The monument to the Indians in Russia.

[Grand Mal]

No.And also, we aren't discussing the inuits from Canada. But the native american tribes.

Inuits? That's all you got? This is what you bring to the discussion?
SLAM!

 

[Rainman05]

How little you know of what you speak.

If I sold YOU a firearm could you make another one from scratch? I don’t mean after buying a kit from some dealer, I mean build one completely on your own? As in smelt the ore, mold the metal, shape and bore the barrel, construct a trigger mechanism? Construct all the other parts all by yourself? I highly doubt it, and you would still need all the technological skills and manufacturing infrastructure to do it. You think the whites gave that to the Natives when they sold firearms to them?

As for your agriculture comments?

The Cherokee in Georgia had received recognition of their semiautonomous status in a federal treaty in 1791. They become farmers, ranchers, and cotton producers. They developed their own constitution, built roads and churches, developed a successful educational system, and owned slaves. The Cherokee also refused to sell their highly prized and fertile lands to whites. So President Andrew Jackson, under his Indian Removal Act of 1830, kicked them out to the Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) and let whites take over their lands.

Prior to that there were the Pueblos (Hopi, Zuni, etc.) who were farmers, dug wells, built permanent housing structures, engaged in trade, and also began sheep herding after encountering the Spanish. The Navaho picked up these skills after contacting the Pueblos. All but sheep-herding occurred well-before any white men arrived in their territories.

The Iroquois Nation was organized sometime between 1100 A.D. and 1450 A.D., well-before any white men came to North America. They also farmed and had a highly organized system of government. Their Constitution had significant influence on the creation of our own.

All tribes had art, crafts, songs, and often acted more civilized than European invaders. You do know that “scalping” was introduced by Europeans right? It wasn’t a Native American invention.

I'd like to say I am surprised at your slanted view of history in attempts to justify how current Americans "don't owe" native peoples anything, but I'm not. It's similar to the selfish and short-sighted attitude many Conservatives have about "private enterprise." Having a right to w/e because "we earned it" (by ruthlessly taking from or exploiting others) and its "ours." Then acting with moral outrage when others use the same tactics to deprive them of "what's theirs." Laughable.

I think I know quite a lot of what I speak of. Since there are a lot of native american tribes, we can discuss all the major ones separately to weigh them. But the one thing they all had in common is that they all liked guns. How american of them. And of course they didn't have the technology to make guns, they were primitive. So of course they kept buying or receiving guns. When one native american tribe would fight the French, the British would give them guns and vice-versa.
But this they adopt everything else? How about sewage system? No... what about advanced medicine (for the time) instead of just herbal medicine? No... ah well. That's that. Guns are fun though and easy to use.

Yes, that was after they received the "mandate to civilize" or whatever it was called that told native americans to live the Jeffersonian dream of being small farmers and all that. And yes, I know Andrew jackson did that. But being forced to "civilize" isn't really something native american tribes can take home as a +. Except for some native american tribes in virginia or such there is no evidence of native americans mastering the difficult technology of agriculture prior to the formation of the colonies.

I don't know much about the Pueblo except that they were taken over by the Spanish and then they too were forced to civilize... and then they overthrew the spanish after the Spanish started having problems as a superpower.

All tribes had art, crafts, songs, and often acted more civilized than European invaders. You do know that “scalping” was introduced by Europeans right? It wasn’t a Native American invention.

Yes, but they didn't have anything of note. songs were simple... juvenile. Nothing of substance. The equivalent of sing-alongs when you're at a campfire, maybe accompanied with ritualistic dances. The rest of the world had that too you know. Their art wasn't anything to be amazed at in comparison to the rest of the world. really... and their crafts were the same crafts people had when they were hunter-gatherers.

And no, I didn't know that scalping was introduced by Europeans, nor did I care enough to find out. Please link me to it.

The Iroquois Nation was organized sometime between 1100 A.D. and 1450 A.D., well-before any white men came to North America. They also farmed and had a highly organized system of government. Their Constitution had significant influence on the creation of our own.

No... no they didn't. because they didn't have writting.

EDIT: I am not too proud to admit I am wrong. I grant you that the Iroquis ORAL constitution had an impact on the US constitution. I researched it, it is true... all 3-4 articles of it. I admit that. If you consider that to be "great influence", i cede this point.

Also, scalping. I did some small research, apparently yes, Europeans in America did practice it, it is true. But so did almost everybody else. So yeah.

 

[Rainman05]

Inuits? That's all you got? This is what you bring to the discussion?
SLAM!

Since your comment was rather simplistic and false, I decided I'd better spend my time by arguing on the comment before you, that actually had some better composition.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think I know quite a lot of what I speak of. Since there are a lot of native american tribes, we can discuss all the major ones separately to weigh them. But the one thing they all had in common is that they all liked guns. How american of them. And of course they didn't have the technology to make guns, they were primitive. So of course they kept buying or receiving guns. When one native american tribe would fight the French, the British would give them guns and vice-versa.

Gee, and this proves your point? All American's who could not make guns still bought and used them. Why wouldn't Native Americans if offered the chance?

