For most part, land was NOT stolen from American Indians. Amerinidans used violence.

So what? The Native American Population of the West was around 120,000 individuals spread out over 9 million square miles.

There is no way in hell that a measly 100k people have a right to claim 9 million square miles for themselves. Especially when those 100,000 weren't even part of a recognizable single nation.

As far as I'm concerned you only have a right to what you can take, colonize and adequately defend. The rest is up for grabs.

 

I get it, two wrongs make a right, and if you ever stole candy as a kid I have a right to rob your house at gunpoint. I don't agree. Whatever happened in the past does not justify another crime. I don't think that just because my American ancestors settled on Indian land, that the Russians or the Chinese can roll through my neighborhood with tanks and take my house. My point is that if you are going to claim conquest, make it a fair fight, or at least don't justify the conquest becuase some native threw a rock at your tank. If it isn't yours, it isn't yours, and just because someone might have done something wrong in the past it does not make it right today. It doesn't make it right just because you have superior firepower either. You either have the right to the land or you don't.

 

and what promises that were broken, can be fixed. The same argument about the 2 mules and an acre. Impossible to give every African American today that was not even alive in the 1860s

same here. Indians have been provided for with a chance to accept N.A. scholarships to universities. They get special rules like Indian casinos that noone else can have.... yet they make a ton of money off of it.


so prey tell, how much more are they "entitled" to? Especially considering they offered no such loser consolations to their victims....

 

Saw this got many replies & my thoughts. The rape accusation that SFJeff makes about American Indian women is mostly false. Most sexual relations with American Indian women was knowing and willing because most Amerindian women preferred Spanish or Portuguese over American Indian men which is how Mestizo came about. American Indian men committed more rapes against Amerindian women because they were often turned down. SFJeff thinks Inca human sacrifices in Peru and Aztecs sacrifices in Mexico are normal but as said, while not going to agree with all the Spaniards did, the Spaniards conquering Mexico and Peru was the lesser of 2 bads. Had Mexico and Peru not been conquered, human sacrifices, would've gone on much longer. Canibs or Caribs practiced cannibalism-while Tainos were often thought of as peaceful, some did practice cannibalism. There weren't 10s of millions of Amerindians living in pre-Columbian Americas-North, Central and South America. A more right # would be that there were between 2 to 4 million Amerindians (perhaps less) living in Pre-Columbian Americas, not 40 million as has been said. Many did die of diseases but that was unintended and it's unknown if it was foreign or native. Among Aztecs, they had cocolitzli (Aztec word for fever I believe) outbreaks which killed many long before conquest. Also American Indians didn't have as much advanced medicine so many died.

As to fair fight, Septimine, that was a fair fight. Bows and arrows, spears and tomahawks can kill many. Yes, steel, guns, horses and cannons give you the advantage, but you still have to risk your life and fight for it. American Indians sometimes scalped and cannibalized their victims.
& as repeated, los conquistadores made up 1 to 2% of those who took part in conquering Mexico, Peru, etc. It took Hernan Cortez 2 years to conquer Mexico-1,000 soldiers were Spanish, the remaining 75,000 soldiers were Amerindians-Tlaxcallan, Totonac, Choula, Cempoallan and Tabascan
who fought on the side of the Spaniards against the Aztecs. What SFJeff repeats is mostly propaganda. As to 2 wrongs making a right, if something didn't belong to you in the 1st place and some1 comes and takes it from you, then again, you don't have a right to complain. Aztecs weren't the
original inhabitants of most of Mexico. So much of the Americas was uninhabited other than the plants and animals who lived there. But American Indian groups are sometimes claiming ownership to lands they didn't touch or even know was there when they say 'land was stolen.' American Indians
sometimes abandoned the land after which some1 else moved in, but then they complained about 'land being stolen' when they left it. & to repeat, American Indian groups are sometimes claiming 'land was stolen' when the land they had was won from some1 else. Main idea is that American
Indians are claiming land was stolen when they-never touched it and didn't know it was there, abandoned the land and weren't the original inhabitant. Finally, American Indians do have the same chance today as any1 else but American Indians have higher drug junky rates, alcoholism
and crimes-my guess is SFJeff thinks American Indians running around naked and killing eachother for land was fine. Dinesh D'Souza (Indian American not American Indian) believes that if American Indians, Blacks or any1 else is discriminated today in jobs, then that's wrong and
must be solved. Dinesh D'Souza also said that not all cultures are = and human sacrifices, cannibalism and sclapings which American Indians did is bad and Dinesh D'Souza is against scalpings, cannibalism, etc. Dinesh D'Souza is fair in that he wants fairness but he doesn't automatically take
sides with some1 because they're American Indian and he sometimes has been insulted for being an 'Uncle' because he doesn't agree with multi-culturalists.

