At 8/8/07 01:22 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:
That's a stupid argument, would you be forced to move out of the house? Yes. Would you be arrested and charges with the murders that your dead father commited?
Exactly, and no Native Americans are asking for white people to be held legally guilty, they are asking for their house not.
Of course not. To furher your analogy, you were out of the country on a foreign exchange trip, and due to a power outage had no way of contacting your family, could you even remotely be held responsible for the killigns? No.
Yet, get this, you would still have to give the house back.
Now one step further in your analogy. Say that my parents were selling the house because we were moving, i thought they sold the house so i didn't force you to leave, now let's say you raise a generation of kids in that house, then we both pass on, now 50 years later, my son realises the mistake and comes to your ancestors asking them to leave. Would it be fair to your descendents to suddenly have to leave? No it would not (in the hypothetical situtation my son would probably get the house anyway, but it is still unfair to your descendants who had no part in the killings).
Except that the Indians DIDN'T sell us their lands. We, by fast majority, took it by force via bloody conquest. Therefor, that counter is moot.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/8/07 01:52 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 8/8/07 01:22 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:That's a stupid argument, would you be forced to move out of the house? Yes. Would you be arrested and charges with the murders that your dead father commited?Exactly, and no Native Americans are asking for white people to be held legally guilty, they are asking for their house not.
Of course not. To furher your analogy, you were out of the country on a foreign exchange trip, and due to a power outage had no way of contacting your family, could you even remotely be held responsible for the killigns? No.Yet, get this, you would still have to give the house back.
Now one step further in your analogy. Say that my parents were selling the house because we were moving, i thought they sold the house so i didn't force you to leave, now let's say you raise a generation of kids in that house, then we both pass on, now 50 years later, my son realises the mistake and comes to your ancestors asking them to leave. Would it be fair to your descendents to suddenly have to leave? No it would not (in the hypothetical situtation my son would probably get the house anyway, but it is still unfair to your descendants who had no part in the killings).Except that the Indians DIDN'T sell us their lands. We, by fast majority, took it by force via bloody conquest. Therefor, that counter is moot.
Well now, I've been sitting down and have come across some information, albeit from Wikipedia on the mater. The Native American population makes up .8% of the U.S. population or about 2.4 million people. Now then, they control a total of 2%-2.2% of the continental U.S. and it is probably much more in Alaska. Anyway, my point is they have more land per person than any other group. Now, it is true, the U.S. broke nearly every treaty that was ever signed with them, but when all of this was occuring, the Native Americans were in control of vast tracks of land, and viewed to be a sizeable, if not backward group. Please note I said, when it was occuring. Now then, while we were taking territory you'll notice that almost all of it was taken by military forces, not the cliche' pioneer that fights a band of Indians. Now why is it important that it was military and not civilian forces doing the fighting? Because it was considered a military action more or less short of war on the governments part. Basically what I'm hammering at is that if people had to give everything back they took in war, or to pay the parties that lost in conflict is absurd, and so by proxy is this.
The only true knowledge, consists in knowing, that we know nothing.
-Socrates
Heathenry. A forum for the more evolved to discuss religion.
Sorry, forgot my links.
Alrighty, as for the last one, look in racial groups it is towards the middle.
The only true knowledge, consists in knowing, that we know nothing.
-Socrates
Heathenry. A forum for the more evolved to discuss religion.
Also, the white man DID pay for the slavery. We paid in blood. All those brave soldiers who fell in the Civil war.
My opinion: leave the past in the past, and stop trying to separate one another. An stop living so freaking arrogantly for whatever reason. That doesn't mean we loose our individual, racial, and historical identity; we just stop using it as a tool to hold ourselves as better than others. MLK's 'i have a dream' speech was about that; holding our individuality but being equal with one another. Every race, every individual has something to contribute. So my opinion is just that; contribute an stop being a pain in the ass.
At 8/8/07 03:38 AM, Durin413 wrote: Also, the white man DID pay for the slavery. We paid in blood. All those brave soldiers who fell in the Civil war.
Don't be so ignorant. They died because the US wouldn't let the southern states have their independence.
The American Civil war is a perfect example of US Hypocrisy.
At 8/8/07 02:17 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote:
Well now, I've been sitting down and have come across some information, albeit from Wikipedia on the mater. The Native American population makes up .8% of the U.S. population or about 2.4 million people. Now then, they control a total of 2%-2.2% of the continental U.S. and it is probably much more in Alaska. Anyway, my point is they have more land per person than any other group.
Give me a single source for that.
Now, it is true, the U.S. broke nearly every treaty that was ever signed with them, but when all of this was occuring, the Native Americans were in control of vast tracks of land, and viewed to be a sizeable, if not backward group. Please note I said, when it was occuring. Now then, while we were taking territory you'll notice that almost all of it was taken by military forces, not the cliche' pioneer that fights a band of Indians. Now why is it important that it was military and not civilian forces doing the fighting? Because it was considered a military action more or less short of war on the governments part. Basically what I'm hammering at is that if people had to give everything back they took in war, or to pay the parties that lost in conflict is absurd, and so by proxy is this.
Ah. So in other words, Germany never should have been made to pay reparations.
Anyway, despite the fact that we would be the aggressors in that "war", it wasn't a war. The U.S never outright declared war on Indians in general, only individual groups who fought back. They just ruthlessly slaughtered them for their land/shits 'n giggles.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/8/07 01:23 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:
Ah. So in other words, Germany never should have been made to pay reparations.
If you're talkign about ww1, Germany lost the war. Of course, what the allies did to germany after ww1 allowed for hitler to start ww2... had germany been allowed to prosper after ww1 then hitler would have had little if any chance to rise to power.
