Taking down > Mount Rushmore

[grip]

So, now.. embarrassed you've been caught not reading your own OP you've decided that derailing your own thread and asking me if I'm really sorry for shaming you is a good idea?

Republicans are demonstrably out of ideas. I wish I could help you

You said you were soooooooooooooooooooooo sorry. I took you at your word. You're not a person of your word?

Who's a republican?

 

[lurchadams]

You said you were soooooooooooooooooooooo sorry. I took you at your word. You're not a person of your word?

Who's a republican?

Dude, you screwed up! Take your licks and move on! Your obsessing over my post is not bothering me - I do feel bad for you though.

 

[grip]

Dude, you screwed up! Take your licks and move on! Your obsessing over my post is not bothering me - I do feel bad for you though.

How did I screw up, because you misspelled the governor's name and I corrected you? I knew who she was but it seems in doubt you did.

You're the one who's made a big deal with smarmy responses, I'm just playing along.

 

[lurchadams]

How did I screw up, because you misspelled the governor's name and I corrected you? I knew who she was but it seems in doubt you did.

You're the one who's made a big deal with smarmy responses, I'm just playing along.

So you're just having, "fun" obsessing over my posts? Okay.. :roll: I hear some people enjoy being beaten, so you shouldn't be ashamed of how you choose to get your jollies.

 

[grip]

So you're just having, "fun" obsessing over my posts? Okay.. :roll: I hear some people enjoy being beaten, so you shouldn't be ashamed of how you choose to get your jollies.

That's purely obnoxious, but since you seem so desperate to win something, I'll let you. :mrgreen:

 

[veritas1]

Restore Mt Rushmore and return it to Native Americans we stole it from.

The Indians never believed in ownership of land so how could it be stolen? Displacement yes, stolen no.

 

[lurchadams]

That's purely obnoxious, but since you seem so desperate to win something, I'll let you. :mrgreen:

I accept your surrender.

 

[grip]

I accept your surrender.

:congrats:

 

[joko104]

The Indians never believed in ownership of land so how could it be stolen? Displacement yes, stolen no.

There are too many reasons that is inaccurate to even summarize the list in a reason - beyond it is false.

But hey, let's talk about what all white people everywhere always and never believed like you claim all Indians everywhere throughout all of history "never believed in ownership of land."

Or discussing your logic that if someone doesn't not believe murder is wrong, they you can ethically and legally murder that person because your morality are determined by the morality of others.

 

[joko104]

the founders were racist pieces of ****

Over the last couple of years you have become a complete anti-American anarchist fascist in your messages. Democrats such as you in your messages have always been not only the greatest enemies of the United States, but the greatest enemy against humanity and human rights on a collective and personal level.

 

[veritas1]

There are too many reasons that is inaccurate to even summarize the list in a reason - beyond it is false.

But hey, let's talk about what all white people everywhere always and never believed like you claim all Indians everywhere throughout all of history "never believed in ownership of land."

Or discussing your logic that if someone doesn't not believe murder is wrong, they you can ethically and legally murder that person because your morality are determined by the morality of others.

I never made any claim that another's morality dictates your own. Never said that anywhere. I also never referred to every Indian everywhere throughout history. Obviously, we are talking about those who inhabited the continental US. The point is that the concept of theft implies within it the concept of ownership. The Indians never owned the land therefore it could hardly be stolen from them. Were they kicked off it, moved elsewhere and displaced? Yes, but that is not the same as what we understand theft to be. If you squat on a piece of public land and the government kicks you off it, was it stolen from you? Of course not.

 

[joko104]

I never made any claim that another's morality dictates your own. Never said that anywhere. I also never referred to every Indian everywhere throughout history. Obviously, we are talking about those who inhabited the continental US. The point is that the concept of theft implies within it the concept of ownership. The Indians never owned the land therefore it could hardly be stolen from them. Were they kicked off it, moved elsewhere and displaced? Yes, but that is not the same as what we understand theft to be. If you squat on a piece of public land and the government kicks you off it, was it stolen from you? Of course not.

"The Indians" is as accurate as "the Europeans" is accurate.

