Roo Island Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 38 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: The Celts were treated worse. They didn't get a treaty. Most American Indians didn't either. But some did. When were the Celtics treated poorly? What century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said: 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. Dude. My father was born on the res. My brother works on the res. I've got many relatives living on the res. I'm a card carrying Native American Indian. Geez...know this better than you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 This is my legacy. My reservation is in Colgate, Oklahoma. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States President Andrew Jackson. The law, as described by Congress, provided "for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi".[a][2][3] During the presidency of Jackson (1829–1837) and his successor Martin Van Buren (1837–1841) more than 60,000 Native Americans[4] from at least 18 tribes[5] were forced to move west of the Mississippi River where they were allocated new lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 minutes ago, Roo Island said: When were the Celtics treated poorly? What century? Why is that important? Let me guess, we should only be worried about people being treated badly in history after a certain point, and that certain point is the time the people you want everyone to be concerned about were treated badly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 16 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: Why is that important? Let me guess, we should only be worried about people being treated badly in history after a certain point, and that certain point is the time the people you want everyone to be concerned about were treated badly? It's hard enough to deal with issues that happened within the past few centuries. Impossible to deal with ones before that. You didn't answer my question. I'm heading to Wales and Scotland shortly. Would love to know. Just visited Stonehenge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, Roo Island said: It's hard enough to deal with issues that happened within the past few centuries. Impossible to deal with ones before that. Why? 6 minutes ago, Roo Island said: You didn't answer my question. I'm heading to Wales and Scotland shortly. Would love to know. Just visited Stonehenge! Aren't you in the best place to find out for yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 21 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: Why? Aren't you in the best place to find out for yourself? Trying to figure out where you are coming from. Comparing Celts to American Indians. Perhaps we should offer compensation to the druids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 58 minutes ago, Roo Island said: Trying to figure out where you are coming from. Comparing Celts to American Indians. Comparing a group of people who were removed from their lands with another group of people who were removed from her lands? What's wrong with that? 58 minutes ago, Roo Island said: Perhaps we should offer compensation to the druids? If the rule is that the people stole lands should compensate people whose lands they stole, why not? How about we compensate everyone until we can't anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 hours ago, BangkokReady said: Comparing a group of people who were removed from their lands with another group of people who were removed from her lands? What's wrong with that? If the rule is that the people stole lands should compensate people whose lands they stole, why not? How about we compensate everyone until we can't anymore? Can you please get back to the topic. Geez. In case you forgot. Colorado's Foundations Built on Expropriated Tribal Lands Worth $1.7 Trillion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Full Agreement Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 20 hours ago, Hanaguma said: 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. Since as a collective group the treatment of indigenous Indians was horrible, I see no issue in referring to then as a single entity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 hour ago, In Full Agreement said: Since as a collective group the treatment of indigenous Indians was horrible, I see no issue in referring to then as a single entity. Lumping them all together would be to dismiss the fact that they were killing each other long before the European devils landed. And (here's the sappy part), it would do disservice to the unique history and heritage of each tribe. I'll bet the Shakopee Mdewakanton would fight you tooth and nail if you tried to lump them in. The Shakopee Mdewakanton are the wealthiest Native American tribe, going by the individual's personal wealth. There are 480 members, and each member gets around $84,000 per month, as disclosed by a tribe member going through a divorce. https://moneyinc.com/richest-native-american-tribes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 6 hours ago, impulse said: Lumping them all together would be to dismiss the fact that they were killing each other long before the European devils landed. And (here's the sappy part), it would do disservice to the unique history and heritage of each tribe. I'll bet the Shakopee Mdewakanton would fight you tooth and nail if you tried to lump them in. The Shakopee Mdewakanton are the wealthiest Native American tribe, going by the individual's personal wealth. There are 480 members, and each member gets around $84,000 per month, as disclosed by a tribe member going through a divorce. https://moneyinc.com/richest-native-american-tribes/ And the Europeans have been killing each other for centuries. You did lump them all together. Fantastic they are getting money. I was offered a lot of money by an Indian tribe to move to their res. Just to bump up their native American numbers. I refused. In the end. Most are dirt poor. And have been treated badly for centuries. Especially now with MAGA racists running around. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted Sunday at 12:12 PM Share Posted Sunday at 12:12 PM https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/illinois-may-soon-return-land-us-stole-prairie-band-potawatomi-chief-1-rcna158464 Illinois may soon return land the U.S. stole from a Prairie Band Potawatomi chief 175 years ago To right the wrong, Illinois would transfer a 1,500-acre state park west of Chicago, which was named after Chief Shab-eh-nay, to the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now