This Land Was Stolen from Native Americans

Why should I care what bullshit you are spreading in another thread?

Because you live in a state that's so hideous we made the indians live there?

Thanks for letting us know.

No, it's because we didn't finish the job properly.

Shouldn't you be hopping on a bus to go over the Red River and gamble with the rest of your tribe?

You could be a winner!

Shouldn't you be tending to your herd of Oklahoma Longhorns?

They went to war over land.

They killed and displaced other tribes to "steal" their land.

What's the difference?

Do you honestly think that the Sioux were plains indians? Do you really believe that North and South Dakota were their "ancestral" lands?

They lost.

Fuck them.

If ever there was a place where there's nothing better to do than sit around and watch cattle fuck, it surely must be Oklahoma.

Of course. There is a very substantial difference between possession and ownership in this context. For example, a renter possesses his property for the term of the lease, which could be a very long period of time -- many years. However, any right of ownership on the part of the lessee of that property is nonexistent. All such rights continue to belong to the land's owner. (This concept, found in civil law, also works between nations. For example, Hong Kong was leased to Britain for ninety-nine years, but at the end of that term, it reverted to China.)

Many Native Americans seem to have believed that no one person can truly "own" land; we can only use it for as long as reasonable. Rather, under this view, land is owned by everyone in general so that eventually everyone can make the best use of it.

The issue, however, is not as clear-cut as either side of this argument makes it out to be. It turns out that not all Native Americans may have disbelieved in individual ownership, after all. But note that, if this newer thesis is proved correct, the idea that it was acceptable for Europeans to rip off their land is even less tenable for the fact that the purported lack of knowledge of ownership that underlies this rationalization is such a frail reed.

(Excerpt)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership

Either way, land belonging to Native Americans was stolen by whites -- first by Europeans, and then by their descendants in America.

It's either that or go noodling.

I'm almost done filming Big Angus Bulls In Little Charolais Heifers XII, your address still the same?

Which is why I've rejected all of evenflow's PMs asking me to visit.

Aye.

I'll send you my copy of Donkeys on Honkys in trade.

What's your point?

That any land owned by anyone in the vast majority of the western hemisphere was at one point taken from some other race/culture/tribe by force of arms?

Multiple times.

Oh, and Soma, go fuck yourself, you fucking faggot.

Really.

WTF is this for:

I haven't even spoken to him in ages.

Sorry, i've been drinking...

i love you marso

you too tamar, even tho as a womrn i find you revolting and thinkh ut vagina is of the devil

it's natural girl.

get rid of it

sow it up and stik a sign there that reads

"warning: entry to evil zone directly ahead, immortal soul in danger"

anyway what ehver fuck you and the rest of you dumbassess

My little Hindu homo buddy has betrayed us all.

the white man has betrayed mankind and god almighty

Here's the point:

See the first paragraph of my first message in this thread.

Unless and until the nativists prove that their ideas of "legality" under the laws of the United States are superior to the rights of descendants of Native Americans that the United States itself is historically responsible for violating, then there is no actual moral right for these nativists to insist upon their claim.

In other words, if a galactic court of no prejudice either in favor or against any group of human beings, and of sufficient power to impose its decisions on the United States, were to convene to decide the above issue, the best argument that the nativists have would be that the "laws" of the United States are violated by "illegal alien" migration. However, if the court, as likely, would decide that the United States is itself derelict because it was historically culpable as an entity in almost genocidally displacing the ancestors of Native Americans, then that court would surely decide on the basis of what is right that no such laws could be valid, since they were promulgated by a nation that had first committed the wrongs that resulted in dispossession of the parties against which the laws are claimed to apply, and for which the migration is a remedy.

Any immoral law is an unjust law, and it would not be enforced by a suitably situated court.

repentnow !!!!!!!!!!!

baba rulz!!!!!!!!

hahahahahahaha

God and mankind kinda suck anyhow.

If you weren't just playing a part I'd be thinking you may be too stupid to conjure which end of the cat the food goes in.

If said Galactic Court was able to enforce such a claim by force of arms then they would have a point.

Mexicans do not equal Native Americans. Some of their ancestors were Indian. So were some of mine. Some of their ancestors were the very first Europeans to rape, slaughter and steal from the natives. Additionally, natives in Texas were not the same as natives in Mexico, even before the European conquests. Most Mexican ancestors never lived in the U.S.

I thought you would say that.

The problem with the "law of the jungle" approach to jurisdiction is that, sooner or later, the United States will no longer be the most powerful nation in the world. That day is foreseeable. In fact, it is possible even today to contemplate a grand alliance of nations powerful enough to impose its will on America, just as the United States is now legally required, albeit through its own design, to submit international trade disputes before the World Trade Organization. The difference is that in that foreseeable date, the U.S. will no longer have the practical power to either deny or withdraw its consent from such jurisdiction. After that date, it is quite probable that the United States, at some point, over some dispute, for whatever reason, will be forced to make its case to justify its actions throughout history.

The tribunal (if it comes to that) that would assume jurisdiction by dint of this power would consider the matter of rights, and would be far less impressed by the previous might of the United States than the justice it must dispense. If the arguments made before this hypothetical "galactic court" make any sense now, then they will make sense before this tribunal, as well, in the future.

Unless America acts in accordance with moral right now, it will have no standing to defend any act by any superior force in the future based on any moral right it now denies. Such tribunal will do what is just, meaning that it will do to America what America has done, and now does, in the face of moral rules to the contrary.

If we do not act with care, that day, which is both visible and inevitable, is one that America will rightfully regard with fear.

Anyone who is espousing that Aztlan bullshit is going to end up shot by me. It does a disservice so the rest of us, and for what? To place us under a corrupt and incompetent government because of sentimental and romantic delusions?

If I wanted to be under Mexico's boot, I'd move there. I'm happy just being an American of Mexican descent.

And I, for one, am glad you and your kin are here, Chris.

That lawn does not mow itself, the pool does not clean itself, and Lady Storm does not get spit-roasted without help.