 

At the time of the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo there were approximately 120,000 native Americans living West of the Mississippi River and 38,000 Mexicans. The census for the year 1839 is quite clear on all this that there was 9 million square miles of vast and barely inhabited land. There simply wasn't anyone here of any consequence. 100 thousand people do not have the right to claim so much land for themselves when they weren't even capable of defending it!

 

Thanks SiliconeMagician for information. Mexican it must be said is not an ethnicity but a nationality-there are Mexicans who are 100% European (usually Spanish, sometimes Portuguese, German, Basque, etc.) and there are Mexicans who are Chinese, Japanese, etc. Most Mexicans are Mestizo-mixed. 1 thing to repeat to SFJeff, yes, discrimination's wrong. American Indians must and do get = chance to succeed such as if an American Indian has intelligence to be an engineer, lawyer, etc. then oppose discrimination and legal system is there to solve it. American Indians have for a long time had the same rights to jury trials, voting rights and so on. American Indians have higher crime rates. SFJeff talks about rapes, but most child molestations committed against American Indians are committed by other American Indians. American Indians have higher drug junky and alcoholism. Then again, SFJeff seems to not think seriously about scalpings and in Peru and Mexico's cases-human sacrifices which happened. SFJeff went on about Peru and Mexico yet didn't see seriously the practices that both Incas in Peru and Aztecs in Mexico had sacrificing people including children whether it's to their Gods Tlaloc (Rain God), Huitzilopochtlo (Hummingbird Wizard), Inca Sun God and so on. It's my view that again, while not agreeing with all the Spaniards did, if Peru and Mexco hadn't been conquered, the human sacrifices in Peru and Mexico would've continued much longer. SFJeff possibly thinks that's acceptable but not me.

 

Very smart move by the spaniards, replace human sacrifice with human sacrifice. Always was an intelligent move.

Jokes aside, land was stolen from the so- called native americans in the MOST brutal manner and for that, the occupier will inevitably fall, as has already presided, how many trillions in debt are you today? That debt is one that cannot be paid by money, sorry.

 

america broke every fricken treaty it ever signed. you dont have a clue what youre talkin about.

 

Spaniards did not have human sacrifice. Spaniards didn't require that Amerindians be sacrificed for Fountain of Life as Aztecs had when they sacrificed people including babies to their Aztec gods Huitzilopochtli (Hummingbird Wizard),
Tezcatlipoca (Smoking Mirror), Tlaloc (Rain God) and so on. Guichilobos (Witchy Wolves) was Aztec god of war. Most Amerindian deaths to repeat were by diseases and there was no genocide program.
But land was not stolen from American Indians in most brutal manner. They did get reservations where they had right to their own govt. and prosperous though not always to their benefit. American Indians
got casinos, technology such as computers, cars, etc. Jonah ignores truth that American Indians are better off today but Jonah thinks running around naked is a better choice. Jonah doesn't think much of the
fact that Sioux, Shawnee, Creeks, Hurons, Apaches, Comanches and others got their lands by waging wars against other American Indians and some of them killed entire families including scalpings and sometimes
even cannibalism. But Jonah complains that American Indians including groups mentioned 'had their land stolen from them' when they weren't the original owners.

 

the american government signed treaties with all the tribes and then reneged on them. you know nothing.

 

The point he is trying to make is that so- called native americans battled eachother and thus to be the victims of war against europeans is nothing to complain about as they were themselves aggressors to inferior tribes.

It's a valid point but an extremely narrow and small minded view point. The big picture indicates that europeans sh1tted on everybody on earth never mind their own back yarders. Keep that sickness to yourself please and don't polute my childrens minds. It's disgusting.

 

You're lecturing but while you believe cannibalism, scalpings, torture and running around naked is acceptable, most people don't . People who are part American Indian have agreed with me that Amerindians such as Creeks, Shawnees, Apaches, Comanches and others were proud winners when they got their land by waging wars agains other Amerindians but became sore losers complaining about 'stolen land' after they lost. Sometimes treaties were broken but American Indians won their case in U.S. Supreme Court. You didn't give rebuttal.

 

Jonah, I'm not European but I understand that land was not stolen from American Indians for most part. You Jonah believe it's narrow minded, but I think running around naked, scalpings, human sacrifices and cannibalism is not acceptable conduct as you imply it is.
Whether Europeans were right or wrong is history-American Indians are better off today. If you get something by force and are proud of getting it by force, then don't complain if some1 stronger takes it from you by force.

