The Indians didn't have a legal system or property rights (territorial rights maybe) such as the Europeans brought with them, but an awful lot of them let us know we were not welcome with bows and arrows and then rifles and ammunition they traded or confiscated on raids.
We just came and took over the whole Northern and Southern Hempspheres. We had superior force and won. Nevertheless, we "invaded" the New World with shipload after shipload of unwelcome immigrants as far as most of the natives were concerned.
They did help Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers survive the first winter, but relations tended to go downhill shortly after that. Skirmishes led to the Pequot and subsequent wars and injustices against the Indians. Were they right in defending their territory?
We had the might, did that make it right?
What are you doing posting on a conservative forum? Your ideas belong on a forum hosted by moveon.org or People for the American Way. Somebody must have given you wrong directions. Walk to the nearest wall and turn left.
Can you make the distinction between "legal" and "illegal"? "Legal" and "moral"? If emigrants from the "Old World" were "authorized by the king" to leave, and there was no political or legal authority in the Americas which declared their immigration into the Americas prohibited, in what sense were those emigrants "illegal immigrants"?
The other part of your garbled point appears to be that it was "immoral" to "waltz in here and divide up the land as we pleased." Is that not what the Indians did? The remains known as "Kennewick Man" appear to have been Caucasian---perhaps inferring that the Indians had displaced earlier settlers. But whether they had displaced earlier settlers or not by their settlement, did the Indians have a superior right to land simply by settling it first?
The Indians didn't have a legal system or property rights (territorial rights maybe) such as the Europeans brought with them, but an awful lot of them let us know we were not welcome with bows and arrows and then rifles and ammunition they traded or confiscated on raids.
You talk of the Indians as if they were a monolithic group or duly constituted nation, notwithstanding the fact that as you acknowledge, they "didn't have a legal system or property rights." In fact, they were disparate and linguistically and culturally diverse tribes of hunter-gatherers and subsistence agriculturists that fought and massacred each other for centuries before the white man came. They didn't occupy the whole land and they certainly weren't making the use of it that European immigrants later did.
We just came and took over the whole Northern and Southern Hempspheres. We had superior force and won. Nevertheless, we "invaded" the New World with shipload after shipload of unwelcome immigrants as far as most of the natives were concerned.
I think you mean "North and South America," not "whole Northern and Southern Hemispheres."
They did help Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers survive the first winter, but relations tended to go downhill shortly after that. Skirmishes led to the Pequot and subsequent wars and injustices against the Indians. Were they right in defending their territory?
Two points. One, don't you think the settlement of North America by Europeans (and Asians and Africans), made the "New World" more "diverse," and isn't that a "good thing"? Two, if you posit that the Indians were right to defend their territory, would you deny that same right to the remote descendants of European (and African and Asian) settlers in North America?
We had the might, did that make it right?
Even if it wasn't "right," what does that have to do with enforcing current immigration laws? Does the fact that you think we "stole" the Western Hemisphere from the Indians make our residence here "illegal" and "immoral," and serve as an absolute impediment to enforcement of our laws and our borders? I think your proposition is too absurd to be entertained.
The Europeans invaded, it was a war the Native Americans lost, end of story. I feel no more guilt over what took place 400 years ago in the Americans than a feel guilt for the Romans taking over Celtic territories. The fact is the Europeans treated the Native Tribes no worse than they treated each other in the various wars Europe had at the same time.
Yes you are SOOOOO right, we are evil wrong and racist for having the unmitigated gall to want our nations borders protected. How dare we even consider such a thing? I for one feel so guilty I am go to give my house to the next illegal I see.
NOOOOOOOTTT!
You are right that the Europeans did basically settle the land that was already inhabited and displaced those living here. There's no way anyone can honestly dispute that fact. But an interesting take regarding the history of the continent was made recently by an American Indian. He said in effect he respected the fact the Europeans had conquered the territory and how they were a worthy opponent while doing so.
This man was vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, which was the point of the article precisely because the land in his opinion was being taken all over again but this time they were not able to at least fight back.
His way of defining the opposition to what's going on tells me that if there's one issue where just about everyone in the country agrees now it's on illegal immigration.
Moot point wouldn't you agree? That was then, this is now.
Conquests of one nation(people) over another have gone on since the beginning of time if our history books are remotely accurate. Not to mention, the Bible. Do we have the right to defend what we as a culture now have, regardless of how it was acquired? The revisionist's histories would have us hanging our heads in collective shame because of what we as a culture have won. Should it be so? The globalists would have us reject our accomplishments as ill gotten gains, if for no other reason than to instill a sense of guilt in us.
This ain't no time to go wobbly(Thank you Maggie Thatcher).
FGS
Well, there is a direct connection between your comments and Ronald Reagan announcing back in the 80s that "...this country has lost control of its borders".
When you strip of nation of its moral authority a loss of control at the borders will be one obvious result. The line of questioning you posted is a caculated effort to achieve this stripping of moral authority. No, I'm not accusing you of that exact motivation [unless you admit to being an Ivy League professor].
When I heard that professor in Colorado express pride in his [phony] Native tribal heritage this past spring all I could think of was how as a happy member of that tribe...you couldn't safely travel anywhere outside the confines of your territory; you didn't have the wheel; you didn't have books; and on an on. What you did have was an extremely brutal life; slavery of neighboring tribe members; women as chattel; chieftain dictatorship; and on an on.
The point is American moral authority is legit and deserved. People flock from all over the world to experience it here as citizens. The Cherokee, Apache nations etc never could be magnets for the rest of the world. It would be seriously delusional to think otherwise.
Native Americans need to roll with punches just like the aforementioned Celts did vis a vis the Romans. Adopt the best qualities of your conquerors and charge on down the road to bigger and better things.