August 01, 2018

Well, this is Interesting

Calexit, the campaign to have California secede from the U.S.A. and build utopia unfettered by the likes of U.S. has added a new dimension to their proposal. 


The idea is to give all the federally owned land in the state to the Native Americans.



If one were to commit the disgraciousness of comparing that map to the actual federal land in California one might note some discrepancies...

..and in so doing reveal oneself to a troublemaker.

A good swath of the federal lands are not actually included, but they hardly count because they are prime coastal real estate or associated with Tony zip codes. A fair ammount of the federal lands are actually overseen by BLM which is not always the actual owner. Instead a good bit of that land is privately owned but tightly regulated. Finally there is a good deal of land in the allotted area that is NOT federally owned or administered. 

Fear not my Jacobin friends, those areas voted for Trump.  
Because their's no greater expression of charity than forcing other people to sacrifice. 

I do note that the Native American country would be almost landlocked and its only access to the sea would be Crescent City and possibly Eureka, neither capable of handling deep draft vessels. 
 

UPDATE: Oh look! It's up already.

The money quote is at the 04:50 mark. 

 

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 09:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

1 It looks like that will put the Native Americans in charge of most of the fresh water used by the coastal cities.  I predict the coasies will quickly concoct a rationalization for occupying selected areas of the "Autonomous Native Nation" to ensure that this valuable resource is "properly and sustainably managed"...

Posted by: Siergen at Wed Aug 1 22:23:42 2018 (KNzJG)

2 Oh, look. White people giving land they don't want (or want to be owned by the people who have it) to Amerind nations and calling it a gift.

(I apologize for using the tone of deluded, but I thought it was appropriate.)

Posted by: Ben at Thu Aug 2 12:48:23 2018 (osxtX)

3 Just realized I got a sentence very wrong in that comment.  My apologies.  It should read (or don't want to be owned by the people who have it).

Do with all this what you will, 'muppet.

Posted by: Ben at Fri Aug 3 11:24:20 2018 (osxtX)

4 So, move the Indians to crap land nobody wants to live on. Let's call this "Trail of Tears II" (Electric Boogaloo?)

Posted by: Mauser at Sat Aug 4 08:52:42 2018 (Ix1l6)

5

If memory serves, the American Indian tribes can only have the status of their reservations affected or changed through the federal government due to the applicable laws and treaties - and it also covers the tribes' relations with other nations.  So regardless of whatever opium dreams the CalExit folks like to believe, any changes regarding Indian land would require them to talk with the feds first.

This proposal reminds me of the last time Quebec separatists manage a serious push at independence, and people were pointing out that the Indian tribes in Quebec actually held the territory where the province's main hydroelectric dams were.

Posted by: cxt217 at Sat Aug 4 22:51:04 2018 (BcQU4)

6 The real fun is that most of the water, electricity, oil, and perishable goods would be shipped through the new sovereign Indian nation(s). Screw casinos, that's real money!

-j

Posted by: J Greely at Sun Aug 5 01:14:26 2018 (tgyIO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




31kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.1338 seconds.
68 queries taking 0.1152 seconds, 283 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.