Pilgrims were illegal immigrants

[Saigon]

Miami -

No one is claiming that Indian tribes owned the entire US - only parts of it. In many cases, those lands were taken by violent conquest. For every major tribe, it would be easy enough to find maps which show what territory they might be considered to have used as semi-permanant residents.

This has been done in the past with various nomadic peoples, such as those from the Arabian Gulf.

 

[miami_thomas]

Miami -

No one is claiming that Indian tribes owned the entire US - only parts of it. In many cases, those lands were taken by violent conquest. For every major tribe, it would be easy enough to find maps which show what territory they might be considered to have used as semi-permanant residents.

This has been done in the past with various nomadic peoples, such as those from the Arabian Gulf.

So now we are claiming that the American Indians were nomadic herders? By the way, many have voluntarily and forcibly joined nations. But that is ok because they were not forced by America. Also the fact is America tried that but there were constant invasions by the Indians and retaliations by the Settlers. Battles were constantly being had and there was no peaceful herding going on but rather constant battles.

 

[Saigon]

Miami -

I'm not claiming anything, except that they lived on land, and that occupation of land constituted land ownership at that time.

Again, that land was taken by violent conquest - and was done so in a way that most people would today consider illegal.

 

[Katzndogz]

Indian tribes owned nothing. Certainly not land. All land belonged to the Gods and the Great Spirit who let them use that land. The Indians weren't nomadic herders, they had no herds! They followed herds, they didn't shepherd them. Cheyenne Autumn is NOT a documentary!

This is an absolutely deplorable state of the way history is taught. It may as well not be taught at all. Some tribes notably in the desert, had agriculture but they still didn't think they owned the land. They didn't even own the crops that grew on the land. The only things that Indians owned were personal possessions because they made them and children. While not technically owned, women could be stolen and were stolen frequently. One of the major points of cultural confusion was that white men objected to their women being stolen. It was not something to fight about. You just go and try to steal the women of the tribe who took your women.

 

[Katzndogz]

Miami -

I'm not claiming anything, except that they lived on land, and that occupation of land constituted land ownership at that time.

Again, that land was taken by violent conquest - and was done so in a way that most people would today consider illegal.

Not even close. Learn something, it will do you good instead of accepting liberal dogma.

 

[Saigon]

Indian tribes owned nothing. Certainly not land

Really?

So you do not consider occupation of land constituted rightful ownership of that land, prior to the establishment of USA law?

Are you sure?

Because in which case, I think you might have just gifted Manhatten back to the Dutch! I think it would also come as a surprise to people right around the world that lived on land for a thousand years to find you don't believe it is their land because they didn't have a deed certificate.

 

[Katzndogz]

Indian tribes owned nothing. Certainly not land

Really?

So you do not consider occupation of land constituted rightful ownership of that land, prior to the establishment of USA law?

Are you sure?

Because in which case, I think you might have just gifted Manhatten back to the Dutch!

I'm sure. American Indians did not consider occupation of land ownership. Which is why the indians were bewildered by the purchase of Manhattan to begin with!
Myth #45: The Dutch bought Manhattan for $24 worth of beads. « History Myths Debunked

Historians often point out that North American Indians had a concept of land ownership different from that of the Europeans. The Indians regarded land, like air and water, as something you could use but not own or sell. It has been suggested that the Indians may have thought they were sharing, not selling.

The controversy over land ownership wasn't because Indians thought they owned the land, but because whites did think they owned the land, and then they fenced it. In many parts of the United States whites and indians lived quite peaceably together. Whites did not fence the land, but used the land very much like the natives did. Indian women left tribes and married white men (like my grandmother did) captured white women were not pursued by white men but left to live within the tribe of capture.

 

[Saigon]

Katz -

You are completely missing the point.

The point is not whether Native American Indians themselves issues certificates of land ownership - the point is whether occupation of land can be considered ownership of that land where no other ownership structure exists.

It can.

This has been proven in courts in several countries - I don't see why it shouldn't apply in the US too.

Except to excuse naked greed on the part of the white people who stole land at gun point, of course.

Check out the cases brought by the New Zealand Maori, who also did not believe individual land ownership. They just didn't want the British stealing their land.

 

[Katzndogz]

Katz -

You are completely missing the point.

The point is not whether Native American Indians themselves issues certificates of land ownership - the point is whether occupation of land can be considered ownership of that land where no other ownership structure exists.

It can.

This has been proven in courts in several countries - I don't see why it shouldn't apply in the US too.

Except to excuse naked greed on the part of the white people who stole land at gun point, of course.

Check out the cases brought by the New Zealand Maori, who also did not believe individual land ownership. They just didn't want the British stealing their land.

There is nothing to get through the liberal cement they consider a cranial cavity.

Mere occupation of property does NOT mean ownership of that property. You are attributing ownership where no ownership exists. What's been proven in courts in other countries is that the legal system will attribute ownership. It is a manipulation of the law which is legal someplace because someone said so, but illegal other places where another law says no.

