Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I respect American indians, I really do. They did suffer a lot.
But here is the deal. In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights.
So America belongs to the Americans. Border, language, and culture, there you have a country.
But the thing is prior to the 1930s or so losing territory or property to conflict was not considered wrongful. It's how everyone proceeded including Indians themselves. Now the British and the US did break treaties over land and you could make an argument there. But it's not like Indians haven't been given special tax breaks, benefits and rights for many decades now.
But the thing is prior to the 1930s or so losing territory or property to conflict was not considered wrongful. It's how everyone proceeded including Indians themselves. Now the British and the US did break treaties over land and you could make an argument there. But it's not like Indians haven't been given special tax breaks, benefits and rights for many decades now.
We took their land and killed them off,we broke treaties with them time after time but they should be happy with tax breaks ???
The illegal labor force is a goldmine for Big Agriculture and other businesses. It's worth billions in profit. The last president who seriously tried to stem illegal immigration was Eisenhower, and the governors of Texas, California, and Arizona handed him his head.
Neither party has put a dent in illegal immigration and neither party is going to. Whichever party is in office is going to pontificate, blame the other party, and leave it just as it is....they way both parties have been doing since Eisenhower. Very wealthy men are making too much money from it.
I know all that but Democrats want and pushed for mass immigration and amnesty much more strongly and for more sinister reasons than just for economics and pay offs. They want Democrat voters and want to replace and displace Americans particularly the longstanding majority white Americans founding stock. Ad hoc genetically and culturally replacing and displacing a nation's people is pretty sinister in my book.
We took their land and killed them off,we broke treaties with them time after time but they should be happy with tax breaks ???
Well give your property to an Amerindian and leave America or can the guilt tripping. The Amerindians took others' land and killed off other tribes too. That's the way the world operated for everyone prior to the 20th century. What's done is done. And the Anglos were and are much more generous to their 'enemy' than most people or their enemies have been to them.
My God ! Is Donald Trump channeling thru you or something " Your post has to be the most ignorant I have read in a long time.You accuse an entire political party of purposly bringing in Immagrints to wipe out as you say ..."Americans particularly the longstanding majority white Americans founding stock."This something so arrogant I would expect it from Trump himself.
It's got nothing to do with Trump. It goes back to the mid to early 1960s when liberals and their white imposition, scapegoating and ethnic and socio-political replacement and displacement schemes made a foothold.
But the thing is prior to the 1930s or so losing territory or property to conflict was not considered wrongful. It's how everyone proceeded including Indians themselves. Now the British and the US did break treaties over land and you could make an argument there. But it's not like Indians haven't been given special tax breaks, benefits and rights for many decades now.
Not only that but the descendants of the tribes that settled within our borders are all full fledged U.S. citizens so I don't know why there are any gripes among them. The ones complaining are Mexicans whose tribal ancestors didn't even settle within our borders. They think that if your part American Indian you own the whole continent.
We took their land and killed them off,we broke treaties with them time after time but they should be happy with tax breaks ???
Who the hell is "we"? Those people are all dead now. Even if some treaties weren't honored American Indians are all full fledged U.S. citizens with all the benefits of any other citizens. Stop crying over the past for God's sake!
Not only that but the descendants of the tribes that settled within our borders are all full fledged U.S. citizens so I don't know why there are any gripes among them. The ones complaining are Mexicans whose tribal ancestors didn't even settle within our borders. They think that if your part American Indian you own the whole continent.
Yes and also Indians are given more sovereignty on their tribal land than any other group. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have anything against Indians whatsoever. It's liberals doing what they always do digging up and revising things even in the past to create division.
And I know what you mean about the La Raza latin American types. They can be the most hostile and delusional of all. They have no claim or rights to America and their colonizing 1 and 1/3 continent is enough. They think they should make it 2 continents and do it illegally in the 20th-21st century.
Go find some native Americans and try that BS with them becuase it doesn't fly with me.
I think this subject can be discussed with a more civilized manner.
Like I said earlier, I have tremendous respect towards American Indians, I really do. But i think "stealing" is a wrong choice of word. (in no way, am I suggesting you used the word)
I think the whole framework of historical rights to land is a dead end. What is important is looking forward not looking back. Around the world today you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of disputed territories, many of which te nothing to do with Western-Europeans and Native Americans.
If somebody asked a question, should America give the country to native Americans aka American Indians, I would say No more so than any migratory tribe that conquered an indigenous people and then occupied the land, and/or claimed sovereignty over it.
Also, who owns america, the question presumes a moral context that did not exist prior to 1945. Up until that date, nations engaged in conquest constrained only by their capacity to do so successfully amongst the other nations and the "native" tribes of the Americas were no different in their prominence.
Did the US "steal" land from native tribes? i would say The land was conquered. It was conquered in a time where conquest was the global norm. Conquest is no longer a global norm now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
