• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

People who say "We took this land from the Indians it doesn't belong to us"

joG said:
That does not necessarily justify things, but it is quite true.
Click to expand...

Do you find it strange that our own President says this stuff? Just seems like kind of a bizarre thing to say. As if everybody doesn't know that already.
 
RBIII said:
What is your point and what are you suggesting?

We all pack up and go home? Whatever that means.

We just let whoever wants in...in?

I find this statement kind of an odd.

Compassion is one thing, being naive is another.

Anyone care to defend this? :confused:
Click to expand...

Do the Comanches who took their lands from the tribes that were living there have to give them back as well?? Conquerors have always existed and until recently, no one has ever demanded that their lands be returned to them. If they wanted them back, they got stronger than their conquerors and took them back. Most of the world has been taken over by conquerors at one point or another and the conquered either submitted and joined or they fought back. It's time that the Indians decide to join American society and stop trying to be something they no longer are. It's time to get rid of the scars that are reservations and integrate into society.
 
RBIII said:
Do you find it strange that our own President says this stuff? Just seems like kind of a bizarre thing to say. As if everybody doesn't know that already.
Click to expand...

It is hard to understand why this President says some of the things he does.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I will...



That we took this land from the Indians...



That it doesn't belong to us...



Yes. You need to pack up and go back to your historic homeland...



It means that you need to pack up and go home...



That is for the "Indians" to decide... it is their land.



AS do I... unless you are an Indian.



Relevance?
Click to expand...

It's not their land, it was taken from them, just as most of the rest of the world has been taken from someone else at some point in history. How far back should we go in deciding who stays and who goes?? How about was just all move back to Olduvai Gorge and let the rest of the world return to it's "natural" state??
 
"Because that's the way it was done" is no justification for anything. Anyone making this argument has serious deficiencies in moral judgment and reason, and trouble telling right from wrong.

"But, but ... all the other boys beat red-haired people to death, so that makes it okay!"

W. T. F.
 
DirtyRat said:
"Because that's the way it was done" is no justification for anything. Anyone making this argument has serious deficiencies in moral judgment and reason, and trouble telling right from wrong.

"But, but ... all the other boys beat red-haired people to death, so that makes it okay!"

W. T. F.
Click to expand...

Its not "because that's the way it was done", i think it would be more accurate to say "that's the way it IS done", and is still done and going on till this day.
 
Mithrae said:
You're right, it isn't modern Comanches fault their ancestors did horrible things any more than it's modern white people's fault. I didn't say anything about feeling guilty. I said that some of these things were done by an organization which still exists today.

The US Constitution didn't automatically disappear after a hundred years. Your government's laws don't automatically disappear after a hundred years. Why would you imagine for a second that your government's responsibility for its actions, good or bad, automatically disappear when "yesterday" becomes today (whatever particular timeframe that is supposed to imply, if any)?

It's not even as though 19th century Americans were ignorant brutes; the Declaration of Independence's stuff about all men created equal with inalienable rights to liberty etc. make dispossession and forced relocations pretty incontrovertibly morally wrong by their own standards.

Granted, legally speaking the argument could probably made that the actions weren't formally forbidden back then; didn't work too well for the Nazis from what I gather, but that's an aside. I'm just saying what I reckon should happen, based on some fairly obvious principles - not what's likely to happen.
Click to expand...
You are promoting the continuation of a victim mentality that truly enslaves people. Wah...my ancestry had a hard life 250 years ago. Yeah they did. And your ancestry ****ed some serious **** up for others along the way. That was the way of the world. Time to grow up, stand up, and move up.
 
VanceMack said:
You are promoting the continuation of a victim mentality that truly enslaves people. Wah...my ancestry had a hard life 250 years ago. Yeah they did. And your ancestry ****ed some serious **** up for others along the way. That was the way of the world. Time to grow up, stand up, and move up.
Click to expand...

Um... what? No person alive today is a victim of things that happened centuries ago. I'm really not sure why you have this obsession with victimhood, but it's obviously clouding your judgement and reading comprehension in a big way. I suppose I'll just have to look forward to what might prove to be an intelligent conversation with you if and when you ever manage to address the content of my posts - the so far undisputed fact that responsibility for actions belongs to the individuals and organizations which sanctioned and committed them :)
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Um... what? No person alive today is a victim of things that happened centuries ago. I'm really not sure why you have this obsession with victimhood, but it's obviously clouding your judgement and reading comprehension in a big way. I suppose I'll just have to look forward to what might prove to be an intelligent conversation with you if and when you ever manage to address the content of my posts - the so far undisputed fact that responsibility for actions belong to the individuals and organizations which sanctioned and committed them :)
Click to expand...
:lamo

Precisely the point. No person alive has a claim to whatever their ancestry may have experienced. Similarly...anyone stupid enough to claim a right to some sort of compensation should be held accountable for the sins of their forefathers. Funny how that part never comes up.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Precisely the point. No person alive has a claim to whatever their ancestry may have experienced. Similarly...anyone stupid enough to claim a right to some sort of compensation should be held accountable for the sins of their forefathers. Funny how that part never comes up.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're misunderstanding something here:

A > If a person or organization's actions were wrong, then morally (and at least in principle, legally) some kind of appropriate recompense is due to the person or organization wronged. You're not actually trying to dispute that, are you?

