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

With your ?, if the summer vacation house is abandoned by me and I lose this in foreclosure because I don't pay taxes, then yes, it's up for grabs to any who want it. American Indians sometimes abandoned land because they saw no more use for this-after this happened then yes, it's up for grabs. With 70% #, did Internet Search and here's a 2005 comment on Geography.about.com by Matthew Rosenberg where he says that land makes up 29% of the world and 90% of the world lives on 10% of the land. Since world's population was much smaller in 1500s to 1800s, most of the land in Americas (70%) was uninhabited except for plants and animals living there.

Population density is an often reported and commonly compared statistic for places around the world. Population density is the measure of the number per unit area. It is commonly represented as people per square mile (or square kilometer), which is derived simply by dividing...
total area population / land area in square miles (or square kilometers)

For example, Canada's population of 33 million, divided by the land area of 3,559,294 square miles yields a density of 9.27 people per square mile. While this number would seem to indicate that 9.27 people live on each square mile of Canadian land area, the density within the country varies dramatically - a vast majority lives in the southern part of the country. Density is only a raw gauge to measure a population's disbursement across the land.

Density can be computed for any area - as long as one knows the size of the land area and the population within that area. The population density of cities, states, entire continents, and even the world can be computed.

The tiny country of Monaco has the world's highest population density. With an area of 3/4 of a square mile and a total population of 32,000, Monaco has a density of almost 43,000 people per square mile.

However, since Monaco and other microstates have very high densities due to their extremely small size, Bangladesh is often considered the most densely populated country, with more than 2,200 people per square mile.

Mongolia is the world's least densely populated country with only 4.3 people per square mile. Australia is a close second with 6.4 people per square mile.

About 90% of the earth's people live on 10% of the land. Additionally, about 90% of the people live north of the equator.

Population density of the continents:


North America - 32 people per square mile
South America - 73 people per square mile
Europe - 134 people per square mile
Asia - 203 people per square mile
Africa - 65 people per square mile
Australia - 6.4 people per square mile
The population density of the planet (including all land area) is about 105 people per square mile. If Antarctica is eliminated (since it has zero population density), the world population density rises only to 115 people per square mile.

The population density of the United States is approximately 76 people per square mile.

 

So you can't tell us where you are getting that 70% number you keep throwing out.

And apparently according to your most of the world is uninhabited- which in a sense it is. I guess that made it alright when Japan invaded the Phillipines- because it was 'mostly uninhabited'......(though since we were just ending our occupation of the Philipines that is somewhat ironic)

 

Phillipines, China and Korea had borders that defined their nations. American Indians however, did not for the most part have borders establishing territories. It wasn't officially until the reservations (which American Indians have title to today) that
they defined what the Indian nations are. Both Japan and Germany believed they were the greatest. You can't compare 1940s Europe, Phillipines, Korea and China to 17th Century Americas because the last didn't have borders with govt. while Phillipines (which was Spanish until 189, Korea (Japanese colony from 1910-45), China (colonized by different nations) did have borders.

 

The Indians do not accept your western interpretation of land tenure.

The only way to stop this evil is for all the red men to unite in claiming an equal right in the land. That is how it was at first, and should be still, for the land never was divided, but was for the use of everyone. Any tribe could go to an empty land and make a home there. And if they left, another tribe could come there and make a home. No groups among us have a right to sell, even to one another, and surely not to outsiders who want all, and will not do with less. Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the clouds, and the Great Sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Good Spirit make them all for the use of his children?

Tecumseh 1810.

 

DeputyDawg, if you Gabriel1 and SFJeff are not American Indian and live in the U.S., then give up your house to the American Indians. American Indians had different idea of land ownership. Many were nomads and as 1/4 American Indian John T. Reed said the way American Indians got their land when they wanted it was by waging wars against others and American Indians lived like street gangs. The U.S.A. is a better place for all including American Indians because of reservations and American Indians got more by losing the wars. Yes, injustices sometimes happened, but in the end what happened to the American Indians was the lesser of 2 bads. Better the results turned out the way they did than for things to continue because had things continued the American Indian way, scalpings, cannibalism, and street gang warfare would've gone on much longer. Yes, some people get offended by this but even with injustices, it's better that things turned out the way they did.

 

That is just a load of old garbage.

 

Load of old garbage to people like you who think running around naked, human sacrifices, street gang warfare, cannibalism and other things the American Indians did as acceptable conduct. Again, you aren't saying anything I haven't considered. As you see nothing wrong with this, then go live this life but most people such as me don't want to live like that.

 

"street gang warfare"? I have some news for you,they never had streets. I do not know what nutty websites you have been reading but I suggest you get some real history books.

 

Street is another word for road and it doesn't need cement. Mr. John T. Reed who is part-Cherokee calls it street gang warfare though more right would be gang warfare. How it worked as Mr. J.T. Reed has said is that each trible had their own land and when they wanted more land, they took it from other tribes killing eachother with bows and arrows, tomahawks and American Indians sometimes kidnapped other Amerindian women to make them their wives. Both Tainos and Caribs were fighting eachother for territory. So yes, gang warfare is what Amerindians did. No, don't agree with all the Europeans did but though Septimine and others will go on about how 2 wrongs don't make it right, what happened to Amerindians is the lesser of the 2 wrongs.

