I literally don't care, I was born in Eastern Europe now I live in western Europe and in a few years I'll move to Southeast Asia. I don't have a country to protect. The planet is my territory and should be everyone's.
The problem with illegal immigrants is that it is too hard to become a legal immigrant. If we made it easier for everyone to become a legal citizen we would have far less illegal immigrants. Problem solved.
@SomeBlondeChick All "native American" land was consenually purchased. The United States gave 20x more money to Indians in the Louisiana territory for that same land than they gave to the French for that land.
Go look up "treaties with American Indians" and look through and research each treaty and see how much money they got and look at the chiefs who voluntarily signed off on the agreements.
I love when communist lefties who have been indoctrinated and lied to believe that whites stole the natives land and there for no one should be against illegal immigration.
I love it because a very quick survey of history refutes such and argument.
Let’s start out in 1607 when. Jamestown, the first European settlement in America was established. Are you commies aware the natives gave them permission to build a settlement there? That Captain John Smith was adopted by the chief of the Powhattans and that Thomas Rolfe married his daughter, Pocahontas? That sure doesn’t sound like the Europeans stealing land to me.
Then let’s jump a little latter into the $1600’s. The Dutch purchased Manhattan from the Indians for 60 guilders worth of trade. That is called a purchase. they bought it. Does that make them here illegally? Of course the English conquered it from the Dutch later on.
In the Early 1720 the French by treaty with Iroquois Indians built Fort Niagara in upstate NY. By treaty. That sure doesn’t sound like invading and stealing someone’s land.
There are many more cases that Europeans and later Americans were given permission to inhabit an area or purchased land. It is also true that main plains Indian tribes established treaties and verbal agreements in which they deliberately and that is according to several historical accounts from the Indians themselves.
Much land was also gained by America through conquest. For example in both the American Revolution and War of 1812 tribes that sided with the English were forced to cede lands conquered by Americans. An example of this would be the Iroquois, who by the way initially agreed to fight as American allies and the agreement was upon victory they would have their lands protected by the Americans. However after making an agreement with the Americans they very deceitfully talked to the British who also granted the same and other provisions. TBC
@Exterminatore Check out "How we bought the United States" or "Accounting for Conquest" by Robert Lee. It gives figures on the amount of money spent on the Louisiana territory, it's mind blowing how much American Indians actually got.
The Iroquois then felt assured of English victory and rather than formally rescind their agreement with the Americans, sided with the English as an ally and launched a sneak attack on the Americans. That lead to this statement by George Washington who was speaking specifically about the Iroquois:
“The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent them from planting more.”
This statement has been hailed by Indians and their leftist allies as proof of “racist” George Washington and his intended genocide on the Indians. Again, he was specifically speaking about 1 tribe. The Iroquois. Who deliberately attacked the Americans and I might add they were American non combatants who were deliberately attacked without warning after deceitfully choosing to renigg on their standing treaty with the Americans. First of all, since when is taking captives equated with genocide? If he intended genocide they would have been killed where they were found. Instead they were intended to be prisoners of war. Since when is destroying enemy supplies and dwellings, in this case crops and lodgings during a war considered “racism?” That is completely tactically and morally justifiable in war, an act of war they brought on themselves by deceitfully sneak attacking non combatant Americans.
In the War of 1812, several tribes who ceded land did so via combat and conquest and the resulting peace treaties to include the: Shawnee, Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminoles, Choctaws, and others. The Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 and subsequent peace treaties were signed individually with each Indian tribe ending hostilities with them as English allies. If you fight a war and loose land as a result of defeat that is not equivalent to racism nor is it equivalent to stealing land or illegal immigration.
Fast forward to the 1820-1880s. As I stated previously, although my auto spell corrector ruined my statement, many plains and western Indian tribes had standing agreements with the Americans which by the Indians own admission they deliberately lied and attacked American non combatants resulting in their subsequent loss of land.