Anyway, despite the fact that we would be the aggressors in that "war", it wasn't a war. The U.S never outright declared war on Indians in general, only individual groups who fought back. They just ruthlessly slaughtered them for their land/shits 'n giggles.
yep, thats how conquest goes. its brutal and unforgiving, but it happens.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 8/8/07 01:27 PM, Korriken wrote:
yep, thats how conquest goes. its brutal and unforgiving, but it happens.
Yes. And then the civilized world steps in and ends it, or forces reparations. Cough Desert Storm /end cough.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
Oh, and by the way, that's NOT how conquest goes. It's perfectly possible to build an Empire without slaughtering civilians including women and children.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/8/07 02:11 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Oh, and by the way, that's NOT how conquest goes. It's perfectly possible to build an Empire without slaughtering civilians including women and children.
depends on what you wanna use that land for. if you wanna take over the land to rule the people then no. if you want that land to move your own people on, then the current people have got to go. and there was no such thing as a civilized world back in in the 1700-1800's.
you can use all the... uhh... logic... you want, but in the end nothing has changed, blacks aren't gonna be paid for what happened to their ancestors and the natives aren't gonna be given back their soil
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 8/8/07 02:10 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Yes. And then the civilized world steps in and ends it, or forces reparations. Cough Desert Storm /end cough.
There were no reperations forced on Iraq after Desert Storm. Sanctions aren't reparations, nor are no fly zones. I don't think you get the idea...
Reparations= monetary or other valuable payment for a wrong done. For example: when the browns filed suit against OJ for wrongful death, the court ordered settlement was reparations. When a murderer is found guilty and put to death, that is punishment, not reparations.
And the no fly zones were the equivalent of an order of protection.
At 8/8/07 01:52 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Exactly, and no Native Americans are asking for white people to be held legally guilty, they are asking for their house not.
There's a very simple problem with that. A great deal of the "house they want back" was sold to the Europeans.
http://www.law.umich.edu/CentersAndProgr ams/olin/papers/Fall%202001/banner.PDF
And to speak of Indians as a blanket group is stupid. There were thousands of tribes. Trying to figure out who originally owned what land in what quantities would be impossible. To illustrate this, I'm white, and so are you. If the "white man" has claim to the areas where our houses are does that mean I have claim to your house? Of course not. And furthermore, there was constant warfare amongst Indians. Quite often one tribe would beat out another in warfare and take their land. So those Indians would have to pay reparations to other Indians, etc.
Yet, get this, you would still have to give the house back.
However, there is a statute of limitations. Under this theory, the demand for reparations is immediate. His dad kills your dad and takes his house, then dies. He comes into the country, and you demand the house back that his dad illegally took from you. Under this theory-yes, he has to give it back.
So his example is flawed. Imagine that you can't (for whatever reason) demand your house back. You die with your property stolen, and he dies, not knowing the property is stolen. Your grandkids later come back to his grandkids to demand property that they have never held from people who never stole it. They have no legal claim to the property, and lose the case.
But even this analogy is flawed, because to be accurate, there are a great many people living in the house that never transgressed your family. People have come in from other states (immigrants) who had nothing to do with the murder of your father, and have bought part of your family plot. His father's servants (slaves) have been given a wing of the house for all their service. He sold off a corner of the property to the neighbors, who were unaware that the property had ever been illegally obtained. And some of the new owners have taken in people from afar who needed protection (refuges and foreign adoptees). NOW, multiply this by several generations, and your decendants have absolutely no claim to the property whatsoever.
But wait! It gets more complicated. Your family was one of a group of families living on the land with no clear boundaries, and the other families sold off their property legally, and a few abandoned it. All the original houses have been demolished, so it's not clear which part of the land was EVER yours. Now, you're demanding land that may have been sold legally or abandoned, because you don't know what is yours. And one of the owners your great grandchildren are asking for land from is the illegitimate child of your sister, and his brother. This person is clearly of the blood lineage of both the murderer and the victim. What now?
And hell: this doesn't even address the other wronged parties, the complication of the deals, the dillution of bloodlines, etc. And in many of the cases of those who seek reparations...the act wasn't even illegal in the first place (slavery), so they have no legal standing.
Except that the Indians DIDN'T sell us their lands. We, by fast majority, took it by force via bloody conquest. Therefor, that counter is moot.
Actually, the Indians DID sell us their lands.
Your argument fails on every conceivable level.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
At 8/8/07 02:28 PM, Korriken wrote:
depends on what you wanna use that land for. if you wanna take over the land to rule the people then no. if you want that land to move your own people on, then the current people have got to go.
And they can be displaced without violence.
and there was no such thing as a civilized world back in in the 1700-1800's.
...No offense, but that's the stupidest/most incorrect thing I've ever heard. Look at the conquests of Napoleon; significantly less civilian slaughter all around.
you can use all the... uhh... logic... you want, but in the end nothing has changed, blacks aren't gonna be paid for what happened to their ancestors and the natives aren't gonna be given back their soil
Wonderful.
This is the internet, not a courtroom.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/8/07 02:40 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
There were no reperations forced on Iraq after Desert Storm. Sanctions aren't reparations, nor are no fly zones. I don't think you get the idea...
Re read the "Step in" line preceding it. There were no reparations because we stopped their invasion before reparations would be required.
Reparations= monetary or other valuable payment for a wrong done. For example: when the browns filed suit against OJ for wrongful death, the court ordered settlement was reparations. When a murderer is found guilty and put to death, that is punishment, not reparations.
And the no fly zones were the equivalent of an order of protection.
Congratulations, you know the definition of various words.
There's a very simple problem with that. A great deal of the "house they want back" was sold to the Europeans.
http://www.law.umich.edu/CentersAndProgr ams/olin/papers/Fall%202001/banner.PDF
Yes, and thats why the Indian reparation movement doesn't generically say "Give us some land"; they plot specific areas which where taken by force or in which the U.S government did not maintain their end of the bargain, nullifying the deal.