In fact, Native Americans were not all identical as you claim. In fact, Native Americans 100% operated under ownership of land and ownership of personal property. For most Native American tribes of that era, their land was collectively owned by the tribe, not individually.

In addition, any Native Americans removed to "reservation" and or on land by treaty were on land they owned by written contract. In addition, white people/the government entered into contracts to purchase land from Native Americans. In addition, the United States entered into treaties (contracts) with Native Americans specifically establishing "boundaries" between American government land and particular Native American countries. For example the Holston treaty established a legal boundary between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. IN FACT, the land was the land of the Cherokee by a negotiated contract.

The first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, violated the land contract to STEAL the land and put the Cherokee (and others) on death marches murdering thousands by doing so.

Even squatters rights laws of the time made land the Native Americans had been on for generations made it legally their land.

Your claim that Native Americans did not have a concept of ownership of land is as false as claiming that churches do not have a concept of land ownership because it is owned by the congregation, no ownership of jointly owned condos, and there is no ownership of property owned by a husband and wife because you claim that collective ownership of land equates to no ownership at all.

There is no justification in your claim either in law, in contract or in ethics.

 

[joko104]

Your generation inherited the best country in the world and ran it into the ground. You squandered your inheritance. Your grandfather's wouldn't recognize the country you've turned America into. You'd be ashamed if you were confronted by anyone who died in Normandy or Korea or Vietnam and asked to explain what you've done to their country. By any scale that matters you've let your country slide into mediocrity. Or worse.
The worst generation. That's your legacy, that's your contribution to American history.

Grandfathers do not recognized the American that the Democratic Party turned this country into.

 

[veritas1]

"The Indians" is as accurate as "the Europeans" is accurate.

In fact, Native Americans were not all identical as you claim. In fact, Native Americans 100% operated under ownership of land and ownership of personal property. For most Native American tribes of that era, their land was collectively owned by the tribe, not individually.

In addition, any Native Americans removed to "reservation" and or on land by treaty were on land they owned by written contract. In addition, white people/the government entered into contracts to purchase land from Native Americans. In addition, the United States entered into treaties (contracts) with Native Americans specifically establishing "boundaries" between American government land and particular Native American countries. For example the Holston treaty established a legal boundary between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. IN FACT, the land was the land of the Cherokee by a negotiated contract.

The first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, violated the land contract to STEAL the land and put the Cherokee (and others) on death marches murdering thousands by doing so.

Even squatters rights laws of the time made land the Native Americans had been on for generations made it legally their land.

Your claim that Native Americans did not have a concept of ownership of land is as false as claiming that churches do not have a concept of land ownership because it is owned by the congregation, no ownership of jointly owned condos, and there is no ownership of property owned by a husband and wife because you claim that collective ownership of land equates to no ownership at all.

There is no justification in your claim either in law, in contract or in ethics.

Not so. The plains Indians, for example, roamed around to different areas depending on the season and the availability of game, etc. They kept other tribes out not because they believed they owned anything but because they didn't want to share the available resources. I also didn't say a peep about collective ownership vs individual ownership. If you live in a condo, you might not own the whole building but you own your own residence. Ownership by deed, contract, etc. is a European concept which with the Indians had no familiarity whatever. When they made later agreements with the government those were actions taken by the government in order to try to keep the peace, not because either they or the Indians believed the Indians owned anything.

Lastly, the Indians were on the land they were on simply by virtue of having arrived their first. That might give them a claim but the acknowledgement of such claims came from the government. The idea of actually owning it was not a concept the Indians operated under. Only after they had to deal with the government did this occur. Lastly, you seem to think that I am somehow excusing or glossing over the treatment most N. American tribes received at the hands of the government. I am not and have not done so.

Our land is more valuable than your money. It will last forever. It will not even perish by the flames of fire. As long as the sun shines and the waters flow, this land will be here to give life to men and animals. We cannot sell the lives of men and animals; therefore we cannot sell this land. It was put here for us by the Great Spirit and we cannot sell it because it does not belong to us. You can count your money and burn it within the nod of a buffalo's head, but only the great Spirit can count the grains of sand and the blades of grass of these plains. As a present to you, we will give you anything we have that you can take with you, but the land, never.

