Should we give back the land to the Native Americans?

[Annex]

Ok, so forget about the "these people stole land from that people" thing.

Just look at it this way: Don't you think its a crying shame for an entire race of people that once made up a significant continent to go down to (I think) under one percent?

Its just a shame that an entire race of people should have to be wiped out like that.
And if everyone moved back to where they came from in America, it would help reverse the damages. This way the native language culture traditions etc could survive better.

Are you joking? This is the internet, so I cant quite be sure...

 

[Miles Teg]

Yes, the human race started in Africa I think everybody knows that by now...

But how about this: the ancestors you had from 1000 years ago. Where they in Africa?

I have a whole set of relatives who will swear up and down that the human race started in Mesopotamia about six thousand years ago...

 

[.Shane.]

Just look at it this way: Don't you think its a crying shame for an entire race of people that once made up a significant continent to go down to (I think) under one percent?

The overwhelming loss of life was not genocide.

History is riddled with things that were "just a shame". You cannot, nor should you, try to correct or compensate for all of those.

PS you still have your ironic signature.

This way the native language culture traditions etc could survive better.

I am not a sentimentalist. If old languages or traditions or cultures die, so be it. That is the way of progress. You want 1000s of dead languages and people living in huts or do you want the internet, cures for cancer, etc... ?

You know how western european countries have higher life expectancies than America?
Perhaps the fact that the majority of people living in western europe "come" from western europe and the majority of the people living in america do not "come" from america? Could that really be it?

No. What you've written here is pure folly.

 

[Winner]

Yes, we must return to Europe.

Oh Gods, no!

 

[Hygro]

Your ancestor's may have committed genocide against the Amerindians, but my ancestors came over from Russian pogroms in the 1910s.

but you and your ancestors benefit from the spoils. Your excuse is null.

 

[RedRalph]

To give it back to them is totally impractical, any more than it would be to tell Northern Prods to go back to Scotland. It's your home as much as it is theirs now, but just try and remember that when dealing with illegal immigrants, yer ancestors all got there in a far, far worse manner than illegals do today.

 

[Phlegmak]

Should we give back the land to the Native Americans?

After reading the first page of the thread: No.

 

[holy king]

there's no piece of land that somebody's ancestors havent stolen from somebody's ancestors.

 

[general_kill]

Depends. Will the indians give back the lands they "stole" from other tribes?

I mean, surely the OP does not think that the indians were a bunch of hippies living in peace with mother nature and having group hug sessions. Surely the OP understands that for the indians, just like for virtually every human group in the planet, fighting over land was pretty common. Some days you win, some days you lose.

Personally I don't feel inclined to give anything back. In fact, I don't feel inclined to apologise nor to grant any sort of special priviledges to any "wronged" group of people.

Yep I realize it. No need for the passive aggressiveness.

 

[Patroklos]

It's pretty uncomfortable for me to live in a country whose government "stole" the land and committed one of the biggest genocides in history.

You need to qualify this statement.

 

[Hygro]

yes, I'm with Patroklos. Describe your discomfort. I speak for both Patroklos and me when I say we don't believe you're all that uncomfortable with the theft and genocide.

 

[Shadylookin]

It's all in the past. Perhaps it would be hypocritical if you personally engaged in genocide or if the US was still controlled by George Washington's administration.

 

[Patroklos]

I was actually more interested in his claim of "one of the biggest genocides in history," which by any sane estimation is patently false, but I wouldn't mind hearing his rationalization.

 

[general_kill]

yes, I'm with Patroklos. Describe your discomfort. I speak for both Patroklos and me when I say we don't believe you're all that uncomfortable with the theft and genocide.

You speak for Patroklos when you say I am not uncomfortable with theft and genocide? Are you his mother?

 

[Godwynn]

Unpractical.

I don't think it is. We can easily transport all white people back to Europe. We are building a high speed rail, no? Just build a big train station in Paris, London, Rome, and Berlin and we'll be cruising along at 250 km/h back to the homeland.

 

[general_kill]

I was actually more interested in his claim of "one of the biggest genocides in history," which by any sane estimation is patently false, but I wouldn't mind hearing his rationalization.

From the history news network:

Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record."

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

I think the estimates will vary quite a lot. I've heard estimates of pre-Columbus population in both Americas range between just a few million to tens of millions.

I don't think it is. We can easily transport all white people back to Europe. We are building a high speed rail, no? Just build a big train station in Paris, London, Rome, and Berlin and we'll be cruising along at 250 km/h back to the homeland.

I think we should finish up on the space elevator and just knock it over so it takes us across the Atlantic.

Btw, the question in the title is not suppose to be taken literally. It's a rhetorical question meant to spark interest and establish a premise for the OP discussion. I'm sorry I did not make this clearer.

 

[Godwynn]

From the history news network:



http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

I think the estimates will vary quite a lot. I've heard estimates of pre-Columbus population in both Americas range between just a few million to tens of millions.

I've read it was 60,000,000.

 

[holy king]

I don't think it is. We can easily transport all white people back to Europe. We are building a high speed rail, no? Just build a big train station in Paris, London, Rome, and Berlin and we'll be cruising along at 250 km/h back to the homeland.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That isn't strictly true, they would have kept to traditional forage grounds, like most hunter-gatherers. It isn't land ownership in the European or otherwise sense of the word but it is land ownership in a more primeval understanding of the concept.

It is even far worse than that. Take the Lakota, for instance. In 1868, they were 'given' what was already their own land in the Black Hills of South Dakota as part of their assigned reservation. Then gold was found on the land in the 1870s. When they refused to sell their sacred tribal lands for a pittance of what it was actually worth, they were systematically wiped out through starvation and genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_massacre

 

[Patroklos]

From the history news network:

I am going to pretend you did not just try and use Ward Churchill as a source so that we can still have a serious discussion

Some thoughts.

1.) The United States never had an cotrol over the vast majoirty of North America. Claiming we as Americans should be at all culpable for the depopulation of Mexico (the majority of the Indian population present in North America residing there) or Canada is unsupportable. We can argue about the natives of the 13 colonies under British rule being our responsibility, for sake of arguement I will say they are. Obviously we are responisbly for any native populations directly ruled by the US once and after it was founded.

So, if we use the number of 15,000,000 in 1500, it is highly doubtful that the population ever under the administration of the US in any capacity (including legacy control via our British history) is probably less than a million. Assuming we killed every last one of them that still doesn't qualify your statement.

2.) The vast majority of native deaths (upwards of 95%) were the direct result of disease. This was unavoidable whether we came as conquerers or as benign traders. This does not constitute genocide. This wave of disease actually depopulated areas not even visited by Europeans yet.

3.) You should take note that throughout the decline of the native cultures they did not once stop constantly fighting each other (like they always had done before Europeans arrived), and those wars were quite devestating in their own right.

So again, please qualify your statement of "one of the biggest genocides in history."