I am not saying in every instance the Europeans and subsequent Americans did not have wrong doing and did not steal land in every instance but more often than not land was lost either by peace treaty after hostilities in which the Indians lost or was either purchased or permission was given to the Europeans or the subsequent Americans to occupy the land. I love how these facts are not taught nor stated and we jump right to how the racist Europeans and Americans stole all the Indians lands and were the first illegal immigrants.
In 1803 the Americans made the Louisiana purchase from France. Did you all forget about that? Purchase. Meaning bought and paid for, not stollen. That territory included much all of the following states: AK, MIssouri, IA, OK, KS, NB, SD, ND, CO, WY, and MT. As stated it was a purchase. Meaning bought, from France. The Indians living in those territories were technically French subjects or Spanish subjects depending on the area, although they were largely allowed to live and do as they pleased. Article VI of the Louisiana Purchase stated the Americans agreed that the Americans would agree to execute any standing treaties made previously between the Spanish and the various Indian tribes on that land as the French did after gaining control of it. However when many of those tribes didn’t keep their previous agreements as made with the Spanish and upheld by the French to the Americans who now purchased that land wars resulted. Those wars with the individual tribes who were belligerents often resulting in a loss of land. That doesn’t exactly fit into the narrative of how the “racist” Americans stole the Indians lands.
If one side does not keep their agreements and war results in loss of land that’s not theft, it’s acquisition by conquest and is justified. For what it’s worth many tribes warred with other tribes and literally stole their land. I never hear leftists mention this.
The treaty of Guadalupe Hildago ended the Mexican War. As a result of that treaty the Mexicans ceded part or all of: CA, NV, UT, KS, OK, CO, NM. Again as a result of that treaty the Americans agreed to upheld any previous existing agreements between those tribes and Mexico. Just as had happened with the Louisiana Purchase many tribes attacked settlers in lands they perceived to be theirs resulting in wars with America. That resulted in American attacks and subsequently resulted in the Indians loosing land. Since when is it wrong to retaliate for attacks? Since when is it outright theft of territory when one nation conquers another and by mutual agreement cedes lands. Since never.
But you leftists love talking about racist America and how America stole land from Indians making them illegal immigrants, all while ignoring the facts I just mentioned.
Since the dawn of time many nations and Indian tribes conquered lands from others. If you’re such believers in this “Europeans and Americans are racists and were the first illegal immigrants” argument which in your mind justifies the current situation of illegal immigrants why do I not hear any of you proposing all lands since recorded history be returned to their original owners? Because that’s impossible and it’s a bunch of crap and all of you know it. Further more if you really believe this myth, why are all of you choosing to remain on lands you believe were stollen. If you believe that than you are in possession of stolen property and the benefactors of war crimes. My suggestion is that you right the wrong. All of you get off the lands you believe belong to others. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Or we can stop this nonsense and you can read history for yourselves and stop with nonsense theoretical arguments and accept and understand that America is a sovereign nation. It’s borders are set by international treaty and there is no justification for people to enter and take up residence in country in which violates TBC.
It’s laws. Despite certain leftist governors and government officials deliberately breaking the laws of this country and deliberately making illegal immigration possible.
As you can see I probably don’t need to read that book. I’ve cited several facts and examples from history.
What’s really going on is a globalist agenda and that agenda includes lying and indoctrinating people into believing tremendous wrong doings occurred in the accusation of territory we know as America today. This is done to get people to accept and promote illegal immigration while deliberately attentions to give an altered or misrepresented view of history and is done all while ignoring certain historical facts and/or deliberately misrepresenting them.
I’d like to hear a response to what I just said. I’d also like to know if you’re ready to get off land you believe was wrongfully appropriated, to right the wrong and act out the convictions you have?
@Exterminatore It's not a book, it's an article. You should read it though, because your points on the Louisiana purchase would've been stronger with that argument. Only trying to help.
@SomeBlondeChick The land was literally purchased, did you not see the thread? What's wrong you?
ALSO, does that same logic apply to other people? Black people aren't native to Kenya or South Africa. Asians aren't native to the Philippines. Does that mean they can't complain about immigrants? Just stop, you sound ridiculous.