--Crowfoot, chief of the Blackfeet, circa 1885

 

[joko104]

Not so. The plains Indians, for example, roamed around to different areas depending on the season and the availability of game, etc. They kept other tribes out not because they believed they owned anything but because they didn't want to share the available resources. I also didn't say a peep about collective ownership vs individual ownership. If you live in a condo, you might not own the whole building but you own your own residence. Ownership by deed, contract, etc. is a European concept which with the Indians had no familiarity whatever. When they made later agreements with the government those were actions taken by the government in order to try to keep the peace, not because either they or the Indians believed the Indians owned anything.

Lastly, the Indians were on the land they were on simply by virtue of having arrived their first. That might give them a claim but the acknowledgement of such claims came from the government. The idea of actually owning it was not a concept the Indians operated under. Only after they had to deal with the government did this occur. Lastly, you seem to think that I am somehow excusing or glossing over the treatment most N. American tribes received at the hands of the government. I am not and have not done so.

Our land is more valuable than your money. It will last forever. It will not even perish by the flames of fire. As long as the sun shines and the waters flow, this land will be here to give life to men and animals. We cannot sell the lives of men and animals; therefore we cannot sell this land. It was put here for us by the Great Spirit and we cannot sell it because it does not belong to us. You can count your money and burn it within the nod of a buffalo's head, but only the great Spirit can count the grains of sand and the blades of grass of these plains. As a present to you, we will give you anything we have that you can take with you, but the land, never.

--Crowfoot, chief of the Blackfeet, circa 1885

In fact, Native Americans did sell land to others/the government. If Native Americans never owned any land then there was no one for white people to legally obtain land from - other than claiming squatter's rights. But if so, then the Native Americans already had squatter's rights.

Native Americans had fixed cities they occupied for centuries including in stone. Your stereotyping all Native Americans to a singularity is, candidly, ignorant. The US government recognized Native American land ownership and Native American national boundaries.

Old Hollywood cowboy and Indian moves were not reality.

You are just posting in circles and erase any value to your message. It is a bunch of nothing that just means "might equals right."

 

[veritas1]

In fact, Native Americans did sell land to others/the government. If Native Americans never owned any land then there was no one for white people to legally obtain land from - other than claiming squatter's rights. But if so, then the Native Americans already had squatter's rights.

Native Americans had fixed cities they occupied for centuries including in stone. Your stereotyping all Native Americans to a singularity is, candidly, ignorant. The US government recognized Native American land ownership and Native American national boundaries.

Old Hollywood cowboy and Indian moves were not reality.

You are just posting in circles and erase any value to your message. It is a bunch of nothing that just means "might equals right."

Not at all. I expressly disavowed any might equals right justification. Any land purchasing which ensued was initiated by the government to resolve the ongoing so called "Indian problem" and bring peace to the white settlers primarily. That is simply what happened. The idea of ownership came from the whites in order to solve a problem, not from the Indians. I'm not sure why this would be upsetting. It's just a fact. It in no way excuses the dispossession or resettlement of tribes off lands they long inhabited. The Europeans had more people and better technology and the Indians couldn't do anything about it.

 

[joko104]

Not at all. I expressly disavowed any might equals right justification. Any land purchasing which ensued was initiated by the government to resolve the ongoing so called "Indian problem" and bring peace to the white settlers primarily. That is simply what happened. The idea of ownership came from the whites in order to solve a problem, not from the Indians. I'm not sure why this would be upsetting. It's just a fact. It in no way excuses the dispossession or resettlement of tribes off lands they long inhabited. The Europeans had more people and better technology and the Indians couldn't do anything about it.

You have completely shifted your claim. You began by claiming all Indians were like some Plains Indians with no concept of "our land" (ownership) and therefore no land was "stolen."
I replied that Native Americans in fact did have the concept of ownership - of land and personal property, but of collective tribal/nation ownership - and pointing out that no, not all N. A.s were like your view of some Plains Indians.
You then shift to claiming white people brought the legalism of written contracts and deeds. That does not equate to no concept of ownership nor what constitute's theft. Have you recorded your clothing with the government? If not, then you are claiming you have no concept that you own your clothing and if anyone took your clothing (furniture, etc) they therefore had not stolen it.
I further point out that the government of states or the United States bought land, negotiated for land, conveyed land and established Indian nation national borders with Indians governments - so therefore it was their land even by all Western legal measure.

