
Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America - guerrilla
https://www.whose.land/en/
======
Acrobatic_Road
Maps like these give the false impression that nearly every square mile of
land - even inhospitable desert regions, were once occupied by some native
polity.

Reality check: Most indigenous peoples lived in Mesoamerica, with < 10 million
in what is now USA/Canada and that's being generous. There are regions of
North America today that have no residents. By what grounds are these native
lands - because some nomads once wandered through there?

~~~
rexpop
For one thing, it's incredibly chauvinistic to dismiss pre-colombian society
as "some nomads," and their mobility patterns as having "wandered". Nomadic
life-ways aren't the thoughtless ramblings of a child at play, or a sub-
sentient beast in simple reactionary pursuit of greener pastures. They summer
here, winter there, raise children in these parts, and visit those for sport,
trade, or agriculture. Their relationship with the land is purposeful, and
maintained by cultural artifacts we'd recognize as Almanacs.

One isn't "wandering" just because they haven't poured concrete.

For another thing, the pre-colombian americas weren't the Gardens of Eden,
magically and effortlessly producing sustenance, and materials for us to
enjoy. They were cultivated, sculpted, and gamed into those forms which
facilitated our survival. There's evidence enough of that in the ways that
restrictive intra- and under-growth have returned to the forests indigenous
populations kept pruned for their traversal.

Lastly, biomes are big systems, and interconnected. I may have only a small
garden, but it's fed from massive watersheds. If I am to survive, the
mountains which constitute that watershed must be recognized as "mine" in some
regard. So it goes with all the lands which feed into, and out of, those
through which "some nomads once wandered."

I hope you can see, now, how myopically your "reality check" frames the
situation.

Edit: I took out a specious allusion to the BLM.

~~~
Acrobatic_Road
>Nomadic life-ways aren't the thoughtless ramblings of a child at play

In 11th century eastern europe, Kipchaq nomads did the same - "wandering" as
in following seasonal patterns within their lands. But it was not until the
17th century that the steppes were settled - and the settlers weren't
Kipchaqs.

Imagine if a modern day Ukrainian was presented with a similar indigenous map
based on nomadic groups that once roamed his country - it would stretch from
the Danube to the Volga! Should we convert the entire pontic-caspian steppe
into an indigenous zones for Nogais and Tatars who are related to the
historical kipchaqs?

~~~
dylan-m
Is it written into Ukraine's laws (and then quietly ignored) that they should
respect those groups' territories and negotiate treaties to resolve issues?
Fun fact: British Columbia barely has any treaties because people have ignored
the issue for decades. This is incredibly slow going:
[http://www.bctreaty.ca/negotiation-
update](http://www.bctreaty.ca/negotiation-update).

Edit: Read about Nogais and Tatars instead of spewing nonsense :)

------
PaulDavisThe1st
This map should really have some dates on it. It might represent the state of
things within, say, a 100 year period (or so) of European arrival, but it
doesn't convey the history of humans in North America. I read the FAQ and
could not find any information on what time period is represented here. If
someone showed you a map of Europe or China marked out like this, it would be
natural to ask "when is this?"

None of that does anything to ameliorate the genocide that was perpetrated
against the people living in the Americans when europeans travelled and then
settled here. But it's also important not to portray the prior 10k years or
more of human settlement in the Americas as static and unchanging.

~~~
mobilefriendly
Yes, for example the Seminoles weren't native to Florida they were bands of
Creeks pushed there by the Upper Creeks and Europeans in the 1700s, and were
also invited by the Spanish. They weren't even named as a distinct group until
the 1770s. There were many other Florida tribes.

------
patcon
It's not quiiiite as polished, but I like this website a bit more:
[https://native-land.ca/](https://native-land.ca/)

Informationally, it has more layers, including treaties, languages and
territories.