So... when are you going back to where you came from? If you’re an Indian, you too have to go back. Back across the land bridge that no longer exists to Asia.
I'd like to point out to a few commenters here that "buying land" in a currency that the Indians didn't even understand or value should give pause to the notion that somehow they were perfectly aware of the English concept of land ownership and that they engaged in monetary transactions without any further details. If an alien species showed up to your house and offered to buy it for e+88/7 Wacky Dollars, surely you would a) wonder wtf is going on and b) tell them to scram. The Indians DID tell them to leave once the beneficial trading stopped being so beneficial. There was literally an act in the 19th century called the "Indian Removal Act". Not exactly subtle.
@Derekk Dude... The French and Spanish were buying land for over a hundred years. They DID understand how it worked. They had contact and experience with it for over hundreds of years.
You’d have a point if you were correct. Of course, for example it would be outrageous and fraud for the Dutch to give literally 60 guilders to the Indians for Manhattan. Those Indians had no concept of currency and it would be literally useless. They were given 60 guilders of trade as I stated. They were given items they found useful.
In regards to there’sIndian removal act, read what I stated. The territory won in the Mexican War and the territory purchased in the Louisiana Purchase make up probably 2/3rds of what is currently the U. S. in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, much of the land had been previously owned by the Spanish. The Spanish made agreements with most if not all of the tribes in that secretion of land to allow them to basically govern themselves. When the French acquired the land they kept the same agreements as the Spanish. Part of the the contract under Section 6 was the US was to also uphold the agreements. Often the US government renegotiated treaties with the individual tribes and often those tribes failed to keep their agreements resulting in warfare. Granted that’s not true 100% of the time, but often was the case.
The same holds true with the lands ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under that treaty the US agreed with Mexico that they would uphold the previous agreements between Mexico and the various Indian tribes. The results were the same as with the Louisiana Purchase.
In regards to the Indian Removal Act I’d need to look up the previous treaties those tribes had with the Government. I know the act authorized the government to renegotiate for those lands. I know that that act mainly had effect on the tribes of the southeast (Choctaw, Creeks, Seminole etc.) The problem with anything today and including history is it has been relayed by left wing historians to fit their narratives. In my statements above I gave one clear example of a statement by George Washington that is often quoted as proven racism tbc
Against Indians without explaining the background. The US governments dealing with the Indians historically is filled with many such instances. That is also the case with other historical events, like the Crusades, in which there are many instances of left wing historians not telling the whole truth. From a cursory search we can see that with the Indian Removal Act that Those southern tribes were forcibly removed. What I want to know is did the US government do so unjustly. At the end of the war of 1812 the us signed the Treaty of Ghent. That officially ended the war with England. The tribes effected by the Indian Removal Act fought on the English side. Each individual tribe negotiated separate peace treaties with the US government. What I’d like to see is what were the terms of those treaties. It is very difficult to find that information. If under those treaties the Government retained full rights to the land, then removing the Indians from it would be justified. I know that Indian Removal Act allowed for the government to renegotiate with the tribes. What I’d need to see is what we’re the original negotiations and what we’re the new ones. These facts are important and in fact vital to determine wrong doing by the US government in this matter. However finding the stipulations in those original treaties is proving difficult.
I have a question for you. You stated: “The Indians DID tell them to leave once the beneficial trading stopped being so beneficial.” Which Indians and who did they tell to leave?
