The U.S. should seriously consider giving back the lands it took illegally

[cinch]

to Boris. I like his post on this subject best.

The Natives were not perfect, but they weren't extraordinarily evil, either. They fought, but they also accomplished some great things (Iroquois democracy & consensus!)... They were normal.

The "Well then why didn't they have civilization like us?" argument is weak, I think, because the speaker is thinking of 'progress' in solely technological terms. They progressed in different ways than us (culturally, socially), but that doesn't make them any worse, not by any stretch of the imagination.

But that doesn't mean all whites should go back to Europe. We just have to learn to work together with the natives, and fit them into the multicultural society... while still respecting the treaties.

[JCG]

It if were only from a moral standpoint, then "yes".

But I obviously have to admit that's it's going to be "no", just because it's impractical and would make too much of a mess. Just don't object if some of the descendants of the (as far as we know) original inhabitants complain and try to (legally) do something about it.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by MrFun




Calling Amerindians a group of murderers and inbreeders sure count as racist insults in my view.

Ok:

So you not only discount the existence of race; you argue that criticising the well documented and accepted substantial traits of "Amerindian" warfare and inbreeding (accepted as consequence of environmental shortcoming) is RACIST? Didn't you study these things at your intitution? Did they not teach you these things, or the actual meaning of racism?

Suddenly my criticism of undesirable social constructs lands me as a clan leader who argues that by birth whites are superior. Does saturate immersion in culture of the "victim" do this to one's thought process? (Try it without the rolleye guy!)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Zylka


Ok:

So you not only discount the existence of race; you argue that criticising the well documented and accepted substantial traits of "Amerindian" warfare and inbreeding (accepted as consequence of environmental shortcoming) is RACIST? Didn't you study these things at your intitution? Did they not teach you these things, or the actual meaning of racism?

Suddenly my criticism of undesirable social constructs lands me as a clan leader who argues that by birth whites are superior. Does saturate immersion in culture of the "victim" do this to one's thought process? (Try it without the rolleye guy!)

So we can "criticize" the culture of African-Americans by calling all of them murderes and in-breeders?

ok

[Zylka]

No, because it's not fair to call ALL of them those things - and they aren't yet documented as generally more murderous and incest based than most cultures. Can somebody PLEASE tell me what a "red herring" is?

[Kingof the Apes]

Why does the US get so much flak over how we acquired our country? Almost every country has conquered, displaced, and murdered populations to gain land. Back then, that was standard foriegn policy.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
Why does the US get so much flak over how we acquired our country? Almost every country has conquered, displaced, and murdered populations to gain land. Back then, that was standard foriegn policy.

Well, not quite, though surely the notion that such a behavior is bad was not widespread...
But we're talking about the 19th century, not "any time" and from 1800, not "almost every country" did that and it was an extraordinary work to just wipe out a whole population to get a more place. In most occasions, people were conquered so they could be exploited and most often nobody cared, especially when we take a look at 19th century Imperialism of France and England.
Yet the 19th century wars against the Amerindians was a planned genocide to remove an entire people for the sake of another and THAT did not happen anywhere, although the US are sided in this by a good number of Latin American nations.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Well, not quite, though surely the notion that such a behavior is bad was not widespread...
But we're talking about the 19th century, not "any time" and from 1800, not "almost every country" did that and it was an extraordinary work to just wipe out a whole population to get a more place. In most occasions, people were conquered so they could be exploited and most often nobody cared, especially when we take a look at 19th century Imperialism of France and England.
Yet the 19th century wars against the Amerindians was a planned genocide to remove an entire people for the sake of another and THAT did not happen anywhere, although the US are sided in this by a good number of Latin American nations.

not that simple. after the diseases wiped out vast portions of the indian population settlers pushing west saw only small pockets of indians but saw the land as basically barren. it was not like they hacked their way through indians to plant crops. especially considering what europeans were use to in population density. the americas were basically empty.

the americans did many awful things but I think thats pretty well documented in this thread.

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

So I guess Israel has no problem, then.

I attached a smilie to my comment to help others recognise that my intent was a joke. Nevertheless, your analogy is flawed. Were Jews the first people there? Not according to the Bible.

Clem -

Berzerker, Topeka is part of the Louisiana Purchase. You'll be handed over to the French.

They sold it, remember?

[Dis]

planned genocide?

I had not heard that. Where is the proof of this?

[Dis]

I love some of the responses I get when I make these threads.

Note: my initial post in this thread I do not believe, I only wanted to play devils advocate and start things off.