And to speak of Indians as a blanket group is stupid. There were thousands of tribes. Trying to figure out who originally owned what land in what quantities would be impossible. To illustrate this, I'm white, and so are you. If the "white man" has claim to the areas where our houses are does that mean I have claim to your house? Of course not. And furthermore, there was constant warfare amongst Indians. Quite often one tribe would beat out another in warfare and take their land. So those Indians would have to pay reparations to other Indians, etc.
That's why you distinguish specifically who controlled the land at the moment. As you said, Indians went to war with each other, so that's not OUR business. We only deal with what involves us.
However, there is a statute of limitations. Under this theory, the demand for reparations is immediate. His dad kills your dad and takes his house, then dies. He comes into the country, and you demand the house back that his dad illegally took from you. Under this theory-yes, he has to give it back.
So his example is flawed. Imagine that you can't (for whatever reason) demand your house back. You die with your property stolen, and he dies, not knowing the property is stolen. Your grandkids later come back to his grandkids to demand property that they have never held from people who never stole it. They have no legal claim to the property, and lose the case.
Except they WOULDN'T lose the house. The control of the house still passes onto the heirs of the killed man, and those heirs heirs, etc.
But even this analogy is flawed, because to be accurate, there are a great many people living in the house that never transgressed your family. People have come in from other states (immigrants) who had nothing to do with the murder of your father, and have bought part of your family plot. His father's servants (slaves) have been given a wing of the house for all their service. He sold off a corner of the property to the neighbors, who were unaware that the property had ever been illegally obtained. And some of the new owners have taken in people from afar who needed protection (refuges and foreign adoptees). NOW, multiply this by several generations, and your decendants have absolutely no claim to the property whatsoever.
The, simply enough, the heirs (government) are forced to also pay all the people they are kicking out of the house, since they knowingly sold housing to a household they where given by a father who illegally retained it.
But wait! It gets more complicated. Your family was one of a group of families living on the land with no clear boundaries, and the other families sold off their property legally, and a few abandoned it. All the original houses have been demolished, so it's not clear which part of the land was EVER yours.
Now, you're demanding land that may have been sold legally or abandoned, because you don't know what is yours. And one of the owners your great grandchildren are asking for land from is the illegitimate child of your sister, and his brother. This person is clearly of the blood lineage of both the murderer and the victim. What now?
The government knows exactly which land they took by force. It's not like the government just sent the Army loose, said "kill all the indians" and let it be chaos. Certain plots where ordered to be given up, etc.
And hell: this doesn't even address the other wronged parties, the complication of the deals, the dillution of bloodlines, etc. And in many of the cases of those who seek reparations...the act wasn't even illegal in the first place (slavery), so they have no legal standing.
You can seek reparations for actions that aren't legal. And the dillution of the blood line is why land reparations aren't given to individual native americans, since individuals never owned the land; they are given to the Indians' government.
Actually, the Indians DID sell us their lands.
Your argument fails on every conceivable level.
No. Check your facts. Once again, by vast Majority the land was taken by force. A large number TRIED to sell the land, but the U.S did not live up to it's end of the bargain, therefor counting as theft.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/8/07 03:19 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Re read the "Step in" line preceding it. There were no reparations because we stopped their invasion before reparations would be required.
Life had already been lost, homes destroyed and oil set ablaze. How are reparations not required? Again, your argument fails on the face of it.
Congratulations, you know the definition of various words.
You're using Iraq as an example of reparations (cough cough). Clearly, since you can't make distinctions, they needed to be made for you.
Yes, and thats why the Indian reparation movement doesn't generically say "Give us some land"; they plot specific areas which where taken by force or in which the U.S government did not maintain their end of the bargain, nullifying the deal.
Actually in all the cases I'm aware of the Indians demanded money or land SOMEWHERE. There have been no cases where an Indian has demanded they get a certain plot of land back, though they have had to demonstrate where their land was taken from them.
That's why you distinguish specifically who controlled the land at the moment. As you said, Indians went to war with each other, so that's not OUR business. We only deal with what involves us.
Quite a bit of the land was "stolen" from one tribe by another. You have deliberately ignored the point. The Indian on Indian wars OBVIOUSLY occured before we took the land. So at least some of the people are now demanding back land that THEIR forefathers stole from other indians. Thanks for deliberately ignoring that part.
Except they WOULDN'T lose the house. The control of the house still passes onto the heirs of the killed man, and those heirs heirs, etc.
Of course they lose the house fool. No one ever gets something when they lose a lawsuit. Hence statute of limitations. If you come to court and claim my great grandfather stole something from your great grandfather, it will stay in my house. Now as a decendant, if the transgressor is still alive, you can sue him. Otherwise, if we're generations away, you get nothing.
Hence why no Indian has ever gotten their "ancestral land" back. And even those who get something, get it off of white guilt, or BS judicial activism, and not on written law.
The, simply enough, the heirs (government) are forced to also pay all the people they are kicking out of the house, since they knowingly sold housing to a household they where given by a father who illegally retained it.
My mistake. I thought we were dealing in reality. We're instead dealing in what you THINK the solution should be.
Because that's not how it works. Period.
Cause no one has been kicked out of their homes to give that land back to the Indians. The federal government cannot kick one resident out to give it to another resident. Eminent domain only covers businesses wanting to move in. Try again.
The government knows exactly which land they took by force. It's not like the government just sent the Army loose, said "kill all the indians" and let it be chaos. Certain plots where ordered to be given up, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Remo val
There's a fun little problem here. The official records show that the Indians sold this land. By governmental records, compensation was given. (Even if we admit that in some cases the land was sold by illegitimate leaders.) No one keeps records saying "We forced Cherokee tribe X out of plot Y." Indeed, the individual tribes now no longer remember exactly where their ancestors lived. Again, your argument is full of holes.
