How were the american indians subjugated?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Not all land was spoken for Che, you know that.

Actually, it was.

There were also situations in which settlers were given use of the land by the local tribe and then attacked.

Only early on.

So you think self-hating whites know their history better than other whites?

A) How do you know he's white?

B) Why is understanding that our ancestors committed heinous acts self-hate?

C) Self-hating white is an insult, the purpose of which is to discredit by ad hominim, rather than examining the issues, the same way Zionists accuse Jews citical of Israel of being self-hating Jews.

D) White supremicist views are much more clouding of history.

[The Mad Viking]

I find it highly ironic that citizens of a country where it is legal to shoot someone for trespassing ignore how settlers are inherently a threat.

point of order:
Liberal atheist -good post, but...

I'm also aware that much of the slaughter was not government sanctioned but spontanious action taken by colonists themselves (that the government would of course side with.)

Actually, most of the slaughter was conducted by the US Cavalry, and most of what remained was sanctioned by the government.

Guardian Outstanding post.

Intent is a funny word.

If I want to kill a terrorist in a car with a missile, and there are five other people in the car, three of whom I don't even know, it isn't terrorism to kill them because all I intended to do was kill the terrorist.

I'm quite certain the family of the victims would view this differently.

Collateral Damage indeed.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, it was.

Sorry, but unless you have a title deed and a legal system with property rights you don't own the land, you only occupy it.

A) How do you know he's white?

I don't, but I'd put money on it.

B) Why is understanding that our ancestors committed heinous acts self-hate?

It's not. It's self hate when you focus all your attention on those acts and wallow in guilt over it.

C) Self-hating white is an insult, the purpose of which is to discredit by ad hominim, rather than examining the issues, the same way Zionists accuse Jews citical of Israel of being self-hating Jews.

I prefer my description above.

D) White supremicist views are much more clouding of history.

I'm not a white supremacist, I'm just a white guy who gets sick of people demonizing whites.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sorry, but unless you have a title deed and a legal system with property rights you don't own the land, you only occupy it.

So because they don't abide by our rules, we can take it? Great, I'll be over to get all your stuff shortly.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sorry, but unless you have a title deed and a legal system with property rights you don't own the land, you only occupy it.

A bizarre view.

Look around your own country. You will find land held in common all over the place.

But if some foreignor arrived and announced he laid claim to that land, the absense of any individual with title to it would not prevent you and any other citizen taking exception.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So because they don't abide by our rules, we can take it?
Great, I'll be over to get all your stuff shortly.

No, as far as I'm concerned the settlers should have considered the land the natives occupied as belonging to them (the natives that is).

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by East Street Trader


A bizarre view.

Look around your own country. You will find land held in common all over the place.

But if some foreignor arrived and announced he laid claim to that land, the absense of any individual with title to it would not prevent you and any other citizen taking exception.

It doesn't have ot be an individual, just an entity.

[LiberalAtheist]

point of order:
Liberal atheist -good post, but...

I'm also aware that much of the slaughter was not government sanctioned but spontanious action taken by colonists themselves (that the government would of course side with.)

Actually, most of the slaughter was conducted by the US Cavalry, and most of what remained was sanctioned by the government.

Thx btw. The above sounds very likely I admit and you are probably right (as I was likely thinking of Australian Aboriginese), but would you happen to have any reference by chance that you could share with me?

[LiberalAtheist]

Sorry, but unless you have a title deed and a legal system with property rights you don't own the land, you only occupy it.

It's nice to see how you put "title deed" in there, since the Natives Americans (who lacked writing and paper) could not possibly have had such things....

And also, do you even know if Native Americans lacked a conception of property rights, or is that assumed?


Lastly, according to the same "logic", couldn't one argue that it's ok to enslave and murder those who lack a written constitution, after taking their valuables, of course?

I don't, but I'd put money on it.

On what basis? Is there some correlation between writing style and skin color that I'm not aware of?

It's not. It's self hate when you focus all your attention on those acts and wallow in guilt over it.

Which has been advocated by who exactly?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Mongols flung corpses with plague into the Genoese Black Sea holdings of Kerch and Kaffa. From there it traveled by ship to Messina, and from there, spread throughout Europe.

Hate to disappoint you che, but there is no eyewitness account of them doing so.

The writer who came up with this admittedly impressive account never stirred from his native Piacenza in Italy, and does not seem to have been in either Genoese trading post when the Tartars (not actually Mongols, apparently) were besieging.

It also seems doubtful that corpses would be a particularly efficacious way of spreading bubonic plague- but bales of cloth would be. Current medical opinion says that this kind of inspired ballistic biological warfare wouldn't necessarily work.

In the 17th century in England, a supply of cloth which contained dormant fleas/flea eggs was responsible for spreading the plague from London to Derbyshire:

'Rev. William Mompesson Rector of Eyam, he helped prevent the spread of the plague(1666-1667) from his village by preventing anyone leaving. The plague arrived at the village in a bale of damp cloth which had come up from London.

259 out of 350 of Eyam's inhabitants died, Mompesson's wife amongst them. The "Mompesson Well" was where all money was cleansed and then left for payment of goods and supplies brought to the village and left on the boundary line. This served to prevent infection reaching beyond the village. A memorial service is held on the last Sunday in August in a rocky ravine called Cucklet Dell where Mompesson preached when the villagers had to worship in the open. '

http://www.derbycity.com/derby/famous.html

Caffa was a port which shipped silks and other finished cloths to the West- important to the Genoese who didn't have the same favoured trading status the Venetians did with the Byzantines.

'Djerbes, V.J. "De Mussis and the Great Plague of 1348", Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 196:1 (1966)

[Points out Gabriele De Mussis never left Piacenza during the Plague, and probably got his account from sailors.]'

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Sorry, but unless you have a title deed and a legal system with property rights you don't own the land, you only occupy it.

Amerindians had/have a different concept of land ownership -- why should they be seen as illegally holding land they have always lived on, because they refused to observe foreign-imposed laws of land ownership?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun




Amerindians had/have a different concept of land ownership -- why should they be seen as illegally holding land they have always lived on, because they refused to observe foreign-imposed laws of land ownership?

He's stating the legal fiction used to dispossess the Australian Aboriginals- a particularly odious concept called 'terra nullius' - useful when those people happen to be 'only occupying' not 'owning' land that has gold, oil, diamonds, mineral wealth, or is fertile and currently ungrazed by cattle or sheep.


' Terra nullius

British colonisation policies and subsequent land laws were framed in the belief that the colony was being acquired by occupation (or settlement) of a terra nullius (land without owners). The colonisers acknowledged the presence of Indigenous people but justified their land acquisition policies by saying the Aborigines were too primitive to be actual owners and sovereigns and that they had no readily identifiable hierarchy or political order which the British Government could recognise or negotiate with (how convenient!).

The High Court's Mabo judgment in 1992 overturned the terra nullius fiction. In the same judgment, however, the High Court accepted the British assertion of sovereignty in 1788, and held that from that time there was only one sovereign power and one system of law in Australia. '

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/orgs/car/docrec/policy/brief/terran.htm

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Yikes! This thread is scary. Part of me wants to join in the discussion but there's so many half truths and misconceptions I has no idea where to begin.

/me decides to the let the pale faces argue amongst themselves and head for the fire water while no one's looking.