This Land Was Stolen from Native Americans

It's not difficult to understand why, but most history textbooks have no satisfactory justification for the nearly genocidal ejectment of Native Americans from their ancestral lands and onto reservations.

That the argument that so-called "illegal aliens" do not belong in America is based on a questionable premise was articulated by a protestor at an immigrants rights rally. Although the following was used in an effort to show that protestor was unreasonable, one can easily see that his position is no more so than the claim that merely because the United States "stole this land fair and square," it has the right to exclude people whose ancestors populated the Americas since time immemorial.

(Excerpt)

See:

http://166.70.44.77/comments/read_comments.asp?ref=6258790&PageIndex=2

Nobody cares.

Except the Native Americans, but they're not real people like you and me.

Well, like me anyway.

Define "real people," Ramen.

1) Native Americans were not originally here either.

2) Native Americans for the most part did not have their land claims in writing or in any kind of permanent record that Europeans coming were obligated to respect.

3) Grandfather rule applies.

Anyone who is not a Native American or yourself.

The definition is subject to change at my whimsy, of course.

Don't really care. We came in, were superior and seized it fair and square. Had they been stronger, they might have held onto it.

That's exactly what the Arabs are going to be saying about Eurabia circa 2250 too!!!

Native Americans did not believe in the concept of land ownership, so they didn't stake a claim.

In that case they can't to too upset about someone who does.

Exactly.

To the contrary, the Native Americans believed in the freedom of all people to use the land and therefore believed that everyone had common ownership in it.

They were here for far longer than the period between the first settlement of this continent by Europeans and the dispossession of Native American lands.

Even under our current system of law, possession of land can evolve into ownership even against someone who has written records of ownership. (See, e.g., the doctrine of adverse possession, which does not require written documentation of ownership on the part of the adverse possessor.)

However, the issue is moot, since possession of land in the New World was the primary means by which sovereignty was asserted. Written confirmation occurred only after possession ("discovery") had already occurred.

This argument is actually more favorable to Native Americans, in that their possession should be "grandfathered" into any subsequent claim.

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

As a point of fact, the existence of reservations is recognition of the inherent sovereignty of Native Americans in their own lands.

Because they're too stupid to read words, much less understand them.

You mean treaties cannot be read to them? Are they as deaf as you are racist?

I blame Yankees.

They'd actually managed to disinvent the wheel.

These are not bright people we're talking about.

What difference does it make when they're dancing around after drinking firewater?

They got owned like Rosencrantz on a chili-cheese dog.

Then how did the Mayans, their ancestors, manage to invent such astronomically accurate calendars, or build such massive pyramids?

We won, they lost, it all happened long before I was born.

End of story.

Riiight.

And that's why no Native American tribe ever went to war with another Native American tribe ofer control of any land....right?

Did Europeans ever contest the ownership of land amongst themselves? If so, does this mean that their idea of ownership is invalid?

It's true that Native Americans contested possession of certain lands among each other. But this hardly means that they disputed the principle of common ownership, rather than its manifestation at any given time.

I vote this as the most ignorant post of the month.

You say "Native Americans" like they were all one big happy tribe. They were not anything of the sort, and they most certainly did not believe all people had the freedom to use land as they please. Many tribe names can actually be translated to mean "the people" or "humans". This was to the exclusion of all others. They fought amongst each other constantly. They displaced other tribes from "native" land constantly. They defended borders and property jealously. Just like all people, ever, in the history of the world.

Ever see the movie Idiocracy?

The Mayans are us, and the American Indians that our ancestors "replaced" are Hormel Chavez and Frito Pendejo.

Again, the fact that there was contest and disagreement over who was entitled to use land doesn't mean that they did not believe that the land was entitled to be owned by all.

Europeans were equally vigorous in contesting the ownership rights of individuals. Entire wars were fought over disputes between kings who had ownership disputes. Does this mean that they did not believe that specific individuals could own the lands that were accorded to them -- by a system of recordation advanced, no less, to distinguish their system from that of Native Americans?

In fact, one could argue that the existence of disputes between Europeans despite the fact that claims were written down means that Europeans had far less of a belief in the permanence and other attributes of ownership than Native Americans.

I expect that Excelsius will do his part to rectify this injustice by signing the title to his house over to the next homeless blanket ass that he sees.

I was born in Seattle, Washington. I'm as 'native' an American as any Indian who ever lived.

As I mentioned in another thread, nations, not individuals, are the appropriate conduits for the rectification of these injustices.

Yes it does mean that. It means exactly that. Are you trying to argue that there is a meaningful difference between "own" and "use exclusively" in this context?

And yet they couldn't even render iron or bronze. Or make a written language.

Damn primates.

Stolen? Then why do I know white farmers who lease tribal land?