"We" stole the Indian's land.... Oh really ?

Please do not change my quotes and still write my name in the quotation. You work in academia, you should know better than that. At least there are still Copts around in the ME, where are the peoples of the West?

They at least have the luxury of moving to where the Christians have persecuted the natives enough to get all their land and resources and completely marginalised the natives. Now that Christians have become advanced enough to accept pluralistic outlooks, that is.
 
Last edited:
exactly Cazzo...Americans just gracefully accepted land from the Europeans who gracefully took the gift from Indians. Likewise...Russia will gracefully accept the gift of land from Georgia of Georgia and the rest.
 
draqon said:
exactly Cazzo...Americans just gracefully accepted land from the Europeans who gracefully took the gift from Indians. Likewise...Russia will gracefully accept the gift of land from Georgia of Georgia and the rest.
Click to expand...

Poor analogy since what's happening in Georgia NOW affects the people LIVING there NOW. People in America TODAY DIDN'T EXIST when OTHER DEAD people were screwing over the Indians.

Should we hold Europeans accountable for the probable elimination of Neanderthals 100,000+ years ago because of the humans that moved in ?
Should we hold muslims accountable for their ancestor's massive slave trades :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
"Historians say the Arab slave trade began in the 7th century and lasted more than a millennium.[26][27] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, western Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East [28] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China."

Of course not.......

I think peoples attacks on the US for what people did long ago, is based a lot on politics.
 
Last edited:
Native Americans are not affected today by the loss of their lands?
 
orleander said:
I'm a big fan of 'put up or shut up'. If Native Americans ever want to sue, I say go for it.
Click to expand...
And as soon as the casino money enabled the hiring of non-government lawyers, they did.

So they have their treaty rights back on Mille Lacs, among other gains.

There's a huge case slogging through the courts right now, has been for years, over the BIA swindles of mineral rights and payments. So far I think the last three Secretaries of the Interior have been each threatened by the judge involved, for withholding evidence. The last one I heard of was threatened with personal jail time for contempt of court. At one time the US Federal government was claiming that it could not produce the subpeonaed records, after years of stalling, because during the delay they had become contaminated with rodent feces, and represented a health risk. I don't know the current status.
SAM said:
There is no American alive who has not benefited from the persecution of the Indians and their progeny have a right to demand justice for it.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the matter. The Chippewa dispossessed the Sioux, The Iroquois and others in the Confederation launched formal war against the Cherokee, some other tribes, the Scotch Irish, and others they wished to dispossess (welcoming the French tribe as allies) and lost, were dispossessed themselves instead; the Cherokee held black and red and white slaves both captured and purchased; the Pawnee were at war with everyone and welcomed the English as allies; and so forth.

The Scotch Irish tribe won, essentially, and then sold out (or got rolled) into the United Colony States. As a tribe, they would have as large a claim against the US imperial impositions as the Pawnee or Crow have (although probably less than the Cherokee).

That's the initial dispossession, from which the benefits derive. The subsequent persecution did not benefit very many people, and who owes whom for that would be impossible to trace, except that the legally abused have claims under the law. Those claims are in court, some of them anyway, and that's the place for them.
 
What do you think of this SAM ? :
Should we hold muslims accountable for their ancestor's massive slave trades :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
"Historians say the Arab slave trade began in the 7th century and lasted more than a millennium.[26][27] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, western Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East [28] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China."

I don't think muslims should be held accountable for this, how about you ?
 
Cazzo said:
EVERYONE born in America is a "Native American"...:rolleyes:
And NO Indian living today has "lost" lands....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They do , its a lot shorter period than immigrant Jews in Canaan [400 years vs 4000 years]
 
What do you think of this SAM ? :
Should we hold muslims accountable for their ancestor's massive slave trades :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
"Historians say the Arab slave trade began in the 7th century and lasted more than a millennium.[26][27] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, western Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East [28] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China."

I don't think muslims should be held accountable for this, how about you ?
 
Sure they should. Just like New Yorkers for the bones of slaves buried in their city.
 
I think the enslavement of black people by some white people cost me a lot, including a very expensive and horrific war fought by my ancestors, economic penalties that cost my grandfather his farm, and the creation of inefficient land use patterns and debilitating social structures in my region of residence.