But this they adopt everything else? How about sewage system? No... what about advanced medicine (for the time) instead of just herbal medicine? No... ah well. That's that. Guns are fun though and easy to use.

Are you really so ignorant of European history? How long did it take Europrean nations to adopt sewage and medical techniques? English, French and German cities were pigstys for centuries, despite Roman sewage techniques. As for medicine? The Arabs developed many medical techniques which were ignored for hundreds of years by those same filty Europeans. Again, each tribal grouping was it's own nation, they were not unified across the continent. And Americans pressed constantly against each native tribe it encountered as it expanded west for 150 years. Not much time for each tribe separately encountered to adapt was it.

Yes, that was after they received the "mandate to civilize" or whatever it was called that told native americans to live the Jeffersonian dream of being small farmers and all that. And yes, I know Andrew jackson did that. But being forced to "civilize" isn't really something native american tribes can take home as a +. Except for some native american tribes in virginia or such there is no evidence of native americans mastering the difficult technology of agriculture prior to the formation of the colonies.

First of all the Cherokee were not "forced" to civilize. They did exactly as you stated they should have done, they voluntarily and enthusiastically adopted and adapted to European society and technology AND IT DID NOT MATTER! They were robbed anyway! It would be like me just walking into your house with a gun and telling you everything you own and built up is now mine. Take your family and move somewhere else. If you argued i could just shoot you dead, and legally keep everything too.

I don't know much about the Pueblo except that they were taken over by the Spanish and then they too were forced to civilize... and then they overthrew the spanish after the Spanish started having problems as a superpower.

Actually you don't really know much about anything involving Native American history, aside from what you picked up watching cowboy and indian movies. That is evident in everything you say in all of your posts. You are clearly speaking soley from an ethnocentric viewpoint with no evidence that you have ever attempted to educate yourself about what you speak. You make broad sweeping generalization, mis-state facts, and instead profess outright mythology as fact! Then you throw in a hefty measure of personal prejudice and bias. Not very supportive of winning arguments though.

I really suggest that you either get "interested enough" to educate yourself before you put foot into mouth again...or simpl admit your ignorance so we can dismiss your arguments without generating any rancor.

 

[Rainman05]

Gee, and this proves your point? All American's who could not make guns still bought and used them. Why wouldn't Native Americans if offered the chance?

Are you really so ignorant of European history? How long did it take Europrean nations to adopt sewage and medical techniques? English, French and German cities were pigstys for centuries, despite Roman sewage techniques. As for medicine? The Arabs developed many medical techniques which were ignored for hundreds of years by those same filty Europeans. Again, each tribal grouping was it's own nation, they were not unified across the continent. And Americans pressed constantly against each native tribe it encountered as it expanded west for 150 years. Not much time for each tribe separately encountered to adapt was it.

First of all the Cherokee were not "forced" to civilize. They did exactly as you stated they should have done, they voluntarily and enthusiastically adopted and adapted to European society and technology AND IT DID NOT MATTER! They were robbed anyway! It would be like me just walking into your house with a gun and telling you everything you own and built up is now mine. Take your family and move somewhere else. If you argued i could just shoot you dead, and legally keep everything too.

Actually you don't really know much about anything involving Native American history, aside from what you picked up watching cowboy and indian movies. That is evident in everything you say in all of your posts. You are clearly speaking soley from an ethnocentric viewpoint with no evidence that you have ever attempted to educate yourself about what you speak. You make broad sweeping generalization, mis-state facts, and instead profess outright mythology as fact! Then you throw in a hefty measure of personal prejudice and bias. Not very supportive of winning arguments though.

I really suggest that you either get "interested enough" to educate yourself before you put foot into mouth again...or simpl admit your ignorance so we can dismiss your arguments without generating any rancor.

Actually, Europeans had developed sewage techniques based on those inherited from the Romans. The dark ages weren't a technological void. Shipbuilding and weaponsmithing for instance blossomed, and so did new forms of goverment like feudalism. It would take till Charlemagne restored order that other aspects of science would be explored and sewage development, along with other sanitation systems, regained favor and development in the high middle ages after the Renaissance kicked in. But the world was a very filthy and stinky place. And the native americans were no cherry blossom either, so don't kid yourself.

The arabs had a culture and knowledge boost due to 2 reasons:

a) they had contact with the Byzantine Empire
b) they took lands from the Byzantine Empire, mainly Egypt.. and what is today Syria, Palestine, iraq, Israel, Lebannon, etc. And Bagdad became the center of knowledge for 200-300 years, a rival to the cultural and knowledge powerhouse that was Constantinopole.

The Cherokee were part of the 5 civilized tribes, but they suffered the same fate as a backwards nation has suffered always. This is a great lesson. If you fall behind, you remain at the whims of those that didn't. Nobody is saying that it is fair, it is just not theft. Having to wait till the Europeans showed them the way to prosperity and progress was a little too late for the arrow of history that points just in 1 direction.

