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

no, Indians ran off the first european settlers.


And while I don't want some other group coming in and taking America over, my descendants can't complain that their land was stolen from them over 500 years ago.

 

"Most land again was uninhabited except for plants and animals who lived there."

You keep repeating this like this means something. The Americas were as densely populated as Europe was at the time- in many places more densely populated. Virtually all of the Americas were populated- because human beings tend to expand to fill territories- and since Amerindians did not have pandemics like Eurasia did, there were not episodes of depopulation- until the Europeans arrived.

First of all- the biggest tragedy for the native Americans was not intentional and was probably inevitable- the germs from Eurasias that brought influenza, smallpox, typhoid, malaria and a host of other diseases that decimated Native American populations. When Europeans did find areas that seem abandoned- like the Missouri River valleys- it was because disease by the earliest explorers had gone through and killed 90% or more of the population. Like I said- unintentional and probably inevitable.

But- at the same time when the English settlers arrived in Jamestown and New England, they found settled areas- in Jamestown they had to settle for a really crummy building site because the natives had all of the prime land for settlements.

So this claim that the land was 'uninhabited' is mostly nonsense, except for the areas that had been depopulated by disease.

There is a great deal of interesting history about the colonization of the Americas but I don't know anyway you could say that it wasn't 'stolen' from the original inhabitants except for rationalizations.

Yes the natives had no issue with violence but that doesn't change the fact that Europeans came here and took their lands and accelerated the decimation brought on by disease.

 

SFJeff again it's more complex. Yes, diseases killed most of the American Indians but to repeat, the American Indians were not the first Native Americans. It has been found that the Solutreans (tens of thousands of them) arrived in the Americas Virginia and immigrated south during the Ice Age 17,000 years ago. In some American Indian arts, they have drawings of White people-those are believed to have been Solutreans. Solutreans either died or were killed by American Indians. Most of the Americas were uninhabited. But American Indians got more as Linda P. Harvey of Mission America who is part Cherokee has said because of Western Civilization. American Indians wouldn't have as many technical advances today had there not been contact. Most of the deaths of American Indians were diseases and we don't know how many of the deaths were native and how many were foreign and how many happened because American Indian medicines were poor. I'm not European and I don't believe land was stolen from American Indians in most cases. & again, some Amerindian such as Creeks, Shawnees, Comanches and Sioux have no right to complain about 'stolen land' as again, the land they had was won from other Amerindians in wars but after these Amerindian tribes lost the land in wars, then they complained about 'stolen land'-proud winners when they got the land but sore losers after they lost.

Again, the Solutreans were the 1st Native Americans and they either died of disease or were killed by American Indians. The more peaceful tribes you wrote about were killed or driven out by other American Indians because American Indians lived like street gangs and those who didn't fight were driven out. Most of the soldiers who fought on the
side of los conquistadores were Amerindians-only 1 to 2% of the soldiers were Spaniard. Life was so bad under Aztecs, Incas and so on that Amerindians helped bring Mexico, etc. under the Spanish. But Amerindians to repeat have more chances today whether it's free casino $, reservations, and so on. President Andrew Jackson has been critiqued for Trail of Tears, but he did
what he believed was in best interests whether you agree or differ.

 

I have heard of the Solutreans hypothesis before. And it is interesting but far from proven. If there was a wave of Solutreans who came to America they left no more of a footprint than did the Vikings who came and also failed later. But maybe there was a wave of Solutreans? It doesn't matter. If there was- maybe there was a wave before them, and a wave before them. We don't know yet.

What we do know with absolute certainty is that there existed a population of indigenious peoples who had lived in the Americas for thousands of years, and had populated both continents. And after Europeans arrived they mostly died.

No- most of the Americas were not uninhabited. Almost every piece of land was claimed by some indigenious group in the fashion of those people. Nomads live in huge areas, hence the Great plains tribes had huge territories. But the Mound builders and peoples of the East Coast occupied every diserable niche of land. Which is why when European settlers first arrived they had to squeeze in among the people already here, unless they outright conquered them like in Latin America.

 

SFJeff, I don't believe the statistic that millions of American Indians died of disease-that's too high. Since you mentioned conquered, again most of those who helped in conquering the Amerindians were other Amerindians who fought on the side of Spanish (Portuguese in Brazil) because life was bad under Aztecs, Incas, etc. Honestly, the Americas are better for all including the Amerindians because they lost the wars. No, don't agree with all the Spaniards did but it was the lesser of 2 bads. Not all cultures are alike. Human sacrifices, cannibalism, kidnapping, scalpings, etc. which Amerindians practiced are barbaric. American Indians have more technologies and so on because they were defeated. The claim that most of the Americas was inhabited by American Indians is leftist history which is unproven. With Solutreans, they did a DNA study of early Native Americans and 25% of them were Solutreans who arrived 17,000 years ago, long before the American Indians.

 

I've made that argument for years.... the Native American descendants are living a MUCH better lifestyle BECAUSE they were defeated.
descendants of slaves ironically live MUCH BETTER than the descendants of the blacks (in Africa) that sold them into slavery in the first place. There's a starving kid with flies buzzing his head in a "feed the children" ad who's ancestors sold Michelle Obama's ancestors into slavery. Which group do you think is doing better thanks to slavery.

