The "Indian" argument

[danberkeley]

I am tellin you there was an agenda to re write history...and crash the capitalists..that's white folks. I remember the days when there was no "white guilt"...I feel sorry for the youth..the youth is full of white guilt. G. Edward Griffin has a great lecture you can watch on how the communists / fabians re wrote the history books to their favor and condemned white christian europeans and brough UP the minorities..particularly the blacks and indians...because they considered them the proletariat. I'll post the link. Tones

http://video.google.com/videosearch...f#q=g edward griffin communism&emb=0&start=10

The lecture is called "More Deadly Than War"...this link will take you to the general vicinity...

Yeah... the "commie" Chinese are better capitalists than the Americans. WHen the Chinese apply for a job they do not ask "how many days do I get off?", they ask "how many hours can work today?"

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Communists figured out they need capital too lol.tones

 

[constituent]

"how many days do I get off?"

well, according to the christian talk radio program i was listening to late the other night, you should get off w/ your wife at least three times a week for health reasons...

i'm not sure if the voodoo works w/ your girlfriend/hand or not though.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

How did we get to this? tones

 

[constituent]

The indians

the indians?

is that like the blacks?


or the westerners?


how do you define the indians tones?

 

[constituent]

How did we get to this? tones

moral degeneration and the decay of white society, how else?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

No hegelian dialectic for me! tones (circular logic)

 

[SeanEdwards]

Neither can you put 9/11 truth back in the bottle.

Yeah, 9/11 truther arguments are about as compelling as toothpaste.

 

[danberkeley]

well, according to the christian talk radio program i was listening to late the other night, you should get off w/ your wife at least three times a week for health reasons...

i'm not sure if the voodoo works w/ your girlfriend/hand or not though.

 

[reardenstone]

Shawnee, Miami, Mingo, Illinois, ...there are more off and on through history too. The whole region was embroiled in wars between 1600-1700 when the Iroquois built a huge empire of sorts with Dutch guns after crushing the Huron.

Any Indians who lost their land from the Indian Removal Act of 1828 should get their land back. It was unconstitutional(violating 3 SCOTUS decisions) and immoral. That includes the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek(not the Red Stick ones though, who were crushed by Jackson after siding with Tecumseh, who had familial relations with them), Seminoles, Choctaws, the Shawnee faction that sided with the US against Tecumseh, and the Fox/Sauk under Black Hawk.

In addition, the huge record of broken treaties leaves plenty of space for the Indians to reclaim land. Plus, there is the old threat of force when being made to sign a treaty making it void. Or, by Tecumseh's theory, because no one tribe owned individual lands for any permanent time, they could not legally sell it. At the same time, under this system that means that the Americans could not own the land either, and I would say Americans violated the rights of Indians by claiming land for their own sole use.

However, I don't think it is feasible to retrack all that ground. Should doesn't imply will. Instead, the US should give sovereignty to all Indian tribes and tracts of land for their governance. At the same time, there should be no limit of ousting Americans or Americans ousting Indians. This gives free use of land but changing of sovereignty while protecting private property and natural rights.

How about a Bill to restore these nations as nations and their land as well and invite them to participate in Washington. After that the case for state sovereignty can be made stronger.

 

[Imperial]

I actually wouldn't mind that. We could give the individual tribe power to form there own states, run by there own form of government, within the united states. The majority of the white, black, and latino population would have to learn the state's official language to go into office, and in public schools.

Of course I live in Ohio, I don't think any tribe has an official connection to it. I could be wrong...

Umm we broke the Treaty of Greenville from 1795 that gave the Native Americans Ohio. We forced the Shawnee Indians (the faction which cooperated with us in the War of 1812 and opposed Tecumseh) to move to a reservation in Missouri or Kansas. That original land that we kicked the Shawnee from was in Ohio...

 

[South Park Fan]

How do we respond to the "Indian" argument when someone claims if we truly believe in property rights that we should hand our land back over to the original owners we took it from, the Indians?

The "Indians" did not anything. Only individual Indians could have owned any land in this continent. Thus, the burden of proof would have to be on that individual Indian to show that he is the rightful owner of your specific plot of land.

 

[Imperial]

This is an issue that will never be solved trying to cite civilization's laws and customs. Only one law applies here. The law of force. What was done to the indians can never be explained away or rationalized by our DOI or constitution. It was wrong and totally wrong by those standards.
Were the Indians totally innocent? No. they were in almost constant warfare with each other for hunting grounds, women and loot for thousands of years. How many times did hunting grounds change between tribes in those thousands of years?
Once again it was power from Washington that caused the most harm. Many local military commanders put their honor on line to make peice treaties with the indians only to have Washington break the deals.

Not to mention some of the generals were corrupt themselves. I think of President Harrison here, who despite personally respecting Tecumseh instigated a war against his defensive alliance.

 

[Imperial]

The "Indians" did not anything. Only individual Indians could have owned any land in this continent. Thus, the burden of proof would have to be on that individual Indian to show that he is the rightful owner of your specific plot of land.

What is wrong with collective ownership? In a free market wouldn't people be free to be able to own property communally?

 

[South Park Fan]

What is wrong with collective ownership? In a free market wouldn't people be free to be able to own property communally?

Not per se. Technically they would each individually have partial ownership of that property (e.g. shares).