I talk in generalizations because to discuss each major tribe takes too long time. So we discussed in generalizations. If you wish to approach a particular tribe, as you approached the iroquois, I will gladly in indulge you, as I have. . You need to accept that not all cultures and societies are equal. Nor were they ever were. Some are outright better. Some are outright worse from different standpoints.

One major downside is not having a complex written alphabet. And a written language. Without these things, you will fall behind.

You seem to harbor a lot of anti-european sentiment. Or anti-white sentiment. Regardless, it is not healthy. Dispose yourself of it for your own sake.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually, Europeans had developed sewage techniques based on those inherited from the Romans. The dark ages weren't a technological void. Shipbuilding and weaponsmithing for instance blossomed, and so did new forms of goverment like feudalism. It would take till Charlemagne restored order that other aspects of science would be explored and sewage development, along with other sanitation systems, regained favor and development in the high middle ages after the Renaissance kicked in. But the world was a very filthy and stinky place. And the native americans were no cherry blossom either, so don't kid yourself.

The arabs had a culture and knowledge boost due to 2 reasons:

a) they had contact with the Byzantine Empire
b) they took lands from the Byzantine Empire, mainly Egypt.. and what is today Syria, Palestine, iraq, Israel, Lebannon, etc. And Bagdad became the center of knowledge for 200-300 years, a rival to the cultural and knowledge powerhouse that was Constantinopole.

The Cherokee were part of the 5 civilized tribes, but they suffered the same fate as a backwards nation has suffered always. This is a great lesson. If you fall behind, you remain at the whims of those that didn't. Nobody is saying that it is fair, it is just not theft. Having to wait till the Europeans showed them the way to prosperity and progress was a little too late for the arrow of history that points just in 1 direction.

I talk in generalizations because to discuss each major tribe takes too long time. So we discussed in generalizations. If you wish to approach a particular tribe, as you approached the iroquois, I will gladly in indulge you, as I have. . You need to accept that not all cultures and societies are equal. Nor were they ever were. Some are outright better. Some are outright worse from different standpoints.

One major downside is not having a complex written alphabet. And a written language. Without these things, you will fall behind.

You seem to harbor a lot of anti-european sentiment. Or anti-white sentiment. Regardless, it is not healthy. Dispose yourself of it for your own sake.

I am very familiar with European history too, I have two degrees in history. We could nit-pick each other and I would probably still trounce you in unknitting every nit you picked. But that would not address the issue.

Clearly your whole position stems from a combination of might makes right and to the victor go the spoils. If I were to agree with you on this then of course everything you are claiming is right. However, acknowledging that the conquest of America was based exactly on those principles does not lead to an agreement that they are either valid or acceptable. If we did, then I could just march into your house, shoot you and rightfully claim all of your property. It would then remain mine as long as I could hold it by main strength too.

Are you saying that our society, being founded on this, continues to endorse it? Or are you going to cry "foul" and claim it no longer has force because we have "grown beyond that to a more civilized state?" Crap, that's just claiming the mantle of the "rule of law" after you got control of the stolen prize. Why should anyone agree to that?

 

[Rainman05]

I am very familiar with European history too, I have two degrees in history. We could nit-pick each other and I would probably still trounce you in unknitting every nit you picked. But that would not address the issue.

Clearly your whole position stems from a combination of might makes right and to the victor go the spoils. If I were to agree with you on this then of course everything you are claiming is right. However, acknowledging that the conquest of America was based exactly on those principles does not lead to an agreement that they are either valid or acceptable. If we did, then I could just march into your house, shoot you and rightfully claim all of your property. It would then remain mine as long as I could hold it by main strength too.

Are you saying that our society, being founded on this, continues to endorse it? Or are you going to cry "foul" and claim it no longer has force because we have "grown beyond that to a more civilized state?" Crap, that's just claiming the mantle of the "rule of law" after you got control of the stolen prize. Why should anyone agree to that?

I am also very familiar with European history. Congrats on you have 2 degrees in history. I have none, just a degree in electronics and programming, because you know, one doesn't need a degree in history to know history. Just a big library and the time to sink in it.

You could make this argument if we lived in an uncivilized world. Wierdly enough, native american tribes did just that when they made war with one another. They killed each other and took their stuff and as long as they had the strength to hold it, they did. It is also what the colonists did to the native americans. Nowadays, you can't make that argument. The USA conquered Iraq, but you can't really annex it. Nor can you annex afghanistan, legally speaking. Unless you violate countless international laws.

Today we need to have higher standards. But we can't apply todays' standards to the past. Each period in each region in the past needs to be observed through the way things were back then. The people, the actions, the countries, everything. We can condemn it... but you can't change the verdict. And back then, conquest through military was an everyday event. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I am also very familiar with European history. Congrats on you have 2 degrees in history. I have none, just a degree in electronics and programming, because you know, one doesn't need a degree in history to know history. Just a big library and the time to sink in it.

You could make this argument if we lived in an uncivilized world. Wierdly enough, native american tribes did just that when they made war with one another. They killed each other and took their stuff and as long as they had the strength to hold it, they did. It is also what the colonists did to the native americans. Nowadays, you can't make that argument. The USA conquered Iraq, but you can't really annex it. Nor can you annex afghanistan, legally speaking. Unless you violate countless international laws.