You can seek reparations for actions that aren't legal. And the dillution of the blood line is why land reparations aren't given to individual native americans, since individuals never owned the land; they are given to the Indians' government.
No. Check your facts. Once again, by vast Majority the land was taken by force. A large number TRIED to sell the land, but the U.S did not live up to it's end of the bargain, therefor counting as theft.
Not even close. Relocation treaties were the norm. That the treaties were not followed exactly does not mean theft. There was always renumeration paid to someone. Even the vaunted Trail of Tears occured when prominent leaders sold the land, but the elected officials refused to leave. The land had been sold by at least some of the people who owned it, and the government enforced the treaty by shoving the Indians out.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feat ure34/choctaw.html
The Chocktaw, for instance, were given land in Oklahoma and money to relocate. The original plan was that those who wished to stay would integrate to white society. When they didn't, a plot of land was set aside in Mississippi for them.
http://www.law.umich.edu/CentersAndProgr ams/olin/papers/Fall%202001/banner.PDF
The English bought most of the land from the Indians before the US was ever born (maybe they should demand reparations from England?), and the Indians found themselves squeezed tighter and tighter as they sold more land.
Even Jefferson, who notes that the sales weren't 100% voluntary, has no clue which transactions were legit and which weren't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Remo val
While the treaties were coersive in nature, they were treaties, and recompense was given. Van Buren may have used underhanded tactics (and led the attrocity known as the Trail of Tears), the vast majority of the treaties were above the board.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/fram eset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudi es.org/0700/stories/0701_0143.html
Furthermore, under the 1871 Federal Act, tribal land was taken away from the Tribe and given to the individual. So individuals did own specific plots, which they often sold to the government.
Your entire argument is a complete sham.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
Here's the thing: They CAN'T go back and live like the white man didn't rape their lives because the white man raped everything. Africa wouldn't be in such bad shape had europeans not ravaged the landscape, crop lands, tribes, ecosystems, and everything else that was devastated as a result of imperialism. Native Americans CAN'T go back living as they used to because so much of their land is now occupied by others, and their main sources of food (i.e. Buffalo) are FAR scarcer because of it.
In other words, the white man DOES owe the peoples that have been ravaged by their greed and inhumanity, not only for pure loss of life through cruelty and profit-driven barbarism, but also for destroying the way those people lived so thoroughly. You think Africa always looked like that on a map? No. Those countries weren't always there. The ones you see now are based on imperialist colonies and the lands European countries "owned". Even after whites "gave back" Africa, they did so after destroying the tribal boundaries and cultures of the countless ethnic traditions of each unique tribe, scrambling them up, scattering the people, and causing millions of lives in bloodshed over land and famine due to African civil wars.
Do black people have a good life in America? Yes. I don't know about Indians (I wouldn't want to live on a reservation just to celebrate my heritage), but African Americans do have a better life here than in Africa. But did you ever stop and think about how Africa could be like today if the white man hadn't capitalized on their misery, but rather shared their technology and knowledge, allowing Africans to flourish on their own? If that had happened, the idea of living in Africa wouldn't sound nearly as bad.
At 8/8/07 04:28 PM, WolvenBear wrote:At 8/8/07 03:19 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The government knows exactly which land they took by force. It's not like the government just sent the Army loose, said "kill all the indians" and let it be chaos. Certain plots where ordered to be given up, etc.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Remo val
There's a fun little problem here. The official records show that the Indians sold this land. By governmental records, compensation was given. (Even if we admit that in some cases the land was sold by illegitimate leaders.)
You think we paid them fairly? We paid them in trinkets and firearms for land they should have paid for legitimately, when we didn't coerce/bribe them into giving up their lives and homes to move somewhere else. As for illegitimate leaders selling the land, how could that possibly be seen as legitimate? If I went to Russia and "sold" them The United States for $50 and a bottle of potato vodka? Do you think that deal would be seen as binding? I should hope not.
:No one keeps records saying "We forced Cherokee tribe X out of plot Y." Indeed, the individual tribes now no longer remember exactly where their ancestors lived. Again, your argument is full of holes.
Can you tell ME where YOUR ancestors lived, exactly? Even if you CAN tell me exactly where, that's because I doubt that your ancestors were relocated from their homes and dropped somewhere else. If the descendants of native americans don't know exactly where their ancestors lived, that's not their fault, and even if it was, it's barely relevant.
You can seek reparations for actions that aren't legal. And the dillution of the blood line is why land reparations aren't given to individual native americans, since individuals never owned the land; they are given to the Indians' government.No. Check your facts. Once again, by vast Majority the land was taken by force. A large number TRIED to sell the land, but the U.S did not live up to it's end of the bargain, therefor counting as theft.Not even close. Relocation treaties were the norm. That the treaties were not followed exactly does not mean theft.
How does that not mean theft? Let's say Person A agrees to sell Person B a car for $2500. Person B, upon receiving said vehicle, breaks the deal by not paying for the car, and drives off. That is theft, correct? Now, if an indian tribe makes a deal andvsells land to the government under a condition, and the condition is ignored, but the government keeps the land, that is theft as well, and on a much larger scale.
There was always renumeration paid to someone. Even the vaunted Trail of Tears occured when prominent leaders sold the land, but the elected officials refused to leave. The land had been sold by at least some of the people who owned it, and the government enforced the treaty by shoving the Indians out.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feat ure34/choctaw.html
The Chocktaw, for instance, were given land in Oklahoma and money to relocate. The original plan was that those who wished to stay would integrate to white society. When they didn't, a plot of land was set aside in Mississippi for them.
