There are a couple of problems with this kind of argument.
First, do we really want to have different laws for different races? (Aside from the moral issue, that's explicitly unconstitutional in Alaska.)
Note that I'm talking about the fishing limits here. You mentioned forced settlement, which is, of course, a reprehensible thing. It is also a case of enforcing the law differently for different ethnic groups.
Second, we need to watch out for implicit assumptions that native americans are somehow different from the rest of us -- perhaps intellectually inferior, or morally superior, or committed to a traditional lifestyle. But really, these are just regular old people: just as smart and just as selfish as you and I, and just as uninterested in living the way their ancestors did in past centuries (short lifespans? famine every few years? no tech? no Cheetos?). And so they are also just as capable of short-sightedly wrecking the environment.
>First, do we really want to have different laws for different races?
It's not about having different laws for different races. This is about different nations having different laws.
The political relationship between the United States and the indigenous peoples of the Americas is much different than the relationship between the US and its citizens. It's more akin to asking if we want different laws for people in Canada and America.
I think your second point is similarly misguided. It's not a matter of anyone being different, but whether the US has a more compelling claim to exercise sovereignty in this situation.
I think there is some merit to that point of view. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, it seems to be a bit outdated. Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act.[1]
Also, since we're dealing with Alaska here: Alaska Natives are dealt with under a different legal framework than that used with natives in the continental U.S. Because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act[2], I believe that Alaska Natives are not considered citizens of tribal nations, but rather shareholders in territory-based corporations.
First, do we really want to have different laws for different races? (Aside from the moral issue, that's explicitly unconstitutional in Alaska.)
Note that I'm talking about the fishing limits here. You mentioned forced settlement, which is, of course, a reprehensible thing. It is also a case of enforcing the law differently for different ethnic groups.
Second, we need to watch out for implicit assumptions that native americans are somehow different from the rest of us -- perhaps intellectually inferior, or morally superior, or committed to a traditional lifestyle. But really, these are just regular old people: just as smart and just as selfish as you and I, and just as uninterested in living the way their ancestors did in past centuries (short lifespans? famine every few years? no tech? no Cheetos?). And so they are also just as capable of short-sightedly wrecking the environment.