Today we need to have higher standards. But we can't apply todays' standards to the past. Each period in each region in the past needs to be observed through the way things were back then. The people, the actions, the countries, everything. We can condemn it... but you can't change the verdict. And back then, conquest through military was an everyday event. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

OK fine, then you seem to agree that I can decide at any time to come shoot you and take your property, then it becomes mine and my families as long as we can hold on to it. Good to know.

 

[Rainman05]

OK fine, then you seem to agree that I can decide at any time to come shoot you and take your property, then it becomes mine and my families as long as we can hold on to it. Good to know.

No, I said you could, if we were uncivilized. So... say 500 years ago, sure, you could have gotten away with it.Now... we are not. Now we have laws that punish you for it. Read the post again.

Besides. If it ever comes down to it, I have technical knowledge in electronical engineering and programming. Not only would I secure my house with cameras but also have laser targeting automated defense turrets.

 

[Fisher]

I don't think this is true. The only way you can justify it is by talking about the Silk Road and that's insufficient.

Inventions aren't a single draw. People invent things in parrarel at different times in different places without any influence from one another by observing the natural world.

Others disagree with you, especially when it comes to things like forging metals.

 

[Rainman05]

Others disagree with you, especially when it comes to things like forging metals.

Yes... others may disagree with me, but others would be wrong. Just because the oldest records of iron working were discovered in the mesopotamian-anatolia region (see hittites) doesnt' mean the rest of the world copied them. Chances are the Chinesse iron working developed independently in far east asia. Scandinavian iron working developed independently too and chances are in the iberic/south France/italy region you had independent development of iron working processes. And like such, in many parts of the world.

So no. A lot of inventions happened independently at different paces depending on what civilizations existed where. The hittites were the first to develop iron working because Mesopotamia is the cradel of civilization. There you had the first settlements of agricultural societies 14000 years ago and the first form of writing (cuneiform). But other developments in other great civilizations followed suite... after longer or shorter periods of time, independently.

 

[Diogenes]

Today we need to have higher standards. But we can't apply todays' standards to the past. Each period in each region in the past needs to be observed through the way things were back then. The people, the actions, the countries, everything. We can condemn it... but you can't change the verdict. And back then, conquest through military was an everyday event. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

Very well said!

 

[jag2594]

I am also very familiar with European history. Congrats on you have 2 degrees in history. I have none, just a degree in electronics and programming, because you know, one doesn't need a degree in history to know history. Just a big library and the time to sink in it.

You could make this argument if we lived in an uncivilized world. Wierdly enough, native american tribes did just that when they made war with one another. They killed each other and took their stuff and as long as they had the strength to hold it, they did. It is also what the colonists did to the native americans. Nowadays, you can't make that argument. The USA conquered Iraq, but you can't really annex it. Nor can you annex afghanistan, legally speaking. Unless you violate countless international laws.

Today we need to have higher standards. But we can't apply todays' standards to the past. Each period in each region in the past needs to be observed through the way things were back then. The people, the actions, the countries, everything. We can condemn it... but you can't change the verdict. And back then, conquest through military was an everyday event. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

Nope wrong, Native Americans did not act like savages. The fact that they taught them to eat, resembles their kindness. While the whites killed them all, they are the real savages. The fact that The average Native American dies at 54 suggest that whites still mistreat them. By putting up liquor stores on every corner of the reservation. They need to hunt to feed themselves specific amino acids that can not come from an american diet.

Actually they liked to use bow and arrows to hunt because it keep the meat clean from any lent from the bullet. They need guns to defend off the whites. Every heard of the native americans in the southeast, genetic engineer corn to be edible. Creating foods for their population. The fact that they knew that trees were important to the ecosystem suggest that they were smarter than any white scientist. They were thousands year ahead of their time. Every stream had pure water. Until the whites polluted every corner of the U.S

The fact the revolutionary war would have never been won by the colonies if the natives didn't teach them to fight guerrilla warfare unlike the british who just stood their to be killed.

They were also the greatest warriors, the only way the whites beat them was to kill women and children.

You are missing the most important aspect, every native american did not go hungry, shelter, water and felt part of something. They were kinder to themselves than the whites were to each other. Poor whites went hungry in every place they lived. Again they were the real savages.

Did you even take a literature course, the whites flocked to the tribes because they were so happy and had something no white person had ever. Every white observer of them said they were the perfect race. Even my white conservative teacher said that!!

They never had any down syndrome, birth defects, babies with cleft palate. Because they knew more about nutrition then any nutritionist in the world.

Why does it matter that they didn't farm. Hunting provide more nutrients than farming. They ate the whole animal, each organ provided different types of hormones, nutrients, and minerals. I hunt, one deer can last months and is healthier than most meat at the store.

Every youth could have received a four year education if we did not spend all our money in iraq.

You are a racist, the fact that you can not even pay respect to the indigenous shows your lack of knowledge.

