Well technically we didn't steal it, the British did. And we didn't steal it from them, we won it fair and square. And then we bought the rest with the Louisiana Purchase.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"Won it fair and square." How was it won? It was already inhabited and owned. It was stolen (but, as you said, it was also bought in some places, albeit for a cheap price).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

We fought them for it. And yes it was stolen, but not by the United States. The British stole it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The people who stole it are the ones who created the US. So it's the same darn thing. It's the same in Canada.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Technically the US created the US. Not a single United States citizen took place in the original colonization of the area because the United States didn't exist back then. I'm not saying the land wasn't stolen, because it definitely was. Just not by the United States. And by the "them" I was referring to the British. We fought the British for our right to own the land and won.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't recall saying that the US stole it... I said the people who created it did and that's pretty much the same thing. Anyway, who did it isn't the point.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

i like how all your arguments start with 'technically'. 'Technically' Hitler did nothing illegal. Technically the US didnt steal native american land...'technically' your an idiot.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It might seem cheap now, but that price back then might have been considered a good price.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It was seen as a good price to the Natives, but the Europeans knew it wasn't a fair deal.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Eh. I don't know much about stuff like that. I think certain parts of history are subject depending on the person who wrote it. It can be biased depending on their view point and since none of us were alive then, who are we to know if it is true or not? Maybe the Europeans thought it was a good price too. I wasn't there, I don't know. I do agree that forcing the Natives from their homes was a horrible thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The winning side writes the history, right? Anyway, we do know it was a rip off. There are journals of people mocking the Natives for accepting useless stuff for such good things (i.e., beads for animal skins, pennies for acres of land, etc.). That said, the Europeans came to North America and instead of killing everyone like the usually did, they decided to attempt to bargain and stuff. It's just now that the Aboriginal peoples are trying to get their land back and the government is paying attention. The treaties were contracts and they should be honoured, but many are not. However, we shouldn't just be throwing money at all the problems that exist within Aboriginal communities. We need to provide resources, not cash to just be thrown back into the problem. Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What type of resources? Their diet is completely different from ours. Their appendix actually has a function. They can eat raw meat hat has started to spoil. But, we give them processed foods and alcohol. The average life span of a Native American is somewhere areound 25. The rate of alcoholism, diabetes, suicide, and pregnancy without means to support them is extremely high. What they need is land to grow ther own food.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Resources to combat the alcohol issues. More access to counselling and rehab. More information on the affects of alcohol while pregnant (you'd be amazed by how many people don't know what FASD is). They need to learn coping mechanisms for the issues around them. Instead, the government throws money at them and doesn't care because they get most of it back (through alcohol purchases and slots). Also, in general the way food is made is changing. There is access to things like wild rice, not to mention Native people can hunt whenever they please (they have no restrictions like people who aren't Native, i.e., hunting seasons and limits on amount of kill). I think access to wild grown food should be more in general as processed foods aren't good for anyone.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well most history is written by the colonizers....So you cant say history is biased against them. Its only been in the last 100 years or so that history has addmitted a more balenced view

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Very true My friend studied in Italy for a couple of years and took American History classes which taught things very differntly from how it is taught in the US. My history teacher makes a point of reminding us that history is written by the conqueror not by the conquered.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

and technically the nazies wernt murdering millions of jews becuase the law permitted it. doesnt mean they wernt morally engaging in moral murder. 'techinicalities' dont remove the moral obligations. they stole it. If someone tricked you into selling your house for a pie would you call it stealing? because technically its not....

by Anonymous 12 years ago

opps please omit 'moral murder' i meant engaged in murder.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Crime has to be viewed in the context of the time period. Colonists did not think of it as stealing. To the people of the time, the land in America was not formally anyone's property because the Native American governments were recognized by the British. The colonists certainly did not feel that what they were doing was wrong, instead they were under the impression that their presence was an improvement for the Native Americans. From their perspective the land was not stolen. I agree that their actions were wrong and would be considered stealing nowadays, but since it wasn't considered a stealing at the time I don't think it is fair to judge them in that way.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It was considered stealing by the people it was taken from.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And you know this because you're 500 years old.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, sure. Or because I've read 500 year old journals and study this stuff? Aboriginal culture is part of my culture.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I am not saying it is not wrong, but they did not commit a crime. To me what they did was criminal, but it wasn't to them. For example, some countries punish people who steal by cutting their hands off. To me, this seems like a criminal action("cruel and unusual punishment"), but to the countries who do this they have done nothing wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It wasn't criminal to the people doing it because it didn't go against their laws. But it WAS criminal to the Native people, specifically what was done to the land.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not justifying what the European settlers did, however, I think it's worth pointing out that they weren't the greatest to the land, either.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Nope, they pretty much destroyed an area then moved along to another area. I'm saying it was criminal to the native people to settle the land like it was done.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And I'm sure to Hitler, the Nazis were doing nothing wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