It's stewarded by a dedicated [and now native-led] Canadian nonprofit, as
opposed to a short-term funded collaboration that whose.land is. Also, it's
partnering with other groups like
[https://nativesintech.org/](https://nativesintech.org/)

(If anyone feels supportive of projects like this, and otherwise empowering
indigenous communities, NativesInTech has a Slack team and is very welcoming
of non-native contributors :) [https://forum.nativesintech.org/t/welcome-to-
natives-in-tech...](https://forum.nativesintech.org/t/welcome-to-natives-in-
tech-forum/7) )

~~~
marc_abonce
It actually seems to be the same map in both cases. When I click on any
territory in OP's map I'm redirected to the page you linked.

------
temp-dude-87844
This is an informative project that originates from Canada that shows just how
many different peoples, nations, and polities used to lie hundreds of years
ago on pockets of land that's now largely under the sovereignty of post-
colonial megastates.

Their coverage is focused on North America, but there's also entries in South
America, Australia, and New Zealand.

This isn't a critique of this project, but a question about the spirit of
acknowledgement and reconciliation embodied by this and other projects: Africa
bore a crushing toll under colonialism. Its people were kidnapped and sold to
slavery, which persisted for hundreds of years. In many cases, they weren't
even afforded the dilemma of making unequal treaties. Those who remained in
Africa lived under colonial powers until after WWII, then in artificial states
inheriting the old colonial borders. Many of these places descended into civil
war shortly after their independence, and even today their human development
lags behind the rest of the world. Ought we not reconcile that?

Of course, it's not a competition. Injustice done to one ought to stand on its
own, without comparison to injustice done to others. But the promise of
multinational, classically liberal states like Canada, the United States,
Colombia, Australia, is that their people are empowered with the right to
thrive regardless of how they found themselves in the country, by blood of
conquerors, blood of indigenous peoples, blood of slaves, or as recent
immigrants. Belief in this lofty ideal, which doesn't always work in practice
when one starts much further behind, is also what sets the stage for the self-
reflection, compassion, and the desire for reconciliation.

Other parts of the world aren't so keen on this movement. In Europe, similar
desires to recognize past inhabitants of a land are painted as irrendentism,
hurt by the association with today's xenophobic nationalists and past
conquerors who turned to total war and genocide. In Asia, powerful states
regularly engage in the subjugation of ethnic groups to this day, but the
powers are too significant to world trade and world peace to condemn and
alienate. Preservation of life and limb are surprisingly powerful motivators
in suppressing this kind of examination elsewhere. Stability, a reduced level
of fear, and a latent sense of guilt among the dominant group in power appear
to be the necessary preconditions for this kind of movement to emerge and
thrive. This isn't a cynical point, but we ought to collectively acknowledge
that.

~~~
protomyth
It looks like Canada only. If they have anything from the US it must be
somewhere other than the Northern Great Plains.

------
simonsarris
Somehow I doubt the Russians, English, Spanish, French etc that arrived in the
Americas landed on a Westphalian continent. I think maps like this give the
wrong impression.

Wabanaki (among others) invited French colonists to settle Quebec in part to
check (and perhaps attack) the Mohawk, among other conflicts. ex:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars)

I think it is almost universally agreed that the French treated the natives
better and more collaboratively than the English, who took a different tone.
It's somewhat a shame that the English won that balance of power so early. I
wonder how it would be different today if Canada was still New France.

~~~
baddox
This map contains a lot of overlapping and very rounded regions that I think
convey that it's rough areas of settlement rather than some internationally-
recognized partition of the land.

~~~
notJim
The FAQ also contains this, and more nuanced discussion about what the map
means.

Why are we recognizing more than one Nation on this territory?

Indigenous history stretches back thousands and thousands of years. Some
Indigenous nations were nomadic, while many had permanent communities and
seasonal communities. Often, boundaries between territories overlap because
the Indigenous Nations were continuously sharing the land and negotiating
agreements through their own diplomatic and legal systems.

But heaven forbid we try to understand something before immediately assigning
it to a particular side in the culture war du jour.

~~~
simonsarris
"Continuously sharing and negotiating" is a wild ride of a euphemism. It's
like writing that the Mamluks and Ottomans continuously shared and negotiated
a couple of peninsulas. It's true, but what it doesn't say is incredible.

~~~
protomyth
Yeah, different tribes did wage war on other tribes. The echoes of those
conflicts are remembered today.

------
Pfhreak
Neat map!

Some usability issues -- if one border is entirely within another border, e.g.
near Seattle, I couldn't figure out how to click it. Also, I wish the map was
larger without fullscreening.

