237 years later - Has government dependency hurt Whites in America?

[Asclepias]

The land was unoccupied. The Indians were hunter gatherers. The didn't stay put in a single location. They wandered over large tracts of land. The claim that the Indians "owned" whatever land they happened to wander over is an absurd misinterpretation of the word "own."

If you are a gold prospector and you find gold, is that a "hand out" to yourself?

The idea couldn't be more absurd.

The U.S. Government created the rules governing acquisition and "ownership" of native lands--and the subsequent distribution. Therefore, the government doled out wealth. Therefore, "welfare."

Welfare is money taken from other people. The natives didn't own the land so nothing was taken from them. Claiming the Indians owned it makes a mockery of the term "own." The idea that the Sioux owned all of Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska and Minnesota is utterly absurd.

Why is it absurd? Because whites didnt own it and thats not fair?

 

[bripat9643]

Just because you wander doesnt mean the land is not yours. I dont have to stay in my house and worry about someone taking ownership of it when i go on a months vacation. You cant prospect something thats already been discovered and used. Whites stole the land and gave themselves a hand out. Just admit it.

You have a title to your house. At some point someone claimed the land and made use of it. The government gave them a formal title. It was then exchanged voluntarily from one party to another until you came to own it.

When no one stakes a claim to the land, then it's unowned. At one time no land on Earth was owned. The concept of ownership only came about because lowland bottom farmers staked out a plot of land, tilled the soil and then harvested a crop. They mixed their labor with the land and it thereby became their property. The Indians never did anything accept chase buffalo across the plains. They were parasites on the land. If you want to call the land in America "stolen," then you would have to call every square acre on Earth "stolen." If you believe that, then you're a communist.

So in other words the whites rationalized handouts to themselves. Lets ignore the system the Natives have and give ourselves a handout. They dont have a deed so we get to take their land? Is that your logic?

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

 

[Freemason9]

The land was unoccupied. The Indians were hunter gatherers. The didn't stay put in a single location. They wandered over large tracts of land. The claim that the Indians "owned" whatever land they happened to wander over is an absurd misinterpretation of the word "own."

If you are a gold prospector and you find gold, is that a "hand out" to yourself?

The idea couldn't be more absurd.

The U.S. Government created the rules governing acquisition and "ownership" of native lands--and the subsequent distribution. Therefore, the government doled out wealth. Therefore, "welfare."

No not really,but pissing for distance is popular,the homestead act had a few clause,you had to build and developed at certain rates or off the land you went,chopping down trees and plowing wasn't done by the Gov.

Its a real interesting position so many take,total depends and adorment of an.
authoritarian .

Guess some like the borg more than the individual.

Dumb ass.

A good portion of the government land hand-outs went to businesses and corporations that subsequently separated it into tracts and resold to settlers at cheap rates (that nonetheless created massive profits for railroads, utilities, forestry companies, etc.).

The Homestead Act's true intent was to displace a "troublesome" native population.

 

[Freemason9]

You have a title to your house. At some point someone claimed the land and made use of it. The government gave them a formal title. It was then exchanged voluntarily from one party to another until you came to own it.

When no one stakes a claim to the land, then it's unowned. At one time no land on Earth was owned. The concept of ownership only came about because lowland bottom farmers staked out a plot of land, tilled the soil and then harvested a crop. They mixed their labor with the land and it thereby became their property. The Indians never did anything accept chase buffalo across the plains. They were parasites on the land. If you want to call the land in America "stolen," then you would have to call every square acre on Earth "stolen." If you believe that, then you're a communist.

So in other words the whites rationalized handouts to themselves. Lets ignore the system the Natives have and give ourselves a handout. They dont have a deed so we get to take their land? Is that your logic?

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

Now you're describing basically any Kansas/Nebraska corn farmer with internal combustion engines.

 

[Asclepias]

You have a title to your house. At some point someone claimed the land and made use of it. The government gave them a formal title. It was then exchanged voluntarily from one party to another until you came to own it.

When no one stakes a claim to the land, then it's unowned. At one time no land on Earth was owned. The concept of ownership only came about because lowland bottom farmers staked out a plot of land, tilled the soil and then harvested a crop. They mixed their labor with the land and it thereby became their property. The Indians never did anything accept chase buffalo across the plains. They were parasites on the land. If you want to call the land in America "stolen," then you would have to call every square acre on Earth "stolen." If you believe that, then you're a communist.