(Governor William Harrison), you have the liberty to return to your own country ... you wish to prevent the Indians from doing as we wish them, to unite and let them consider their lands as common property of the whole ... You never see an Indian endeavor to make the white people do this ... Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children? How can we have confidence in the white people?.[26] ”
— Tecumseh confronting Harrison at Vincennes, 1810

 

[Rainman05]

Nope wrong, Native Americans did not act like savages. The fact that they taught them to eat, resembles their kindness. While the whites killed them all, they are the real savages. The fact that The average Native American dies at 54 suggest that whites still mistreat them. By putting up liquor stores on every corner of the reservation. They need to hunt to feed themselves specific amino acids that can not come from an american diet.

Actually they liked to use bow and arrows to hunt because it keep the meat clean from any lent from the bullet. They need guns to defend off the whites. Every heard of the native americans in the southeast, genetic engineer corn to be edible. Creating foods for their population. The fact that they knew that trees were important to the ecosystem suggest that they were smarter than any white scientist. They were thousands year ahead of their time. Every stream had pure water. Until the whites polluted every corner of the U.S

The fact the revolutionary war would have never been won by the colonies if the natives didn't teach them to fight guerrilla warfare unlike the british who just stood their to be killed.

They were also the greatest warriors, the only way the whites beat them was to kill women and children.

You are missing the most important aspect, every native american did not go hungry, shelter, water and felt part of something. They were kinder to themselves than the whites were to each other. Poor whites went hungry in every place they lived. Again they were the real savages.

Did you even take a literature course, the whites flocked to the tribes because they were so happy and had something no white person had ever. Every white observer of them said they were the perfect race. Even my white conservative teacher said that!!

They never had any down syndrome, birth defects, babies with cleft palate. Because they knew more about nutrition then any nutritionist in the world.

The women were the leaders in some tribes, in the white culture that still didn't happen for thousands of years later.

Every youth could have received a four year education if we did not spend all our money in iraq.

You are a racist, the fact that you can not even pay respect to the indigenous shows your lack of knowledge.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

The part about no defects, the perfect race, is a real kicker. that made me actually smile and the fact that they knew more than any nutrionist. All this without having a proper alphabet and writing. Wow. How do you put the fact that they are the worlds' best nutritionists and the perfect race with the fact that the average lifespan is 54? It boggles the mind.

You know what, your anti-white, anti-European racism stinks to high heavens. The fact that you hate the truth about native americans is amusing to me. Wake up and smell the coffee. Most native american civilizations were less developed than the mesopotamians were in 12000BC because at least those guys had agriculture and stable village life. If you can't accept the reality, it's not my fault. You want to romaticize? fine. But not here. I will call you out on your BS.

 

[Diogenes]

Nope wrong, Native Americans did not act like savages.
<additional fantasy skipped>

They were stone age nomads, not at all like the "Noble Savage" myth you have borrowed from Rousseau. If you think the Europeans were hard on them, you should take a closer look at how they treated each other.

 

[Dezaad]

I was going to avoid this thread because I have little respect for the OP and consider most of his threads less than valid and unworthy of response. However after reading some of the member's hypocritical justifications for treating Natives as red-headed step children I had to speak up. Before I do that I might as well correct the OP. There ARE Native American memorials and monuments, including the Crazy Horse Memorial: Crazy Horse Memorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Correction. The (Native American) Indians WERE ACTUALLY fighting for THEIR country. What the hell do you think they were fighting for; the fun of it? Perhaps you meant that they were not fighting for OUR country, so we don't need to honor them in any way.



Are you standing on American soil? Do you own property on American soil? Before doing either have you gotten permission from the actual owners, the natives who occupied virgin territory before the arrival of whoever slaughtered them for it?

In our society we have laws that prevent the ownership of, or the transfer of ownership by sale of, stolen property. It does not even matter if you have a bill of sale showing you paid good money for stolen property; if found it must be returned to the original owner.

Every plot of land on this continent belonged to a particular tribe prior to the advent of western invasions. None was ever honestly purchased; natives never understood the concept. All land was the communal property of the entire tribe and could not be "owned" by one person. Instead, they were just killed off one way or another. The Federal government dishonored almost every single treaty, and then simply declared the lands taken were "American property."

The real problem is that the U.S.A failed to fully "conquer" the land. The Feds were remiss in leaving tribal groupings alive and placing them on "semi-autonomous reservations." In effect, Native American tribes (the few that have not faced genocidal extinction) are legaly recognized as NATIONS with dual citizenship. Those that are still in existence have a rightful claim to all their old tribal lands, lands that were stolen from them. This is the only reason people like you have compassion; you recognize piracy and villainy occurred and you still feel a debt is owed because the victims are still around to complain. Otherwise you would give about as much thought to the issue as the homeless you walk past any day of the week.

I'm not even going to respond to the less than factual stereotyping that our peer Rainman05 posted in #44. I'm just too appalled by it.

The people I purchased my home from had legal title to the land, and there are no other valid claimants under any recognized authority.

There was no 'law' about conquest that was disobeyed. It was a vastly different time and place. I am not one iota going to give ground on this, unless the entire world is going to give up reparations for all the places that have been conquered over the millennia. In that day, to the victors went the spoils and that was just the hard luck of it.