Edit: The title also seems to be not quite right, as the map covers more than
North America.

~~~
sxv
Agreed, I was thinking that one possible solution to the first issue could be
to have a layer immediately sent to the back upon being clicked.

------
WalterBright
If you build a garage on your neighbor's land, and he doesn't do anything
about it, in about 10 years it becomes your land.

~~~
bluedevil2k
False. There’s no such thing as “squatters rights” or anything or a statute of
limitations. At any point the neighbor can sue you to protect his land.
Further, when either property is sold, a survey will show the discrepency.

~~~
klyrs
Depends where you live. You and GP are quite possibly speaking true of your
respective locations but overlooking the rest of the world.

In some jurisdictions, you are correct: the state owns all land, and purchase
agreements are subject to consent of the state. No bill of sale, no rights. I
know that the province of BC in Canada is one such jurisdiction. Irony here
being that much of indigenous land in nominal BC is unceded and was stolen
without even the pretense of a treaty.

On the other hand, I previously lived in Washington state, US, where one could
legally take possession of land after 7 years of use and maintenance (as long
as it isn't state or federal land), and as I understand it, a hefty chunk of
paperwork.

~~~
WalterBright
I live in Washington, and I have been personally involved with encroachments
on my property in two separate cases, and I personally know of others.

The various lawyers involved all said the same thing - if you don't put a stop
to encroachments, you lose the property.

In one case that I knew about, the property owner moved the surveying monument
10 feet to increase the size of his lot. He built his house. 20 years later
this was discovered, but oops, it was his land now. In another case, the
neighbor did indeed build a garage on a friend of mine's land. My friend
called the police, who told him it was a civil matter, not a police matter. So
one day, he rented a bulldozer and demolished it. The neighbor called the
police, but my friend showed the police the garage was on my friend's land,
and that was the end of that. He figured the dozer was cheaper than a lawyer
:-) and he was legally in the clear as long as he did it before adverse
possession was claimed.

You might be surprised how often people lie and cheat about where the property
lines are. It's worthwhile to have an official survey done for property you're
considering buying - it can save you a _lot_ of grief later.

------
faitswulff
A lot of comments arguing about the specifics of land ownership in this
thread. I think the point of the website is that it's not _our_ land unless
you're indigenous.

~~~
Acrobatic_Road
Do the Alaskan natives own their land? I ask because they represent a separate
and later migration. The original Alaskan natives are no longer around to
dispute the matter as they were replaced by those who now are now called
indigenous. This is reflected in their languages, which are unrelated to other
indigenous languages in North and South America.

~~~
faitswulff
Well, the ones who "now are called indigenous" actually do exist and are
alive, contrary to popular belief and government intervention. And the point
is that they do not own their land, settlers do at the moment, and that
indigenous folks have a claim preceding Western style land ownership.

~~~
oh_sigh
But they just stole the land in a similar manner that Europeans stole the land
from Natives. If someone steals your car, and then has that car stolen from
them - it would be strange to set up a movement to have the car returned to
the penultimate thief instead of the original owner.

~~~
faitswulff
Migration in prehistoric times does not equate to the well-documented genocide
and theft by Europeans, and you're misapplying a principle in order to
marginalize the rights of an oppressed peoples who are, as I mentioned
earlier, still alive.

We do not return cars to dead people.

~~~
oh_sigh
To Godwin this, imagine that Nazis succeeded in exterminating every Jew in the
world. Would it then be acceptable for the Nazis to keep their
gold/jewelry/art/etc?

If the answer is no, would the Nazis have the right to keep their
gold/jewelry/art/etc if they waited a few hundred years until the world
noticed that the Holocaust happened?

~~~
faitswulff
Bad example. Jewish people got Israel as a misbegotten reparation. Indigenous
people who are again still alive and deserve reparations are getting their
rights and treaties trampled instead. Their claim to the land is not a thought
experiment.

------
magicmouse
Indians entered america approx 8000 years ago. Many were nomadic
hunter/gathering cultures, which have no defined territory. They followed
animal herds, etc., so a map of their area is very approximate at best.

Recently the oldest skeleton was found, and it was caucasian! Caused quite a
stir.

