Think for Yourself

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by TGBeldin

Sounds like you two are more in agreement than you want to admit. The expansion of the country WAS based upon theft and socialistic giving away land that did not belong to the people "giving it away".

Either of you care to give it back to my native brothers? They don't care whether a capitalist or a socialist stole it, they would take it back.

Yes, the Noble Red Man.

This is a quick read. It cuts through all the bullshit.

http://thetruthcanhurt.com/TheAmericanIndian.htm

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

No youtube postings here. I want to say one thing when it comes to our country and politics. Think for yourself. Listen to both sides with an open mind. Most politicans, if not all, are just puppets for the real controlling interests of our economy. Major multi-national corporations have been calling the shots for quite some time. It has nothing to do with "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Non-stop wars are merely for profit and our young men come back in a worse situation than before they left. Who is making all the money here? Look to the military-industrial complex.

Where are the jobs? Why must our young men join the military industrial complex just to have work? Just to get funds for college? Who really pays?

These things we must look at with an eye for the truth.

You're post is offensive Deb. For some reason (liberal elitism?) you think that if we disagree with you that we are not thinking. I can say the same of you and offer as evidence 100 years of suffering by people under a system that you support. The entire liberal movement is not about thinking but about feeling. Feeling guilty because you were born with something (intelligence, money, position, health) that others didn't share. Feeling like there ought to be a better way but by using a failed system to try to get there again. Or just plain feeling and not thinking. Even liberal Bono gets it. He is on record saying that capitalism has raised more people from poverty than ANYTHING else in history. I don't agree with most of what you cut and paste but don't say that I'm not thinking. I think the evidence is clear that not only do I think but I can transmit my thoughts with words and not have to rely on the old cut and paste. Yes, that last thing was a dig at you.


And to the others who definitely don't understand capitalism. Do you realize that a drug dealer is a capitalist. He (or she) will give away a sample to get you to come back for more. Government decided long ago that "giving" away land (you actually earned a lot of that through hard work and risk) creates tax payers and towns. You say it was taken from the Indians....okay, why is that any different from a communist country taking away land from another country. There isn't, so taking away land from those who already have has nothing to do with capitalism. It is human history going down through the ages. We don't generally do that anymore (it is 2015 right?) with some kind of legal process.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

No youtube postings here. I want to say one thing when it comes to our country and politics. Think for yourself. Listen to both sides with an open mind. Most politicans, if not all, are just puppets for the real controlling interests of our economy. Major multi-national corporations have been calling the shots for quite some time. It has nothing to do with "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Non-stop wars are merely for profit and our young men come back in a worse situation than before they left. Who is making all the money here? Look to the military-industrial complex.

Where are the jobs? Why must our young men join the military industrial complex just to have work? Just to get funds for college? Who really pays?

These things we must look at with an eye for the truth.

You have to admit that over the last 50 years your people (progressive liberals) have controlled our government more than the conservative thought people. Whether it is in the White House, Congress, the courts, or the beaucracy the liberals have had more time at the wheel, have blocked more good things, and have endoctrinated more children than has the conservative movement. Why don't you ask them where are the jobs (the EPA has destroyed thousands of them), why does education cost so much (that is a pure liberal bastion), and stop blaming the military for everything. It is an unenlightened canard for the fools to believe in.

[TGBeldin]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Yes, the Noble Red Man.

This is a quick read. It cuts through all the bullshit.

http://thetruthcanhurt.com/TheAmericanIndian.htm

BS. Selective statements seen through some very subjective eyes.

You decide what is advanced and what is developed by a set of "inventions". All the inventions did in many cases was allow military conquest and killing. If that is your sole judge of moral superiority then we have little common ground to discuss.

Even if you give Europeans a higher grade for "development", then in your mind is taking someone else's property justified?

No one is disputing that the invaders were more advanced in weapons, ships and warfare. But this "truth" is some fact and a lot of judgment about what is supposed progress. The wheel was invented in the Americas before Columbus, it is found on toys. But without the roads and because of the landscape it was not developed into the same uses as the Europeans or Chinese did. Because the Native Americans were capable of feeding their people without metal tool or steam engines, does that make them less civilized than their European cousins? Or does it make them better horticulturalists? Or maybe less inclined to send war chariots across the Nile delta.

Many of the Spanish accounts comment on the "savages" being generally better fed and healthier than their European counterparts.

Not everyone measures progress the same way, and if I have a bigger gun it does not give me the right to take your home. Or do you think it does.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by TGBeldin

BS. Selective statements seen through some very subjective eyes.

You decide what is advanced and what is developed by a set of "inventions". All the inventions did in many cases was allow military conquest and killing. If that is your sole judge of moral superiority then we have little common ground to discuss.

Even if you give Europeans a higher grade for "development", then in your mind is taking someone else's property justified?

