You Decide

Yurt said:
hmmmm....problem i see is:

1. who were here before the indians

2. if their right to land is superior, then that right is based on "first in time, first in right"....which is old english common law....problem for the indians is...they never recorded....

3. never recorded...oh.....ok....so they sold it...some of it....yes, they did

4. other land they lost in war....i don't see a problem with this as the indian tribes themselves fought and lost land because of war....if the tribes are going to claim land based on war, then they have lost

5. so, first in time, first in right.....ah...that is not an indian law

my two pennies on what will be a never ending discussion :)
Click to expand...
Indians didn't believe in ownership of the land in the same way as the invading forces.
 
charver said:
We were positively beastly.

And then, very much in the mould of Dr Frankensteins, we had the indignity of seeing our proud creation break free and wreak havoc on the world around us. :(
Click to expand...
We grew up following in your shadow!
 
uscitizen said:
True they were pretty much true communists.
Click to expand...

orly_clinton.jpg
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I'm with Asshat on this one. your ignorance is astounding.
Click to expand...

Umm I think you have this backwards. Your ignorance is showing.

Tribes would establish areas, but individuals owned only what they could carry.

Cherokees changed to white mans ways after the white man came , but before that and with other tribes I am correct.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm I think you have this backwards. Your ignorance is showing.

Tribes would establish areas, but individuals owned only what they could carry.

Cherokees changed to white mans ways after the white man came , but before that and with other tribes I am correct.
Click to expand...


Oh, so the tribes did have areas. Well then, i guess that makes you wrong as shit.
 
Long before the first European settlers came to America, Indians had developed an advanced economy. Indian tribes traded extensively with each other, and many had some form of money. None, however, had any institution like the "land title" of the Europeans. They had no tradition of "alienating", or relinquishing all rights, to land. Many thought that this showed Indian social development to be more primitive that that of the Europeans. But the Native Americans had developed sophisticated legal systems that incorporated treaties, elaborated rights and specified ways to resolve disputes.

A great many treasures of art and oral literature have been passed down from prehistory. Indian cultures and religions were enmeshed with nature, for they felt themselves entwined with the universe. Mother Earth and Father Sky were more than mere expressions; they represented the Indians' very being. Land, a part of the universe, belonged to all, particularly the tribe. Individual land ownership did not exist, since all were entitled to the fruits of nature. Users' rights were protected and specified in various traditions, but there was no such things as land "ownership". Generally, individuals could clear as much land as needed for farming; this land would remain in a family's possession as long as they continued to use it. Once it was abandoned, anyone else could cultivate it.

Indians readily understood and entered into treaties concerning rights to land use, but the idea of land sales was alien to them—and it is likely that, because of difficulties in translation of each others' languages, neither the natives nor the settlers understood this vital difference, at first.

http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm

You guys are pwned big time.

First hit on google
 
uscitizen said:
Long before the first European settlers came to America, Indians had developed an advanced economy. Indian tribes traded extensively with each other, and many had some form of money. None, however, had any institution like the "land title" of the Europeans. They had no tradition of "alienating", or relinquishing all rights, to land. Many thought that this showed Indian social development to be more primitive that that of the Europeans. But the Native Americans had developed sophisticated legal systems that incorporated treaties, elaborated rights and specified ways to resolve disputes.

A great many treasures of art and oral literature have been passed down from prehistory. Indian cultures and religions were enmeshed with nature, for they felt themselves entwined with the universe. Mother Earth and Father Sky were more than mere expressions; they represented the Indians' very being. Land, a part of the universe, belonged to all, particularly the tribe. Individual land ownership did not exist, since all were entitled to the fruits of nature. Users' rights were protected and specified in various traditions, but there was no such things as land "ownership". Generally, individuals could clear as much land as needed for farming; this land would remain in a family's possession as long as they continued to use it. Once it was abandoned, anyone else could cultivate it.

Indians readily understood and entered into treaties concerning rights to land use, but the idea of land sales was alien to them—and it is likely that, because of difficulties in translation of each others' languages, neither the natives nor the settlers understood this vital difference, at first.

http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm

You guys are pwned big time.

First hit on google
Click to expand...

Trade? hardly sounds like communism. I guess you;re wrong again.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're wrong. The assertion that native americans were communists is monumentally stupid. Go roll yourself down a steep hill.
Click to expand...

they were far more communist in the true form than capitalists.

Kiss it AHZ you are still wrong.

Did they let the poor indians die because of no insurance? :D
 
The Indians didn't have an immigration policy.

Even if the entire population of Mexico came over to America, they still wouldn't have a majority. You guys are hyperbolic to the extreme; comparing willful immigration to imperialistic conquest is absurd, and it is also immoral and sickening because it's an attempt to deflate the inexcusable crimes of our ancestors.
 
TheHappyHippo said:
The Indians didn't have an immigration policy.

Even if the entire population of Mexico came over to America, they still wouldn't have a majority. You guys are hyperbolic to the extreme; comparing willful immigration to imperialistic conquest is absurd, and it is also immoral and sickening because it's an attempt to deflate the inexcusable crimes of our ancestors.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Having no policy was a big mistake for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top