English! English! When did America stop speaking English?

[Kuciwalker]

Not really.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Everyone should go to university.

That certainly is debatable. University is not for everyone, even if it's entirely free.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Who knows and who cares? The kids of those generations know how to speak English, which goes to show that the parents stressed learning the language and instilled those values in their children. Their children are the proof of their efforts.

So, you've done a survey, or is this just a generalisation?

I had no idea you were so in with the blue collar world, by the way.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if every single country which has every existed is considered to have 'stolen' land from some other group.

So according to you there can't even be the concept of "stealing land," since someone occupying empty land is the same as someone forcibly removing its prior inhabitants. Now, there's a nice line of thinking...

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are going to have a hard time establishing that, Imran.

So according to you there can't even be the concept of "stealing land," since someone occupying empty land is the same as someone forcibly removing its prior inhabitants.

Has there ever been a country which has JUST occupied 'empty land'? Every country has started from a small tribe or city taking over other tribes/cities. An example is Russia. People from Moscow took over the land of all its neighbors and eventually defeated Novgorod which had taken over the land from all its neighbors, to establish 'Russia'.

How many countries out there haven't engaged in any conquest, counting the proto-country days (the formation of the country itself)?

[Whoha]

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/marktestimony032404.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Has there ever been a country which has JUST occupied 'empty land'? Every country has started from a small tribe or city taking over other tribes/cities.

Not talking about countries, talking about peoples. Can you prove that the Amerinds who were forcibly displaced by European settlers had previously "stolen" the land they occupied? Or the Aboriginees in Australia?

Empty land has to be occupied initially, and in regions where there is a vast expanse of land, such as North America, conflict over land is the exception, not the norm.

But the point is, where would youn define a theft of land? If we lived next door to each other (god forbid), and I walked over with a gun and forcibly evicted you, claiming your property, would that not be a theft of your property?

[Atahualpa]

Besides I just noticed that whitehouse.gov existe en español también

[Lefty Scaevola]

Conquest was legal and socially acceptable untle the 20th century. If fact it had been good form and even laudable for almost all of human existance.

[Natalinasmpf]

Now, we have "interventions" and "world policeman duty" and "peacekeeping"....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can you prove that the Amerinds who were forcibly displaced by European settlers had previously "stolen" the land they occupied? Or the Aboriginees in Australia?

Are you saying that EVERY Amerindian tribe just settled into empty land and never took land from other tribes? Are you serious? You do realize that they fought wars amongst each other? And land was taken over by one tribe or another. Look at the expansion of the Sioux/Lakota. To claim that native tribes simply settled into open space and left other tribes alone in their spaces is an utterly ludicrous proposition.

If we lived next door to each other (god forbid), and I walked over with a gun and forcibly evicted you, claiming your property, would that not be a theft of your property?

It'd be illegal, so yes. Lefty is 100% correct. You can't call something theft when it is considered legal and acceptable.

[Natalinasmpf]

Remember, it takes fifty years for a conquered base to become "yours"...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Can you prove that the Amerinds who were forcibly displaced by European settlers had previously "stolen" the land they occupied? Or the Aboriginees in Australia?

Are you saying that EVERY Amerindian tribe just settled into empty land and never took land from other tribes?

Did I say EVERY? You do realize that your position is one of EVERY, so mine just has to show that not every did?

You do realize that they fought wars amongst each other? And land was taken over by one tribe or another. Look at the expansion of the Sioux/Lakota.

EVERY? Proof?

And the Sioux expansion you're referring to was post-colonial, now, wasn't it? A time when Amerinds were certainly experiencing a land/resource crunch, thanks to...what?

To claim that native tribes simply settled into open space and left other tribes alone in their spaces is an utterly ludicrous proposition.

Can you prove that didn't happen for EVERY tribe?

Sure, warfare happened, but note where I pointed out where warfare over land, i.e. wars of conquest, was "the exception, not the rule"

It'd be illegal, so yes. Lefty is 100% correct. You can't call something theft when it is considered legal and acceptable.

legalizing away the moral wrongness of seizing land nonconsentually from its existing inhabitants, while not surprising from you, hardly makes it look any better nor justifies it.

The fact is, plenty of people at the time, notably missionaries, were decrying the treatment of the natives.

Speaking of legality, how about all those signed treaties with the Amerind tribes that were subsequently and categorically violated by the American government? Those Sioux you mentioned could teach you a lot about that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Verto
Yes. Point being, no one cares about the losers.

Which is why nobody'd really give a **** if Texas seceded again.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Did I say EVERY? You do realize that your position is one of EVERY, so mine just has to show that not every did?

EVERY? Proof?

To the extent there are archaeological, linguistic, or cultural data available, the overwhelming majority of cases shows displacement of population groups by other groups.

And the Sioux expansion you're referring to was post-colonial, now, wasn't it? A time when Amerinds were certainly experiencing a land/resource crunch, thanks to...what?

It was "post-colonial" in a technical sense, but I doubt the conquest of the Aztecs and settlements in Jamestown and Plymouth really had much to do with the Lakhota and Nakhota migrations from Minnesota.

Can you prove that didn't happen for EVERY tribe?

In many cases, there is little or no evidence regarding prior occupants. Southern California is a good example - the present Kumeyaay related bands speak languages dialectically related to western Shoshonean languages (great basin Indians), and historical pottery and similar evidence shows a sudden transition approximately 500 years ago from unrelated forms to distincly western Shoshonean forms. However, there are minimal finds predating that 500 year period, and virtually nothing is known about the origins, numbers, or fate of those peoples. All we know is that their minimal contribution to the archaeological record stopped and there was an very quick appearance of western Shoshonean finds.

In many other areas of the US, especially the midwest and west outside of Arizona, New Mexico and southern Colorado, there are too few records of anything of note to ever determine the patterns of settlement, migration and displacement, let alone any causes.

Sure, warfare happened, but note where I pointed out where warfare over land, i.e. wars of conquest, was "the exception, not the rule"

That is primarily a function of different cultural concepts of land and territory. Warfare over resources was intense in many cases, especially in times of shortage.