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

I do know about the 2 World Wars, Korean War and Vietnam war though last 2 aren't European. Lived in Espana from 1981-84 when 11 to 14 years old and visited Espana and Portugal in October 2012 for 1st time in 28.5 years. European history isn't perfect especially when you consider dictators Hitler, Stalin and in Asia there was Mao, Tojo (Japan WW2) and Korea (Kim il Sung, Jong il). But what I know is that Europeans while not perfect is better than Injuns running around naked and American Indians got more because of them. Also have family who live in U.K. and have been to U.K. 7 times. European culture as Patrick J. Buchanan said is not perfect but Catholicism is better than American Indians running around naked and human sacrifices. Also Jonah, there are Jews who agree with Patrick J. Buchanan. I'm not Jewish and not Catholic either but know that Patrick J. Buchanan is right much of time when it comes to ethnic topics.

 

seems like he is not the one ignoring the history that showed Indians were just as bad, if not worse, than the Europeans were to them.

 

So you have no problem with the reconquista given that the land was taken from the so- called Indians using genocide, rape and torture?

 

Good to see we all agree that the so- called Indians would be applauded for wiping out european rule in America.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^

this

is comedy gold

and unworthy of any kind of discussion.

 

lets not get into the multi million $ catholic abuse trials ongoing for the last century. I really don't want to discuss such perverse behavior, maybe you do but please, lets drop that.

 

war sucks.... I can't help it indians lost the last one and now feel owed something they refused to give the previous losers of war.


EVERY.PEOPLES.ON.EARTH. can trace back to a time where their ancestors were killed, raped, or had land stolen from them at some point during history of the Earth. So I'm going to limit my sympathy given to peoples who are CURRENTLY going through it now. Or at the latest, peoples who are still living that may have ACTUALLY went through said autracities.

Giving some random Geronimo a multi-million dollar payout because of something that happened 100 years before he was born is asinine.

 

Jonah, most Catholic priests aren't homosexuals who homolest young boys. Media writes about cases where Catholic priests do this because it's odd and strange-news is about odd strange things. But columnist Patrick J. Buchanan who has been to Europe, China and Africa has said that the Catholics have done many things to help American Indians. There was no planned genocide against American Indians-that's Injun propaganda but then again, you not critical with American Indians running around naked, raiding other Indian tribes and killing for territory. When Amerindians wanted land, they raided other Amerindian tribe lands and killed for territory. Also Jonah when you look @ Iberoamerica today, the Creoles (Europeans) are the most successful and have lower crime rates. Majority Mestizos (European mixed with Amerindian) are average but the Amerindians commit more crimes such as drug trafficking violence and child abuse. No, most American Indians don't commit child abuse but they have higher rates of this and drug dealing. Again, you know I'm not European or Catholic but I know Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan and Dinesh D'Souza are right.

 

It's possible that there were others who lived in Puerto Rico, Jamaica before the Arawaks or Tainos & Canibs or Caribs were there. We know the history from 1492 onwards in that both the Tainos and Caribs were fighting eachother for land, but we don't know what the history was before 1492, as we don't know who was there in 1482, 1472 & so on. We don't know how long the Caribs and Tanos were there, how much of the land was originally theirs and whether there were other tribes living there before who were killed or expelled. It's possible that in let's say 1462, there were other Natives living there before the Caribs and Tainos drove them out either by war or threat of war & that after that the territory fighting left was between the Caribs and Tainos. What it means is that if there was a tribe of 200 people, the larger Taino tribe could threaten the smaller tribe with war, that tribe leaves and dies because they didn't find enough food, etc.

As neither the Tainos nor Canibs had written language, this wasn't recorded in their history, if this happened. So it's possible others could've been living there before the Tainos (Arawaks) and Canibs (Caribs) were there, before they were killed or expelled by both Tainos and Caribs and that after that the fighting was left between the Arawaks (Tainos) & Canibs (Caribs). If this is true, then the Tainos and Canibs would not be the original inhabitants, the original inhabitants would be those who were there before them. It's more complicated and there are things that aren't known.

 

I thought you were a Jew?

 

your back yard is uninhabited. can I set up a tent??

 

I'd suggest anyone who has a serious interest in this topic pick up Charles Mann's tome 1492 and the follow up 1493. Then turn a high pressure hose on this thread and clean the muck out

 

Wizard From Oz, there's alot of poltical correctness & historians can sometimes be biased & wrong. I didn't read Charles C. Mann's book but doing Internet Search on Amazon, here's a copy & paste which I've bolded from some1 who read Charles C. Mann's book & thought his book is wrong. Here's that reader's review:

'All I read are history books, and I have read hundreds. I wish I hadnt read this.No doubt the author is a smart and talented man. He clearly knows his native American history. Too bad he cant just stick to that, which is what I was hoping for when I grabbed this book. The author has an annoying habit of attempting to minimize or gloss over the more disturbing aspects of certain American Indian history, areas he feels may offend our modern sensabilities. I want history, good and bad, warts and all, not apologist liberal propaganda.

