Should we give back the land to the Native Americans?
- Thread starter general_kill
- Start date
Narz
keeping it real
ok, fine, one that compares aboriginal people to animals.
It's a valid ancient analogy, though in the case of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal, the struggle took place over many centuries or much longer maybe?
Not that one is more human than the other. Just that one defeated the other. Each of them, and us, equally human. We come in varieties.
Not that one is more human than the other. Just that one defeated the other. Each of them, and us, equally human. We come in varieties.
Narz
keeping it real
But you said yourself if neandrathals existed today it wouldn't be right to wipe them out so why act like it was morally justifiable then?
Does that justify genocide?
We've destroied something like 99% of old growth forests in the US. And most water is unfit to drink, much even unfit to swim in. Is that progress?
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
I think what was ironic about American history with aboriginals was that it was, in the beginning, a series of accidents.
1) Smallpox.
2) Some white guy kills a brown baby, aboriginals retaliate, etc, until French/Indian War and Proc of 1763
3) Colonists pissed because they can't go past Appalachians to be butchered by natives
4) Independence, and George attempts to deal fairly with Indians. Complete and epic fail (see: Creek Indians)
5) Westward expansion. We're screwed until Battle of Fallen Timbers. Subsequent defeat of Tecumseh and Prophet give us the moral swagger and authority to deal with natives as we see fit.
I mean, the turning point was (IMO) Fallen Timbers, when we could defeat the natives on their own terms. After that, they became a nuisance, and we dealt with them with a heavy hand (Cherokee removals, Trail of Tears).
1) Smallpox.
2) Some white guy kills a brown baby, aboriginals retaliate, etc, until French/Indian War and Proc of 1763
3) Colonists pissed because they can't go past Appalachians to be butchered by natives
4) Independence, and George attempts to deal fairly with Indians. Complete and epic fail (see: Creek Indians)
5) Westward expansion. We're screwed until Battle of Fallen Timbers. Subsequent defeat of Tecumseh and Prophet give us the moral swagger and authority to deal with natives as we see fit.
I mean, the turning point was (IMO) Fallen Timbers, when we could defeat the natives on their own terms. After that, they became a nuisance, and we dealt with them with a heavy hand (Cherokee removals, Trail of Tears).
An ancestor of mine, Ben [Dachs' last name], served in King Philip's War. Where does that fit in?
Narz
keeping it real
Ok. Cheers then.
edit : for lay-lay
edit : for lay-lay
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
This. Taking the "stolen land" concept to its logical conclusion results in an impossibility.
But it also embodies the ridiculous idea that the first person to use land has some special moral right to it. Nonsense. No one creates land (conservation of mass/energy, doncha know?) If you plant some seeds, and grow some tomatoes, then it stands to reason that you own the tomatoes, since they wouldn't exist without you. But the land? Get over yourself. Of course, if (and only if) there is plenty of equally good land nearby, the next farmer should work that land rather than the land you've been using, just to avoid inconveniencing you. But in the real world, that almost never applies.
Property in land, as we know it, has always been based on force and violence. Those who last successfully used violence, or their descendants, right now continue to extort from the rest. If you live on an unattractive bit of land, the amount extracted from you in this way is small. But if you live on a prime spot, like the middle of a large city, most of your rent probably traces directly to the value of the land, not the value of the improvements thereon.
Unfortunately, there is no prospect of changing this in our lifetimes. But the point is, making American Indians the new landlords would not be the solution.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
It's logical conclusion is, to the first hominids to ever have wandered the Pangea. Their descendants? That DNA, that bloodline. Find it's match in today's society, and make them the landlords in the entire world.
Must...resist..urge...to... correct...bad...geology...
Uh...no. I don't think so.
It seems that to take the position of the Indians, you must believe that their bloodline did not conquer the Americas, but instead found it unoccupied and so they roamed and sometimes settled. Never in their history did they usurp the country of another hominid in the Americas. I'm not super sure about it.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Well presumably some of them did. And some of these pioneers got the choice land, multiplied quickly, and killed or ousted the lesser tribes. And it all went downhill from there.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
1. Do 2 wrongs make a right?
2. You do realize that when proto-native-americans reached the continent, it was free of humans?
There are plenty of nations which have invaded a region and that is now considered part of its core territories. Should we force Turkey to give up Constantinople while we are at it? I hope nobody else used that example in previous few pages, I haven't read every response.
Long story short: I'm in the no category.
Long story short: I'm in the no category.
neutrino
Warlord
I think going through a 'guilt trip' is worse than staying aloof. Your supposed 'victim' will not give a damn about sympathy from your part. Furthermore, he will nurture more resentment towards you and no amount of compensation will soothe that.
Similar threads