Remember that humans have been around for millions of years, and traveled in
groups of around 200 people for most of that time. Organization came much
later.

~~~
atomi
> caucasian!

There is no evidence Native Americans originated from the Caucasus regions. We
have remains that have been dated to as far back as 12,707–12,556 years BP.
Accordingly:

> Paleogenomic analysis of the remains revealed Siberian ancestry and a close
> genetic relationship to modern Native Americans, including those of Central
> and South America.[1][3] These findings support the hypothesis that modern
> Native Americans are descended from Asian populations who crossed Beringia
> between 32,000 and 18,000 years ago.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1)

------
29athrowaway
When the Spanish arrived to Mexico, they asked one native what was the name of
that area. The person replied: "Ma'anaatik ka t'ann" (I don't understand
you"), and the Spanish hispanized that phrase to Yucatan.

As a result, a large extent of territory is now known as Yucatan Peninsula.
And many names given to territories in the Americas have similar stories.

~~~
sgrove
It seems that this is one of three proposed origins of the name [0] - and only
one of two possible meanings of the "miscommunication" hypothesis.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucatán#Origin_of_"Yucatán"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucatán#Origin_of_"Yucatán")

------
jessaustin
The territory of the Hesquiaht is interesting. They seem to have been a
largely maritime tribe...

------
29athrowaway
I hope they add more nations at some point. I know of some missing populations
in this map.

------
cmehdy
This is a cool website, and if people go past the landing page they'll find a
trove of information and good descriptions of the initiative, as well as
rebuttal of the criticisms I've read here so far.

For example, the website is a collaborative effort between multiple entities,
and re: map details, they state clearly that "These maps are fluid and ever
changing and should be used as an education tool to create dialogue around
reconciliation."[0]

They also don't claim to show every single thing on the landing page. For
example, living in Quebec, clicking on "Where Am I?" lands me on a list of
nations which I'm sure is limited but is at least a starting point for
discussion. They specifically mention "There are 634 First Nations in Canada.
Learn more about those closest to your location", which might not be directly
reflected on the landing page but is acknowledged on the website itself.

Their relationship to acknowledgement being part of a process of
reconciliation is not a personal attack on anyone, and it saddens me to think
that some people would take it as such. Their FAQ also brings forth the kinds
of questions that one might come up with when being made aware of First
Nations and treaties and such.[1]

For reference, I am European and I moved to Canada. Perhaps the emotional
distance allows for curiosity and a wish to understand as main drivers, rather
than feeling attacked or threatened in any way. And I'm French, so technically
this is history that I should know at least partially! (but was never taught
in school, as the kind of history classes I experienced were very focused on
our own belly buttons - Pre-history -> Egyptians -> Greeks -> Romans ->
Medieval Europe -> Monarchies (so much time..) -> Industrial Revolution in
Europe -> World Wars -> Cold war).

Canada is making efforts towards a better understanding and acceptance of its
past without shying away from saying things that temporarily would appear
"ego-damaging". In my country, a bit over a decade ago the president was going
to a summit of African countries to tell them how irrelevant they are[2]. The
humility shown in this website (and to a larger degree in Canada, as evidenced
by Trudeau's recent acknowledgement of systemic racism) is as politically
challenging as it is morally right in the long run.

The past can't be undone, but the present can acknowledge and work to build
understanding and respect for the paths taken.

[0] [https://www.whose.land/en/about](https://www.whose.land/en/about)

[1] [https://www.whose.land/en/faq](https://www.whose.land/en/faq)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_Dakar_address](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_Dakar_address)

------
siculars
I'm confused. A lot of these areas overlap. Are these areas of land ownership
or something else? How do you have multiple owners of the same physical
location? In which period of time?

~~~
labster
In my area, there are several bands of Chumash -- Ventureño, Obispeño, etc --
all of which are the same nation, but different bands. Both are shown on this
map, the set and its subsets.

But, of course, some people would have a territory, then another people would
come in and claim it as their own territory because the other people weren't
"using" it. This started well before 1492 -- and based on nature, probably
began long before the Homo genus ever appeared on Earth.

------
joshuaheard
I don't see a time scale on the map. If you go back 18,000 years or so, there
were no humans in North America. After that, there was a series of migrations
from Asia. Certainly, over time, distinct tribes formed, reformed, and
disappeared, over varying areas, until we get the current map you see. It
would be nice to see a time scale reflect this morphology.

