"We" stole the Indian's land.... Oh really ?
- Thread starter Cazzo
- Start date
The harm caused to indigenous peoples certainly involved a wealth transfer from someone in some magnitude to someone else. That said the transferors are long dead. the amount unknown, the transferrees are long dead, and there is no evidence that a randomly selected white guy will have been a benerficiary of that transfer, even indirectly.
Paying "damages" makes sense. Taking money from someone who may or may not owe it to make a payment to another to whom it may or may not be owed, is a waste. The person being forced to make the reparations payment should tell his descendents to wait 100 years then sue your descendents for reparations, for the money you took from him.
i think the initial disbursement is to the collective
this group then distributes to individuals
that seems practical
we wash our hands and walk away leaving the tards squabble amongst themselves
Many (most?) have assimilated, my wife has a bit of Indian in her. Many Americans who have been in the US for very long do. But some decided to "stay on the reservation". These days, they're doing a bit better by using their special status (as "sovereign" nations) to open casinos, sell cheap cigarettes, etc.
Yeah, its a reversal of what was done to the reds. Do you object for any particular reason?
word
Outraged, numerous Freedmen have turned to the courts for help. In the most celebrated case, a black tribal leader named Sylvia Davis filed suit against the Seminole tribe in 1994 to get her son a $125 clothing stipend from the Seminole reparations money. But US courts have repeatedly refused to meddle in Indian affairs, noting that the sovereign nations determine their own membership criteria. Davis suffered a serious - and perhaps final - setback last year, when the Supreme Court refused to consider her appeal of a lower court's ruling that the Seminoles could not be sued in federal court. (The Bush administration filed a brief on behalf of the tribe.) (link)
go, meet the native people, ask them . they are unhappy. no president of US is one of the native people. their children were brutally killed.
in india same thing happen. many people died and a magasay award winner writer blamed it on indians(east).
in india same thing happen. many people died and a magasay award winner writer blamed it on indians(east).
why immigrants did not help them ?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.
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.
they wanted them to die. religion is also a great factor. many christians forget that their religion was most brutal against all 'infidels'.
the day monotheism was born all problems started. freedom of worship was ceased. to worship one god and kill all the 'satan' worshipers.
they dont say you did it. it should not irk you, you have not done anything.
Madethesame why don't you start a new thread instead of going back 7 years and resurrecting the dead posts? Just a thought.
for kicks. someone might be waiting for me to write.
i am new here, i write as a ritual.
Immigrants into America were from Europe and there he who had the land had the money. So with that in mind the God fearing Europeans committed genocide upon the Native Americans instead of helping them by education, the Europeans just murdered them.
i would not say european people did, and personaly i don't like to investigate who did and didn't.
who knows some day we come across to know asians killed europeans and vice versa.
history teaches us we should grow.
History must be remembered or we will repeat it over and over. If you don't know history then you should start to read more about it.
i remember history, i learn lessons.
point is i don't read history just for sake of who fought who, how many people died. these are secondary, primary is , people died, i am more aware atfer knowing about them.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere were still in the Bronze Age when the Europeans arrived. With their Iron Age technology, specifically guns, they easily defeated the native people in battle.
North of the Rio Grande, and in many other parts of the New World, people were still living in the Stone Age. Some had discovered farming and animal husbandry, the twin technologies that comprise agriculture, so they were in the Neolithic Era (the Late Stone Age), but many had not, and were still living the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the Paleolithic Era (the Early Stone Age).
Unlike Eurasia with its east-west axis, the Americas have a north-south axis. The problem with this is that it's very difficult for people at different latitudes to share their crops and herds, because their plants and animals may not thrive (or even survive!) in a different climate. So even though farming was developed in the New World at about the same time it was developed in Mesopotamia, it did not spread quickly, and each tribe had to get by with just one or two crops and one or two species of animal. This really held back the advancement of their societies. As a result, while civilization was invented around 10,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, it didn't happen until several thousand years later in Central America--and even later in South America and what is now the USA.
So when the Europeans arrived, they found people who, by their standards, were extremely primitive.
This is very sad. The Olmecs were the only people on Earth who managed to create a civilization with no draft animals: everything they built was built by human labor. They should have been toasted for their ingenuity, instead of enslaved. (The largest domesticated animal north of the equator was the turkey.)
The South Americans weren't doing any better. They had domesticated the llama, but unlike the cows, yaks, sheep and other large grazing mammals in Eurasia, who produced copious amounts of milk which provided a large component of protein to the human diet, female llamas barely produce enough milk to keep their babies alive. It is impossible to milk them.
North of the Rio Grande, and in many other parts of the New World, people were still living in the Stone Age. Some had discovered farming and animal husbandry, the twin technologies that comprise agriculture, so they were in the Neolithic Era (the Late Stone Age), but many had not, and were still living the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the Paleolithic Era (the Early Stone Age).
Unlike Eurasia with its east-west axis, the Americas have a north-south axis. The problem with this is that it's very difficult for people at different latitudes to share their crops and herds, because their plants and animals may not thrive (or even survive!) in a different climate. So even though farming was developed in the New World at about the same time it was developed in Mesopotamia, it did not spread quickly, and each tribe had to get by with just one or two crops and one or two species of animal. This really held back the advancement of their societies. As a result, while civilization was invented around 10,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, it didn't happen until several thousand years later in Central America--and even later in South America and what is now the USA.
So when the Europeans arrived, they found people who, by their standards, were extremely primitive.
This is very sad. The Olmecs were the only people on Earth who managed to create a civilization with no draft animals: everything they built was built by human labor. They should have been toasted for their ingenuity, instead of enslaved. (The largest domesticated animal north of the equator was the turkey.)
The South Americans weren't doing any better. They had domesticated the llama, but unlike the cows, yaks, sheep and other large grazing mammals in Eurasia, who produced copious amounts of milk which provided a large component of protein to the human diet, female llamas barely produce enough milk to keep their babies alive. It is impossible to milk them.
The true creators of the constitution were the indigenous Iroquois people of America! The constitution was originally known as the Iroquois Confederacy Articles. Time to start telling the whole truth!
They were so primitive that they have been living in North America for 10,000 years and had over 10 million Native Americans with thousands of tribes who traded with each other , had their own languages, their own laws and their own lands.
The Native American Source for the Declaration and the Constitution
Read (AND REPOST!) All My Articles
In the standard high school history textbooks, the primary sources of the ideas behind the Constitution are almost entirely from western Europe. We read about English common law, laws from ancient Greece and Rome, and French civil law. Then, by some sort of magic, the Framers added their original genius, ideas about democracy, separation of powers, federalism, and so on, to the mix and, behold, the Constitution was created.
All well and good. Certainly ancient Greece and Rome, medieval England, and the minds of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and others were vital contributions to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But one source, hiding in plain sight, so to speak, is frequently overlooked. This is the contribution of native Americans, particularly the Iroquois, to the mix. The Iroquois constitution, called the Great Law of Peace, or Gayanashagowa, contains many echoes of our Constitution, and in a number of respects, is more advanced in thought than the Constitution that resulted from the Convention of 1787.
This is not something I made up. If you read the original documents from the time, from people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, you will easily see that they deeply acknowledged their debt to the Iroquois and other native Americans. It's no accident that the protestors at the Boston Tea Party chose to disguise themselves as Indians. They did this out of respect for the democratic and free nature of Indian society - something they were trying to establish in the face of what they considered British tyranny.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...voCYAw&usg=AFQjCNGFaso0ccAAbzsSX74Fo8-F7CMjrQ