Wars are bad. While Crusaders fought a right war agains Moslems, Crusaders were sometimes murderers as they killed Moslem children. Dinesh D'Souza who is Catholic doesn't believe the British and Portuguese need to apologize to him for India being colony of Great Britain and Goa being colony of Portuguese. As both have been independent since 1947 and 1961 he believes it's a moot point. While Catholicism was brought to Goa by Goa Inquisition, Dinesh D'Souza thinks that if the Catholics (he is Catholic) and Portuguese want to honor Vasco da Gama, then it should be their right though again, Goa became Portuguese after Da Gama won his wars against both Muslims and Hindus there and later Catholicized by Goa Inquisition where Hindus and Muslims either had to convert or leave if they didn't want to be treated as 2nd class citizens. But Dinesh D'Souza who is Catholic believes Goa's Catholics should have a right to have a church named St. Francis Xavier who recommended the Goa Inquisition. Mr. Dinesh D'Souza when it comes to American Indians believe the Amerindians got more by losing wars. Dinesh D'Souza can not accept scalpings, human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. practiced by Amerindians. Dinesh D'Souza doesn't agree with all that happened to Amerindians just as he doesn't defend slavery, but this was a different time in history and in the end as Dinesh D'Souza believes that what happened to the Amerindians was the lesser of 2 bads because had conquest not happened, scalpings, etc. would've happened much longer. That's my view as said.

 

So your information does not come from any history book but from some guy who is a former real estate investor who has authored and self-published books on real estate investing and you expect anyone to take you seriously? Here's his website.

 

There's historian the late Dr. Warren H. Carroll of Christendom college who wrote Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness. Yes, John T. Reed is a real estate developer but there's nothing wrong with that. My point is that right or wrong, what happened to the Amerindians is history. USA is a better place because
Amerindians lost the war. I knew about human sacrifices, scalpings, cannibalism and other things practiced long before I heard of John T. Reed in 2010. American Indians are better off today again because scalpings, human sacrifices, cannibalism, etc. was abolished. It was a violent time in history when might makes right was the way of the world. Yes, historians can have biases and Mrs. Linda P. Harvey of Mission America who is part Cherokee has critiqued politically correct views of American Indians when they were not noble savages but barbarian savages.

 

Of course there is something wrong with that, you are quoting the guy as if he is an historian,he is not..he is in real estate ffs. Warren H. Carroll is a Catholic historian so yet another joker you pull from your hat. Have you got any real historians? Or do you just make do with these jokers as they adhere to your assumptions? This is what is being said about Warren H Carroll. "He aroused controversy by his defence of the Inquisition and the practice of burning heretics at the stake. " The guy supports the Inquisition and burning people at the stake..Anyway if you are happy believing a nut and a real estate guy on the history of the Indians then so be it, I will rely on real history books by real historians.

 

Dr. Warren H. Carroll of Christendom College did not defend the Catholic Inquisition but explained why it happened from the time of the 15th Century and that it wasn't unusual compared to what happened in other nations. Dr. Warren H. Carroll is right about Aztec human sacrifices and other brutalities which happened in pre-Columbian Americas. You DeputyDawg see nothing wrong with Amerindians running around naked, scalping eachother and so on but most people don't want to live like that including most Amerindians. Historians can also have biases and I do not believe the # that there were 10s of millions of Amerindians living in the Americas-a more right # would be again 2 to 4 million. History Channel gave wrong information by saying that los conquistadores made up stories about human sacrifices and cannibalism to justify the conquests, but archaeological findings confirm human sacrifices and coprolites or fossilized faeces of American Indians conclude that cannibalism was common in the Americas. Yes, historians such as Warren H. Carroll has a Catholic bias, but there are historians who have an Amerindian bias. You can rely on history books by historians who are apologists for American Indians running around naked and scalping eachother but I'll rely on books by more neutral sources. & again, many people who are part American Indian including those I talk to agree with my observations.

 

Something else, SFJeff and Deputy Dawg ignore that American Indians have higher drug junky rates, drunkardism, street gangs and American Indians commit more child molestations and child abuse. No, most American Indians aren't child abusers, but incidence of child abuse and child molestation are committed @ higher rates by Amerindians. Guess Deputy Dawg thinks it's not serious.

 

I think I shall finish my participation in this thread by just saying asking anyone who reads this to:

Read books- real history books about America, the native population in America prior to European arrival, and what happened afterwards. 1491 and 1493 are good places to start but there are many others- I always encourage people to read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" for a fascinating view point on how things ended up the way they did. National Geographic had a great article about the settling of Jamestown sometime in the last year.

Frankly Fun's posts are so difficult to comprehend and so bizarre I just don't have the energy to respond to them anymore.