So they didn't have the right to keep their homes?
http://www.law.umich.edu/CentersAndProgr ams/olin/papers/Fall%202001/banner.PDF
The English bought most of the land from the Indians before the US was ever born (maybe they should demand reparations from England?), and the Indians found themselves squeezed tighter and tighter as they sold more land.
How do you even know that the indians realized that they were "selling" their land? The white man could, and did, trick peoples that owned land the white man wanted into selling/giving them the land dirt cheap. In the Belgian Congo, for example, it was common practice for tribal leaders to "give" their land to the Belgians. However, the tribal leaders were never told what the document they were signing or deal they were making was FOR. For all the leaders knew, it was a peace treaty. The same happened in the Americas, and that is not a legitimate sale.
Even Jefferson, who notes that the sales weren't 100% voluntary, has no clue which transactions were legit and which weren't.
Which doesn't exactly help your argument. How can you argue that the land obtained by the U.S. was accrued legitimately when the president can't even tell which sales were legal or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Remo val
While the treaties were coersive in nature, they were treaties, and recompense was given. Van Buren may have used underhanded tactics (and led the attrocity known as the Trail of Tears), the vast majority of the treaties were above the board.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/fram eset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudi es.org/0700/stories/0701_0143.html
Furthermore, under the 1871 Federal Act, tribal land was taken away from the Tribe and given to the individual. So individuals did own specific plots, which they often sold to the government.
Guess who passed the 1871 Federal Act? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't anyone the indians that the act affected. It was the U.S. Government. You think natives were elected to congress, proposing bills to do that kind of thing? No. The natives never had a say in the matter.
Your entire argument is a complete sham.
As is yours.
At 8/8/07 07:23 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Here's the thing: They CAN'T go back and live like the white man didn't rape their lives because the white man raped everything. Africa wouldn't be in such bad shape had europeans not ravaged the landscape, crop lands, tribes, ecosystems, and everything else that was devastated as a result of imperialism. Native Americans CAN'T go back living as they used to because so much of their land is now occupied by others, and their main sources of food (i.e. Buffalo) are FAR scarcer because of it.
Oh please. What a load of crap.
Africa and Asia are much better off for having Europe in them.
And it's not like the Indians were all lovey dovey with complete piece until we came around.
Do black people have a good life in America? Yes. I don't know about Indians (I wouldn't want to live on a reservation just to celebrate my heritage), but African Americans do have a better life here than in Africa. But did you ever stop and think about how Africa could be like today if the white man hadn't capitalized on their misery, but rather shared their technology and knowledge, allowing Africans to flourish on their own? If that had happened, the idea of living in Africa wouldn't sound nearly as bad.
Blah blah blah. Whitewashing the true state of Africa to make the white man look bad.
Let's ignore the slave trade that was perpetuated by Muslims and black tribal leaders. Cannibalism. The history of tribe warfare and spread of virulant Islam, etc.
Blatant historical revisionism.
At 8/8/07 07:42 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: You think we paid them fairly? We paid them in trinkets and firearms for land they should have paid for legitimately, when we didn't coerce/bribe them into giving up their lives and homes to move somewhere else. As for illegitimate leaders selling the land, how could that possibly be seen as legitimate? If I went to Russia and "sold" them The United States for $50 and a bottle of potato vodka? Do you think that deal would be seen as binding? I should hope not.
Actually, for the most part we were fair to the Indians. I acknowledge that there were definately times when we weren't, but usually we were. The indians who were few in number, had a bounty of land. Especially during the Puritan days, we traded them goods, tools, and yes, trinkets, for a resource they had in abudance. These deals with the Puritans were made with complete freedom. For example, if you are in the Indians position, a couple of acres of land seems a pretty good bargain for access to the wheel.
If you went to Russia and sold the US, of course no one would see it as legitimate. If Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Arnold went to Russia to seel California, Russia would certainly have more reason to believe it. Stop misstating the case.
Can you tell ME where YOUR ancestors lived, exactly? Even if you CAN tell me exactly where, that's because I doubt that your ancestors were relocated from their homes and dropped somewhere else. If the descendants of native americans don't know exactly where their ancestors lived, that's not their fault, and even if it was, it's barely relevant.
It's exceptionally relevant. If you're going to demand compensation for lands taken from you, you had better be able to tell me where they were, how big the lands were etc. Now, if we are going to displace people, unless you know exactly to the inch to where your property lines were, we're certainly not going to start evicting people on a guess.
How does that not mean theft? Let's say Person A agrees to sell Person B a car for $2500. Person B, upon receiving said vehicle, breaks the deal by not paying for the car, and drives off. That is theft, correct? Now, if an indian tribe makes a deal andvsells land to the government under a condition, and the condition is ignored, but the government keeps the land, that is theft as well, and on a much larger scale.
If I sell you a plot of land for 5000 dollars, and you agree to let me fish the creek in return and hunt the forest...and you pay me the 5000, but 10 years later, you die, and your son refuses to let me fish there anymore, I can certainly cry foul, but I can hardly claim theft. In all the cases, there was monetary renumeration. And, at least for a little while, the terms were followed. This is much more the claim. It's not like the government promised the Indians money, and then when they left their lands said "HAHA, Suckers! You get nothing." They were relocated to new lands, given monetary consideration, and given some consideration when some of the members did not wish to move (as documented in my one link above).
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feat ure34/choctaw.htmlSo they didn't have the right to keep their homes?
The Chocktaw, for instance, were given land in Oklahoma and money to relocate. The original plan was that those who wished to stay would integrate to white society. When they didn't, a plot of land was set aside in Mississippi for them.
Problem with reading comprehension much? Each person was given land, WITH THE CONDITION OF assimilating into society. When they couldn't, and were falling further and further into poverty, the state set aside a reservation, and moved them all together, into a community, with federal subsidies, so they wouldn't be impoverished.
