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 agree. Just keep it simple already and use the term we been using forever seems like. If they are not having a problem with it, and not in streets protesting for change.
They would be a native to the country they were born in. There aren't citizens of continents. American is the common term for a U.S. citizen but then you knew that.
Strange. Folks from Asia are called "Asians," folks from Europe are called "Europeans," folks from Africa are called "Africans," and folks from Australia are called "Australians."
Except the term "Asia" didn't exist 20,000 years ago when they migrated otherwise you would have a point.
Also, I think coming here 20,000 years ago versus 600 years ago for Europeans.....hmmm...just a slight difference
No difference. No property rights. No residency. Squatting and agrarian wandering do not create property rights. Property rights are created by advanced civilizations using explicit philosophies. Therefore, at the time, no rights, no claims, nothing owed. Indians recognized no property rights amongst themselves, regularly murdering each other to take things out of primitive need. Therefore we do not impute advanced future Western moralities just because they want to deliver a case of sour grapes. AND GET PAID FOR IT - THE REAL GOAL. Conquest was consuetudo de rigeur, and Western powers were more advanced, more civilized, more organized, more intelligent, more powerful, and simply took what they wanted. We don't act that way any more, but we did then, and present morality is not trans-chronological.
Judgment for European settlers, but they were nice enough to allow reservations instead of just killing everyone, which would have been the standard approach. It could be argued they should be thanked.
What language do you speak natively?
Is it English?
Where is English from?
What language do American Indians speak?
(at least before the Europeans exterminated them).
Where is that language from?
Q: Are Amerindian languages related to Mongolian or other Asian languages?
A: No. Many people think American Indians are descended from Mongolian people. This may be true, but if it is, they left Asia more than 20,000 years ago, which is much too long a time period for linguistic preservation to occur. None of the Amerindian languages bear any linguistic resemblance to Asian languages.
Not true in all cases. The Athabaskan languages (in Alaska, NW Canada, and the Southwest (Navajo, Apache) plus a couple of tribes in northern California), are related to the Yeniseian language family of Central Siberia, the only remaining example of which is Ket. There are also some vocabulary similarities between Inuit (Eskimo) and Yukaghir, the easternmost of the Samoyedic/Uralic languages, but linguists haven't investigated to see if there's a legitimate connection there. However, a genetic connection between the Yukaghir and the Inuit shows up in DNA studies.
Nonsense. The land was there for the taking, and the settlers did not have to obey their home countries who had no jurisdiction over the untamed and unclaimed lands of the Americas. And the Indians destroyed each other and took what they needed from each other using violent force, which was the norm for the time. The Indians were primitive agrarian wanderers for the most part and did not recognize private property amongst themselves, much less outsiders.
So your argument is all wet, revisionist, inaccurate, and invalid.The Indians had no claims then, and today's Indians have no claims now. And that's reality, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to stay.
In the mean time, all reservations should be dissolved, because they marginalize and squander the lives of their residents with vestigial mysticism and irrational attachment to a lifestyle that cannot offer a modern happy life.
We see that in the constant misery and whining and complaining and crime and poverty and intertribal squabbling and unemployment. Reservations are a bad business and a bad lifestyle. Indians should be absorbed into conventional American society, and most of the young and smart ones have done just that on their own.
There is no longer a need for this anachronistic and preposterous concept. It serves no one's better interests.
In the case of Spain and Portugal, the settlers didn't abide by their sponsoring governments' agreement with other nations, but the British, French and Dutch did. This is not an "argument" or theory, this is legal history, as taught in law schools across the country, and in history of Indian affairs courses in colleges. It's historical fact, not a matter of opinion.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 12-23-2016 at 07:29 PM..
New Mexico has quite a few families that have been there since the 1600's; it's certainly possible. They came directly from Spain, so yes, they're immigrant familes; descended from European immigrants.
Strange. Folks from Asia are called "Asians," folks from Europe are called "Europeans," Africans from Africa are called "Africans," and folks from Australia are called "Australians."
It's different here. People are referred to by the country they hold citizenship in. No one refers to them by the continent they reside on. I repeat American is the common word for a U.S. citizen only. Mexicans for example would not be referred to as Americans here or abroad.
Germans, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, etc. refer to themselves by their nationalities also.
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.