Whom do I sue?
 
Cazzo said:
All too often you here some people stating that "we" (Americans) "stole" the land from American Indians.

Seeing how it was Europeans that no longer exist that took over America, is it fair to say "we", today, stole their (the Indians who no longer exist) land ?

Likewise, the "Native Americans" that live on reservations in America today are just as "native" as anyone else born in the Americas; so the current Indians never owned all of America.

So how is it "we" stole their land ?
If "we" stole their land, then you could say that about ANY country on the face of the planet; as conquests and borders have been changing around the world for perhaps 100,000 years or more.

Additionally, people claim "we" committed "genocide" on Indians in the Americas. First of all, most were killed by diseases carrying a ride to the Americas from explorers.....hardly a "deliberate" "genocide"; those explorers didn't even know what a disease was.:rolleyes:
And there's only 1 documented case of 2 small pox laden blanets given to an Indian tribe.
All these tragedies happened before any of us ("we") were born.
Click to expand...

A sure sign of the coming apocalypse, I agree with Cazzo. Initially, many Native Americans were friends with the new settlers. Some of them started wars with them. Others sided with the French and others fought for the British. A shocking number died as a result of lacking resistance to European diseases. As European immigrants moved west in a legitimate search for space, land, resources, and riches, they found few Natives living there. There is unquestioningly some racism involved in our dealings with the natives, many cases of failing to live up to our promises. But the settling of America was inevitable. If not for the crushing of the Spanish Armada, it would have been settled by the Spanish.

As with the case of Israel, people fail to take into account the complete historical picture. The settling of the new world was like a force of nature.
 
spidergoat said:
A sure sign of the coming apocalypse, I agree with Cazzo. Initially, many Native Americans were friends with the new settlers. Some of them started wars with them. Others sided with the French and others fought for the British. A shocking number died as a result of lacking resistance to European diseases. As European immigrants moved west in a legitimate search for space, land, resources, and riches, they found few Natives living there. There is unquestioningly some racism involved in our dealings with the natives, many cases of failing to live up to our promises. But the settling of America was inevitable. If not for the crushing of the Spanish Armada, it would have been settled by the Spanish.

As with the case of Israel, people fail to take into account the complete historical picture. The settling of the new world was like a force of nature.
Click to expand...

lol
Either you are very ignorant of America's colonial history with the Indians, or you hate redskins.
 
It was already settled, by the Native Americans. Or do you think the Chinese should settle America, seeing as they have less land per capita?
 
Cazzo said:
I don't think muslims should be held accountable for this, how about you ?
Click to expand...

Think about it from another direction, how far back would you go? I mean, for example, the United States imprisoned Japanese Americans in concentration camps in the early 1940's, would that be too far back? (I certainly was not alive when that happened, so why should I pay for it?)

Suppose it turns out that the government shot and killed a tribe of Native Americans 20 years ago? My neices and nephews weren't alive then, so should the government not be blamed for it? Is the standard, that the government can be held accountable only so long as someone whio was alive then is still breathing, or is the window as short as a year, or what?

One thing is clear enough, from a legal perspective the government of the United States that existed in 1789-1860 is the same government that exists today. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, from 1848, is still in effect and binds the United States and Mexico to this day. Why should a Mexican respect that (and not reclaim the southwest), since after all that is something his government did back in 1848 well before he was alive. Just like the government should not be blamed for bad acts committed centuries ago, should you not argue that the government it should not benefit or be harmed by agreements made to centuries ago? (Or, more to the point since I think I know your answer, why do agreements that are centuries old still have relevance whereas other acts do not?)
 
The "native americans" obviously did come from someplace. I think they came from the south and some from the north over a land bridge at the north.
 
Pandaemoni said:
One thing is clear enough, from a legal perspective the government of the United States that existed in 1789-1860 is the same government that exists today.
Click to expand...


I beg to differ, as laws have come and gone since then, not to mention the Americas have been sliding more towards Socialism since then. But that's a different topic for a different thread.

Like I've asked before, and nobody (who's claiming that "we" today are responsible for what others long ago did) has answered; should we hold Europeans TODAY responsible for the Europeans 100,000+ years ago responsible for the demise of the Neanderthals ? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top