This is a shining example of the white man keeping his word to the Indian. And when the Indian couldn't cope...the white man stepped in to take care of him.
How do you even know that the indians realized that they were "selling" their land? The white man could, and did, trick peoples that owned land the white man wanted into selling/giving them the land dirt cheap. In the Belgian Congo, for example, it was common practice for tribal leaders to "give" their land to the Belgians. However, the tribal leaders were never told what the document they were signing or deal they were making was FOR. For all the leaders knew, it was a peace treaty. The same happened in the Americas, and that is not a legitimate sale.
If you're too lazy to read accompanying links, I have little desire to reiterate their message to you.
Furthermore, it is not upon me to PROVE these transactions were understood. If the Indian wishes to claim his land was stolen, it is up to him to prove.
Which doesn't exactly help your argument. How can you argue that the land obtained by the U.S. was accrued legitimately when the president can't even tell which sales were legal or not?
Actually, that wasn't my argument. Which you'd know if you bothered to read the quote I was responding to. The quote I was responding to was the downright moronic claim that the government kept records of screwing the Indian. (Side note: Jefferson was the Virginia governor, not the President. Read the info supplied.) This was (relatively) close to the time of the sales, at least, compared to now. If Jefferson wasn't sure which were fair, and which weren't, there's not a single person alive today who has a clue. Indeed, the records state that the Indians major complaints were that the contract was confusing (meaning they intended to sell some land, but either were not happy about the size, or were confused on which plot they were selling), which could be as simple as an HONEST misunderstanding. The other was that the Indians claimed to be drunk on signing. While perhaps shady, this is far from stealing land.
Indeed, the point of my rebuttal was that we have no clue who was justly compensated, who was compensated, but unfairly, and who was forced from their lands. Due to intermixing between tribes, mixing with other races, and the very fact that Indians often took land from other Indians, there would be no way to distinquish between a legitimate claim and an illegitimate one.
As is yours.
Yet, you have provided nothing to disprove me. My argument stands. The fact that you read none of my links, in addition to providing none of your own does nothing to bolster your pathetic argument.
I have provided not only real evidence as to why I am correct, but I have shown the very real complexities that would exist even under a system where they deserve their land back.
Your response? "Nu uh!"
Very compelling indeed.
Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.
At 8/8/07 03:06 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 8/8/07 02:28 PM, Korriken wrote:depends on what you wanna use that land for. if you wanna take over the land to rule the people then no. if you want that land to move your own people on, then the current people have got to go.And they can be displaced without violence.
if you can convince them to. and many were peacefully displaced. those that wouldn't cooperate died. Of course there were also the inhumane slaughter of peaceful tribes.
...No offense, but that's the stupidest/most incorrect thing I've ever heard. Look at the conquests of Napoleon; significantly less civilian slaughter all around.
Napoleon also wasn't looking for more land for the french to live on, he wanted to rule the people. Had Napoleon wanted that land just for the french to live on, you can bet your ass that he wouldn't have left a man... or woman standing.
Wonderful.
This is the internet, not a courtroom.
then WHY are we debating such matters?
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 8/8/07 02:11 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Oh, and by the way, that's NOT how conquest goes. It's perfectly possible to build an Empire without slaughtering civilians including women and children.
Name one.
Writing Forum Reviewer.
PM me for preferential Writing Forum review treatment.
See my NG page for a regularly updated list of works I will review.
At 8/9/07 12:27 AM, Imperator wrote:At 8/8/07 02:11 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Oh, and by the way, that's NOT how conquest goes. It's perfectly possible to build an Empire without slaughtering civilians including women and children.Name one.
I can, I can! Let's see, we have the Egyptians, the Romans, the Persians, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Catholic Church's Crusades (eh it was a call to arms to take back lands from the Muslims so I'm counting it, deal with it), the Russians (Rusks), the Germans (formerly the Goths and Visogoths), the French (Franks), the Vikings (though to be fair most were traders), the Japanese (most notably WWII), the British(when they were under Roman rule still, and later when they became an Imperial power.)....... wait a second, they all had major civilian casualties as they took lands... Well dang, that pretty much covers all of them that exist in history. Oh wait I forgot one, the Phonecians, no wait, they conquered and killed too..... hmm 13 off the top of my head, nice, maybe I should change my major to history from engineering.
The only true knowledge, consists in knowing, that we know nothing.
-Socrates
Heathenry. A forum for the more evolved to discuss religion.
At 8/8/07 10:36 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
Oh please. What a load of crap.
Africa and Asia are much better off for having Europe in them.
And it's not like the Indians were all lovey dovey with complete piece until we came around.
These statements just broadcast your ignorance. No one said they were and I really don't care that the Grand Wizard (yes I'm making a racist assumption, get over it) told you that and all sorts of nifty stories on how white men did blacks and indians such a generous favor by: imposing an unwanted authority upon them, destroying their lands (through mining, exterminating their food supplies, european-born plagues), and killing them to gain their lands (read up on how the Mormons paid mercenaries to slaughter the tribe occupying was in now Utah).
Blah blah blah. Whitewashing the true state of Africa to make the white man look bad.
Let's ignore the slave trade that was perpetuated by Muslims and black tribal leaders. Cannibalism. The history of tribe warfare and spread of virulant Islam, etc.
Blatant historical revisionism.
If you read any history book (you done knows what one of thems is, yup? Wiki and the intarwebs aren't valid sources) you'll find that, most of everything you just shirked off are true.
Historical revisionism?
How about the fact that you're implying that every single slave was bought and paid for, as per tribal leaders? Any history book worth is weight will show you how small of a percentage selling off tribe members as slaves accounts for. The majority of slaves were kidnapped, and in many instances, the white men would usually finish a slave trade deal, get the the tribe stone-drunk, and kidnapped more people thereafter.