 

SFJeff, I read the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He talked about geographic advantages Europeans had but while his book's interesting and right on some points, did not find the #s of Amerindians living in the Americas to be as high as he put it. He also talked about kuru among Fore people in New Guinea caused by cannibalism. It'd be interesting to know how many Amerindians died of cannibalism. To repeat SFJeff, the Americas are better for all including the American Indians though bad things sometimes happened because of 1492 afterwards. Jared Diamond can say otherwise but understand that while reading Jared Diamond's several hundred page book Guns, Germs and Steel is interesting and right on some points,
it didn't convince me on all and my view is that what happened to the Amerindians is the lesser of 2 bads.

 

Most of the world is street gang warfare.

 

the queen wanted them converted to Christians, when that failed they were attacked

 

This topic has gone beyond reason. so- called african americans and native americans are being cursed by 1/8th cherokees!

 

As a 'subject' of the queen let me state as fact, We europeans stole land from the so-called native americans and pretty much most of the earth. We continue to export our filth (colonizers) because we have had enough of these parasites in britain. Sorry bout that folks

 

Yes, that's what most of world is. When American Indians did gang warfare and won their land, it's acceptable. But when American Indians lost their land in wars, then they complained about 'stolen land.' With slavery, sure that was wrong, but that was the world then and Africans kidnapped other Africans and sold them to Whites. But what matters is what happens today. If an American Indian is being discriminated against when it comes to housing, jobs and crimes (either as victim or perpetrator), then that is wrong and must be solved. But stop complaining about the 15th to 19th Centuries. Might makes right was the world then and it wasn't until 1900 that we decided it was wrong-though it still happens today but less tolerated. There's no need for the Spanish, Portuguese and English to apologize for winning in might makes right (I'm not European) because they did the same thing the Amerindians did but only they did a better job given they had horses, guns and many Amerindian allies. Focus on injustices happening today.

 

what happened in 1600 is very relevant. What is even more relevant is a culture of violence, torture and sadism that deems itself soooo relevant that it has to export itself to practically every government on earth. That is an egomaniac.

 

That "culture of violence, torture and sadism" is why it's on top. The ruthless always will rule over the weak kneed.

It isn't that culture's fault that other nations are weak kneed pansies incapable of doing anything but bowing before conquerers.

 

What about the Louisiana Purchase?

The French claimed ownership although they had largely not explored it...

... and sold it to the U.S. gov't.

It would be like your neighbor claiming to own your home...

... and then selling it to someone else...

... naturally you would fight to defend and keep ownership of your home...

... but since someone stronger than you comes along and takes it away from you...

... it automatically reverts to their possession.

And you would say that wasn't stolen...

... and if you fought against a stronger opponent to keep possession of it...

... you would be the one guilty of using violence?

 

Once a dispute is over, then not it's not relevant. Slavery was abolished in 1865 here in U.S. But in 2006, 141 years after it was abolished, there was the Duke rape hoax where several White men were falsely accused of raping a Black woman. The White prosecutor in that case had what Dinesh D'Souza called 'recovering Southerner Syndrome' in that the prosecutor disregarded proof of innocence but tried to prosecute them and has since been disbarred. 88 professors took the side of the woman w/o knowing the truth of case.
Crystal Gail Mangum the woman who made the false accusation has since been convicted of child abuse and is currently facing murder charge for killing boyfriend in quarrel. No, the Duke Hoax and her child abuse conviction aren't relevant and the killling case must be judged by the facts there and Crystal Gail Mangum says she killed in self-defense, but the main point is that people just took her side because she was Black in the Duke case w/o caring about the fact the men were innocent.

Dinesh D'Souza is against discrimination and Dinesh D'Souza believes in = rights for American Indians. But Dinesh D'Souza won't take side of American Indians just because they're American Indians. Dinesh D'Souza believes that American Indians are sore losers after they lost wars and he has criticized leftist historians like Kirkpatrick Sale and Howard Zinn who try to give noble savage view of American Indians when the American Indians used violence to get land, food, hunting grounds and were proud when they won it but became sore losers after they lost it. This has repeated but the world was a different place then. Incidentally as written by me on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while my view always has and will be that the atom bombs should've been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civlian deaths, they did end the war. The Japanese military did bombings on civilians when they wanted other side to surrender including germ warfare in China (Japanese had Bushido Samurai code) but in the end Japanese men, women and children were victims of bombings. Most Japanese including survivors when interviewed about Hiroshima and Nagasaki have said that they don't blame the U.S. for dropping the atom bombs because President Harry S. Truman did what he believed would end the war and they've said that had Japan would've used the atom bombs if Japan had them. War is bad and innocents who don't want part of the war often end up being the 1s killed such as the kids killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American Indians IMO should be honest and say that if during the 1500s the American Indians would've done the same thing if they had the weapons in conquering other parts of the world. American Indians again had no problem conquering others when they wanted something but complained after they lost. Again if you get something by force, then my view don't complain if some1 else takes that from you by force. No 2 wrongs don't make it right but sometimes 1 wrong is the lesser of 2 bads.