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.
You haven’t proven bullish... You come up with a cockamamie ceremony called potlatch where irrational savages postured and posed and exchanged personal property with expectations of reciprocation. This was basically a form of bribery, an attempt to curry favor and trade in phony status, or even as a means to trick each other and steal wealth through imputed largesse.
The Indians were dominated and destroyed through conquest. A practice that they cheerfully and frequently carried out on each other when they weren’t engaging in silly potlatches for purposes of tribal status seeking or even vengeance.
You’re not going to come on here with the phony politically correct “First Nations” line of revisionist crap. The Indians were Asian invaders, they were not first, they were not native, they were just the visitors before the ones that proceeded them. And there were no private property rights. Hell there was no private property. They were primarily agrarian gypsies. And they slaughtered and murdered and maimed each other with same ferocity and killing zeal exhibited by the Europeans who exercised conquest in the exact same way save for more advanced weaponry and killing talent. European domination and conquest over North America was natural, correct for the time, and improved the lives of the savages encountered once they gave up and gave in to the superior civilization. Most other conquerors would have simply annihlated the primitives they encountered. But Europeans were already into enlightenment, and tried to offer treaties, not because they owed them to the savages in any way, but because of their own enlightened morality. Even offering the stupid folly of reservations so that the primitives could continue hating their conquerors to this day instead of assimilating and gaining the benefits of the more advanced people.
And don’t go into this religious BS. This is all about Man, and not at all about God. The Europeans were superior in every way to the savages they subjugated throughout the world. They improved their lives by hastening the destruction of ridiculous primitive customs whose origins and execution lied in primitive dark mysticism.
The Europeans brought light to a world of primitive darkness. They did it violently because that’s how the world worked in those days. It was correct for the time and zero zilch nada is due in the way of an apology. And zero, zilch, nada is due to modern day Americans of Indian descent as a result of correct behavior in different times. So I really don’t want to hear any more of this “me and my fiance” pious, sanctimonious, crapola. Humanitarian, humanischmarian. You want to be a humanitarian? Support strong inviolable borders and recognize that ORGANIZED INVASIONS whose plans were published in all the newspapers are not a form of asylum seeking. Like the Indians who we could just have easily destroyed, we are once again trying to be nice, and getting taken advantage of by social vampires who want to take what they cannot earn. Using our own laws against us and trying to invade our country by simply walking in.
All treaties, international agreements, and anything signed as part of a United Nations capitulation, relating to our protection of our sovereign borders, should be summarily torn up. I don’t recognize any foreign country as having any legitimacy at all in determining how we handle our borders. It is our concern, and we should do what is in the best interests of our country, not the best interests of people trying to forcibly and violently invade it.
Most would consider all those things listed as becoming more civilized.
Some without a heart would disagree.
Are you uncivilized for not inviting them into your home. Paying for their food, shelter, transportation and communication needs, etc? It’s the same thing on a smaller scale. Where do you draw your line? How many immigrants or illegal aliens should we have to pay for? Do you have a number? Is it unlimited? Does your compassion stop when we have enough To cause your own taxes to skyrocket?
Obviously, your limit is well beyond mine, but Im wondering where your limit lies, if you even have one at all?
And if you do have a limit, what makes your limit more rational than mine?
Oh so it wasn't against the law to kill, rape, and steal back then? Interesting!
Geez, talk about putting a spin on someone's post this is a prime example of it. No one is advocating for violence at any time but the discussion was about the fact that there was no land ownership back then nor any immigration laws and the Amerindians were not native to this country/continent. They migrated here just as the Europeans did. Get a grip! Sick of people using the so-called native American argument to justify illegal immigration into our country today.
It's not people like me that support a 'leader' who calls groups of people animals, or paints an entire group of people as criminals, or purposely separates families. We've seen that story before in the past century. It didn't work out very well.
Oh puhlease stop with the faux outrage over statements that were never made except in the liberal left hive mind.
MS13 ARE animals and people who ILLEGALLY cross into the U.S. ARE criminals.
Do you always jump to conclusions so irrationally?
More people of Mexican origin are leaving the USA than coming in for years now. You knew that, right?
That really doesn’t concern me. As long as every single one of them that does come applies legally, they are all welcome to come. I am for a fairly open immigration policy, but not an open border. If the entire population of Mexico wants to learn English, agree not to receive any welfare, and declare loyalty to individual rights, freedom, and capitalism, they can all come to my country and seek a better life. In fact, they can then dissolve their nasty statist-collectivist government and just become our 51st state. I’m fine with that.
Given yesterday’s vote to self-destruct and advance toward 3rd world Venezuelism, I have no faith in the Mexican population and would favor continuing to build a physical barrier between our two countries. We have an absolute right to determine the quality, composition, and intent of people entering our country.
That really doesn’t concern me. As long as every single one of them that does come applies legally, they are all welcome to come. I am for a fairly open immigration policy, but not an open border. If the entire population of Mexico wants to learn English, agree not to receive any welfare, and declare loyalty to individual rights, freedom, and capitalism, they can all come to my country and seek a better life. In fact, they can then dissolve their nasty statist-collectivist government and just become our 51st state. I’m fine with that.
Given yesterday’s vote to self-destruct and advance toward 3rd world Venezuelism, I have no faith in the Mexican population and would favor continuing to build a physical barrier between our two countries. We have an absolute right to determine the quality, composition, and intent of people entering our country.
Well, this post I totally disagree with you. Why in the world would we import the entire Mexican citizenry into our country just because they could do it legally? It certainly wouldn't be a better life for our own citizens. We don't have the jobs, natural and social resources for that and would obliterate our identifying culture and language and increase our population growth immensely.
Why just Mexicans anyway? There are far more impoverished people across the world than they are.
But the genocide conducted on the First Nations people was just hunky dory A-OK, right?
Conquest of primitive savages was the accepted mode of expansion at the time. And the Indians, not the SJW-approved PC term First Nations, which is a self-negating lie of a term, also engaged in inter-tribal genocide. Conquest by wiping out whoever was in your way, at the time, was moral, rational, and correct. Those morals have changed, and while the United States could quickly conquer the entire continent of South America or Africa, we no longer engage in territorial occupation and conquest. You do not filter historical events through systems of morality that did not apply at the time. So even the use of the term genocide is not applicable, though it appeals to your irrational emotional agenda. I get that. And even if we want to be intellectually sloppy and drop context intentionally, which you do, genocide wouldn’t apply since we didn’t kill all the Indians. We instead made treaties with them and allowed them to set up mini-banana republics, while living under our protection from foreign aggression, not only for free, but giving them all manner of social handouts. Not consistent with the meaning of the word genocide, which you leftists love to throw around. In any case, conquest in the historical interpretation, is not genocide. Different concept.
No one is denying that many First Nations had wars on their neighbors. The point is, that the descendants of the hordes of new comers are now whining about other people and groups who want to be new comers, or often, safety.
And like I said, how did that turn out for the First Nations? We need to be a smarter civilization that avoids the same outcome of allowing another people to flood into the country until they have the numbers and power to overwhelm you.
Keep bringing up the Indians. It's the single best example of why we need to limit immigration and ENFORCE THE LAW!
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.
No one is advocating for violence at any time but the discussion was about the fact that there was no land ownership back then nor any immigration laws and the Amerindians were not native to this country/continent. They migrated here just as the Europeans did. Get a grip! Sick of people using the so-called native American argument to justify illegal immigration into our country today.