The state of Africa?
Most tribes didn't even know about guns and explosives until the imperial army invaded and introduced them (there are STILL tribes that don't know what an AK47 is). And let's not forget that NOT EVERY TRIBE IS A WARRING ONE! People seem to love pretending that the entire continent is at war, but that is not, and never has been, the case. The same is true of Native Americans.
The sad thing about these kinds of threads is they usually attract stubborn, close-minded people who spew misinformation and can't read up on history without bias, and when I say bias, I mean that the person will see this post, and will then selectively read through a history book long enough to find the sentence that slightly denounces what I've said. (ex. Saying, " OMG, all African tribez r @ worz!!!111!!1" after reading "Many of the northeastern tribes of Africa are in conflict")
At 7/23/07 04:31 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Sure there are some detriments to being a minority, but I personally would rather aceept them with a smile rather than try and exist as a majority in an environment where my very ability to survive is in question.
Begin your attacks on my reasoning... now!
Just a few(not all of them, mind you):
Black&no job? You're considered lazy.
Black& have a job? You obviously stole it from a more deserving white man. Shame on u, blackie!
7 out of 10 times*, you will be tried as adult, years before you are 18.
You likely live in a lower income, seldom policed area, where your very ability to survive is in question. ;)
*approximation, depends upon location in US
Now, I've never expected reparations because:
1. I know more about my Cree, Seminole, Creole, French, and Irish roots than I do about my true Black heritage (Ethiopians and Nigerians both think I'm from their country), so I don't know if I'm Africa black.
2. The US isn't known for keeping to agreements regarding money. (Social Security, anyone?)
P.S. WolvenBear, not implying you're a klansmen, I just like saying Grand Wizard...
Grand Wizard...
Grand Wizard...
Grand Wizard...
level 10 burning cross attack!!!!
At 8/8/07 07:23 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Here's the thing: They CAN'T go back and live like the white man didn't rape their lives because the white man raped everything. Africa wouldn't be in such bad shape had europeans not ravaged the landscape, crop lands, tribes, ecosystems, and everything else that was devastated as a result of imperialism.
This above comment is B.S.
Most slaves were black men/women caught & sold to whites by other black men (I notice you never mentioned that little fact anywhere in your comments)
Jump to the recent future.
You only have to look at Rhodesia in Africa, 20 years ago it was a rich food producing country, with a well fed population & it exported food to other nations.
The elected black goverment steps into power, renames the place Zimbabwe and then, decides that the generations of white farmers have to give back the farms that their ancestors created. That's right folks ,it was never prosperous farmland befor they created it !
Thousands of years there & the natives had done nothing like the moden farming methods.
(every farm had dozens of native africans working, living & raising their families on these farms .....UNTIL !
So they turn all those farms over to native & corrupt black native politicians, now what do you have.
80% unemployment, an elected goverment that elects itself ( oh look another dictatorship in Africa) I'm so surprised.
Every farm has been destroyed ! EVERY F@#$&^G one of them, some of the first things done to many farms was they tore up the irrigation systems & sold the metal for scrap.
Are you going to try and tell me that is how you keep your farm productive.
So this problem caused by native Africans.... is someone elses fault ??????????
Hows that the fault of the europeans dude?
80% unemployment, that country is a poster child for African Food Aid.
Their stupidity , & others on that continent are why I make sure never to donate a penny in that direction. Let them eat each other, looks good on them.
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 8/8/07 04:28 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
Life had already been lost, homes destroyed and oil set ablaze. How are reparations not required? Again, your argument fails on the face of it.
Because the damage wasn't to real property.
You're using Iraq as an example of reparations (cough cough). Clearly, since you can't make distinctions, they needed to be made for you.
No. No, I'm not. Straw Man argument, anyone?
Actually in all the cases I'm aware of the Indians demanded money or land SOMEWHERE.
And what cases have you been aware of?
There have been no cases where an Indian has demanded they get a certain plot of land back, though they have had to demonstrate where their land was taken from them.
Ah. So you have knowledge of every case ever, and with that knowledge there has NEVER been such a case?
Quite a bit of the land was "stolen" from one tribe by another. You have deliberately ignored the point.
The fuck are you talking about? You just quoted me replying specifically to that point.
The Indian on Indian wars OBVIOUSLY occured before we took the land.
No shit.
So at least some of the people are now demanding back land that THEIR forefathers stole from other indians. Thanks for deliberately ignoring that part.
Since you can't be assed to read what your quoting, I assume it would be foolish to expect you to read back a post, so I'll re state; it's not our business how the indians got the land. We only deal with who WE got the land from.
Of course they lose the house fool. No one ever gets something when they lose a lawsuit.
One would think that means I was claiming the suit would be won, fool.
Hence statute of limitations.
God, your pulling this all out of your ass. There aren't enforced statues of limitations on property lawsuits.
If you come to court and claim my great grandfather stole something from your great grandfather, it will stay in my house.
No, it won't.
Now as a decendant, if the transgressor is still alive, you can sue him. Otherwise, if we're generations away, you get nothing.
Yes, we do.
Hence why no Indian has ever gotten their "ancestral land" back.
It's so fun when you claim things that can easily be proven wrong. Will you admit you just bullshitted that, or need I get examples.
And even those who get something, get it off of white guilt, or BS judicial activism, and not on written law.
Ah. So when it suits your agument, "No indian has ever gotten their ancestral land back", yet to make another point you talk about cases in which just that happens.
Contradictory? Nah.
My mistake. I thought we were dealing in reality. We're instead dealing in what you THINK the solution should be.
Because that's not how it works. Period.
Cause no one has been kicked out of their homes to give that land back to the Indians.