This all leads to what's your point? Irrelevant bandying of words? Land was "stolen" from Native Americans by military conquest other than bits and pieces here and there by forced negotiated agreements.

The tragedy for Native Americans is that they were not enslaved. Owners do not slaughter their livestock nor potential new livestock. As a result, the number of offspring of black slaves greatly outnumbers their slave ancestors, while NAs are less than 5% their numbers 200 years ago in the United States.

Want to debate that the history of the human race is peoples overrunning and eliminating other people for their land? You'll get no debate from me over that. It's just a fact. It's not a justification, but a reality. ALL empires became empires primarily by force - military force - including the United States. The USA is no longer the most powerful or wealthy nation on earth and almost in a full economic, political, social and world presence collapse because the USA became a bunch of self entitled, self indulgent, spoiled, lazy and cowardly brats - now having been taught for decades to hate their ancestors' successes and claiming everyone like themselves deserves everything they need for free - meaning everyone else has to take care of them.

 

[joko104]

Even setting aside the disease factor, there is no theory by which Native Americans could have defended their lands in the long run, other than technically the a small group of Florida Seminoles did because they had the swamp and swamp diseases on their side. Among the reasons are that ALL white national leaders used lying as a tactic, so therefore no peace or agreement ever could actually be reached. Flags of truce to talk were generally always a lie to capture NA leaders. Any terms of surrender offered were lies to facilitate defenseless slaughter, and any contracts, deeds and agreements with white people - whether European or American - were worthless and ignored by such white leaders whenever it suited them.

Thus, the only question is could NAs have united to hold of the European invasions and the answer is no. In world history, collectively white Europeans became the most murderous race in the known history of earth, finally surpassing the mass slaughters before them such as the Great Muslim Empire and others. Can you name an inhabited continent where Europeans didn't slaughter the indigenous people until the surrendered and existed to serve their European conquerors?

Japan comes to mind, but that is a really bizarre history unique to itself. The Japanese SO admired Western military might they equated it to Western culture is superior - so decided to make Japan a clone of the West. Western clothing. Western music. Western military (picking German). However, being extreme racists this evolved to believing they were superior at Western culture, Western military etc than Western powers themselves.

 

[veritas1]

You have completely shifted your claim. You began by claiming all Indians were like some Plains Indians with no concept of "our land" (ownership) and therefore no land was "stolen."
I replied that Native Americans in fact did have the concept of ownership - of land and personal property, but of collective tribal/nation ownership - and pointing out that no, not all N. A.s were like your view of some Plains Indians.
You then shift to claiming white people brought the legalism of written contracts and deeds. That does not equate to no concept of ownership nor what constitute's theft. Have you recorded your clothing with the government? If not, they you are claiming you have no concept that you own your clothing and if anyone took your clothing (furniture, etc) they therefore had not stolen it.
I further point out that the government of states or the United States bought land, negotiated for land, conveyed land and established Indian nation national borders with Indians governments - so therefore it was their land every by all Western measure.

This all leads to what's your point? Irrelevant bandying of words? Land was "stolen" from Native Americans by military conquest other than bits and pieces here and there by forced negotiated agreements.

The tragedy for Native Americans is that they were not enslaved. Owners do not slaughter their livestock nor potential new livestock. As a result, the number of offspring of black slaves greatly outnumbers their slave ancestors, while NAs are less than 5% their numbers 200 years ago in the United States.

Want to debate that the history of the human race is peoples overrunning and eliminating other people for their land? You'll get no debate from me over that. It's just a fact. It's not a justification, but a reality. ALL empires became empires primarily by force - military force - including the United States. The USA is no longer the most powerful or wealthy nation on earth and almost in a full economic, political, social and world presence collapse because the USA became a bunch of self entitled, self indulgent, spoiled, lazy and cowardly brats - now having been taught for decades to hate their ancestors' successes and claiming everyone like themselves deserves everything they need for free - meaning everyone else has to take care of them.