@Exterminatore My apologies for misunderstanding your comment on the trade deals. I think I saw a dollar sign next to 1600 in your first comment and then my semi-dyslexia saw that and "guilders" and thought you were implying they were bought off with Dutch currency. My point about conceptions of land ownership remain however. To say that the Indians were willfully and knowingly signing documents that were previously foreign in terms of philosophy and language should be absurd without reference to any specific treaty, but I'll mention one that I can remember. The Treaty of Casco in the 17th century after Philips's War was one of the earlier cases where Indian tribes were forced into accepting English Lockean style property rights that were unrecognized before the colonists arrived. Yes the English compensated the Indians in ways that would likely have been considered fair and humane at the time, but this misses the point: the rules of a game, political or otherwise, have to be agreed upon by all participating parties BEFORE the game takes place. Failure to do so is to enforce a framework on an unwilling party with the convenient refrain of: "but it's fair because this is how I always play it." Similarly, you mention the Americans potentially having a "legitimate" right to forcefully reallocate the Indians for retribution against them in previous armed conflicts. The settlers bring small pox, invasive species, and a foreign conception of government that Indians disapprove of, and when they rebel and ally themselves with various European powers to potentially limit the Manifest Destiny, it's treasonous and we must therefore punish them further for disobeying us. This is a bit like breaking into somebody's home, and using the fact that the owner pulled a gun on you, so you set forth an agreement where they relinquish their rights at gunpoint.
It’s ok. My auto spell corrector went crazy in that post.
How would Indians sign documents without someone knowing the language? Must be literate to read and write, including signing ones name. I’m sure some treaties were by verbal agreement.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the U. S. Government was always in the right either. There certainly were times where they were the aggressors.
I’m simply refuting silly arguments like “Europeans were the first illegal immigrants, so that justifies the current status of illegal immigration.”
I’m also showing for lefties who love to cry about racism in regards to the U. S. and Indian relations that it’s not exactly how they’re saying it was. It’s not as if Europeans just rolled into N. America and started swiping land. It’s likewise untrue the U. S. government had a policy of genocide and waging aggressive wars in regards to the Indians in each and every case. In fact that is not true In the majority of cases.
That’s all I’m getting at. I hate these silly attempts to justify foreign nationals taking up residence in this country illegally based on events that occurred between 400 and roughly 140 years ago. So I made it a point to put some facts out there that are not being disclosed in these silly arguments. I’m equally tired of accusations of America being an irredeemably racist nation, in which often the governments relations with the Indians is cited while skipping over the facts and jumping straight to racism.
Legal nigration should be very controlled. Secondly, Illegal migrants need to be deported ASAP to their country of origin.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
Similar cultures only, if you do not then there is too much chance of an immigrant inadvertently saying/doing some thing that will cause offence to the host
@marriedwith2 is stupid he is always butthurt about anything remotely right wing because he thinks it's anti-black even though it was actually democrats who were slave owners. haha you're so dumb.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
39Opinion
I literally don't care, I was born in Eastern Europe now I live in western Europe and in a few years I'll move to Southeast Asia. I don't have a country to protect. The planet is my territory and should be everyone's.
you have leftist nazis burning jobs.
immiagrants takeing up jobs
and finally deversifcation bull shit, no white men allowed unless your a fagot
There no such thing as a leftist nazi
The problem with illegal immigrants is that it is too hard to become a legal immigrant. If we made it easier for everyone to become a legal citizen we would have far less illegal immigrants. Problem solved.
A welfare state plus open borders equals the death of the nation.
Controlled immigration with people who benefit the country.
i think a group of people, who systematically took land and murdered a civilization, should be a shamed of themselves
sound familar
#WHITESKILLEDNATIVES
Hi.
Go fuck yourself.
Best regards.
thanks?
@dave31989 Well-said 👏
#DECOLONIZE
I voted option (C), but only because it's the only one that's at least somewhat close to my position.
Zero immigration, through births.
I will NEVER compromise on this. It's this or death. I'm actually willing to suffer and die to prevent it. It means that much to me.
No problem if they come legally my parents moved here legally plus The US is founded by immigrant built on backs of immigrants.
You need to go back.
I was born here.
Your parents were not.
@Frontier-Man that's not how it works.
@Tea-Spaghetti Yes it does. Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Eritrea, Morocco all expelled the descendants of White settlers. That is my model
Only difference is that it will be people that came after 1900 that will be expelled. Descendants of slaves too.
@Frontier-Man by your logic Europeans should be expelled to.
