North American Indians Justified?
- Thread starter meesterperfect
- Start date
the truth is if the white man had treated the indian the same way the indian had treated their indian enemies there would be no indians. regards Crazy Horse
I belong to neither side...........
but what'sever was done.....indians.....is the act of those who are the so-called champions of human rights and freedom.........
:eek::eek::eek::eek:
Depends on the tribe you're talking about. The Aztecs certainly weren't the nicest people around and even though the Incas were a tad less bloodthirsty, they too got their kingdom/empire through conquest.
The tale of the last of the Mohicans, although romanticised, does hold some truth. The different tribes joined different sides (English, French) just to get to eachother and they weren't nice to eachother either. Although I think that's more to disgrace the enemy than anything else. If an enemy would beg for it's life or cry or whatever, it wasn't considered very honorable or courageous.
But the Natives never actually tried to commit genocide as far as I know, although that could have been because there was no use to it and tribes could simply move away to other territories when needed.
But if you look at the white people's (read European) history, then you'll see that we were no better. The Germanic tribes from which most of us descended were quite brutal to both eachother and different peoples (like the Romans and Celts), who in turn weren't too nice towards eachother either (& neither was any other people that ever walked on the face of this planet).
Better yet, the French and English, the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy See or Venice and the Byzantine Empire didn't treat eachother too well either, so you can hardly claim that we had more or higher morals.
Did the Natives have the right to defend themselves? Did the Europeans have the right to defend themselves when the Mongols invaded? Yes. But because of internal strife and inferior millitary the natives and Europeans wouldn't have succeeded and the natives didn't succeed (luckily for the Europeans Ghenghis Kahn died and the Mongols turned around & never returned).
But what right did the Mongols have to just enter Europe and conquer it? What right did the Europeans have to just invade the Americas and just conquer it? None, so yes, the defender had every right to do just that, defend.
tartanterrier
Is somewhere outhere.
For those that were loyal to British rule - sure the relations were pretty good.
But for the others who had stood against it,lost their land and had to seek a
new home elsewhere.
tartanterrier
Is somewhere outhere.
I'm from the lowlands but my ancestors were slaughtered by the Campbells -who were loyal to the English.
http://www.geocities.com/sconemac/lamont.html
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Ok many feel its justified too defend your land if its being over run by people from another place.
So by that thinking wouldn't it be ok for native born US citizens of today to use force to defend and drive out the incredible amounts of illegal immigrants invading the country?
Or does the double standard apply?
So by that thinking wouldn't it be ok for native born US citizens of today to use force to defend and drive out the incredible amounts of illegal immigrants invading the country?
Or does the double standard apply?
Hmmm. There's probably a law or two today that would result in imprisonment, death penalty..etc for randomly killing human beings. You would be hardpressed to claim "self-defense" since illegal immigrants do not march across our borders as plundering hordes either...
Sorry Meester. Your little attempt a justifiable ethnic cleansing is basically against probably 1000 current criminal laws...:dunno:
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
who said ethnic cleansing?
i said drive out by force.
So for the indians its self defense, for the US citizens of today its ethnic cleansing.
Ok.
Again selectiveness, there are also laws against illegal aliens, but you disregard those.
You say tomato; I say tomahto.
Are you being serious? You really think you've uncovered an incredibly insightful logical loophole which allows you to shoot any "illegals" on sight? Of course you have to actually find out if they are illegals or are you looking for a legal basis to shoot people you just don't like?:dunno:
The U.S. did not "own" "America." The U.S. (by way of our British masters) had to construct settlements, negotiate treaties with "natives," break treaties, horde up natives and move them "out of sight" to make room for more "American" immigrants.
Does that scenario seem remotely comparable to today's illegal immigration problem? Seriously.:crash: Here's a clue: Today's illegal immigrants (and yesterdays) don't actually want to settle here. They want to work for slave wages while American companies grow profits and then return home. If Mexico had a stable working economy, they wouldn't come here in the first place. If law enforcement focused on corporations, there wouldn't be an immigration problem.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
ughhhhhhhhhh, did i say anything about shooting.
and yes, basically things are similar, a huge group from one place is entering a populating that of another.
blaming corporations? its their fault?
The truth is that for a long time there had been diffusion between the countries and to a point they were interdependent.Many Lairds in fact lived in London and became partly anglicised.The clan system was very strong (though the clan tartan was a Victorian invention) , for example when Bonnie Prince Charlie landed most Scots didn't want to know but support was on clan lines with the result that at Culloden Scots were fighting on both sides.
It wasn't British rule at all. It was a voluntary union of two countries, Scotland kept its legal and educational system (still superior by the way) , OK the centre of power was London but Scotland was fully represented and I might say did exceptionally well from the arrangement.Remember that Scotland was bankrupt and couldn't function any longer on its own which is why they (not the English) asked for full economic and political union.
It depends. I specifically used the word conquest in my posts and I don't see the illegal immigrants conquering the US with force. If the Mexican army invaded, then I'd say yes, defend yourself.
As far as I know, the illegal immigrants don't use force (& if they did, they'd be sent back or they'd be jailed by the police) and they're not imposing their culture upon the natives (in this case the US citizens).
All they do is essentially steal your money by taking your jobs or by literally stealing or by ... . (I doubt they get wellfare as long as they're illegal, so that option doesn't apply.)
Anyway, I don't think stealing money justifies a large amount of violence.
plus the fact that Mexicans are not slaughtering millions of American citizens. Kind of a different situation.
a more fitting comparison: would white Americans have been justified to use force to repel the European immigrants that came to this country in the late 19/early 20th century?
also how about would slaves have been justified in killing their masters and taking their property since they were the ones that cultivated it?
a more fitting comparison: would white Americans have been justified to use force to repel the European immigrants that came to this country in the late 19/early 20th century?
also how about would slaves have been justified in killing their masters and taking their property since they were the ones that cultivated it?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Ok, thanks, I didnt realize there were so many variables on defending a country from an invasion.
Imposing culture, check
getting welfare, check
breaking treaties, check
not slaughtering, check
thanks for straightening me out on that.
Imposing culture, check
getting welfare, check
breaking treaties, check
not slaughtering, check
thanks for straightening me out on that.
This whole thread ...
This whole thread is well off-base.
This whole thread is well off-base.
That's because you take a too simplistic approach to everything and you basically don't actually know anything about modern immigration.:dunno:
Corporations, Small Businesses (restaurants primarily) and Wealthy, Lazy American homeowners hire illegal immigrants today. If not them, then who? Who is "giving" all these jobs away? The Church? Universities?
How would you propose "defending" and "rounding up" these invaders of your country, if you lived here. Would you just grab anyone by the collar that looked like a Mexican and toss them into a giant van or bus? Would they just go peacefully? What about illegal asians, haitians, swedes? Do these people get to stay?