No one is disputing that the invaders were more advanced in weapons and ships warfare. But this "truth" is some fact and a lot of judgment about what is supposed progress. The wheel was invented in the Americas before Columbus, it is found on toys. But without the roads and because of the landscape it was not developed into the same uses as the Europeans or Chinese did. Because the Native Americans were capable of feeding their people without metal tool or steam engines, does that make them less civilized than their European cousins? Or does it make them better horticulturalists? Or maybe less inclined to send war chariots across the Nile delta.

Many of the Spanish accounts comment on the "savages" being generally better fed and healthier than their European counterparts.

Not everyone measures progress the same way, and if I have a bigger gun it does not give me the right to take your home. Or do you think it does.

But the Indians didn't believe in ownership of land, did they?
So, now they do?

[TGBeldin]

Depends upon which Native Americans you are talking about. Some did, some did not.

[Whirlaway]

Actually many tribes had individual private property laws (customs).

http://perc.org/articles/american-indian-collectivism

Originally Posted by DSK

But the Indians didn't believe in ownership of land, did they?
So, now they do?

[TGBeldin]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Actually many tribes had individual private property laws (customs).

http://perc.org/articles/american-indian-collectivism

Thank you.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by TGBeldin

Sounds like you two are more in agreement than you want to admit. The expansion of the country WAS based upon theft and socialistic giving away land that did not belong to the people "giving it away".

Either of you care to give it back to my native brothers? They don't care whether a capitalist or a socialist stole it, they would take it back.

Give back to the naturals ?
Now we all know that will never happen, The U.S.government has many of the natives right where they want them. Tied to a scrawny piece of ground, living in meager housing and dependeant upon a handout. More social bullshit in full force. We should be so proud of the effects it has had on these people.

What would you do to the mixed native people ? Would you have have them give back part, half of their possesions ? Then again about the time they gave back their land they could go get in the other line to accept it again !
What a concept, what a question !

[Yssup Rider]

Another brilliant, well thought through position presented by the esteemed Cornholio.

But what do you mean? "mixed native people". Sounds like you'd like to see them in concentration camps, eh Cornholio?

You now sound like a German SS officer.

IBIdiot, your self-proclaimed hero, is probably so proud of you that he's popped the buttons off his lederhozen!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Actually many tribes had individual private property laws (customs).

http://perc.org/articles/american-indian-collectivism

They seem like apologists for an Indian land grab, and don't have much to back up their claims.
I still maintain most Indians cared not for private ownership of land.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Another brilliant, well thought through position presented by the esteemed Cornholio.

But what do you mean? "mixed native people". Sounds like you'd like to see them in concentration camps, eh Cornholio?

You now sound like a German SS officer.

IBIdiot, your self-proclaimed hero, is probably so proud of you that he's popped the buttons off his lederhozen!

Yssup again you prove just how very sad and stupid you are !
Mixed native people ? You find that too difficult to comprehend, utterly amazing !
It is something eventually even a chimp could grasp if they were to give you a good monkey to work with.

MIxed native people would obviously = persons of mixed race.
Example: Being a person of 50% native and 50% European ancestry.
Or any other combination of human genetic material and percentages.
You got it yet Dumbo ?

How do come to imagine from my post that I suggest concentration camps for native peoples ? I illustrated how they were interned in reservations against their will after they were starved, sickened and defeated by trespassers into their world.

You truly are one poor,miserably stupid bastard.
Again I suggest, please go get some serious help.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by DSK

They seem like apologists for an Indian land grab, and don't have much to back up their claims.
I still maintain most Indians cared not for private ownership of land.

Two parts to your statement.

First it depends upon what groups of NAs you are talking about--a nomadic hunter/gatherer group like the Apache or Navajo often were, or a more agrarian group such as the Pueblo people. If I grow crops to feed my family I care very much about that plot of land.

Second, the concept of "private" would not always connect to an INDIVIDUAL, but ofthen to a family, clan, or village. This is true of sacred places, or communal farming lands, or hunting grounds. Just because they did not say, "This acre belongs to John Smith", they may well have the very equally valid concept of "This acre belongs to the Bear clan of the San Juan Pueblo". You had some of this same perspective in the French and Spanish land grants, where some land was given to a family.

I am not quite sure why you seem to think it is morally acceptable to take land from people whether it was held single or by a community. If you believe it was morally right, then you should by the same logic believe that if I have a bigger gun I can morally take your home. It really is the same thing in many cases. (Not all. E.g.: Manhattan)

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by DSK

But the Indians didn't believe in ownership of land, did they?
So, now they do?

They certainly did believe in owned territories or lands. They fought between tribes over hunting grounds and other resources. While they did not embrace a concept of deed as old world traditions held, surely you can imagine how they felt when the land was being stripped from them along with its resources.
It is certain that these native peoples thought processes and reactions evolved accordingly to this new threat of loss.

[JD Barleycorn]

The Indians (does that term piss you off?) did a few things that were universal. Some of them did believe in land ownership. Maybe not the same as the Europeans like this is Souix land and not this lands belongs to Running Bear but they believe in common ownership and fought wars over it. They also believed in slavery and genocide. It is a myth to think that somehow on the entire planet only in the North American continent did these people live their lives so different with lying or deceit. Like I said...myth.