So in other words the whites rationalized handouts to themselves. Lets ignore the system the Natives have and give ourselves a handout. They dont have a deed so we get to take their land? Is that your logic?

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

So I get it now. The old "savage" rationale. There was a system. Whites didnt respect it and needed a handout. Not only did they give themselves a handout but committed genocide to do it in some cases.

 

[bripat9643]

But white people did have that system. Under that system why did they take the land if it was not theirs to take. Another handout to themselves.

The land was unoccupied. The Indians were hunter gatherers. The didn't stay put in a single location. They wandered over large tracts of land. The claim that the Indians "owned" whatever land they happened to wander over is an absurd misinterpretation of the word "own."

If you are a gold prospector and you find gold, is that a "hand out" to yourself?

The idea couldn't be more absurd.

The U.S. Government created the rules governing acquisition and "ownership" of native lands--and the subsequent distribution. Therefore, the government doled out wealth. Therefore, "welfare."

Wrong. Welfare is income taken from others at gunpoint and given to those who didn't earn it.

 

[bripat9643]

So in other words the whites rationalized handouts to themselves. Lets ignore the system the Natives have and give ourselves a handout. They dont have a deed so we get to take their land? Is that your logic?

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

So I get it now. The old "savage" rationale. There was a system. Whites didnt respect it and needed a handout. Not only did they give themselves a handout but committed genocide to do it in some cases.

There was no "system." Do the savages living in the jungles of Brasil have a "system?"

 

[Asclepias]

The land was unoccupied. The Indians were hunter gatherers. The didn't stay put in a single location. They wandered over large tracts of land. The claim that the Indians "owned" whatever land they happened to wander over is an absurd misinterpretation of the word "own."

If you are a gold prospector and you find gold, is that a "hand out" to yourself?

The idea couldn't be more absurd.

The U.S. Government created the rules governing acquisition and "ownership" of native lands--and the subsequent distribution. Therefore, the government doled out wealth. Therefore, "welfare."

Wrong. Welfare is income taken from others at gunpoint and given to those who didn't earn it.

Sort of like the whites stole the Native Americans land.

 

[bripat9643]

So in other words the whites rationalized handouts to themselves. Lets ignore the system the Natives have and give ourselves a handout. They dont have a deed so we get to take their land? Is that your logic?

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

Now you're describing basically any Kansas/Nebraska corn farmer with internal combustion engines.

Uh, no. They produce food. The Indians produced nothing. They gathered and hunted food that was already on the land.

 

[Asclepias]

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

So I get it now. The old "savage" rationale. There was a system. Whites didnt respect it and needed a handout. Not only did they give themselves a handout but committed genocide to do it in some cases.

There was no "system." Do the savages living in the jungles of Brasil have a "system?"

Never saw a savage. I have seen people that have different systems. Thats the basis for being homo sapien clown.

 

[bripat9643]

So in other words the whites rationalized handouts to themselves. Lets ignore the system the Natives have and give ourselves a handout. They dont have a deed so we get to take their land? Is that your logic?

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

Now you're describing basically any Kansas/Nebraska corn farmer with internal combustion engines.

Now your employing the "pretending to be stupid" routine that libturds are so fond of.

 

[Asclepias]

There was no "system." There was simply stone-age savages living parasitically off of whatever land they happened to find themselves in.

Now you're describing basically any Kansas/Nebraska corn farmer with internal combustion engines.

Uh, no. They produce food. The Indians produced nothing. They gathered and hunted food that was already on the land.

Are you really that illiterate? Natives grew crops as well. Come to think of it maybe thats why this stuff is omitted in history books. They want whites to feel justified in taking their land.

 

[bripat9643]

So I get it now. The old "savage" rationale. There was a system. Whites didnt respect it and needed a handout. Not only did they give themselves a handout but committed genocide to do it in some cases.

There was no "system." Do the savages living in the jungles of Brasil have a "system?"

Never saw a savage. I have seen people that have different systems. Thats the basis for being homo sapien clown.

The world is full of savages. Plenty of them post on this forum.

The Native American savages had no "system." They simply had behaviors that they had been doing for 10,000 years.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The U.S. Government created the rules governing acquisition and "ownership" of native lands--and the subsequent distribution. Therefore, the government doled out wealth. Therefore, "welfare."

Wrong. Welfare is income taken from others at gunpoint and given to those who didn't earn it.

