@asbestos@toot.community I don't think they have a right to self-determination that can be enforced in some way against the United States. I think it might be right for the United States to agree (or do a better job of living up to our agreeing) to let Native Americans (and other groups, it's not the past injustice that's determinative) have wide berth for self-determination.

@asbestos@toot.community The word "right" is a very tricky word. Very often when you have the right to do something, it is far from righteous for you to do it. Very often it is righteous to permit of others what you could have blocked, what is not their right. I think right—which offer liberties that prevail over others' strong objections—are both essential, but things whose assertion (rather than negotiated nonobjection) we should seek to minimize rather than celebrate.

@asbestos@toot.community My ethnic background is yours (though I'd call myself agnostic rather than atheist). I'd not exist but for the State of Israel. But there is no space humans can retreat to for safety. Our collective history makes the desire understandable, but we share a world, and no social fiction, no border, no state, can prevent violence if we do not mutually agree with others to enforce and give effect to that fiction. Peace can never be unilateral. There is no exit.