The same argument can be made for the Native Americans being conquered right into the modern world

 

Then what did the millions of American Indians who died, die of? The best estimate I have seen for the population of Pre-Columbian Americas is 40 million. The Aztec region may have had 25 million people when the Spanish arrived.

Well as the inheritors of the 'winning culture'- that is our perspective isn't it? Were Spaniards really the 'lesser' of two evils? Very arguable- while human sacrifice was horrific, if you read accounts of how the Spanish treated the conquered peoples....I find it hard to distinguish how human sacrifice to honor the gods was markedly different than Amerindians being killed on behalf of Christ. Read of the abuses of Cortez in Mexico including the burning by the Church of most of the writings of the Aztecs.

Leftist history? No it is the known history. The Solutrean hypothesis is an interesting theory that could be true- but so far the evidence is not convincing- not yet.

Why is it important for you that the Solutrean hypothesis be correct?

 

Would you thank your father if he was a thug who raped your mother? Certainly he would have contributed to your being born- so therefore you would be considerably better off than if he hadn't raped your mother. But that doesn't change the history of what happened.

Their ancestors were killed, raped, enslaved, robbed, their cultures destroyed and were often mistreated right up until modern times.

I don't think they are in a rush to thank Europeans for systematically abusing them for over 200 years because right now today they are better off

 

this is the same cultures who killed, raped, enslaved, robbed, to get that land in the first place and now I'm to all of a sudden it's only a tragedy when it happened to them?

oh boo hoo..... a group of peoples who were into canibalism and human sacrifice now want sympathy because they were defeated in battle. Europeans gave them the cold and it killed 90% of them... I guess had the europeans scalped them instead.... that would have been better?

war sucks... I never said I liked it, but Indians should **** unless since I know they don't want to hear about THEIR history

 

Finally. A voice of reason amongst a sea of idiots.

 

SFJeff, already said that I don't believe the # that there were 40 million Indians in pre-Columbian Americas nor do I believe the # that there were 25 million in pre-Columbian Aztec Mexico. Those #s are too high. Yes, American Indians did mostly die of diseases, but millions is too high because don't believe there were 40 million people. Already said that don't agree with everything the Spaniards did such as el sistema de las castas & yes there was greed for gold. But Spaniards (Portuguese in Brazil) treated the Amerindians anywhere from better to @ worst no differently than the way the Amerindians treated eachother. Hernan Cortez had an Amerindian wife Dona Marina and they had Mestizo son Martin Cortez. Hernan Cortez also adopted some of Montezuma's children and some Aztecs (those from Moctezuma or Montezuma's family) became members of the Spanish Royal Crown. Most Spaniards married Amerindian women which is why most people in Iberoamerica are Mestizo. Yes there were abuses but the Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic) did do what they could to prevent abuses of Amerindians. Hernan Cortez also tried to do what he could to protect Amerindians and most of the time when things happened he was away. Aztecs, Mayas and Incans among other Amerindians got their land by waging wars against other Amerindians and they used human sacrifices, cannibalism, among other things.

JavisBeason, here's an idea for SFJeff and Ramboner. If both who my guess aren't Amerindian are upset about how the Americas was 'stolen from the Indians' then both of them should give up their house to the Amerindians and go back to where their ancestors came from. JavisBeason & I don't agree with everything that happened to the Amerindians but what we're saying is that the Spaniards and other Europeans treated the Amerindians anywhere from better to @ worst no differently than the way the Amerindians treated eachother and right or wrong it was the lesser of 2 bads. JavisBeason doesn't defend slavery but slavery was @ that time worldwide
in that Africans kidnapped other Africans and sold them to Europeans, Amerindians also practiced slavery. The people who practiced slavery-Africans, Europeans and Amerindians were doing what was accepted world wide and JavisBeason is right that African Americans who are slave descendants are better off than Africans in Africa-of course it took African Americans to fight for civil rights but Black Americans have more than Blacks in Africa. But what matters is what is happening today. If an American Indian who let's say has the intelligence to become an engineer, lawyer, etc. is discriminated against when it comes to getting this job or college, then JavisBeason, me and others who agree with me believe it's wrong and must be solved by legal system. If an Amerindian commits a crime or is a crime victim, then people such as JavisBeason, me and others who agree with us believe that there must be = punishment for the crime based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
But what happened in the past right or wrong is history. American Indians, Blacks and so on must focus on what's happening today, not what happened so long ago because the Europeans (I'm Asian) didn't do anything worse than what the Amerindians and Africans were already doing to eachother and this was a different time in history. Will let JavisBeason share thoughts.

 

it's all part of the "I want to be a victim" mentality. Every peoples has been defeated, enslaved, had their women raped and children murdered by this time in human history.

I feel no sympathy for a peoples that are GENERATIONS removed from the event and have every right that I currently enjoy.

