they would be a naturalization process where the settlers would be classified as immigrants who have to apply for Indigenous citizenship in order to become a citizen of that particular tribal nation. Current enrolled tribal members would be the original citizens of the decolonized land. Black people would most likely be automatically granted citizenship as well since none of the Indigenous people I follow and works I’ve read classify Black people as settlers.
As immigrants, the ex-settlers would be granted a set of rights but also barred from various forms of political participation like voting just like immigrants of every other nation. They would have the choice of applying for Indigenous citizenship, and if they qualify for Indigenous citizenship and pass the Indigenous citizenship test, they would be considered an Indigenous citizen under the Indigenous government.
I think people here are confusing citizenship with ethnicity (and race). In a free and sovereign Lakota Republic, you could have a German Lakota in the sense of a Lakota citizen of German descent. Using Hawaii as an example, there were Chinese immigrants who moved to the Kingdom of Hawaii where they were granted Hawaiian citizenship, and when the US illegally annexed Hawaii, the Chinese Hawaiians became Chinese Americans (technically there was a legal limbo since the US didn’t grant Chinese people US citizenship so those Chinese Hawaiians were Chinese ??? for a while). And when Hawaii becomes free and sovereign again, those Chinese Americans would go back to being Chinese Hawaiians.
So… basically just a new government, then.
The immigrant status doesn’t make much sense to me, but I guess the indigenous people had to go through something like that when the settlers took the land, so that’s fair.
What about all the land belonging to first nations that were completely wiped out? Thinking about the east cost specifically. Do you just give it to the nearest tribe that still has extant members able and willing to form a government? The indigenous political landscape of today bears little resemblence to its historical antecedents. Mostly on account of the genociding. Many cultures have been rolled together into new collective indigenous identities, and they cannot be meaningfully separated back into their pre-colonial constituent parts. Why would anyone besides indegenous people themselves support what you’ve proposed over the abolition of nation-states entirely, with all land collectively belonging to everyone? Seems like correcting one historical injustice while not meaningfully addressing the failures of the current system, while also introducing a whole new set of problems.