Colorado's Foundations Built on Expropriated Tribal Lands Worth $1.7 Trillion

[Hanaguma]

36 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think also what you're saying is that the prior level of brutality justified the colonial era of brutality and genocide. Or am I reading you incorrectly? 

Nope. I am saying that nobody can claim victim status because everyone shat on someone at some time.  So why compensate a group for "stolen land" when they stole it from someone else in the first place? If I steal a car from a car thief, the thief doesn't get to cry for compensation.

[spidermike007]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Nope. I am saying that nobody can claim victim status because everyone shat on someone at some time.  So why compensate a group for "stolen land" when they stole it from someone else in the first place? If I steal a car from a car thief, the thief doesn't get to cry for compensation.

Your argument does not make much sense. The Natives were the first people to occupy North America, as far as we know. 

 

So, are you saying ALL natives stole land from each other? No exceptions? Do you have any historical proof of that, or is that simply a "white man talking point"? 

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Your argument does not make much sense. The Natives were the first people to occupy North America, as far as we know. 

 

So, are you saying ALL natives stole land from each other? No exceptions? Do you have any historical proof of that, or is that simply a "white man talking point"? 

Is that the standard of proof needed to demand compensation? "You can't prove my group DIDN'T steal this land from someone else, so pay up!".  And yes, given what archaeologists have discovered, most native groups fought and killed and died. Or do you have proof that they simply settled on a patch of earth and stayed there for 15,000 years, living in natural harmony until the evil white folks came along?

[spidermike007]

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Is that the standard of proof needed to demand compensation? "You can't prove my group DIDN'T steal this land from someone else, so pay up!".  And yes, given what archaeologists have discovered, most native groups fought and killed and died. Or do you have proof that they simply settled on a patch of earth and stayed there for 15,000 years, living in natural harmony until the evil white folks came along?

You are likely wrong again. They likely did not steal land from each other, as they never owned it to begin with. That was a bizarre concept for Natives. 

 

To Native Americans, the Earth is one's relative, requiring respect and care, as are all the animals and plant life the land supports. The definition of one's 'relatives' encompasses all living things, not just the members of one's family, and so, just as one would not claim to 'own' a relative, one cannot own the land; one can only act as a steward in caring for it. The European settlers' understanding of the land was quite different. In the European view, the Earth and everything upon it essentially existed for the benefit of human beings, and so, of course, one could claim ownership of it in the course of subduing, taming, and reaping the benefits of that land. When the Europeans began interacting with the Native Americans, these differing views led to significant conflict, but the Europeans, operating in accordance with the concept expressed by the policy of the Doctrine of Discovery (established by the Catholic Church in 1493 to Christianize the natives of newly 'discovered' lands), claimed that non-Christians could not own land and felt free to take whatever lands were 'discovered' pursuant to the will of God as expressed in Genesis 1:28.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

You are likely wrong again. They likely did not steal land from each other, as they never owned it to begin with. That was a bizarre concept for Natives. 

 

To Native Americans, the Earth is one's relative, requiring respect and care, as are all the animals and plant life the land supports. The definition of one's 'relatives' encompasses all living things, not just the members of one's family, and so, just as one would not claim to 'own' a relative, one cannot own the land; one can only act as a steward in caring for it. The European settlers' understanding of the land was quite different. In the European view, the Earth and everything upon it essentially existed for the benefit of human beings, and so, of course, one could claim ownership of it in the course of subduing, taming, and reaping the benefits of that land. When the Europeans began interacting with the Native Americans, these differing views led to significant conflict, but the Europeans, operating in accordance with the concept expressed by the policy of the Doctrine of Discovery (established by the Catholic Church in 1493 to Christianize the natives of newly 'discovered' lands), claimed that non-Christians could not own land and felt free to take whatever lands were 'discovered' pursuant to the will of God as expressed in Genesis 1:28.

Cool. So if "Natives" did not consider that they owned the land, then they don't need compensation for it's theft, right? 

 

You seem to have a very romanticized and pollyanna view of the various Native tribes, assuming that they all think and act and philosophize in lockstep.  Reality was rather different.  They did not respect and care for the earth when they were burning each others' crops or destroying settlements, nor enslaving members of defeated enemy tribes.  There is no need to infantilize "Natives". They matched any other group in their greed, venality, and violence. They only lacked the technology to do it as well as the Europeans.