Nevertheless I do have compassion for both the homeless and the Native Americans, though for different reasons. None of which have anything at all to do with owning my house.

Native Americans will do themselves a disservice if they wait for reparations before they take advantage of the opportunities available to them as citizens of the United States. If I have anything to say about it, reparations will never be politically feasible. Nevertheless, I will continue to advocate for taxpayer supported programs to help specific groups and all poor people within this country. I hope they will avail themselves of the opportunities created by those efforts.

If they maintain themselves as a separate people, and this interferes with their progress, it is up to them to make it succeed. I wish them the best.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The people I purchased my home from had legal title to the land, and there are no other valid claimants under any recognized authority.

So your position is based on possession absent claimant's validated by "recognized authority?" Currently recognizied authority has authorized the outright theft of U.S. citizen's property under th policy of "asset forfeiture." That means that the government, or it's agents, can take possession of your property and funds and keep them simply because you were arrested for a crime. You don't even have to be charged with the crime, the mere fact of arrest is sufficient. http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/07federalforfeiture/index.htm

Let's hold onto that thought....

There was no 'law' about conquest that was disobeyed. It was a vastly different time and place. I am not one iota going to give ground on this, unless the entire world is going to give up reparations for all the places that have been conquered over the millennia. In that day, to the victors went the spoils and that was just the hard luck of it.

Again, we see the "might makes right" coupled with "to the victor go the spoils" argument to justify the "lawful possession" of stolen property. Same argument seems to apply under asset forfeiture. In any case, what you are saying is that the only thing stopping me as a "Native American" from killing you and taking everything you own is the rule of law you support that allows you to keep what used to be mine.

As I explained to another member, treaties are international LAW. Both parties are supposed to abide by them. One party isn't supposed to keep tricking the other party by lies and manipulation into agreements that the first party always intends to dishonor. The "civilized tribes" of the Cherokee in Georgia followed all the rules, adopted all the customs and methods of Americans in accordance with the treaty of 1791; then with a single act of Congress, the Indian Relocation act of 1830, they were dispossed of plantations, farms, factories and homes, and forcibly moved to Oklahoma. No reparations, nothing. NO war, no conquest, White people just moved in and TOOK the property and the Cherokee were forced down the Trail of Tears.

Native Americans will do themselves a disservice if they wait for reparations before they take advantage of the opportunities available to them as citizens of the United States. If I have anything to say about it, reparations will never be politically feasible. Nevertheless, I will continue to advocate for taxpayer supported programs to help specific groups and all poor people within this country. I hope they will avail themselves of the opportunities created by those efforts.

Says the owner of stolen property. Sorry, it sounds foolishly repetitive and radical; the poor Native American unable to deal with the realities of the present. LOL Still the fact remains that you are probably the current possessor of property that was taken illegally...that is if the native tribe who lived there still exists. The least the government could do was pay rent on the property in proportion to it's value to those tribes that still exist, instead of "doling out charitable handouts to people who refuse to adopt the society of their robbers."

 

[jag2594]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

The part about no defects, the perfect race, is a real kicker. that made me actually smile and the fact that they knew more than any nutrionist. All this without having a proper alphabet and writing. Wow. How do you put the fact that they are the worlds' best nutritionists and the perfect race with the fact that the average lifespan is 54? It boggles the mind.

You know what, your anti-white, anti-European racism stinks to high heavens. The fact that you hate the truth about native americans is amusing to me. Wake up and smell the coffee. Most native american civilizations were less developed than the mesopotamians were in 12000BC because at least those guys had agriculture and stable village life. If you can't accept the reality, it's not my fault. You want to romaticize? fine. But not here. I will call you out on your BS.

They lived in a country in which grizzly bears were common. Their pelts were highly prized and they captured many of them with baited pitfalls. Their knowledge of the use of different organs and tissues of the animals for providing a defense against certain of the affections of the body which we speak of as degenerative diseases was surprising. When I asked an old Indian, through an interpreter, why the Indians did not get scurvy he replied promptly that that was a white man's disease. I asked whether it was possible for the Indians to get scurvy. He replied that it was, but said that the Indians know how to prevent it and the white man does not. When asked why he did not tell the white man how, his reply was that the white man knew too much to ask the Indian anything. I then asked him if he would tell me. He said he would if the chief said he might. He went to see the chief and returned in about an hour, saying that the chief said he could tell me because I was a friend of the Indians and had come to tell the Indians not to eat the food in the white man's store. He took me by the hand and led me to a log where we both sat down. He then described how when the Indian kills a moose he opens it up and at the back of the moose just above the kidney there are what he described as two small balls in the fat. These he said the Indian would take and cut up into as many pieces as there were little and big Indians in the family and each one would eat his piece. They would eat also the walls of the second stomach. By eating these parts of the animal the Indians would keep free from scurvy, which is due to the lack of vitamin C. The Indians were getting vitamin C from the adrenal glands and organs. Modern science has very recently discovered that the adrenal glands are the richest sources of vitamin C in all animal or plant tissues. We found these Indians most cooperative in aiding us. We, of course, had taken presents that we thought would be appreciated by them, and we had no difficulty in making measurements and photographs, nor, indeed, in making a detailed study of the condition of each tooth in the dental arches. I obtained samples of saliva, and of their foods for chemical analysis. A typical Indian family in the big timber forests in shown in fig 15

The condition of the teeth, and the shape of the dental arches and the facial form, were superb. Indeed, in several groups examined not a single tooth was found that had ever been attacked by tooth decay. In an examination of eighty-seven individuals having 2,464 teeth only four teeth were found that had ever been attacked by dental caries. This is equivalent to 0.16 per cent.