B > If someone dies, as a general rule the things they own - or the things they are owed - are passed on to their family and descendants. Granted there's sometimes technicalities, but are you going to dispute that as a general rule?

So if the United States government rightfully owes some kind of recompense to the victims of its policies, such as those in support of manifest destiny, widespread dispossession of native American tribes, the trail of tears and so on, taking a century or more to acknowledge that debt doesn't make it not exist. From A and B, the debt is obviously owed to their heirs, where they can be identified.

Honestly, are you really trying to say that the policy you believe your and other governments should follow is just to deny any wrongdoing until the victims are dead, and then it suddenly doesn't matter any more? Maybe just cut out the middle step and kill people outright, because once they're dead nothing is owed to their heirs?
 
Mithrae said:
If a person or organization's actions were wrong, then morally (and at least in principle, legally) some kind of appropriate recompense is due to the person or organization wronged. You're not actually trying to dispute that, are you?
Click to expand...

Sins of the father, no thanks. .... Actually my forefather was Able and yours was Cain so would you like to cut me a check?
 
blaxshep said:
Sins of the father, no thanks. .... Actually my forefather was Able and yours was Cain so would you like to cut me a check?
Click to expand...

Jesus...

For the fourth or fifth time now:
Responsibility for actions belongs to the individuals and organizations which sanctioned and committed them

I'm quite sure that I'm writing in passable English here. This really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp for people who read and write in that language for a hobby. Cain is dead, but the government of these United States is still around under its 44th President and 114th Congress; a government which sanctioned in its policies and at times directly carried out dispossession of numerous native American tribes in the 19th century. Acts for which it is responsible. US government. Responsible. 19th century. Culmination.

I would honestly love to see some intelligent debate about what I've posted; like I said, the situation is quite similar in Australia. But instead all I'm getting is these ridiculous strawmen. What's with that?
 
Mithrae said:
Jesus...

For the fourth or fifth time now:
Responsibility for actions belongs to the individuals and organizations which sanctioned and committed them

I'm quite sure that I'm writing in passable English here. This really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp for people who read and write in that language for a hobby. Cain is dead, but the government of these United States is still around under its 44th President and 114th Congress; a government which sanctioned in its policies and at times directly carried out dispossession of numerous native American tribes in the 19th century.

I would honestly love to see some intelligent debate about what I've posted; like I said, the situation is quite similar in Australia. But instead all I'm getting is these ridiculous strawmen. What's with that?
Click to expand...

OK, we the people of the United States owe the Indians nothing, we went to war they lost, end of the line. That is how the world worked back in the 1700s.
 
People who say "We took this land from the Indians it doesn't belong to us"

Bodhisattva said:
I will...



That we took this land from the Indians...



That it doesn't belong to us...



Yes. You need to pack up and go back to your historic homeland...



It means that you need to pack up and go home...



That is for the "Indians" to decide... it is their land.



AS do I... unless you are an Indian.



Relevance?
Click to expand...

So where is home? My family came from a multitude of locations. Should I cut myself into pieces and ship them? Are you being a smart ass? Because I think the question is a legitimate way to critique that statement about the land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blaxshep said:
We didn't need a formal declaration of war to slaughter them and take their land. Look they got screwed, no doubt about it. That's just too bad, we owe them nothing.
Click to expand...

What do you call slaughtering people without trial or declaration of war?

What you're apparently saying is that yes, the US government is guilty of murder, theft and so on... but too bad. Don't need to do anything about it. No reparations or anything: Once you've killed someone, you don't owe their heirs a damn thing, because the victim is dead.
 
Mithrae said:
What do you call slaughtering people without trial or declaration of war?

What you're apparently saying is that yes, the US government is guilty of murder, theft and so on... but too bad. Don't need to do anything about it. No reparations or anything: Once you've killed someone, you don't owe their heirs a damn thing, because the victim is dead.
Click to expand...

You realize the people who did the killing are dead too? So are the ones who ordered the killing. Governments are bad. The only thing you can do is take a lesson from history at this point: don't trust the government to do right by the people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mithrae said:
Jesus...

For the fourth or fifth time now:
Responsibility for actions belongs to the individuals and organizations which sanctioned and committed them

I'm quite sure that I'm writing in passable English here. This really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp for people who read and write in that language for a hobby. Cain is dead, but the government of these United States is still around under its 44th President and 114th Congress; a government which sanctioned in its policies and at times directly carried out dispossession of numerous native American tribes in the 19th century. Acts for which it is responsible. US government. Responsible. 19th century. Culmination.

I would honestly love to see some intelligent debate about what I've posted; like I said, the situation is quite similar in Australia. But instead all I'm getting is these ridiculous strawmen. What's with that?
Click to expand...
I think we can solve this easily enough. All of those of you that feel an obligation to pay for something done by your ancestors should honor that obligation you feel you need to pay.