Ownership cannot be attributed to "indians" because they were never a cohesive group to begin with. To attribute such mythical ownership, the Cheyenne would TODAY be tresspassers on the land attributed to the Utes. Start paying up, because there's a historical debt to be paid. This isn't New Zealand. If New Zealand wants to assume some sort of collective guilt, let them. It's none of our business.

 

[BillyV]

Land ownership and all political boundaries are based upon only two things – the ability and willingness of those behind those lines to defend them. This is just as true today as it was 200 years ago, or 2,000. Do you think Taiwan would still be a country without its own defense and the support of America? Israel? Had Germany succeeded in the 1940’s, many of the boundaries in Europe would also no longer exist. We currently live in a (relatively) peaceful world based upon the blanket of security provided over the last 50 years by the US (and yes, with the help of other Western nations). Don’t kid yourself into thinking that the barbarism of man has been eliminated; without the strength of arms to defend the status quo, many political boundaries would no longer exist. The Indians did have laws and had some “claim” to North American land, but they were unable to exercise that claim because they did not have the resources to defend them.

 

[Saigon]

Mere occupation of property does NOT mean ownership of that property.

And yet it has been legally established in many countries that it means exactly that.

Are you seriously suggesting that Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maori, Namibian Herero and Turkish Armenians had no rights at all?

It's a strange ethical code you espouse, in which shooting people on the land they had lived in for a thousands years is completely ok, because the people involved had not filled out some forms.

 

[Redfish]

there were no illegal aliens until the country passed immigration laws. This is really a silly thread.

 

[miami_thomas]

Miami -

I'm not claiming anything, except that they lived on land, and that occupation of land constituted land ownership at that time.

Again, that land was taken by violent conquest - and was done so in a way that most people would today consider illegal.

First, did it happen today? Second, you are telling me if an Indian tribe today living on reservations decided to start setting out as a tribe and killing families and scalping them there would be no response? How can you say how as a country we would react today when it is not happening today?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Eradicate all borders.

 

[miami_thomas]

Mere occupation of property does NOT mean ownership of that property.

And yet it has been legally established in many countries that it means exactly that.

Are you seriously suggesting that Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maori, Namibian Herero and Turkish Armenians had no rights at all?

It's a strange ethical code you espouse, in which shooting people on the land they had lived in for a thousands years is completely ok, because the people involved had not filled out some forms.

At what point in time does moving through a land mean ownership. Maybe my family walked over a lot of land that I can now stake ownership over. Is there a date deadline for such a claim? Who know maybe my family owns more than one country by today. I guess we should set a date for when that holds true right? Maybe we should use the date that makes your argument valid.

 

[Katzndogz]

Mere occupation of property does NOT mean ownership of that property.

And yet it has been legally established in many countries that it means exactly that.

Are you seriously suggesting that Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maori, Namibian Herero and Turkish Armenians had no rights at all?

It's a strange ethical code you espouse, in which shooting people on the land they had lived in for a thousands years is completely ok, because the people involved had not filled out some forms.

In many countries? Really? In many countries marriageable age for girls is 12. Is this a world wide "law". The laws of other countries apply only to those other countries. I understand your position because you consider yourself a citizen of the world.

The American Indians had no concept of land ownership. They did not defend their ownership rights. We can give them a concept of land ownership today that didn't exist 200 years ago and maybe satisfy some sense of imposed collective guilt because they did it in Nambia, but this isn't the world. The United States is not responsible for idiocy in New Zealand.

Whatever actions taken were resolved by Chief Joseph's surrender in 1877.

 

[Erand7899]

Miami -

The problem here is that you have misunderstood what some liberals have said. Or, at lleast, you are taking it FAR too literally.

Of course no nation state existed in America in 1700, so you are right that no laws were broken.

BUT - we now consider that the first people or race to live in an area own the land. There is no question that American Indians owned much of what is now the USA, and neither is there any question that this land was seized by violent conquest.

In 2013, most people would consider that conquest illegal.

I suggest you forget the whole left/right nonsense, and try and look at history a little more objectively.

What we now consider is immaterial, even if it were factual. When the Europeans first arrived in America, the law was that land belonged to whoever had the power to take and hold it. The first settlers in America complied with that law, and therefore could not, by any legitimate reasoning be considered to be "illegal aliens".

There is little doubt that American Indians got the shaft from the United States government, and many of our early settlers. They are still getting the shaft from the United States government, and their treatment from our government should be a warning to all of you who want more government control of your lives.

 

[NoNukes]

And I’ll bet you think that was an intelligent response.

Just the fact.

Well if you are not intelligent enough to debate then you are probably not intelligent enough to read this thread. In that case I understand you statement completely.

Why should I consider debating with someone who makes such stupid statements and asks such stupid questions?

 

[candycorn]

indians lost their culture because they didnt secure the border.

Isn't it good for us that they did?

But you're right. We're in no danger of losing our culture--ours has always been one in flux--but we need to secure the borders immediately. The idea that we shouldn't is frankly stupid.

 

[PaulS1950]

The pilgrims were not illegal aliens because there were no laws about imigration when they arrived. The may have been trespassers accept the natives accepted them - at least until they became destructive. There were no illegal immigrants until after the immigration laws were put into effect.