The physiques of the Indians of the far north who are still living in their isolated locations and in accordance with their accumulated wisdom were superb. There were practically no irregular teeth, including no impacted third molars, as evidenced by the fact that all individuals old enough to have the molars erupted had them standing in position and functioning normally for mastication. The excellence of the dental arches is shown in Fig. 17. Where the Indians were using the white man's food tooth decay was very severe, as shown in Fig. 18. In the new generation, after meeting the white civilization and using his foods, many developed crooked teeth, so-called, with deformed dental arches, as seen in Fig. 19

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Nutrion and Physical Degeneration. By Weston a Price.


Dude are you stupid, until the white man brought over his cheap ass food. The Natives were superb, do you even read? Everyone knows that about the Natives and other primitives were in the best health in human history.

It was after the genocide of the native american their life span decline. Its called using your brain, why the hell do they need to have an alphabet to know what is good and bad. Your comparing thousands of years of experience to a stupid white ideology. Please read a book before you open your mouth.Again your a racist, you don't know what your talking.

 

[jag2594]

They were stone age nomads, not at all like the "Noble Savage" myth you have borrowed from Rousseau. If you think the Europeans were hard on them, you should take a closer look at how they treated each other.

Do are you even high school educated ? Its called early american literature. James Fenimore Cooper, author of last of the Mohicans. You can't be american.......

Last of the Mohicans includes both the character of Magua, who is devoid of almost any redeeming qualities, as well as Chingachgook, the last chief of the Mohicans, is portrayed as noble, courageous, and heroic.

wiki

 

[Dezaad]

So your position is based on possession absent claimant's validated by "recognized authority?" Currently recognizied authority has authorized the outright theft of U.S. citizen's property under th policy of "asset forfeiture." That means that the government, or it's agents, can take possession of your property and funds and keep them simply because you were arrested for a crime. You don't even have to be charged with the crime, the mere fact of arrest is sufficient. USDOJ: Asset Forfeiture Program: Types of Federal Forfeiture

Let's hold onto that thought....



Again, we see the "might makes right" coupled with "to the victor go the spoils" argument to justify the "lawful possession" of stolen property. Same argument seems to apply under asset forfeiture. In any case, what you are saying is that the only thing stopping me as a "Native American" from killing you and taking everything you own is the rule of law you support that allows you to keep what used to be mine.

As I explained to another member, treaties are international LAW. Both parties are supposed to abide by them. One party isn't supposed to keep tricking the other party by lies and manipulation into agreements that the first party always intends to dishonor. The "civilized tribes" of the Cherokee in Georgia followed all the rules, adopted all the customs and methods of Americans in accordance with the treaty of 1791; then with a single act of Congress, the Indian Relocation act of 1830, they were dispossed of plantations, farms, factories and homes, and forcibly moved to Oklahoma. No reparations, nothing. NO war, no conquest, White people just moved in and TOOK the property and the Cherokee were forced down the Trail of Tears.



Says the owner of stolen property. Sorry, it sounds foolishly repetitive and radical; the poor Native American unable to deal with the realities of the present. LOL Still the fact remains that you are probably the current possessor of property that was taken illegally...that is if the native tribe who lived there still exists. The least the government could do was pay rent on the property in proportion to it's value to those tribes that still exist, instead of "doling out charitable handouts to people who refuse to adopt the society of their robbers."

The "To the victor go the spoils" was the way the world operated then. I am sorry if you don't like that, but again, unless everyone in the world is going to go figure out who owned what "back then" and who it was 'unlawfully' taken from and who their specific descendants are, all so that rent can be paid to the correct specific people, then I am just not buying it for Americans alone.

Even some Native American tribes treated other Native American tribes in such a manner. What ARE we to do about original land ownership in those matters? Are we to pay rent to those tribes, and then those tribes pay rent to the tribes they took the land from? It all gets so complicated... /end sarcasm. "Native Americans" were not some monolithic culture of gentle people, although there were many fine examples of such. There were also examples of brutality between different cultures of Native Americans, so quit pretending that somehow the Native American people didn't live in the same kind of world.

As for your claim that somehow it is inconsistent for me to believe in today's world we operate under a different paradigm... I think the way the world worked back then was brutish, and would not want to see our world today to continue to operate under such a political ecology. So, yeah, you don't get to take it back through conquest, unless that is the way you want the world to work today. The world has either changed, or it has not. I believe it has, and for the better.