 

If you count Central America, it was probably tens of millions of native Americans who died from disease. As for the rest of the ignorant OP, the natives were (mostly) nomads or hunter/gatherers who needed a lot of real estate per family to live on. The more advanced methods of the European settlers (farming and industry) meant a much higher population density could be maintained. When you combine germs, guns and differences in populations, the fate of the native Americans was assured.

 

I agree, it was assured.... but that same formula has applied to many peoples over the entire history of the world.... how many other conquered peoples were simply genocided to virtual extinction?

how many other 'winners' have allowed the 'loser' to remain? I know some have, but not all of them.


History shows that of all the conquered peoples throughout civilization..... The native Americans have gotten off VERY light.

 

Really? The only peoples who have suffered worse or equal losses would be the aborigines of Australia- at least that we know of.

In most cases, the conquerors were never suffiicent to 'genocide' the conquered, but instead either pushed the conquered out, or more often, were amalgamated into the pre-existing population.

It is an interesting argument that you are making- that Native American's should be grateful that their ancestors were murdered, and raped, and their land stolen because it could have been worse.

Imagine making that argument to the survivor of a home invasion. Yes- your parents were killed, you were raped and your home burned down- but you are lucky- it could have been so much worse.

 

the argument I'm making is the native americans raped, murdered and stole land from others before them, but now, because it happened to them last, we are to feel sorrier for them somehow.

And ask the Jews if Aborigines had it worse....

Ask those those in midevil Europe where places were seiged until they starved to death, and then sacked, looted, raped, and children killed whenever they finally got it. I'm not demanding the British govt pay for my college because King George the IV had a village burned to the ground and 99% of my ancestors died because he wanted a scenic view for his summer home right where my ancestor's village lied....


War is a nasty ugly thing. All cultures have been victims of it, and have been perpetrators of it.... All cultures have been winners and losers of it. but now all of a sudden, we are to reward people who were never apart of said autracities out of guilt? I hate that it happens to anyone... but no culture is innocent.

 

So, what you're saying is, I can take the vast majority of your back garden because you don't really use all of it but only if someone else tried to steal it first.

Cheers, I'll be round to force you to live on your compost heap as soon as I get the chance.

 

We can all play the game "Who had it worst"

It is an interesting argument that you are making- that Native American's should be grateful that their ancestors were murdered, and raped, and their land stolen because it could have been worse.

Imagine making that argument to the survivor of a home invasion. Yes- your parents were killed, you were raped and your home burned down- but you are lucky- it could have been so much worse.

"we are to reward people who were never apart of said autracities out of guilt?"

Here is my point of view- I am not directly responsible for the atrocities committed against native Americans- and I have no responsibility whatever for the natives outside the United States.

However, the United States has both legal and moral obligations to the current native Americans of the United States. Often there are treaties which the United States signed- or inherited- with the tribes which obligate us to certain actions. Most of the time when Indians were herded into reservations it was with the often unfulfilled promise that the United States would provide for natives that went onto the Reservations.

Morally- the United States is and was our government. We are as a nation are responsible for how our country has acted. We are not responsible for the Pilgrims in New England or the Spanish in Mexico or Peru but we are responsible for the actions of our government and for the promises our government has made.

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.

 

Bad sh!t happens. You just gotta get up and keep going. Lately, Indians have received a windfall with legal gambling on their land. The Seminoles (in Florida) alone take in about $500 million a year. 184 tribes in 28 states take in about 4.5 billion a year. Now all they have to do is clean up their own corruption but that is THEIR job not ours.

 

Yeah....imagine that....Indians making money.

I am not a huge fan of Indian gambling but I do think that there is some ironic social justice in it.

 

sounds all fine and dandy if you ignore the fact that Indians make millions on gambling and they also have their own laws and are considered nations now.

so tell me how past sins have not already been fulfilled?

 

I really have no idea what you are trying to ask.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

 

I'm saying, everyone still thinks the Indians are owed something..... when is payment considered 'in full' do they not already make a ton off of casinos? do their kids already not receive enough higher education for free? do they not already have their own reservation laws that noone can go on and get them?

and has an Indian today got a blanket from the US army that got them sick in their lifetime?

Time to say.... sorry, but you're on you're own at this point.

Same with African Americans.

 

You seem to have not read my entire post.

Here is my point of view- I am not directly responsible for the atrocities committed against native Americans- and I have no responsibility whatever for the natives outside the United States.

However, the United States has both legal and moral obligations to the current native Americans of the United States. Often there are treaties which the United States signed- or inherited- with the tribes which obligate us to certain actions. Most of the time when Indians were herded into reservations it was with the often unfulfilled promise that the United States would provide for natives that went onto the Reservations.

Morally- the United States is and was our government. We are as a nation are responsible for how our country has acted. We are not responsible for the Pilgrims in New England or the Spanish in Mexico or Peru but we are responsible for the actions of our government and for the promises our government has made.

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.

 

Good point, sfjeff. Our treaties should be honored. It's the law, OUR law. And while I agree for the most part that the remaining natives are much better off than if Europeans had not arrived, I cannot agree with the OP. If someone steals a car, then you steal that car from the thief, you still stole it. The fact that you stole previously stolen property in no way makes it not stolen, even if was stolen by force originally. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that the logic doesn't work.