Yes, actually, they have. There have been many cases in which the government purchased land owned by private owners to give to native Americans. Not to mention that a good ammount of U.S land is still owned by the government.
The federal government cannot kick one resident out to give it to another resident. Eminent domain only covers businesses wanting to move in. Try again.
A) Your completely incorrect, as imminent domain can apply to other things, and
B) I never claimed imminent domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Remo val
There's a fun little problem here. The official records show that the Indians sold this land.
What land? Who brought up a specific piece of land?
By governmental records, compensation was given.
For some cases.
(Even if we admit that in some cases the land was sold by illegitimate leaders.) No one keeps records saying "We forced Cherokee tribe X out of plot Y."
Of course they do. You don't deploy soldiers without keeping a record of it.
Indeed, the individual tribes now no longer remember exactly where their ancestors lived. Again, your argument is full of holes.
That's complete bullshit, we have records of where individual tribes lived, why wouldn't they remember?
Not even close. Relocation treaties were the norm. That the treaties were not followed exactly does not mean theft.
God, do you know ANYTHING about the law? Quite pulling things out of your ass; theft is EXACTLY what that is. If I claim that I'll pay you 20 bucks for a CD, then bolt once you hand me the CD without paying, THAT IS THEFT.
There was always renumeration paid to someone.
lolbullshit.
Even the vaunted Trail of Tears occured when prominent leaders sold the land, but the elected officials refused to leave. The land had been sold by at least some of the people who owned it, and the government enforced the treaty by shoving the Indians out.
DING DING DING! The Cherokee Indians where recognized by the U.S court system as an independent nation. So if the land wasn't sold by Cherokee officials, IT WASN'T SOLD AT ALL. Bill Gates can claim the ability to sell government land as much as he wants, but unless the government sells it to you, you don't own it.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feat ure34/choctaw.html
The Chocktaw, for instance, were given land in Oklahoma and money to relocate. The original plan was that those who wished to stay would integrate to white society. When they didn't, a plot of land was set aside in Mississippi for them.
Funny you should mention the Choctaw, since their Treaty of Fort Confederation gave them no payment whatsoever for their land. Well, there goes your "always compensated" argument.\
http://www.law.umich.edu/CentersAndProgr ams/olin/papers/Fall%202001/banner.PDF
The English bought most of the land from the Indians before the US was ever born (maybe they should demand reparations from England?), and the Indians found themselves squeezed tighter and tighter as they sold more land.
Lolno. By the time the U.S was formed, the Majority of what we call America was under Native hands.
Even Jefferson, who notes that the sales weren't 100% voluntary, has no clue which transactions were legit and which weren't.
Which proves to go against a good majority of your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Remo val
While the treaties were coersive in nature, they were treaties, and recompense was given. Van Buren may have used underhanded tactics (and led the attrocity known as the Trail of Tears), the vast majority of the treaties were above the board.
Vast majority? Please. Just because it was claimed that compensation WOULD be given doesn't mean that that's how it would happen.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/fram eset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudi es.org/0700/stories/0701_0143.html
Furthermore, under the 1871 Federal Act, tribal land was taken away from the Tribe and given to the individual. So individuals did own specific plots, which they often sold to the government.
Yet the 1871 Federal Act was signed by white men, not the Natives. Oops.
Your entire argument is a complete sham.
Yet, funny enough, while I have offered undeniable arguments about multiple points you where 100% incorrect about (I.E every indian was given compensation), you have yet to disprove a single point.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/8/07 10:36 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
Oh please. What a load of crap.
Africa and Asia are much better off for having Europe in them.
MAN what bullshit. Yes, I'm sure Africa just loves things like Slavery, disease, Apartheid, and the Rwanda Genocides.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/9/07 11:54 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 8/8/07 10:36 PM, WolvenBear wrote:Oh please. What a load of crap.MAN what bullshit. Yes, I'm sure Africa just loves things like Slavery, disease, Apartheid, and the Rwanda Genocides.
Africa and Asia are much better off for having Europe in them.
They brought that on themselves.
At 8/9/07 12:03 PM, DigitalMandrill wrote:
They brought that on themselves.
Yes, damn them for choosing to live on the continent that the Europeans chose to rape!
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 8/9/07 11:09 AM, morefngdbs wrote:At 8/8/07 07:23 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Here's the thing: They CAN'T go back and live like the white man didn't rape their lives because the white man raped everything. Africa wouldn't be in such bad shape had europeans not ravaged the landscape, crop lands, tribes, ecosystems, and everything else that was devastated as a result of imperialism.This above comment is B.S.
Most slaves were black men/women caught & sold to whites by other black men (I notice you never mentioned that little fact anywhere in your comments)
In the beginning of the European expansion into Africa, yes, that is the case. However, once Europeans had a strong enough foothold in Africa and had roads and steamboat routes established to help them carry goods/people in and out of the continent, they no longer needed black slave traders. Why BUY slaves when you can get them for free?
So this problem caused by native Africans.... is someone elses fault ??????????
Hows that the fault of the europeans dude?
In this case, it's not the direct fault of the Europeans. It's mostly Mugabe's fault. But, had the Europeans done something earlier to justify things, maybe Mugabe wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the situation, tell people what they wanted to hear in order to get elected, and then fuck everything up?
80% unemployment, that country is a poster child for African Food Aid.
Their stupidity ,
So they're stupid for electing someone ONCE who falsely presented himself as a reform leader and then, once in power cemented his position by rigging elections? They made ONE mistake. ONE FUCKING MISTAKE, and Mugabe handled the rest. You think African children in Zimbabwe should suffer and starve because their parents may have voted for Mugabe ONCE? You're one cold-hearted fucker.
& others on that continent are why I make sure never to donate a penny in that direction. Let them eat each other, looks good on them.
Now you're just being a dick.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