 

[Captain Adverse]

As for your claim that somehow it is inconsistent for me to believe in today's world we operate under a different paradigm... I think the way the world worked back then was brutish, and would not want to see our world today to continue to operate under such a political ecology. So, yeah, you don't get to take it back through conquest, unless that is the way you want the world to work today. The world has either changed, or it has not. I believe it has, and for the better.

That's simple b/s. It's based on a refusal to acknowledge a long-standing existing debt that currently still exists because the property was STOLEN and the people who used to own it are STILL AROUND.

You can justify it any way you want, but it only really means that any time someone decides to kill you and take what you claim is yours it does not matter if you claim "things are different today," and hide behind the rule of law. To the victor goes the spoils.

 

[Dezaad]

That's simple b/s. It's based on a refusal to acknowledge a long-standing existing debt that currently still exists because the property was STOLEN and the people who used to own it are STILL AROUND.

You can justify it any way you want, but it only really means that any time someone decides to kill you and take what you claim is yours it does not matter if you claim "things are different today," and hide behind the rule of law. To the victor goes the spoils.

Well, if that's the way the world works today, then I say we go ahead and take the rest of the Native American lands away from them and force them to integrate with our culture.

Property was always "stolen" back then. That's how it worked. Your ancestor's property was stolen, all according to the way EVERYONE acted at the time (including many Native American cultures). All I can say is, too bad. Might I suggest moving on by looking forward? Because I seriously doubt anyone is going to pay you any additional rent for your 'stolen' land. But, good luck with counting on that if you insist on doing so... let us know how that works out for ya'.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Well, if that's the way the world works today, then I say we go ahead and take the rest of the Native American lands away from them and force them to integrate with our culture.

That might be the only way to deal with it, because unless you do there will always be a rightful claim on land you think you own.

Property was always "stolen" back then. That's how it worked. Your ancestor's property was stolen, all according to the way EVERYONE acted at the time (including many Native American cultures). All I can say is, too bad. Might I suggest moving on by looking forward? Because I seriously doubt anyone is going to pay you any additional rent for your 'stolen' land. But, good luck with counting on that if you insist on doing so... let us know how that works out for ya'.

Apparently the passage of time is your primary consideration in determining transfer of ownership when something is stolen.

Okay, so if I steal your property today...how long do I have to wait for it to become legally mine?

 

[Dezaad]

That might be the only way to deal with it, because unless you do there will always be a rightful claim on land you think you own.



Apparently the passage of time is your primary consideration in determining transfer of ownership when something is stolen.

Okay, so if I steal your property today...how long do I have to wait for it to become legally mine?

No, you are putting words in my mouth, and I think you know it. Possessions become legally yours when the authority with the power to decide says they are legally yours.

As for the current political ecology? Territorial ownership and thereby land title is ostensibly decided by international law, which would and generally does sanction any conquering. But not always. So, yeah, if your tribe can conquer some land where my home is, hold on to it, set up and maintain a credible authority to administer whatever kind of title your tribe would want and so forth... and your tribe is willing to deal with any international sanction... then yes indeed, you can take my land. And it might be yours within a few months of the conquering, actually, so it has ZERO to do with the passage of time, in my view.

And the last thing I would do as a response is sit around bellyaching about how it was stolen. That would be me depending on some outside circumstance to improve my situation. It hardly ever occurred to me to consider my own family's hardships as the reason for my circumstances when I was younger, and when it did, I set it aside by habit as a useless exercise. Now, lest you think I am bragging, I am by no means an overachiever. But, I do ok.

If you think it will be useful for your people to focus on such things, then by all means carry on. But, you will not increase my sympathy or respect by doing so, and I will actively encourage others to ignore such carryings on.

On the other hand, if you want to join in some useful focus on trying to broaden the general prosperity via a shift in the distribution of income and wealth, which could be done in such a way as to improve opportunities for all poor people, I am ready for that.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, you are putting words in my mouth, and I think you know it. Possessions become legally yours when the authority with the power to decide says they are legally yours.

Okay, so that would be about 20 years then, based on typical adverse possssion laws in most states.

Adverse possession is a process by which premises can change ownership. It is governed by statute concerning the title to real property (land and the fixed structures built upon it). By adverse possession, title to another's real property can be acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights for a specified period.

No disrespect intended, but I am not going to respond to all the rest of your post. People always have reasons for justifying the continued existence of the status quo. This includes renouncing all responsibilty for an ongoing ill by blaming the claimant's for not adapting; stating essentially "tough nuggies, it's mine now." It's not belly-aching, it is a valid legal claim to lands promised by treaty and then taken under "the rule of (robbery) law." Of course, the robbers NEVER admit their fault.

True, you were not personally involved. However, that is why I keep mentioning that little legal nuisance of "stolen property must be returned to the original owners." Current law clearly holds that even if a person makes an honest purchase of stolen property, all unknowing, once discovered the property must be returned.

The original owners are here, they are asking for recompense. Everyone including YOU know the property was stolen. Yet no one is even willing to pay reasonable reparations to at least obtain some validity to a claim of property transfer.