The U.S. should seriously consider giving back the lands it took illegally

Dis · June 13, 2003, 03:53

don't ya ever feel guilty about all the people the U.S. trampled over to create that great nation?

If the U.S. is ever going to dictate to nations like Iraq that they can't attacks other nations like Kuwait, they need to look at their own history of land aquisition through warfare. The U.S. has no moral high ground here.

So I do believe the time has come to return the lands of the United States back to its rightful owners.

Hey Jimmy Carter was nice enough to give back the Panama canal, he took the first step.

Who's with me?

BeBro · June 13, 2003, 04:20

Yeah, I heard they sold parts of the moon - they should give it back.

Eli · June 13, 2003, 04:27

Yup.

We can allocate you some land in the Negev.

MikeH · June 13, 2003, 04:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
don't ya ever feel guilty about all the people the U.S. trampled over to create that great nation?

If the U.S. is ever going to dictate to nations like Iraq that they can't attacks other nations like Kuwait, they need to look at their own history of land aquisition through warfare. The U.S. has no moral high ground here.

So I do believe the time has come to return the lands of the United States back to its rightful owners.

Hey Jimmy Carter was nice enough to give back the Panama canal, he took the first step.

Who's with me?

Bollocks, does that mean you are all coming back to Europe and leaving the country for the natives?

Lord Merciless · June 13, 2003, 04:52

I think the Anglo-Saxons should turn over Britain over to Celts/Welsh/Scots and go back to where they came from: Northern Germany.

I also think that the French/Franks should give France back to the Gauls and rename the place Gaul.

Similarly, Turkey should turn over Constantinople/Instanbul back to the Greeks.

Berzerker · June 13, 2003, 04:53

When it's proven that Indians were the first people and not invaders who killed the first people.

Nubclear · June 13, 2003, 04:57

Yay!!!!

It would be glorious!!! The US would be reduced to the size of a few eastern states!!!

Az · June 13, 2003, 06:31

Quote:

When it's proven that Indians were the first people and not invaders who killed the first people.

So I guess Israel has no problem, then.

Az · June 13, 2003, 06:35

Hey, Tass, you don't want to know how would Russia look.

Jamski · June 13, 2003, 06:40

Quote:

Similarly, Turkey should turn over Constantinople/Instanbul back to the Greeks.

Of course they should - ask Marko

-Jam

uh Clem · June 13, 2003, 06:47

Berzerker, Topeka is part of the Louisiana Purchase. You'll be handed over to the French.

Zylka · June 13, 2003, 07:23

Considering that the American descendants took the land from countless minute tribes who did nothing more than kill each other, die of starvation in tough seasons, and pitch nomadic tarps between hunting and inbreeding... I'd say "no"

I have not a problem with the fundamental human beings known as Native Americans, yet this told "tragedy" of a civilization lost is a bit much. Life seems a miserable tale in the former Americas, and I'm talking in a sense of survival

Eli · June 13, 2003, 07:31

Same thing can be said about the Palestinian Falahs, enslaved in the Ottoman Feudal system.

Spiffor · June 13, 2003, 07:40

No.
We don't want a bunch of gun-toting rednecks in Europe

Cruddy · June 13, 2003, 07:49

You've already exterminated 90% of the native tribes, so who is there to give it back to?

Banana for me.

Zylka · June 13, 2003, 08:33

Quote:

You've already exterminated 90% of the native tribes, so who is there to give it back to?

Banana for me.

...and what good would have come without such elimination? Prolonged war between the tribes (substantially more vicious than anything Europe had seen in millennia) and the allowance of accumulated murder dwarfing that of the conquests in no time flat? I'm not saying that quick command and conquer was the most noble of means, yet most of the "elimination" came indirectly - from disease. Perhaps our ancestors should have known better than to even step off the boats and interact with these Utopian victims?

Such melodramatic ignorance.

Cruddy · June 13, 2003, 08:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka

Quote:

You've already exterminated 90% of the native tribes, so who is there to give it back to?

Banana for me.

...and what good would have come without such elimination? Prolonged war between the tribes (substantially more vicious than anything Europe had seen in millennia) and the allowance of accumulated murder dwarfing that of the conquests in no time flat? I'm not saying that quick command and conquer was the most noble of means, yet most of the "elimination" came indirectly - from disease. Perhaps our ancestors should have known better than to even step off the boats and interact with these Utopian victims?

Such melodramatic ignorance.

Doesn't really answer my pont, does it? Who you going to give the land back to Zylka?

Such melodramatic ignorance... of my question.

Zylka · June 13, 2003, 08:42

What's your point? They're all dead, and left alive would still be living a pack animal existence and killing each other in greater numbers. I'm not giving anything "back", because they never owned or established anything human on it in the first place.

Proteus_MST · June 13, 2003, 08:43

I don´t think that the US should give those Lands back it took illegally.

It would be too much of the country, if you consider the Land they took from the american natives.

But the american tribes should be properly remiunerated for the lands they were forced to give up.
There are AFAIK some cases, Indian Tribes against the USA where such a remuneration is demanded. They should be decided in Favor of the Tribes.

Cruddy · June 13, 2003, 08:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
What's your point? They're all dead, and left alive would still be living a pack animal existence and killing each other in greater numbers. I'm not giving anything "back", because they never owned or established anything human on it in the first place.

That IS my point. If there's no one to give the land back to, this poll is kind of pointless!

As for the tribes that are litigating - good luck to them.

Zylka · June 13, 2003, 08:52

F*ck the tribes that are litigating. In Canada, if you give a tribe relative sovereignty over land - billboards spring up like fungus adjacent to the Highway, Casinos loom according to various lawsuits, & they deplete local resources before successfully SUING THE FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT FOR NOT STOPING THEM FROM DOING IT

MrFun · June 13, 2003, 09:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Considering that the American descendants took the land from countless minute tribes who did nothing more than kill each other, die of starvation in tough seasons, and pitch nomadic tarps between hunting and inbreeding... I'd say "no"

I have not a problem with the fundamental human beings known as Native Americans, yet this told "tragedy" of a civilization lost is a bit much. Life seems a miserable tale in the former Americas, and I'm talking in a sense of survival

Keep praticing your racist garbage, and you might be as good as a Ku Klux Klan wizard.

You provided a grossly inaccurate, unfair portrayal of the hundreds of different Amerindian cultures that have existed in North America.

gunkulator · June 13, 2003, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
F*ck the tribes that are litigating. In Canada, if you give a tribe relative sovereignty over land - billboards spring up like fungus adjacent to the Highway, Casinos loom according to various lawsuits, & they deplete local resources before successfully SUING THE FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT FOR NOT STOPING THEM FROM DOING IT

Actually, our Canadian friends were donors in the biggest land giveaway in recent memory (1999): the almost 2 million sq km land known as Nunavut. Although still a territory of Canada, the native Inuit control a vast region containing 1/5 the landmass of Canada. That's bigger than all of Western Europe but with a population just under 25000.

As for the US giving land back: nah, who would we give it to?

Zylka · June 13, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Keep praticing your racist garbage, and you might be as good as a Ku Klux Klan wizard.

You provided a grossly inaccurate, unfair portrayal of the hundreds of different Amerindian cultures that have existed in North America.

How in any way have I said anything "racist"? How have I insinuated that the racial make-up of native Americans makes them any less human? I have insulted the culture which had nurtured their society as less human, but personally attribute the growth of that inadequate framework initially to environmental factors of the region. After all, they had started in these lands with the same pre-history knowledge as the rest (20,000 years ago?), yet accomplished nothing.

Still, the Natives of Central America saw a brilliant growth of organized society; including centralized theocracy, vast tracts of agriculture with social distribution, large urban centers, lasting arts, considerable architecture, and undeniably phenomenal astrological sciences - all with the same (near non existent) tools of human progress upon settlement! This makes the example of conquest a horrible one, for although they themselves were just as war-like, they were just a few defensive steps away from establishing a lasting hold on the area (Pity most of the sciences went towards the heavens)

So you're saying that these two nearly IDENTICAL races (actually identical upon largely accepted definitions) separated in praise and harsh criticism; proves RACIST on one hand, and WHAT on the other???

Aside from which, aren't you one of those who screamed for the non-existence of race in the PBS thread? Get a grip and consistency, buddy. The Grand Wizard fairy dance only goes so far in attacking just criticism of civilization.

Maniac · June 13, 2003, 09:24

Quote:

The US would be reduced to the size of a few eastern states!!!

Actually no. Those areas were also populated by natives, and colonized by the English, Dutch, Swedes... The United States would cease to exist if you use the "the land belongs to the first inhabitant"-rule.
Anyway, this is a stupid proposal: Few areas are still owned by their first inhabitants.

gunkulator · June 13, 2003, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
I have insulted the culture which had nurtured their society as less human, but personally attribute the growth of that inadequate framework initially to environmental factors of the region. After all, they had started in these lands with the same pre-history knowledge as the rest (20,000 years ago?), yet accomplished nothing.

North America did not have the right flora and fauna to support the dense populations necessary for what we call "civlization." The only native agricultural crop is corn, which came from Central America and did not arrive in North American until a few hundred years before Columbus. North America had only one large animal, the bison, which even today is not really domesticated due to its bad temperament. By comparison, Mesopotamia had wheat, oats, barley and rice with pack/food animals like cattle, pigs, goats, sheep and horses.

Central America had potatos and corn. For animals, they only had the llama which is really acclimated for mountainous regions, not the open plains of North America.

Austrialian natives had it even worse. No crops or useful animals at all (kangaroos are useless even today), and the world's driest climate.

Much as we like to give credit to ourselves for civilization, it just would not have happened without the necessary conditions.

Zylka · June 13, 2003, 09:52

I tend to agree, as previously hinted:

Quote:

...personally attribute the growth of that inadequate framework initially to environmental factors of the region.

Looks as though Mr FunBoi has time only to hurl the tired and easy "racism" bit, yet not specify why?

Jaguar · June 13, 2003, 10:05

I will give back my house to some extinct tribe of Native Americans once Italy gives its land back to the Etruscans.

FrostyBoy · June 13, 2003, 10:43

There's this good book, can't remember the name of it. Columbus I think.

It's where these group of ppl from the future decide to travel back in time and warn the native ppl of America of the coming Europeans, they also show them how to fight against them and equip them too (I think thats what happened anyway).

But before they went back in time, they debated over and over on what the consequences would be. But in the end they didn't care, they wanted to right what went wrong. It was good, worth a read

FrostyBoy · June 13, 2003, 10:46

btw, one of my opinions about taking over an inhabited country:

Do any of you really believe that the land of America would never be taken over?

I often wonder what the Maori feel here in NZ, I wonder if they wish the English had never settled here. But then I think to myself - but if th English didn't, someone else would have (the French infact would have done it).

And I'm glad the English won that race