I simply disagree with the idea that any large group of N.American indians believed in the ownership of land as we understand it. They knew they'd been on the land for a long time and didn't want to go someplace else. They were forced off that land. At best, as you said, they had squatters rights but squatters rights aren't worth much if a more powerful group refuses to acknowledge them. The Indians realized that the governments accorded the land a monetary value and, so, they played the game the whites were forcing on them. The idea of a monetary value or exchanging land for money is not something that existed among the N. American tribes.

Land was land, eternal and for the use of future generations. Exclusivity only existed to the extent that tribes didn't want rivals forcing them off their land any more than they wanted the government doing it. Again, the government established Indian lands (those owned by Indians) in the interest of resolving the conflict to their (the government's) satisfaction not because they, or the Indians, thought they owned said lands.

 

[joko104]

I simply disagree with the idea that any large group of N.American indians believed in the ownership of land as we understand it. They knew they'd been on the land for a long time and didn't want to go someplace else. They were forced off that land. At best, as you said, they had squatters rights but squatters rights aren't worth much if a more powerful group refuses to acknowledge them. The Indians realized that the governments accorded the land a monetary value and, so, they played the game the whites were forcing on them. The idea of a monetary value or exchanging land for money is not something that existed among the N. American tribes.

Land was land, eternal and for the use of future generations. Exclusivity only existed to the extent that tribes didn't want rivals forcing them off their land any more than they wanted the government doing it. Again, the government established Indian lands (those owned by Indians) in the interest of resolving the conflict to their (the government's) satisfaction not because they, or the Indians, thought they owned said lands.

I think we both have stated our points, but again your view is a Hollywood/white people view of Native Americans as some universal singularity across thousands of years - when in fact the diversity of the Indigenous peoples of the Americans from Alaska down to the tip of South America is likely far more diverse than white European culture, possibly predates white homo sapiens even being in the West, and absolutely had the concept of their land for their particular country/nation/tribe (all mean the same).

Your "land is eternal" is sort of the Hollywood protrayal of NAs as akin to a Hindu or Tibetan guru (that always annoys me.)

I agree with you that exactly everything European, American and state governments did to/for Indians was singularly for their own interests and never had anything to do with any respect for rights to Native Americans whatsoever. It very much was the legal practice of "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." But lacking the military force to kill them all - particularly at first - took lesser steps and measures - like false promises and worthless treaties.

What does not work (not claiming this is your claim) is that Native Americans were unthinkably barbaric people, unlike the kind and humane white people. I don't think you can name any barbaric practice of any Indian nation that I can not show that white people have done the same, as bad or worse. Technological inferiority does not necessarily equate to being "primitive."

 

[joko104]

Giving this discussion real meaning to my perspective.

While any NA who wants to live on a reservation certainly could do so, I think attempts to preserve "the old ways" is as absurd as if a group of white people decided to go live like the Pilgrims. They can't because that past reality no longer exists. Native Americans can no longer live as they did back then. Cashing the little government checks, living in the crummy little frame house you can't own but don't pay rent on, and taking a bus to work at the Casino 20 minutes away is NOT preserving the old ways - and that is the GOOD and DECENT reservations. Get out West and some of those reservations are horrific isolated impoverished hellhole semi rural ghettos in the middle of nowhere.

Now, while ranting and screaming white people should give up their whiteness and hate their ancestors and past - while at the same time telling blacks and Latinos to cling hold of and magnify the blackness or brownness and glorify their ancestors - is the Democratic Party's new version of extreme racism.

I don't give a damn about race. ZERO. I GREATLY care about CULTURE and SOCIETY. The culture and society my family and I live in. This has virtually nothing about what other people say or think. Rather, it is the pragmatic nature of the culture and society I am in. I don't give a damn about ideological dogma. I openly and overwhelming prefer white middle American conservative culture than I do Western NA culture and Midwestern black ghetto culture. If you don't like your culture and think another one is superior, rather than trying to change the culture you are in and/or trying to destroy the other culture because it is unfair. Rather, go live in the other culture and be one of that culture instead.

The same in my discussing the history of Native Americans in relation to Europeans is just a discussion of facts, not ideologies of which race is which.