I don't think many if any of the rest of us are going to grouse about you and the others feeling such guilt, however imbecilic the reasoning on your part, if you folks organize a drive among all those feeling similarly guilty and send all the tribes big fat checks. I am Scottish and so all you similarly guilty feeling folks of English descent out there, I will certainly give you my current address if you want to mail me a check, with interest please... electronic transfer would be even better.
 
Mithrae said:
What do you call slaughtering people without trial or declaration of war?

What you're apparently saying is that yes, the US government is guilty of murder, theft and so on... but too bad. Don't need to do anything about it. No reparations or anything: Once you've killed someone, you don't owe their heirs a damn thing, because the victim is dead.
Click to expand...

It's called "Conquest".

It's as basic in the history of man as the discovery of tool making.

It is the nature of man to expand, explore, and protect. It is the nature of humans to form together in common goal and security.

It is as natural an act as childbirth.

It's the reason citizens formed towns, cities, and nations.

Those who lost are likely going to always complain. The strong will survive and grow, the weak will perish, be absorbed, or be banished.

What is artificial, and against Nature and Evolution is the effort to ignore this natural state of mankind.
 
Mithrae said:
What do you call slaughtering people without trial or declaration of war?

What you're apparently saying is that yes, the US government is guilty of murder, theft and so on... but too bad. Don't need to do anything about it. No reparations or anything: Once you've killed someone, you don't owe their heirs a damn thing, because the victim is dead.
Click to expand...

What do you want to do give the whole country back to the remaining Indians? Look you don't like mass murder and theft, well that's what governments do, always have always will. You think those hundreds of thousands of people killed in the Middle East are any less dead? Where is the declaration of war for Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? etc.? You liberals keep saying we need gun control, only the government needs guns. You might want to rethink that.
 
Mithrae said:
What do you call slaughtering people without trial or declaration of war?

What you're apparently saying is that yes, the US government is guilty of murder, theft and so on... but too bad. Don't need to do anything about it. No reparations or anything: Once you've killed someone, you don't owe their heirs a damn thing, because the victim is dead.
Click to expand...
You do understand that the "noble savage" was not near as noble as made out to be, right? They committed atrocities amongst each other, on settlers and along with the governments involved. Remember the French and Indian War? French and their Indians against the British and their Indians. The Incas were amidst a conquest of the Mapuche in the South of Chile when the conquistadors happened along.

Cro-Magnon took it from the original liberals, the Neanderthals, where does one send that check, ha ha ha...
 
Mithrae said:
Perhaps you're misunderstanding something here:

A > If a person or organization's actions were wrong, then morally (and at least in principle, legally) some kind of appropriate recompense is due to the person or organization wronged. You're not actually trying to dispute that, are you?

B > If someone dies, as a general rule the things they own - or the things they are owed - are passed on to their family and descendants. Granted there's sometimes technicalities, but are you going to dispute that as a general rule?

So if the United States government rightfully owes some kind of recompense to the victims of its policies, such as those in support of manifest destiny, widespread dispossession of native American tribes, the trail of tears and so on, taking a century or more to acknowledge that debt doesn't make it not exist. From A and B, the debt is obviously owed to their heirs, where they can be identified.

Honestly, are you really trying to say that the policy you believe your and other governments should follow is just to deny any wrongdoing until the victims are dead, and then it suddenly doesn't matter any more? Maybe just cut out the middle step and kill people outright, because once they're dead nothing is owed to their heirs?
Click to expand...
Pathetic. The same people you think should be owed something were doing the same things. They just werent as good at it and they lost. That was then. This is now.

I'm all for people like yourself that believe in reparations giving up everything you own and gifting it to the wrongly oppressed. You should do it. Now.
 
Mithrae said:
Perhaps you're misunderstanding something here:

A > If a person or organization's actions were wrong, then morally (and at least in principle, legally) some kind of appropriate recompense is due to the person or organization wronged. You're not actually trying to dispute that, are you?

B > If someone dies, as a general rule the things they own - or the things they are owed - are passed on to their family and descendants. Granted there's sometimes technicalities, but are you going to dispute that as a general rule?

So if the United States government rightfully owes some kind of recompense to the victims of its policies, such as those in support of manifest destiny, widespread dispossession of native American tribes, the trail of tears and so on, taking a century or more to acknowledge that debt doesn't make it not exist. From A and B, the debt is obviously owed to their heirs, where they can be identified.

Honestly, are you really trying to say that the policy you believe your and other governments should follow is just to deny any wrongdoing until the victims are dead, and then it suddenly doesn't matter any more? Maybe just cut out the middle step and kill people outright, because once they're dead nothing is owed to their heirs?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The point of this thread was not to determine what is morally right or wrong. The reason i made this thread is because i here this thrown around a lot in political argument, especially concerning immigration, and it has nothing to do with immigration. Wouldn't it only be fair for another Country/People/Organization to come and take it like we did? I have an issue with those who are okay with loose immigration laws because "this isn't our land".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom