Pilgrims were illegal immigrants

[Saigon]

The American Indians had no concept of land ownership. They did not defend their ownership rights.

They attempted to, but white men wiped them out.

What is interesting on this thread is that you defend the concept of violent conquest to seize land.

 

[BillyV]

The American Indians had no concept of land ownership. They did not defend their ownership rights.

They attempted to, but white men wiped them out.

What is interesting on this thread is that you defend the concept of violent conquest to seize land.

Finland was owned by the Russian Empire until 1917, when the Finns declared independence and fought a bloody civil war between the White Guard (with German assistance) and the Red Guard (Russian-backed). Did the Finns "steal" the country from the Russians through "violent conquest"? Tens of thousands were killed, seemingly the result of a power vacuum created by a weakened Russia during World War I. Should the Finns have honored the "legal" ownership rights of the Russians?

No country is without its bloody past if you look back far enough.

 

[Katzndogz]

The American Indians had no concept of land ownership. They did not defend their ownership rights.

They attempted to, but white men wiped them out.

What is interesting on this thread is that you defend the concept of violent conquest to seize land.

They obviously didn't wipe them out.

 

[Saigon]

Katz -

Would you like to tell us how many American Indians were killed by white settlers?

btw, Do you accept that the illegal land seizues would have also been illegal according to your explanation - if American Indians had employed the concept of land ownership?

 

[Saigon]

BillyV -

Finland was not "owned" by Russia, it was "occupied" by Russia.

 

[BillyV]

BillyV -

Finland was not "owned" by Russia, it was "occupied" by Russia.

Which was seized by Finland through "violent conquest," 100 years after pledging allegiance to Alexander I of Russia. Please explain the difference between killing Russians for land and Indians. Seems like "legal ownership" depends on whose legal system is in place at the time.

 

[Saigon]

BillyV -

This isn't difficult stuff, you know.

People who lived on land for a thousand years own it, as far as I am concerned.

The Finns owned Finland. The Native Americans owned much of the US.

Both were then conquered.

Finns fought off the invader eventually - the Indians did not.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Moron, many of the indians were not nomadic. In fact, my family's homestead borders an old Cherokee village in the southern Appalachians. Village, as in they lived there permanently and farmed until the white people exterminated them and shipped them off on the trail of tears.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Liberal revised history is certainly strong. American Indians weren't defending their land since they had no concept of land ownership. Likewise, land couldn't be stolen.

Are you serious? You obviously know nothing of the Comanche. They absolutely did defend and patrol a huge area of land out west.

 

[BillyV]

BillyV -

This isn't difficult stuff, you know.

People who lived on land for a thousand years own it, as far as I am concerned.

The Finns owned Finland. The Native Americans owned much of the US.

Both were then conquered.

Finns fought off the invader eventually - the Indians did not.

Actually, prior to the Russians, it was part of Sweden for 500 years, was it not? Why shouldn't it go back to being part of Sweden? How far back do you go to determine "ownership"?

Again, ownership is only meaningful if those claiming it are willing and able to defend it. I'm not slandering Finnish history; they had a right to claim the land that they believed was their homeland and to fight to maintain that claim. To take the early US to task for taking a similar path is hypocritical.

 

[Saigon]

BillyV -

As I said, this is not diffcult stuff. I am not sure why you find it quite so confusing.

The Finns were a distinct people going back centuries. That Finland was absorbed into first Sweden and then Russia doesn't change that fact.

The same can be said of the Armenians, Ukrainians, Azeris and Georgians.

The indigenous people of Southern Finland were Finns. In the US they were native American Indians.

 

[tjvh]

The Liberals conveniently forgetting that when the Pilgrims landed America was not yet a Nation backed by Laws, and at the time immigration Laws did not exist as they do now... Making the stupid point the OP was trying to make go right the hell out the window.

 

[bodecea]

You have to love the liberal view of the world. It gives you an insight into just how far in fantasy land they really live. First when the pilgrims arrived to America there was no country and there were no laws. Therefore, it is impossible to even claims that the pilgrims came here illegally because to be illegal you actually have to have a law that is being broken. But of course facts are not needed when you are talking fantasy.

Then there is the fantastical view of the Indians themselves. What were the Indians? They were nomads and those nomads are no different than any other nomadic barbaric tribes of the past. The fact is all man arose from nomadic tribes. But to sit here and pretend that barbaric nomadic tribes are innocent little people that were of no danger is to totally ignore history. Barbaric tribes are the very reason civilizations began to rise by tribes joining together to protect their farms, livestock, and women from those barbaric tribes. The birth from nomadic tribes to civilization was an evolution and it was a bloody one.

The evolution however had to happen to be where we are today. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about the barbarians of Europe, Vikings, pirates, or the Mongolians. Barbaric tribes murdered and pillaged and the Indians were no different. They were threats to civilized society and as such were battled and killed by civilizations armies sent to protect their citizens. Indians are just be romanticized by the liberals to try and revise history to change America into an evil nation that needs to be changed into the liberals form of government.