We actually bought a lot of land in America.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It amuses me when people bitch about what our ancestors did to their ancestors, or ancestors in general. I have never stolen land or owned a slave. Why should I be looked down on for being American simply because of what happened between people who are not alive today and whom I never had anything to do with?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

To me, it's more about the contracts (or treaties) that aren't being honoured. They were signed on behalf of their generations to come, but they've been ignored. So blame your ancestors for making an agreement on your behalf. I do hate how white people are targets of racism because of what our ancestors did. It's not my fault. But the government as a whole is choosing to throw money at issues as opposed to providing resources. Things need to change, on both sides.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I dislike you

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't care?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because you get to profit from their deeds. Maybe if you were Native American, you'd feel differently about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why does everybody think that to bring up important HISTORY is somehow bitching? it is very important to establish what went worng and it so stupid that some people think that its an attack on their 'ancestors' like what?! no its not. Also its still relevant today. The law nor constitutionalsm doesnt give a fuck that it happened along time ago. If it was illegal then it is illegal now. If it was an 'unconscionable bargain' then its still fucking is. SO ascertaining flault isnt personal but it needs to be done so that we can right those wrongs. Ill give you an example: if you buy a watch that was stolen nobody gives a fuck that you bought it fair and square. The fact remains it isnt yours to own. Why when you put it in this context everyone understands but apply it to native relations everyone gets up in arms. Erm soryy that want all aimed at you...just ranting.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I really feel like a debate. please someone disagree with me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Debate time: Here's why this post is bullshit Do you agree or disagree with the fact that different Native American tribes had been fighting for each others' land for centuries?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

thankyou. and absolutly: though firstly i would like to point out i'm not talking about native american tribes: im speaking generally. But since it doesnt seem to matter what natives we specify i will continue: I can see what point you are trying to make. But it fails on two points: firstly inter tribal warfare applies to all cultures: so you cant just say they did: so we can. why? because that doesnt account for the huge disparity in size, wealth and power of the colonizing side. This wasnt a case of one tribe fighting over another tribes land. This was a massively disproportionate battle not only fought with arms but with trickery. The effect wasnt to alienate a tribe which could integrate somewhere else or find new land, rather its resulted in the systematic alienation of a whole entire culture from the land. second (probs the most important): You abide by the US colonizers laws not native american ones. So how native americans transfered title is irrelevant. The point is stealing land illegally by US/ british law is illegal by the those standards then and because we abide by that law still; now. It follows it is still illegal.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

furthering my above anology to fit with your statement: your priceless gold watch was stolen. Somebody bought it. Legally you can get it back, but according to your arrgument the purchaser can say you cant because when you were 3yrs old you stole a lolly pop from the diary. you stole, so its ok if i do too.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Response to first point: Like you said, Natives had been fighting over each others' land for centuries. Europeans had been fighting over each others' land for centuries. Now, it's the early 16th century and here comes the big, bad white men with their superior technology to take over America. Why do we constantly overlook the fact that the only difference between Cherokee and Creeks fighting over land and Cherokees and British fighting over land is that one of them is white. Why is it suddenly worse because the white people had guns and superior technology? The intent is still the same and the act of war is still the same. Response to second point: It's war. War, sadly, is a fact of society. Nobody here is praising war, but it's not like white Europeans in the 16th century were the only people who have started a war. I agree, Europeans stole natives' land. That's pretty indisputable. Where I find flaw, though, is when people act like Europeans did something that's never been done before. Like I said, Indians had been fighting for centuries. If tribe B steals tribe A's land, takes it over and massacres the people, and then the British steal tribe B's newly acquired territory...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Can tribe B really complain? They did the exact same thing to tribe A. And I'm not saying every Indian tribe was violent and out to get more land, but many were and it seems to me like everyone always ignores that fact. Honestly, Native Americans of America immediately post-1492 have been painted and martyr victims. In reality, they were like the 3rd graders playing kickball and picking on each other, while the British, French, Dutch, etc. were like the "big, bad" 7th graders who really wanted to play kickball on that field. Is it wrong to take the field? Yes. But wasn't it wrong when the 3rd graders were picking on each other? Sure, Native Americans have some room to complain, but not nearly as much as everyone has so wisely chosen to do for them 500 years later.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't recall saying that everyone who brings up history is bitching.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Christopher Columbus. What a hero. Stealing land and killing almost an entire group.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You sir have your history wrong if you think columbus did anything look up hernando de soto he was a prick

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This sounds like another joke/witty statement that I heard recently: Dear Americans: We totally agree with you on your immigration laws. Allow us to escort you to the nearest airport. Sinccerely, The Native Americans

by Anonymous 12 years ago