[spidermike007]

30 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Cool. So if "Natives" did not consider that they owned the land, then they don't need compensation for it's theft, right? 

 

You seem to have a very romanticized and pollyanna view of the various Native tribes, assuming that they all think and act and philosophize in lockstep.  Reality was rather different.  They did not respect and care for the earth when they were burning each others' crops or destroying settlements, nor enslaving members of defeated enemy tribes.  There is no need to infantilize "Natives". They matched any other group in their greed, venality, and violence. They only lacked the technology to do it as well as the Europeans.

Totally untrue. Many native tribes has a far loftier respect and love for the land. On so many levels, they outshined their European and American conquerers. You really don't get it. You will say anything to defend the "not superior white race". 

Edited June 18 by spidermike007

[FritsSikkink]

19 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Untrue. Most died from diseases and sicknesses that they did not have immunity to. They weren't "killed off", which implies a genocidal intention on the part of "the Europeans".  

They were killed off and it was genocidal intention, shame your schools don't teach you that.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Totally untrue. Many native tribes has a far loftier respect and love for the land. On so many levels, they outshined their European and American conquerers. You really don't get it. You will say anything to defend the "not superior white race". 

I am sure they did, when they weren't killing each other.

 

The only reason they didn't do more environmental damage was that their numbers were so small. The land could easily recover. But in areas where the population was denser and agriculture was more present, there was an impact. According to research from Baylor University;

 

 "The findings conclusively demonstrate that Native Americans in eastern North America impacted their environment well before the arrival of Europeans. Through their agricultural practices, Native Americans increased soil erosion and sediment yields to the Delaware River basin."

 

https://news.web.baylor.edu/news/story/2011/baylor-study-shows-native-americans-significantly-modified-american-landscape-years#:~:text="The findings conclusively demonstrate that,to the Delaware River basin."

 

In Canada, "Buffalo jumps" were used to kill buffalo in the thousands- buffalo were herded over high cliffs, to plunge to their painful deaths.  There was no way for all the meat and hide to be used economically- tons were lost to rot and waste. So much for stewardship and respect of the land.

And please show me where I said that the "superior white race" was even a thing.  

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

They were killed off and it was genocidal intention, shame your schools don't teach you that.

Check the actual statistics before spouting off such inaccurate and ahistorical talking points. The vast majority died from diseases that they tragically had no immunity to. 

[FritsSikkink]

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Check the actual statistics before spouting off such inaccurate and ahistorical talking points. The vast majority died from diseases that they tragically had no immunity to. 

Guess who gave them those diseases:

 

Did Colonists Give Infected Blankets to Native Americans as Biological Warfare? | HISTORY

Smallpox Blankets: Did Settlers Use Them to Commit Genocide? (historynet.com)

Investigating the Smallpox Blanket Controversy (asm.org)

 

Still getting all sort of problems: A Legacy of Negligence: The Historical Mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples in the United States - Berkeley Public Policy Journal

 

Edited June 18 by FritsSikkink

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Guess who gave them those diseases:

 

Did Colonists Give Infected Blankets to Native Americans as Biological Warfare? | HISTORY

Smallpox Blankets: Did Settlers Use Them to Commit Genocide? (historynet.com)

Investigating the Smallpox Blanket Controversy (asm.org)

 

Still getting all sort of problems: A Legacy of Negligence: The Historical Mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples in the United States - Berkeley Public Policy Journal

 

You need to read the entire thread before commenting. That was discussed waaaaaay back. Of course the sicknesses came from the various Europeans who came. But that was medical ignorance, not genocide. On First Contact, the natives suffered terribly due to diseases that the Europeans had developed immunity for. But it was not deliberate.

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

You need to read the entire thread before commenting. That was discussed waaaaaay back. Of course the sicknesses came from the various Europeans who came. But that was medical ignorance, not genocide. On First Contact, the natives suffered terribly due to diseases that the Europeans had developed immunity for. But it was not deliberate.

Read everything in the links and you would know it WAS deliberate.

[Hanaguma]

9 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Read everything in the links and you would know it WAS deliberate.

Absolutely untrue. The "smallpox blanket" story has been around for a while, even your links do not provide any evidence that it was anything more than one idiot British officer's malignancy. Not a national policy.

 

Plus, the vast majority of Native Americans who succumbed to European based diseases did so in the 16th century. By the time of large scale colonization, the population had already been cut to perhaps 10% of the pre-contact number. This was simply terrible luck, not a deliberate policy on the part of the colonizers. There was no intention to inflict disease on the indigenous people. 