You're on stollen Native land
@Frontier-Man Are you native? If not pack up & fuck off American soil.
@SomeBlondeChick All "native American" land was consenually purchased. The United States gave 20x more money to Indians in the Louisiana territory for that same land than they gave to the French for that land.
Go look up "treaties with American Indians" and look through and research each treaty and see how much money they got and look at the chiefs who voluntarily signed off on the agreements.
I love when communist lefties who have been indoctrinated and lied to believe that whites stole the natives land and there for no one should be against illegal immigration.
I love it because a very quick survey of history refutes such and argument.
Let’s start out in 1607 when. Jamestown, the first European settlement in America was established. Are you commies aware the natives gave them permission to build a settlement there? That Captain John Smith was adopted by the chief of the Powhattans and that Thomas Rolfe married his daughter, Pocahontas? That sure doesn’t sound like the Europeans stealing land to me.
Then let’s jump a little latter into the $1600’s. The Dutch purchased Manhattan from the Indians for 60 guilders worth of trade. That is called a purchase. they bought it. Does that make them here illegally? Of course the English conquered it from the Dutch later on.
In the Early 1720 the French by treaty with Iroquois Indians built Fort Niagara in upstate NY. By treaty. That sure doesn’t sound like invading and stealing someone’s land.
There are many more cases that Europeans and later Americans were given permission to inhabit an area or purchased land. It is also true that main plains Indian tribes established treaties and verbal agreements in which they deliberately and that is according to several historical accounts from the Indians themselves.
Much land was also gained by America through conquest. For example in both the American Revolution and War of 1812 tribes that sided with the English were forced to cede lands conquered by Americans. An example of this would be the Iroquois, who by the way initially agreed to fight as American allies and the agreement was upon victory they would have their lands protected by the Americans. However after making an agreement with the Americans they very deceitfully talked to the British who also granted the same and other provisions. TBC
@Exterminatore Check out "How we bought the United States" or "Accounting for Conquest" by Robert Lee. It gives figures on the amount of money spent on the Louisiana territory, it's mind blowing how much American Indians actually got.
The Iroquois then felt assured of English victory and rather than formally rescind their agreement with the Americans, sided with the English as an ally and launched a sneak attack on the Americans. That lead to this statement by George Washington who was speaking specifically about the Iroquois:
“The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent them from planting more.”
This statement has been hailed by Indians and their leftist allies as proof of “racist” George Washington and his intended genocide on the Indians. Again, he was specifically speaking about 1 tribe. The Iroquois. Who deliberately attacked the Americans and I might add they were American non combatants who were deliberately attacked without warning after deceitfully choosing to renigg on their standing treaty with the Americans. First of all, since when is taking captives equated with genocide? If he intended genocide they would have been killed where they were found. Instead they were intended to be prisoners of war. Since when is destroying enemy supplies and dwellings, in this case crops and lodgings during a war considered “racism?” That is completely tactically and morally justifiable in war, an act of war they brought on themselves by deceitfully sneak attacking non combatant Americans.
In the War of 1812, several tribes who ceded land did so via combat and conquest and the resulting peace treaties to include the: Shawnee, Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminoles, Choctaws, and others. The Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 and subsequent peace treaties were signed individually with each Indian tribe ending hostilities with them as English allies. If you fight a war and loose land as a result of defeat that is not equivalent to racism nor is it equivalent to stealing land or illegal immigration.
To be continued.
@frontier-man look up the trail of tears.
Trail of tears was consensually agreed to by their chiefs. They also received financial compensation.
You also had other instance that happened to Whites. 40,000 Whites in Minnesota were expelled by the Sioux for example.
Fast forward to the 1820-1880s. As I stated previously, although my auto spell corrector ruined my statement, many plains and western Indian tribes had standing agreements with the Americans which by the Indians own admission they deliberately lied and attacked American non combatants resulting in their subsequent loss of land.