He leaves certain information out, and what he does not leave out, he draws an equivilent example of action or behavior from a European example, so much so that a good 40% of the book ends up being European history, which is what I didnt want or expect.

For example, and this is quite typical, he speaks of the Aztec capital ( present day Mexico city ) and is "forced" to mention, I suppose, the daily blood sacrifices by the Aztec priests, and how by most accounts it was estimated that 3 to 4 thousand people a year were killed. He does not mention that these people were men, women and children of lesser tribes, nor does he mention the gore that the whole temple was constantly bathed in at all times, and that there were other areas in the city that also had daily blood sacrifices, also dripping with organs and blood. Instead, he, as per usual, insinuates that the city was clean, and the water that surrounded the island was clean ( maybe but not likely, with over 200,000 people living in and around it ) and at the same time in Europe "people were foot deep in raw sewage", and if you are "horrified by 3000 or 4000 thousand people a year sacrified, just remember that in England they hung 75000 in 1 year". On and on, anything ugly some indigenous Indian tribe or civilization did, he has to cite a European equivilent. After a while it gets tiring. Ok we get it, you are a liberal a hole, and Indians of the Americas are better than everyone else. Conspicuously absent are any comparable Asian or African examples of atrocity, only European. He also suggests that European disease killed hundreds of millions in the Americas, which for obvious reasons, is not likely, as there are few acedemics who would even suggest that the population of the Americas in 1491 was above or even close to 300 million.

He also doesnt explain how the disease he blames Europeans for spreading ( and please I am not suggesting it didnt happen, that would be foolish and a lie, OF COURSE IT DID ) up to 1491 didnt get spread by 7th, 8th and 9th century Irish and Norse visitors, only post Columbus visitors. Hows that ? Oh well who cares at this point with this book, he is all over the place... Bottom line, if you want to read a liberal lunatic getting his rocks off and pay almost $20 bucks - then by all means by this crap. 'Gabriel1, saying that all the Americas belonged to an American Indian tribe is the same as saying all of Asia belongs to China because Chinese are Asians. Land which would belong to Cherokee would be where they originally lived, hunted. But to say the Cherokees own the entire is wrong. But if the & rest of Americas would not be as advanced as it is today if things had continued to be American Indian. American Indians usually were not advanced, they did on the ground and things such as electricity & other advances wouldn't have happened if things went American Indian way.

 

The reviewer clearly did not get Mann's point or what the book is about. It is not about the noble savage or how much better the indigenous Indians were than Europeans. He looks at why Europeans were able to take over the country the way they did. He examines why so little of the land was used as opposed to claimed by the Indians. Mann examines the evidence of the population size of the two America's and compares that to what Europeans found.

Basically disease had shattered the Indian Nations of North and South America. And he examines this from an anthropological point, not a blame game. How to try and rebuild a society while dealing with new players in the games such as the Spanish etc.

 

I love how Funinsnow hasn't read the book but wants to argue about its historical accuracy.

I have read 1492 and it is very thought provoking. Like any history, it should be considered informative but not the last word on any subject.

Anyone who is actually interested in the subject should give 1492 a read.

 

Well I did like his consideration that European settlement occurred during a huge resource vacuum. Areas previously supporting 10,000 people were only supporting 500. The amount of land left untouched is going to be huge. Not unlike what we saw in Europe during the plague. It changed our landscape, it is not unreasonable to assume the same happened in the Americas

 

http://debunkingthemyths.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/no-the-puritans-didnt-steal-indian-lands/

http://thetruthcanhurt.com/TheAmericanIndian.htm

25% of Native Americans have European DNA-there were 30,000 Solutreans who came from Europe to the Americas during the Ice Age. Some American Indian art has pictures of people with blonde hair blue eyes. In Aztec art, 1 God Quetzalcoatl has a full grown beard and when Hernan Cortez conquered, he was thought as a God who would return from the east. As American Indians did not grow beards, it can be concluded that Aztecs had contact with Solutreans. The Solutreans are believed to have gone extinct either by wars or they mixed.


But with the reservations, the American Indians get the best of both in the USA. American Indians don't have to pay property taxes, get casino profits and free medical care on reservations-which is fine with me. They can live either on reservations (according to their tribe) or they can live anywhere they want to in the USA. American Indians have cars, electricity, and they can become lawyers, engineers, etc. American Indians have advantages.