 

By the 18th and 19th centuries, the damage had already been done. 

[Roo Island]

15 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Nope. I am saying that nobody can claim victim status because everyone shat on someone at some time.  So why compensate a group for "stolen land" when they stole it from someone else in the first place? If I steal a car from a car thief, the thief doesn't get to cry for compensation.

What a ridiculous argument

[Roo Island]

My direct descendants were on the trail of tears. I get a small amount of money from the federal government for oil found on our lands. Impossible to say that the US didn't abuse native Americans. Impossible.

 

But. How should they be repaid? Not an easy solution so long after the atrocities

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/17/2024 at 8:52 PM, Berkshire said:

Believe what you want.  I'm just saying it's not going to happen. 

On that we agree. Never going to happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Roo Island said:

What a ridiculous argument

Agree on that. There are legal treaties that were broken by the US government.

[herfiehandbag]

On 6/17/2024 at 3:39 PM, transam said:

The UK had many Kings at the same time in different areas, didn't the Romans put an end to all that for 500 years, till the buggerd off, then back to a bit of normality..😋

The first King of England, Edgar, was crowned in Bath Abbey in 973 AD, a fair time after the Romans buggered off, in 410 AD. The intervening 560 years were marked by rather a lot of stealing land and various other unpleasantness.

 

My mother had a cat named after him (Edgar). She had two brothers, long haired toms, one grey, one ginger. Is The Red one was named Rufus, it was only fair that his brother should be named after a king as well, and as we lived in Bath, Edgar it was!

Edited June 19 by herfiehandbag

[impulse]

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agree on that. There are legal treaties that were broken by the US government.

 

That's true.  And a despicable part of US history.  But what's the difference between violating treaties and downright genocide?

 

If the US gub'ment pays reparations to the Sioux for violating treaties, doesn't that open the door for the Apache to seek reparations from the Sioux for first stealing the land from them?  (By way of murderous ethnic cleansing, which I contend is worse than violating agreements)  Where does it end?  How far back do you want to go? 

 

And why should my family of immigrant Belarussian turnip farmers pay taxes for reparations for stuff that happened 50 years before we came to the Promised Land?  I would add, with nothing and not able to speak English.  Yet 2 generations later, most of the fam are in the millionaire class.  Not mega rich, but doing quite well.  Precisely because my ancestors didn't play the victim card.  My grandparents insisted that my parents spoke English, and got educated to thrive in the country (and the world) as it existed.  Not as they remembered it so fondly from back home on the turnip patch.   I guess we were lucky that they didn't have the option of suing Stalin for reparations.  And we had no race baiters to convince us that's what we needed to do.

 

 

Edited June 19 by impulse

[Roo Island]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

That's true.  And a despicable part of US history.  But what's the difference between violating treaties and downright genocide?

 

If the US gub'ment pays reparations to the Sioux for violating treaties, doesn't that open the door for the Apache to seek reparations from the Sioux for first stealing the land from them?  (By way of murderous ethnic cleansing, which I contend is worse than violating agreements)  Where does it end?  How far back do you want to go? 

 

And why should my family of immigrant Belarussian turnip farmers pay taxes for reparations for stuff that happened 50 years before we came to the Promised Land?  I would add, with nothing and not able to speak English.  Yet 2 generations later, most of the fam are in the millionaire class.  Not mega rich, but doing quite well.  Precisely because my ancestors didn't play the victim card.  My grandparents insisted that my parents spoke English, and got educated to thrive in the country (and the world) as it existed.  Not as they remembered it so fondly from back home on the turnip patch.   I guess we were lucky that they didn't have the option of suing Stalin for reparations.  And we had no race baiters to convince us that's what we needed to do.

 

 

No easy answers.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

That's true.  And a despicable part of US history.  But what's the difference between violating treaties and downright genocide?

 

If the US gub'ment pays reparations to the Sioux for violating treaties, doesn't that open the door for the Apache to seek reparations from the Sioux for first stealing the land from them?  (By way of murderous ethnic cleansing, which I contend is worse than violating agreements)  Where does it end?  How far back do you want to go? 

