I started this thread to reply to things said in Diogenes' thread titled "what freedoms does your country enjoy" or something like that. I didn't want to muck up his thread and send it off on a tangent, but I have to comment.

We did not "steal" this land from the indians. We attacked them and conquered them. We beat them up, and took thier land. Sometimes by force, sometimes by deception. It was anything but a theft. To their credit, they fought for every inch of it. We paid for this land with a river of white blood.

The people who think we "stole" it from them are insulting them. The Native Americans had a proud warrior tradition, and had the advantage over any equal force of whites. We beat them with technology, and later, with superior numbers. They were FEARED, justifiably, by the Europeans who came to this continent. To say we merely "stole" their land from them makes it sound easy. It wasn't. The conquest of this continent is something to be proud of. I have great respect for the Native Americans of the past.

So if I attack you, beat you up, and take your wallet, that's not stealing?

Not really. You made "laws" where people could stake claims. To land that was not your government to give. Your nation was built over the backs of the native people who were indeed butchered. That which remained was subjungated (sp) and forced to live in reservations... they do so to this day.

As for the stealing remark... Isn't that the definition of taking by force what is not your own?

actually, that would be robbery, not theft.

Okay, then you robbed the native americans of their land... Probably a worse vice then stealing even.

Such is human history. On the one hand, it's tempting to point the finger elsewhere- how the fuck can anyone from a European nation, for instance, say that America was built on theft with a straight face? On the other hand, this doesn't lead anywhere. The best that can be done is to act morally, and trust and hope that others will do the same.


For my part, I feel no pride in my ancestors for taking land unhonorably from the indigenous tribes, and for slaughtering and opressing those that tried to live in peace with us, and for violating every treaty of boundary we ever made. These people were scum, ruthless killers, racists, and generally evil bastards. There should be no glorification of their acts. This is not to paint an idealized image of the native tribes as pacifistic tree huggers deeply attuned to Mother Earth, but they were undoubtedly the greater wronged in the vast, vast majority of conflicts in US history.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this thread.

I just typed a 1500 word essay addressing every point in all of your replies, and then I lost it in a goddam connection error!!!

I'll try again tomorrow night. I'm too fucking pissed right now to think about it.

Oh yes, the evil Americans...never mind the fact that the American expansion was simply a continuance of European imperialist ideals of colonization and expansion. England, France, Spain, Holland, and others had colonies in areas of the world that already had native peoples.

Of course, human nations/tribes/what-have-you have been killing each other off and taking their land all over the world for thousands of years, so why nitpick about one specific instance or group?

Actually, if we go by Synikul's idea's - it depends on the rest of the "story".

Thus to answer your question Qoji - using Synikul's idea's...
If u attack me, beat me up, and take my waller, BUT, I resist you and fightback,... then its not "merely" stealing.

Instead, if u managed to still get my wallet, throughout my figting back...
then apparently its a "conquest", and you should be 'proud of it'(?)

In Synikul's eye's - the fact you managed to still get my wallet, even though I was figting back, is something to be "proud of" - apparently.

Those countries were mostly monarchies... dictatorships. To adress the nations mentioned earlier: The dutch were ruled by the Stadholder (basically a president of sorts), the Spanish by their King (and probably more so, the Pope), the French by their "Divine King", and the English by their queen. They all were imperialist nations at the time, seeking to expand. Of all them it was only the spanish who were out for outright conquest in the beginning (enslaving and "converting the heathen" natives and looting whatever gold they could find). The Dutch settled mainly in the carribans, and originally in what is now New York (at the time called New Amsterdam). Eventually they traded the north-american continental colony for what is now Suriname, to gain the suger plantations there. From their bases in the carriban isles they maintained a fleet of privateers, mainly preying upon spanish ships laden with loot from the inca culture.
The french landed in what is now canada, and kept relative peace with the native population there.

As I recall, it was only after independance of the english colonies that the real expansion began...

And why nitpick on this particular group? Because I find it rather hypocrite to call ones self a free nation while some groups are still being kept quiet...

Not to mention people feel PROUD of our history. Yes, bad things happened, and we can't change that now. But to be PROUD of the bad things that happened? That's like being proud of your horse thieving ancestors.

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

I've said it before, and I still stand by it. That's what my opinion of the conquest of North America is based on.

If you beat me up and steal my wallet, that would be an example of might makes right, but only if it happens in a vacuum. The greater might of society which has decided that that kind of theft is wrong will enforce its idea of right with the might of the police and courts.

There was no international might at the time to enforce the "right" of not conquering the land of your enemy, and there really still isn't. As has been happening throughout history when one group of people wants the land and resources of another group of people, we went into a series of wars with the Native Americans. If you think it was an easy "theft", I encourage you to read about the frontier wars from 1750-1812. The Native Americans could easily defeat any equal force of whites. That's where my respect for them comes from. During that period, they could have pushed us back into the sea. It's almost an insult to them to paint them as hapless victims. They were feared.

Anyone who thinks they are being oppressed today is living in a PC fantasy land. They aren't forced to live on the reservations, they can live wherever they want. They can get U.S. citizenship automatically just by filling out some paperwork. They don't have to go through the immigrant process. Many of them don't do that because they are finally using the unique legal status of their land to make a killing with casinos and cigarettes. There are oppressed people all over the world that would love to be oppressed the way we did it to them.

By the way, I'm against all efforts by the various states to tax and regulate indian gambling. We have no need to break any more treaties. We got everything we needed from them.

And YES, I am PROUD of my ancestors who defeated the indians. They fired their one shot muskets, then drew a knife or axe and fought indian warriors on their own terms. The indians took a hell of a lot of us with them before they lost. We paid for this land with a river of white blood, spilled by indians. The decendants of the indians can be proud of the stand they made, and many are.

Even though I have some racist opinions, this is one race I don't belittle. I have genuine respect for them.

then doesn't that make the conquering of the natives wrong in hindsight?

Perhaps it's high time we had one.

My ancestors include the Seminoles, and quite possible Osceola himself. I can't say I'm necessarily a student of history of the Seminoles, but I do know they put up a valiant fight against the immoral Americans who decided, ooo, land, me want, me take.

Luckily, my white ancestors didn't take that land. They were too busy working hard labor in coal mines, building train tracks, and the like.



You be proud of them. I spit on their graves.

In retrospect it is hard to find any present nation that does not allow its existence due to some sort of conquering of an indeginous peoples.

All we can really do is allow ourselves to respect the past and learn from it. What was built here in thwe United States cannot be changed and some of the tactics taken by those who conquered this nation were reprehensible yet we DO exist. We can point fingers and say that perhaps if our ancestors took part in it that we are proud of them and that is not a bad thing nor should it be taken as such.
People back in the heyday who were taking part in the conquering thought they were doing what was best. We can use our moral compass to refute thier honor and yet we do not live within thier time frame and as such cannot feasably judge thier actions from an unbiased position.

One must also acknowledge that the native Americans also slaughtered entire early white settlements and as such the blame can easily be pushed upon both parties because as we know violence is an illogical circle of events.

Do you not understand the point I'm trying to make? I don't think I can explain it in terms simpler than I already have.

Or a non-indigenous people. We're humans, we fight each other. That will never change.

They were justified when they did it. It isn't about any objective standard of morality. If they had prevailed over us, then they would have been right because they had the greater might. This is the way the world works. You are denying reality if you don't recognize it. Thats the way it is, and the only way it will ever change is if we all join together in a Borg-like collective where everyone's actions are controlled like a robot.

i have to say i am proud of my ancestors who slaughtered white settlers

As you should be.