Originally posted by JS357That is revisionists history for you. 😏
One source easily found says "When the last glaciers receded about 10,000 years ago (thus ending this first great migration to America), ancestors of the Native Americans filled nearly all of the habitable parts of North and South America." http://www.dialogoaa.com.ar/history1.html
So they already had nearly all the habitable land. It was appropriated by th ...[text shortened]... Note that of course the 10,000 years is wrong, and the world was not created that long ago.😉)
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you need to live in a 1950's junior high school American history world, I won't plan to stop you. The fact is the land we are on was with very few exceptions used by the native Americans to support a pre-Columbian, precolonial group of hunter gatherer cultures. Our European ancestors took the land (John Locke's theory of property helped rationalize this) and that was that. You may have purchased your land, but its first European ownership depended on force, disease, and/or the threat of force.
That is revisionists history for you. 😏
Just look at a map and you will see town, rivers, whole states named for the tribes that were local to the area.
John Locke, the liberal philosopher, was also secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) of the Carolina colonies.
Originally posted by JS357I suppose now you are going to blame me for slavery too.
If you need to live in a 1950's junior high school American history world, I won't plan to stop you. The fact is the land we are on was with very few exceptions used by the native Americans to support a pre-Columbian, precolonial group of hunter gatherer cultures. Our European ancestors took the land (John Locke's theory of property helped rationalize this) an ...[text shortened]... Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) of the Carolina colonies.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's all your fault RJ.
I suppose now you are going to blame me for slavery too.
Take yourself down to the church immediately.
Bless me Father for I have sinned.
I am responsible for British rule in America, slavery, the civil war,
George W Bush, 911 and the fiscal cliff.
The priest would say to you,
RJ, my son, this is beyond me.
I'll have to consult the Archbishop.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I am not. You and I believe that enslavement happened, and I don't think we are to blame for it. So why would believing that the native American lands were taken from them make us blameworthy for it? What matters is how we live now.
I suppose now you are going to blame me for slavery too.
Originally posted by JS357I don't see that these natives owned the land or even claimed to own the land. They only lived on a part of it with portable tents that the moved from time to time. On the other hand, we settled the land and built permanent homes on it and made claims to that portion we settled.
No, I am not. You and I believe that enslavement happened, and I don't think we are to blame for it. So why would believing that the native American lands were taken from them make us blameworthy for it? What matters is how we live now.
We were willing to live at peace with them, until some of them began attacking and scaping our people who had settled there; and sometimes these native people even burned the homes of the settlers. That was not the neighborly thing for them to do. 😏
Originally posted by stellspalfieI understand where your coming from here (and in the op).
some good points and i like your spin on home ownership. although, buying or leasing a house makes the land private, restricting access to the people. this may not be a huge problem on a small scale but much of the countryside has been shut to the average man due to private ownership of large areas by rich individuals. can i criticize them with out allo ...[text shortened]... in debates, as the ownership of land doesnt seem to be tickling the collective religious fancy).
Especially here in Australia, where there is lots of land and not many people, it is a shame that you cant just go 5kms outside of just about any town and walk through the bush because it usually is private property.
In the more remote areas the private land owners would not mind you travelling through their land, but it is still a shame that you need to get so far away from a big town before you can feel like there is just the land and you (and a couple of dirt roads), and you can pretty much go wherever you want.
The more that "cool people" invest in land, the better off we will be.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes and with your permanent buildings,etc. you also brought capitalism and the root cause of human misery to an area of the world which was by all accounts in touch with nature and basic (spiritual) truths and living them out.
I don't see that these natives owned the land or even claimed to own the land. They only lived on a part of it with portable tents that the moved from time to time. On the other hand, we settled the land and built permanent homes on it and made claims to that portion we settled.
We were willing to live at peace with them, until some of them began attack ...[text shortened]... even burned the homes of the settlers. That was not the neighborly thing for them to do. 😏
Capitalism and the right to have ridiculous amounts of money while others starve is the issue here. Get that sorted and land ownership ,(and doing it the right way), will follow.
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo are you for communism? That did not last in the Soviet Union. It doesn't seem right to me. 😏
Yes and with your permanent buildings,etc. you also brought capitalism and the root cause of human misery to an area of the world which was by all accounts in touch with nature and basic (spiritual) truths and living them out.
Capitalism and the right to have ridiculous amounts of money while others starve is the issue here. Get that sorted and land ownership ,(and doing it the right way), will follow.
Originally posted by stellspalfieI say that's nonsense. The US allows free migration within its borders as does much of Europe. Why do they not experience those problems? If they do, why haven't they instituted immigration controls? Oh wait, movement of labour is actually an economic benefit.
in principle i completely agree. practically though it could cause all sorts of issues. any town or city with a booming economy could see millions of people descend on it. the city or town may not have the infrastructure to cope.
The flow of people to cities, especially successful ones happens all around the world, and although it needs to be effectively managed, it is ultimately a good thing.
Originally posted by JS357Treaties which were broken over and over by the states.
So they already had nearly all the habitable land. It was appropriated by the colonies, the territories, then the states and finally the USA, and then about 2.5% of THEIR land was ceded back when the treaties were forced upon them.
Originally posted by RJHindsI am convinced that you are stuck in a fifties fantasy of American history. There is nothing more to be said, and you will probably say it.
I don't see that these natives owned the land or even claimed to own the land. They only lived on a part of it with portable tents that the moved from time to time. On the other hand, we settled the land and built permanent homes on it and made claims to that portion we settled.
We were willing to live at peace with them, until some of them began attack ...[text shortened]... even burned the homes of the settlers. That was not the neighborly thing for them to do. 😏
