The State of Nagi Tanka

By Cyberquill 07/25/20142 Comments

Native Americans

Once upon a time, the area that these days comprises the United States was populated by people(s) now collectively referred to as Native Americans.

As is common knowledge, once the Europeans splashed ashore and set about establishing their shining city on the hill, the curtain inexorably began to ring down on the indigenous population, a process poetically styled “Manifest Destiny” by the newcomers.

Eventually, its most resilient and shrunken remainder ended up stashed away into so-called “reservations,” a term at the mere sound of which one can hardly imagine anyone—with the possible exception of John Wayne—not feeling at least a wee twinge.

That said,

there is not a single country in the world that wasn’t, in some way, founded by occupiers. Almost everywhere, there was someone there who was displaced or absorbed to make way for the current occupants.” [Source]

However, let’s assume that, in a well-meaning attempt to redress the historical wrong inflicted upon Native Americans, the international community, backed by the military megapower of Panginia, decides to restore a portion of the United States—let’s say the area currently taken up by the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma—to native American control via installing there, in the midst of erstwhile U.S. territory, a brand-new country called the State of Nagi Tanka.

No one denies that the Native Americans were here first, so the argument can be made that this is, after all, their land.

Technically, of course, the State of Nagi Tanka should be a lot larger than the international community could agree on, but pragmatic constraints prohibit the restoring of the entire continent to the descendants of its quondam inhabitants; difficult enough to appease and make reasonable accommodations for millions of non-Native-American Nebraskans, Kansans, and Oklahomans, short of deporting them wholesale.

How would the United States react when faced with such a fait accompli wreaked upon them by others against its express wishes and in defiance of its most vehement objections?

Heaping insult and injury upon insult and injury, the state of Nagi Tanka, having adjudged its assigned borders as too constrictive for their continued comfort, soon takes to deploying construction crews into neighboring Texas and Colorado for the purpose of raising additional settlements.

Militarily, the U.S., alas, cannot hold a scrawny taper to Nagi Tanka’s biggest ally, the megapower of Panginia, a reality which has made the internationally sanctioned restitution of land to its original occupants possible in the first place and which dashes any hope of recovering the thus expropriated real estate using conventional force, or even halting its expansion.

Confronted with such a state of affairs, it stands to reason that the U.S. government and a sizable segment of its citizenry would be frothing at the kisser, to say the least. One can only speculate as to the myriad ways in which said frothing might instantiate, right-wing talk radio to the power of a thousand in terms of bellicosity directed at Nagi Tanka and Panginia, and wide-spread incinerations of their respective flags probably being its mildest manifestations.

Historically speaking, the colonialist gene has not been known for its ability to take things lying down.

Chances are that those who most passionately defend Israel’s right to exist would, with like abandon and using reverse logic, dispute Nagi Tanka’s.

But what to do if one’s own firepower is dwarfed by that of one’s detractors? What if all formal petitions to the United Nations to reconsider and dismantle the State of Nagi Tanka lead nowhere? And what if all the hunger strikes and the salt marches bear no fruit?

Having run out of non-violent alternatives, and with the conventional military option off the table, would the “greatest country in the world” stoop to tactics it has traditionally condemned in others as terrorism?

Or could it be that, on account of its vaunted exceptionalism and attendant ingenuity, the “greatest country in the world” would never reach a point of contemplating, employing, or condoning such uncivilized methods as a last resort, not even in the face of Panginia’s insuperable might?

Print This Post Print This Post

Terms Of Use

  • Richard

    You illustrate the problem with your usual vividness and clarity. You demonstrate how violence erupts and suggest that distant moralising and imposed solutions are futile, even harmful.

    You do not offer a means of resolution. Is there one?

    Is it fair to draw comparisons with the Stuart takeover by the Scottish James VI when he annexed England, Wales and Nothern Ireland in 1603 or with the current takeover by the EU of hitherto independent states? The first led to armed conflict, but was ultimately resolved. The union of the American states led to civil war and the imposition of the will of the victors. What will happen with the EU?

    What is the feature that distinguishes territorial conflict that can be resolved from that which cannot, or what is the mark of a solution that works? Is it one that fully honours and preserves different cultures and their expectations within a single territorial entity? Is it not true that such solutions can only be arrived at with the help of the detached exercise of reason, namely by an external, benign influence?

    • Cyberquill

      I don’t presume to be in a position to offer any means for a resolution to a vicious conflict that has evaded solution and stumped the world for sixty plus years.

      As John Milton so prophetically put it in Paradise Lost more that 300 years ago, “Never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”

      My only point, for whatever it’s worth, is that in its unwavering support of Israel’s right to exist, the United States actively endorses a situation that it, itself, would never tolerate if it were the injured party in an internationally decreed reappropriation of part of its soil akin to the restoration of the Holy Land to the Jewish people.

      I grant that my point may be a moot one. Pragmatism and self-interest, alas, often dictate the adherence to a double standard, no matter how glaring on its face.

← Previous Post