I am not saying in every instance the Europeans and subsequent Americans did not have wrong doing and did not steal land in every instance but more often than not land was lost either by peace treaty after hostilities in which the Indians lost or was either purchased or permission was given to the Europeans or the subsequent Americans to occupy the land. I love how these facts are not taught nor stated and we jump right to how the racist Europeans and Americans stole all the Indians lands and were the first illegal immigrants.
In 1803 the Americans made the Louisiana purchase from France. Did you all forget about that? Purchase. Meaning bought and paid for, not stollen. That territory included much all of the following states: AK, MIssouri, IA, OK, KS, NB, SD, ND, CO, WY, and MT. As stated it was a purchase. Meaning bought, from France. The Indians living in those territories were technically French subjects or Spanish subjects depending on the area, although they were largely allowed to live and do as they pleased. Article VI of the Louisiana Purchase stated the Americans agreed that the Americans would agree to execute any standing treaties made previously between the Spanish and the various Indian tribes on that land as the French did after gaining control of it. However when many of those tribes didn’t keep their previous agreements as made with the Spanish and upheld by the French to the Americans who now purchased that land wars resulted. Those wars with the individual tribes who were belligerents often resulting in a loss of land. That doesn’t exactly fit into the narrative of how the “racist” Americans stole the Indians lands.
If one side does not keep their agreements and war results in loss of land that’s not theft, it’s acquisition by conquest and is justified. For what it’s worth many tribes warred with other tribes and literally stole their land. I never hear leftists mention this.
The treaty of Guadalupe Hildago ended the Mexican War. As a result of that treaty the Mexicans ceded part or all of: CA, NV, UT, KS, OK, CO, NM. Again as a result of that treaty the Americans agreed to upheld any previous existing agreements between those tribes and Mexico. Just as had happened with the Louisiana Purchase many tribes attacked settlers in lands they perceived to be theirs resulting in wars with America. That resulted in American attacks and subsequently resulted in the Indians loosing land. Since when is it wrong to retaliate for attacks? Since when is it outright theft of territory when one nation conquers another and by mutual agreement cedes lands. Since never.
But you leftists love talking about racist America and how America stole land from Indians making them illegal immigrants, all while ignoring the facts I just mentioned.
Since the dawn of time many nations and Indian tribes conquered lands from others. If you’re such believers in this “Europeans and Americans are racists and were the first illegal immigrants” argument which in your mind justifies the current situation of illegal immigrants why do I not hear any of you proposing all lands since recorded history be returned to their original owners? Because that’s impossible and it’s a bunch of crap and all of you know it. Further more if you really believe this myth, why are all of you choosing to remain on lands you believe were stollen. If you believe that than you are in possession of stolen property and the benefactors of war crimes. My suggestion is that you right the wrong. All of you get off the lands you believe belong to others. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Or we can stop this nonsense and you can read history for yourselves and stop with nonsense theoretical arguments and accept and understand that America is a sovereign nation. It’s borders are set by international treaty and there is no justification for people to enter and take up residence in country in which violates TBC.
It’s laws. Despite certain leftist governors and government officials deliberately breaking the laws of this country and deliberately making illegal immigration possible.
@Frontier-man
As you can see I probably don’t need to read that book. I’ve cited several facts and examples from history.
What’s really going on is a globalist agenda and that agenda includes lying and indoctrinating people into believing tremendous wrong doings occurred in the accusation of territory we know as America today. This is done to get people to accept and promote illegal immigration while deliberately attentions to give an altered or misrepresented view of history and is done all while ignoring certain historical facts and/or deliberately misrepresenting them.
I’d like to hear a response to what I just said. I’d also like to know if you’re ready to get off land you believe was wrongfully appropriated, to right the wrong and act out the convictions you have?
@Exterminatore It's not a book, it's an article. You should read it though, because your points on the Louisiana purchase would've been stronger with that argument. Only trying to help.
@Frontier-Man You're not native American so you deserve to be here less than an immigrant who arrived yesterday
@SomeBlondeChick The land was literally purchased, did you not see the thread? What's wrong you?