~~~
d_t_w
I'm not sure how indigenous cultures are represented in North America today
but the map shows Iwi in New Zealand that are present day, not a historical
artefact.

------
mceoin
Is this project related to [https://native-land.ca/](https://native-land.ca/)
?

------
labster
The title is wrong here, as the map includes Australia and some of South
America.

I'm a little sad this doesn't include anything in Africa, Asia, or Europe.
What about the Zulu Kingdom, conquered by the British? How about what Rome did
to all of those Etruscans? What about the Uighurs and Tibetans?

------
dylan-m
There's a straightforward rebuttal to about 90% of the horrible arguments
(which is at least half of the comments - seriously, hacker news?!) in this
thread.

1\. Did [other country that was also previously somebody else's] _finish_
their genocide?

2\. Would you prefer that Canada and the United States did?

I know your answer to the second one because I know humans are, eventually,
(once they stop pretending that they live in a statistics textbook) usually
not assholes. So to the whataboutism, I simply ask: understanding that this is
not history, but the _present_ , what the fuck do you think you're advocating?

------
chrisco255
The idea of the stable borders is so new. The Ottoman Empire still controlled
much of the middle east before World War I. The British Empire was also still
quite expansive at the beginning of that war (and into WW2). The fact that so
much of the world speaks Latin-derived languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese,
Romanian, Italian...nearly 1 billion people in total) is a relic of the Roman
empire's own expansive conquering of territory. Just over 150 years ago,
Germany wasn't even a single nation state, but rather a collection of loose
territories. Among the native americans themselves, there were constant
warring, slavery, even human sacrifice and in some cases cannibalism.

And this is, for example, how the Iroquois treated prisoners of war: "The
captive would be executed after a day-long torture session of burning and
removing body parts, which the prisoner was expected to bear with stoicism and
nobility (an expectation not usually met) before being scalped alive. Hot sand
was applied to the exposed skull and they were finally killed by cutting out
their hearts. Afterward, the victim's body was cut and eaten by the community.
The practice of ritual torture and execution, together with cannibalism, ended
some time in the early 18th century."

For some reason, some people believe that whatever "borders" existed several
hundred years ago should be brought forward to modern times. These folks
consistently craft a narrative that paints the U.S. in a bad light while
ignoring the very real crimes against humanity that occurred on practically
every square foot of ground across the globe, going back thousands of years.

From a certain perspective, all of human history can be summed up as an
endless series of blood feuds.

~~~
majormajor
> From a certain perspective, all of human history can be summed up as an
> endless series of blood feuds.

Is it so bad that people think we should try to do better?

In my history classes I learned about Europe - itself very much in flux as you
mention through the past thousand years - being "invaded" and America being
"settled." Things need to be properly acknowledged before they can be moved
past. And some of these things that are painted as "revisionism" when they
aren't glossed over have lingering harmful effects even today.

~~~
rukittenme
> Things need to be properly acknowledged before they can be moved past.

What acknowledgement would right the wrongs of history? What is the
appropriate amount of reparations to be paid?

~~~
rexpop
Is "None" the answer that would satisfy you? You seem to be implying a
slippery slope, but you come off as saying "what's non-trivial shouldn't be
attempted."

If you're actually interested in answering that very big question–which, I
suspect, you might not be, only ornery and combative–you would do well to read
what scholars have written on it. You might even Google the simplest component
of the subject.

Here is a start: "US approves $4.5 billion in reparations to Indians, black
farmers"[0]

0\.
[http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301242](http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301242)

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Answers along the lines of "here's a start" are unsatisfying, because the
question is where the end is. It's like asking what the ingredients for a loaf
of bread are and hearing "well a tablespoon of flour is a start".

I'm not aware of any scholar who's said "after we do X, Y, Z, the wrongs of
history will be righted and we won't need any further efforts to make it up to
Native Americans". (If you know someone who did, I'd be excited to see what
they have to say!)