 

And why should my family of immigrant Belarussian turnip farmers pay taxes for reparations for stuff that happened 50 years before we came to the Promised Land?  I would add, with nothing and not able to speak English.  Yet 2 generations later, most of the fam are in the millionaire class.  Not mega rich, but doing quite well.  Precisely because my ancestors didn't play the victim card.  My grandparents insisted that my parents spoke English, and got educated to thrive in the country (and the world) as it existed.  Not as they remembered it so fondly from back home on the turnip patch.   I guess we were lucky that they didn't have the option of suing Stalin for reparations.  And we had no race baiters to convince us that's what we needed to do.

 

 

Then the Apache can take the Sioux  to court. You are overthinking too much IMO.

 

If your turnip farmers benefited by using stolen land, then should they not pay anything?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

If the US gub'ment pays reparations to the Sioux for violating treaties, doesn't that open the door for the Apache to seek reparations from the Sioux for first stealing the land from them? 

Anyway, it's nothing to do with the land itself. It's about breaking a legal treaty, and must be dealt with on that alone. You are deflecting onto something not relevant to the situation

[impulse]

46 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Anyway, it's nothing to do with the land itself. It's about breaking a legal treaty, and must be dealt with on that alone. You are deflecting onto something not relevant to the situation

 

Do we then get to ask reimbursement from them for buying Eastern Colorado from France (Louisiana Purchase), or taking stealing the rest from Spain (or Mexico), at great cost of US lives and treasure? 

 

It's not as if they'd be living their idyllic (false) memory of peace and harmony and kumbaya had there never been a US gub'ment.  They'd be living in colonies of France, Spain or Jolly England.  Ask the Vietnamese how they liked that, or any of the Sub-Saharan colonies.  Or look at the economic conditions they'd be living under had they stayed with Mexico.

 

Millions of people from around the world are risking their lives on perilous journeys and paying cartels thousands of USD to sneak into to America and live the life the indigenous people have as a constitutional birthright.  They can go anywhere in the USA they want, work anywhere legally, get a state funded education...and on.  And on.   The sky's the limit.

 

 

[Roo Island]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Do we then get to ask reimbursement from them for buying Eastern Colorado from France (Louisiana Purchase), or taking stealing the rest from Spain (or Mexico), at great cost of US lives and treasure? 

 

It's not as if they'd be living their idyllic (false) memory of peace and harmony and kumbaya had there never been a US gub'ment.  They'd be living in colonies of France, Spain or Jolly England.  Ask the Vietnamese how they liked that, or any of the Sub-Saharan colonies.  Or look at the economic conditions they'd be living under had they stayed with Mexico.

 

Millions of people from around the world are risking their lives on perilous journeys and paying cartels thousands of USD to sneak into to America and live the life the indigenous people have as a constitutional birthright.  They can go anywhere in the USA they want, work anywhere legally, get a state funded education...and on.  And on.   The sky's the limit.

 

 

You really don't understand migrants nor native Americans. Time to turn off faux News and your other dodgy media outlets

[In Full Agreement]

On 6/17/2024 at 2:06 PM, giddyup said:

But which indian tribe? Should every conqueror give back what has been taken in the past?

 

 

Does that necessarily seem like a bad idea to you?

 

I think it's unlikely  this matter will be settled during the lifetime of any present ThaiVisa Forum member.

 

 

Edited June 19 by In Full Agreement

[BangkokReady]

I'm forever dreading the day that the Celts will come down from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, demanding reparations from us Anglo-Saxons currently occupying England...  😬

[Roo Island]

21 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I'm forever dreading the day that the Celts will come down from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, demanding reparations from us Anglo-Saxons currently occupying England...  😬

Perhaps not the best comparison. Treaties were signed and then then broken. The American Indians haven't been treated well.

 

Have you ever been on a reservation?

[giddyup]

1 hour ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

 

Does that necessarily seem like a bad idea to you?

 

I think it's unlikely  this matter will be settled during the lifetime of any present ThaiVisa Forum member.

 

 

It would be ridiculous to even try.

[BangkokReady]

40 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Perhaps not the best comparison. Treaties were signed and then then broken. The American Indians haven't been treated well.

 

The Celts were treated worse.  They didn't get a treaty.

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, Roo Island said:

Perhaps not the best comparison. Treaties were signed and then then broken. The American Indians haven't been treated well.

 

Have you ever been on a reservation?

You keep talking about the American Indians as if they are a single monolithic group. They are not. Please stop showing such a shallow grasp of the issues.