ALSO, does that same logic apply to other people? Black people aren't native to Kenya or South Africa. Asians aren't native to the Philippines. Does that mean they can't complain about immigrants? Just stop, you sound ridiculous.
I'm just ignoring Frontier-Man cause he sounds ridiculous.
@Tea-Spaghetti Literally every non-opinion I gave to back up my opinion was correct. You people have nothing but anger.
@Frontier-man
I have noted you have acknowledged my point on the purchasing of land from Indians.
So I’d like to know why you told Thea to go back and that her grandparents weren’t born here?
What is your rational for wanting to expel white settlers and people born here after 1900?
@Exterminatore I said that to piss them off. tbh, I don't care if they were born after 1900.
@Exterminatore Also, I was replying to someone else. Not you, I don't always @ so if that caused confusions that's why.
@frontier-man
So... when are you going back to where you came from? If you’re an Indian, you too have to go back. Back across the land bridge that no longer exists to Asia.
I hope you can see why this reasoning is futile.
I'd like to point out to a few commenters here that "buying land" in a currency that the Indians didn't even understand or value should give pause to the notion that somehow they were perfectly aware of the English concept of land ownership and that they engaged in monetary transactions without any further details. If an alien species showed up to your house and offered to buy it for e+88/7 Wacky Dollars, surely you would a) wonder wtf is going on and b) tell them to scram. The Indians DID tell them to leave once the beneficial trading stopped being so beneficial. There was literally an act in the 19th century called the "Indian Removal Act". Not exactly subtle.
@Derekk Dude... The French and Spanish were buying land for over a hundred years. They DID understand how it worked. They had contact and experience with it for over hundreds of years.
@Exterminatore Indians weren't even the first people in the Americas, that was the Quasi-Australoids, population-Y.
@Derekk
You’d have a point if you were correct. Of course, for example it would be outrageous and fraud for the Dutch to give literally 60 guilders to the Indians for Manhattan. Those Indians had no concept of currency and it would be literally useless. They were given 60 guilders of trade as I stated. They were given items they found useful.
In regards to there’sIndian removal act, read what I stated. The territory won in the Mexican War and the territory purchased in the Louisiana Purchase make up probably 2/3rds of what is currently the U. S. in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, much of the land had been previously owned by the Spanish. The Spanish made agreements with most if not all of the tribes in that secretion of land to allow them to basically govern themselves. When the French acquired the land they kept the same agreements as the Spanish. Part of the the contract under Section 6 was the US was to also uphold the agreements. Often the US government renegotiated treaties with the individual tribes and often those tribes failed to keep their agreements resulting in warfare. Granted that’s not true 100% of the time, but often was the case.
The same holds true with the lands ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under that treaty the US agreed with Mexico that they would uphold the previous agreements between Mexico and the various Indian tribes. The results were the same as with the Louisiana Purchase.
In regards to the Indian Removal Act I’d need to look up the previous treaties those tribes had with the Government. I know the act authorized the government to renegotiate for those lands. I know that that act mainly had effect on the tribes of the southeast (Choctaw, Creeks, Seminole etc.) The problem with anything today and including history is it has been relayed by left wing historians to fit their narratives. In my statements above I gave one clear example of a statement by George Washington that is often quoted as proven racism tbc
@Derekk
Against Indians without explaining the background. The US governments dealing with the Indians historically is filled with many such instances. That is also the case with other historical events, like the Crusades, in which there are many instances of left wing historians not telling the whole truth. From a cursory search we can see that with the Indian Removal Act that Those southern tribes were forcibly removed. What I want to know is did the US government do so unjustly. At the end of the war of 1812 the us signed the Treaty of Ghent. That officially ended the war with England. The tribes effected by the Indian Removal Act fought on the English side. Each individual tribe negotiated separate peace treaties with the US government. What I’d like to see is what were the terms of those treaties. It is very difficult to find that information. If under those treaties the Government retained full rights to the land, then removing the Indians from it would be justified. I know that Indian Removal Act allowed for the government to renegotiate with the tribes. What I’d need to see is what we’re the original negotiations and what we’re the new ones. These facts are important and in fact vital to determine wrong doing by the US government in this matter. However finding the stipulations in those original treaties is proving difficult.