~~~
rexpop
Some ideas are best conveyed through richer media. Don't hesitate to read
Indigenous People's History of the United States, and stop demanding bread
recipes on fortune cookie slips.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I'm sure you understand why this sounds suspiciously like a claim that there
_is_ no end.

~~~
rexpop
Truly? I do not. Of course there is an end; equity and the abolition of
continuing systems of oppression.

I am honestly blown away that there exists in your mind some set of beliefs
which, paired with what I've said, imply I suggest there is no end. Please,
what are they?

------
waffle_ss
Human history is a story of conquest, and Native Americans fought - _fought_ ,
not rolled over on their bellies - and were conquered by white settlers. It
might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it
was a fight nonetheless.

The natives were certainly fighting each other before whites arrived, too -
the warrior role is an important part of many tribes' culture.

Should the Comanche give reparations and land back to the Apache because they
drove them out and slaughtered them almost to complete genocide?

Should the Ojibwe (who I share blood with) apologize for teaching white
settlers the name "Sioux", meaning "little snakes", for the Lakota (their
enemy)?

The USA should honor its treaties and acknowledge any wrongdoings, but these
land acknowledgements that state the land is "occupied" by a foreign power are
absurd and I'll continue to strongly object to them.

~~~
ifokiedoke
While I understand this sentiment - especially since as you say, most (if not
all) of today's accepted states and borders are the result of bloody, unfair
conquest - I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based
on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. Interestingly, I've also found
that many people (I'm being a bit hand-wavy here, I know) who are completely
fine with dismissing indigenous land acknowledgements have plenty to say about
Tibet re: China, or Crimea re: Russia, etc. Perhaps it's all realpolitik
posturing, but if it has been I certainly haven't been able to tell.

Seems to me that so long as the peoples who "lost" in history are still around
and able to generate sympathy, empathy, and understanding, it lands upon us to
seriously think about whether or not we should continue the status quo and
carry history into the present.

~~~
paloaltokid
_> I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the
"well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset._

I used to be perplexed by these responses on HN as well but they make a
certain kind of sense. If you have really doubled down on science and
evolution and take them to their logical extreme, Darwinism really does just
reduce to "if I can eat you, I win."

It occurs to me that many posters on HN are very okay with this mindset
because they are chasing big dreams in life. And if a few people get hurt
while they're on their way to riches, so be it.

You see this sentiment all the time in various comment threads.

~~~
jtr1
It takes a pretty impoverished understanding of evolution to write off
cooperation and symbiosis as strategies for passing on ones genes.

~~~
paloaltokid
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying those are the conclusions many
folks on this forum seem to have drawn.

------
Gunax
So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state
court.

While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the
implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based
on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but
the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than
another?

Typically the jurisdiction of crime is based on territory, not ethnicity.

Im not a lawyer and I'm not American, so I could of course be completely
misunderstanding what the implications are.

~~~
atombender
The point that Gorsuch made in his majority opinion was that it's not the
Supreme Court's role to figure this out — that's Congress' job.

The SC only interprets the law, which in this case referred to a treaty that
never repealed by Congress, so the SC ruled that it must be honored.

Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand, and the court sent a
strong signal that it needs to be resolved by Congress.

~~~
pdonis
_> Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand_

I'm not so sure. The only real effect of this decision is that everybody now
has to recognize that a certain class of criminal cases (those in which all
parties are members of the Creek nation) in eastern Oklahoma can only be tried
in Federal courts (or, for some, Creek tribal courts), not Oklahoma state
courts. Nothing else has to change. The Creek nation is already coexisting
with non-Creek inhabitants of the same territory and none of that has to
change; the city of Tulsa doesn't have to move, people don't have to leave
their homes, businesses don't have to relocate. I don't see what makes the
state of affairs after this decision particularly confusing or unstable.

~~~
atombender
The Chief Justice doesn't agree with you there. He wrote the decision "will
undermine numerous convictions obtained by the State, as well as the State's
abil­ity to prosecute serious crimes committed in the future ... [and] may
destabilize the governance of vast swathes of Oklahoma."

~~~
pdonis
_> The Chief Justice doesn't agree with you there._

I know. I don't find his claims compelling, for much the same reasons that the
court majority doesn't, as discussed in some detail in the court's opinion.