Don’t get me wrong there were some evil things this nation did in its past but what nation does not have blood on its hands that it needs not be ashamed of? All nations at one time or another in their history had blood on its hands but it is easier to look back and judge after the fact than it is to be in the moment that the decisions are made. There was a lot of bad things done back then and not just by the United States but by the Indians too.

And I love seeing the romantic views and the belief that the world would be better being back in those nomadic tribe days. The belief that it was some type of paradise made up in the movies. The truth is it was violent with rape, theft, and murder running rampant especially between opposing tribes and even within the tribes themselves. To pretend that those days are something to aspire to is quite delusional indeed. But in order to get people to feel sorry for a people first you must paint them as truly wonderful and innocent.

Of course Liberals have to resort to being revisionist in order to get people to change. I mean really all history points to are liberal ideas that always ends in death to the masses. America is the greatest nation on the planet and our history is what made us what we are today. To change what we are and go to what liberals want us to be now is to destroy everything this nation has built. That is exactly why our history is being revised by the liberals. How do you convince to change a wonderful nation into a disaster of an idea without first convincing people what we are now and were was awful and we need to change to something wonderful.

I saw FOX going on about this last nite.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I saw FOX going on about this last nite.

Ah, the stupidity in the OP's post makes sense now.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It would appear that the OP logic runs this course:
1. When Europeans stole from and killed Native Americans, there was no law against it, so it was legal, and therefore not immoral.
2. Native Americans lived in the stone age. Therefore, they had to go. That was too bad, but shit happens.


However, no explanation is offered as to how our treatment of Native Americans was not immoral, while Hitler's legal final solution was immoral. Hitler WAS the law of Germany. Nor is there an explaination of why it was Ok for us to kill the Native Americans, when, at the same time, the Spanairds where intermarrying with them, and producing a new race, instead of committing genocide.

It would appear that, from this OP, we are in a win/win sirtuation.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "History will be kind to us. we wrote it!"

 

[Saigon]

The Liberals conveniently forgetting that when the Pilgrims landed America was not yet a Nation backed by Laws, and at the time immigration Laws did not exist as they do now... Making the stupid point the OP was trying to make go right the hell out the window.

Actually it was a really interesting discussion.

It just needed people to get over the bleedingly obvious point you make here, and discuss it at a hypothetical or abstract level.

It's a shame when people can not discuss an issue because of their obsession with left/right cliches.

 

[tjvh]

The Liberals conveniently forgetting that when the Pilgrims landed America was not yet a Nation backed by Laws, and at the time immigration Laws did not exist as they do now... Making the stupid point the OP was trying to make go right the hell out the window.

Actually it was a really interesting discussion.

It just needed people to get over the bleedingly obvious point you make here, and discuss it at a hypothetical or abstract level.

It's a shame when people can not discuss an issue because of their obsession with left/right cliches.

The whole premise of the OP was based upon irrational thinking to in a vain attempt to say the Pilgrims are just like illegals of today. Which from the standpoint of Law, is completely nonsensical. You obviously understood that to your credit, but the obsession with the left/right cliche was the very idea the OP was disingenuously based upon. What's really a shame is that people cannot make arguments that pass muster with that pesky little thing called reality.

 

[BillyV]

BillyV -

As I said, this is not diffcult stuff. I am not sure why you find it quite so confusing.

The Finns were a distinct people going back centuries. That Finland was absorbed into first Sweden and then Russia doesn't change that fact.

The same can be said of the Armenians, Ukrainians, Azeris and Georgians.

The indigenous people of Southern Finland were Finns. In the US they were native American Indians.

No, I understand completely. It's OK to fight and kill for land if the claim meets your narrow definition of "ownership." Got it. You have the right to that opinion. However, reality dictates that your land is only your land until someone else can take it, as Finnish history illustrates so well.

 

[Saigon]

BillyV -

The concept of 'indigenous people' is simply not that difficult to get. Really.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

indians lost because they couldn't fight off the culture/people that invaded. They couldn't unify and certainly couldn't match european warcraft. Guns and armies against scattered tribes throughout north America isn't very equal.

This is how this world works.

The native Indians also fought among themselves. They didn't look at the entire land in terms of THEIR ownership of it, they believed it was a land their spirit gods (ancestors) of their religion "allowed" them to have and maintain. They were tribes living in a small part of a more vast region, not all indians carried this "conquering" mindset of possessions and property. They were more in tune with their spiritual faith, and doing what it takes to survive under the severe elements of their time.

It would appear that only those in favor of a dictating ruling government body, with control OVER its people (rather than a people in control over their government, through the "respect" of those who put them in authority to represent them) are really concerned with other people's possessions.



Also, not all deaths were the result of violence, but from sicknesses and plagues brought on by exposure to foreigners that killed many on both sides.