I have a question for you. You stated: “The Indians DID tell them to leave once the beneficial trading stopped being so beneficial.” Which Indians and who did they tell to leave?
@Frontier-man
That’s something I know nothing about. All I know is American History in regards to the Americas from 1607 on.
@Exterminatore My apologies for misunderstanding your comment on the trade deals. I think I saw a dollar sign next to 1600 in your first comment and then my semi-dyslexia saw that and "guilders" and thought you were implying they were bought off with Dutch currency. My point about conceptions of land ownership remain however. To say that the Indians were willfully and knowingly signing documents that were previously foreign in terms of philosophy and language should be absurd without reference to any specific treaty, but I'll mention one that I can remember. The Treaty of Casco in the 17th century after Philips's War was one of the earlier cases where Indian tribes were forced into accepting English Lockean style property rights that were unrecognized before the colonists arrived. Yes the English compensated the Indians in ways that would likely have been considered fair and humane at the time, but this misses the point: the rules of a game, political or otherwise, have to be agreed upon by all participating parties BEFORE the game takes place. Failure to do so is to enforce a framework on an unwilling party with the convenient refrain of: "but it's fair because this is how I always play it." Similarly, you mention the Americans potentially having a "legitimate" right to forcefully reallocate the Indians for retribution against them in previous armed conflicts. The settlers bring small pox, invasive species, and a foreign conception of government that Indians disapprove of, and when they rebel and ally themselves with various European powers to potentially limit the Manifest Destiny, it's treasonous and we must therefore punish them further for disobeying us. This is a bit like breaking into somebody's home, and using the fact that the owner pulled a gun on you, so you set forth an agreement where they relinquish their rights at gunpoint.
@Derekk
It’s ok. My auto spell corrector went crazy in that post.
How would Indians sign documents without someone knowing the language? Must be literate to read and write, including signing ones name. I’m sure some treaties were by verbal agreement.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the U. S. Government was always in the right either. There certainly were times where they were the aggressors.
I’m simply refuting silly arguments like “Europeans were the first illegal immigrants, so that justifies the current status of illegal immigration.”
I’m also showing for lefties who love to cry about racism in regards to the U. S. and Indian relations that it’s not exactly how they’re saying it was. It’s not as if Europeans just rolled into N. America and started swiping land. It’s likewise untrue the U. S. government had a policy of genocide and waging aggressive wars in regards to the Indians in each and every case. In fact that is not true In the majority of cases.
That’s all I’m getting at. I hate these silly attempts to justify foreign nationals taking up residence in this country illegally based on events that occurred between 400 and roughly 140 years ago. So I made it a point to put some facts out there that are not being disclosed in these silly arguments. I’m equally tired of accusations of America being an irredeemably racist nation, in which often the governments relations with the Indians is cited while skipping over the facts and jumping straight to racism.
Legal nigration should be very controlled. Secondly, Illegal migrants need to be deported ASAP to their country of origin.
Similar cultures only, if you do not then there is too much chance of an immigrant inadvertently saying/doing some thing that will cause offence to the host
Open immigration. Give them a social security card (and tracking device maybe) so they can be tracked and pay taxes.
I voted B but I love the meme.
The Right Wing way: "If you're white, you're alright"
No, I want zero immigration. European Whites included.
The Left Wing way: "If you're white, you're always wrong"
@marriedwith2 is stupid he is always butthurt about anything remotely right wing because he thinks it's anti-black even though it was actually democrats who were slave owners. haha you're so dumb.
Wealthy people create jobs, so still far better than tax dollars.
No restrictions, BUT NO HANDOUTS EITHER meaning u wanna use our services pay up
I don’t care. Go where you please
B seems like the most sensible answer.
D
Unity is strength not diversity
I am for new world order.