Sort of like the whites stole the Native Americans land.

They cant call it stealing because they either believe it was theirs to begin with or all actions taken by white are inherently right

 

[bripat9643]

Now you're describing basically any Kansas/Nebraska corn farmer with internal combustion engines.

Uh, no. They produce food. The Indians produced nothing. They gathered and hunted food that was already on the land.

Are you really that illiterate? Natives grew crops as well. Come to think of it maybe thats why this stuff is omitted in history books. They want whites to feel justified in taking their land.

The ones in the Northeast did. You might actually make a case for them owning the land where they farmed. However, most of them were wiped out in the various wars fought in the 18th century.

Even if you concede that the whites stole land from the Indians, it's all academic now. There's no way to right any wrongs that were done 200 years ago. At some point the ownership of land has to be established. It's either than or adopt communism. The Indians didn't have a system of ownership, so there was no way to buy or sell their land.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Welfare is income taken from others at gunpoint and given to those who didn't earn it.

Sort of like the whites stole the Native Americans land.

They cant call it stealing because they either believe it was theirs to begin with or all actions taken by white are inherently right

So you were lying in your other post as well when you denied that you claimed a business expense was a form of welfare.

 

[Asclepias]

There was no "system." Do the savages living in the jungles of Brasil have a "system?"

Never saw a savage. I have seen people that have different systems. Thats the basis for being homo sapien clown.

The world is full of savages. Plenty of them post on this forum.

The Native American savages had no "system." They simply had behaviors that they had been doing for 10,000 years.

No they had systems clown. They built things and grew crops. They had government. You really are illiterate.

 

[Sallow]

The land was unoccupied. The Indians were hunter gatherers. The didn't stay put in a single location. They wandered over large tracts of land. The claim that the Indians "owned" whatever land they happened to wander over is an absurd misinterpretation of the word "own."

If you are a gold prospector and you find gold, is that a "hand out" to yourself?

The idea couldn't be more absurd.

Really?

American Indians have the exact same kind of government you folks advocate for, small.

They did, as the indigenous people in this country, have the "inalienable" right to determine how best to run their own lands.

But it didn't work out that way. A "bigger government" came in and took their land.

That's generally how it works.

So are you saying they did own their land or that they didn't own their land?

Anyone who has ever done any serious reading about the Indians knows your claim is utter horseshit. The Indians didn't have any government at all. They were hunter gatherers. They also had no official territory boundaries to "their land." The areas where they wandered were much different only a few short years before the white-man appeared. That's because diseases wiped most of them out. The boundaries between the various tribes were in a constant state of flux because they were constantly warring against one another. The idea that they were the "owners" of the land where they happened to be hunting buffalo in any given year is utterly specious.

Libturds like to promote this idea that Indians owned the land before we did because it makes it easier to justify expropriating it.

Well no, Indians had government. And this is where your ethnocentricity..comes in. Because it wasn't "your" type of government. And they had a different idea of "ownership". And the "disease" that wiped them out was a form of biological warfare that Europeans used against Indians. Along with starving them out by killing (and almost wiping out) the buffalo. And if they didn't believe they had claim to the land, then they wouldn't have fought for it.

What happened to the American Indian was genocide. Pure and simple.

And by the very same government that enslaved black folks.

And that white folks were dependent on for 237 years.

 

[Asclepias]

Sort of like the whites stole the Native Americans land.

They cant call it stealing because they either believe it was theirs to begin with or all actions taken by white are inherently right

So you were lying in your other post as well when you denied that you claimed a business expense was a form of welfare.

I said a business expense is s form of welfare. Get your facts straight. You are too stupid for words though. You lost me with the Dum Diversas rationale for taking the native Americans land.

 

[Freemason9]

The land was unoccupied. The Indians were hunter gatherers. The didn't stay put in a single location. They wandered over large tracts of land. The claim that the Indians "owned" whatever land they happened to wander over is an absurd misinterpretation of the word "own."

If you are a gold prospector and you find gold, is that a "hand out" to yourself?

The idea couldn't be more absurd.

The U.S. Government created the rules governing acquisition and "ownership" of native lands--and the subsequent distribution. Therefore, the government doled out wealth. Therefore, "welfare."

Wrong. Welfare is income taken from others at gunpoint and given to those who didn't earn it.

This applies to basically all of society, including property ownership laws. What's your fucking point?