 

Spaniards have practiced human sacrifice since the term spainard existed. Go learn some european history, first port of call, the Spanish Inquisition.

No problem.

 

nobody asked you what you consider acceptable conduct. burning women as witches at the stake and owning black people as slaves aint exactly high on most civilized peoples list either but americans sure loved doin it.

 

You are missing the point. Mutilation, torture and human sacrifice are some of the chief exports of european culture. At least so- called native americans didn't bless the world with such savagery as did the european. They realised it was not their proudest moment, europeans revel in such debauchery.

 

For a start, Native Americans are 'entitled' to whatever was promised them by the U.S. government in treaties. A good place to start. The Indian Casino's are a good example of that- you do realize that any state that wanted to could allow any of its citizens to have run casino's right?



As I said before- our country murdered their ancestors, raped their women, stole their children, stole their land and food sources and now within the last 50 years we have moved to the point where we do not any longer systemically treat them as inferior- and you want to know why should 'feel sorry' for them? I don't care whether we feel sorry for them or not- but I do think we should stand up to the obligations our earlier government created.

 

Jonan and Gabriel1, you're not saying anything I haven't already heard and thought about. I used to repeat the mantra 'that the land was stolen from American Indians' but I changed my view after understanding that it's more complex, complicated and for the most part didn't happen the way SFJeff and American Indian activists say. BTW, never defended the Spanish Inquisition. Yes, bad things sometimes did happen to American Indians (don't agree with Trail of Tears) but as said, what happened to American Indians in the end was lesser of 2 bads. Dinesh D'Souza has said that not all cultures are the same and American Indian cultures were behind. This was a different time when might makes right was the world's way. American Indians to repeat had no problem with might makes right when they won the land being proud of what they won but became sore losers about 'stolen land' after they lost. American Indians when they lost the land by wars should've been gracious by saying that they lost it fair and square. Anyhow have thought about it but what you said has already been considered by me.
Finally Jonah, since you're in the U.K., I don't believe the British should apologize for colonizing the Americas as once the nations became independent it was a moot point. The English did a better job than others when
it came to colonizing other nations. As it's about American Indians, Amerindians such as Shawnees, Creeks, Comanches and Apaches are eg. of Amerindians who have no right to complain about 'stolen land' as the land they had was
won from other Amerindians before they lost them to Europeans. Know it's repeat but not much we can say w/o doing this.

 

That is your problem right there.....

 

SFJeff, since I agree with Dinesh D'Souza (his wife is part American Indian), there is no problem. But people who are part American Indian have said that American Indians have no right to complain. Mrs. Linda P. Harvey of Mission America is part Cherokee and believes American Indian cultures are 1 of violence and what happened in end was lesser of 2 bads though she doesn't agree with all that was done. Since Gabriel1 raises slavery of Blacks, he overlooks that Blacks in Africa kidnapped other Blacks and sold them to Whites. American Indians also owned slaves. John T. Reed is part American Indian (Cherokee) and he thinks American Indians have no right to complain about 'stolen land'. Though they're part and not full American Indian, their view is that this was a different time. What's important is what happens today. I believe American Indians like any other ethnic group should have = chance for success and I'm against discriminating against American Indians in jobs such as if an American Indian can do a job as an engineer, then hire them and again, I believe American Indians must get = punishment when they commit crimes as non-Indians and if a person commits a crime against an American Indian, there must be = punishment. But right or wrong, what's history is history. John T. Reed is criticial of Europeans being held to dual standard (again I'm not European). American Indians have higher crime rates, higher drug junky rates and alcoholism-some American Indian groups blame subjugation when again, American Indians have for a long time had = rights as others do.

 

I think it was for the most part. It went something like this,we want that land there,now if you move to that land over there then you can stay there forever...few years down the line..we want that land there,now if you move to that land over there then you can stay there..and repeat until the natives had about 4% of the land of the 100% they had before white settlers turned up and stole it all.

 

exactly right

 

Since 70% of the Americas was uninhabited except for the animals and plants which lived there, land was not stolen as there wasn't title. American Indians also were often nomads and once the land they
had was abandoned, it's for any who want it. & again, given the fact that some of the American Indians such as Creeks, Comanches, etc. won their land from others in wars and weren't original inhabitants
then they can't claim that land was stolen as it wasn't theirs to start with. Yes, in some cases it was stolen land but it's more complicated and again, 70% of the time, the land was not stolen.

 

Just because you make stuff up is not going to make it real history and the only person you are fooling is yourself.

 

I am curious exactly where you get this 70% number.

Let me ask you something. If you have a summer vacation house- is it up for grabs as soon as you close it up in September?