Now for the next discussion. Compare and contrast the land the U.S./american colonies took illegally, and the land Israel took illegally (I don't care if the U.N. authorized it- that was not their land). There is a reason I made this thread a day after the other.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Zylka
Considering that the American descendants took the land from countless minute tribes who did nothing more than kill each other, die of starvation in tough seasons, and pitch nomadic tarps between hunting and inbreeding... I'd say "no"

I have not a problem with the fundamental human beings known as Native Americans, yet this told "tragedy" of a civilization lost is a bit much. Life seems a miserable tale in the former Americas, and I'm talking in a sense of survival

Zylka, while in Europe it was quite common for cousins to marry each other (and still is in many parts of the world), many Amerind tribes have always had strict rules against inbreeding. The danger of inbreeding was one of the reasons, if not the most important one, why they chose to use a clan system. This only changed for some after they got confined.

Further, agriculture was an important source of sustenance. The agricultural skills of for instance the Iroquois and the Hopi were at a higher level than that of the Europeans when they met. And even today scientists from Israel visit the Hopi to learn about agriculture in the desert.

By the way, some land within the borders of the USA is still owned by the tribes, and once in a while they do get land back when courts recognize old treaties.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by yavoon


not that simple. after the diseases wiped out vast portions of the indian population settlers pushing west saw only small pockets of indians but saw the land as basically barren. it was not like they hacked their way through indians to plant crops. especially considering what europeans were use to in population density. the americas were basically empty.

Yep,
I think most of the times the Indians were displaced because someone found gold within their territories.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by yavoon
not that simple. after the diseases wiped out vast portions of the indian population settlers pushing west saw only small pockets of indians but saw the land as basically barren. it was not like they hacked their way through indians to plant crops. especially considering what europeans were use to in population density. the americas were basically empty.

Not really. The major decrease of Amerindian population because of diseases happened in the 16th and 17th century and was already recovering. in those parts where they weren't killed by wars. But sure, the pop density was not high, yery little in the plains as there were nomands living there. It often clashes when farmers and nomads come together. The farmers saw nobody on the land, "barren", so they built their houses there and fences. From the point of view of the nomads, they needed that piece of land once in a while to keep up their way of living and saw that they were impeded to continue to do so. Conflicts not preventable...

the americans did many awful things but I think thats pretty well documented in this thread.

sure it is and not only the Americans have a bloody or badass past, ask me, I come from Austria.
Yet, the settlement of the west, which was pure robbery is still often seen as the great deeds of "those who made America". It was robbery and the history is full of breaking treaties. The settlement of Oklahoma is my favorite great deed!


Dissident:
About planned genocide: Of course the settlers generally had no interest in eradicating all Indians (except if they were in permenent direct conflict or had their families killed, but that's only human, happens everywhere).
But compared to the way the colonization happened in most parts of Latin America (I come to that), there was never an intention of having a mixed society. However cruel the Amerindians were exploited by the Spanish, they always had an interest of those populations to survive and be it only for being able to exploit them. For the thesis I'm writing, there was this mining boss from Mexico who wrote back home that the Indians are dying from diseases, which is the worst thing on earth because the mines stand still..."
North America should become a land for the white, for the christians and both was equalled (New English Kanaan!). However we might judge the missionary activity in Latin America, with all its crimes, but it was never meant to be exclusive for the Europeans. Missionary activity from protestant churches were few, because the Indians generally weren't integrated in the concept. Wherever the white man in North America went, he pushed the Indian away, so settling the continent was equivalent to destroying the native population.
For planned genocide, let me just quote General Custer who tried to justify his war against the Indians by telling how they "breed like rats." This sentence comes very frequently side by side with attempts to eradicate a people, I remember a Nazi propaganda movie saying it. The last time I've heard it was when Milosevic said the same about the Albanians in Kosovo and I've also heard it from some exteme right-wing Israeli nutcase said about the Palestinians...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Well, not quite, though surely the notion that such a behavior is bad was not widespread...
But we're talking about the 19th century, not "any time" and from 1800, not "almost every country" did that and it was an extraordinary work to just wipe out a whole population to get a more place. In most occasions, people were conquered so they could be exploited and most often nobody cared, especially when we take a look at 19th century Imperialism of France and England.

I think the main difference between the african Colonies and America is rather the thing mentioned in the Thread Title.
The former Colonies at one time or the other gained Independence from the Colonial Power and formed their own Countries, whereas the countries taken from the Indians are still Part of the USA.