All land is stolen land.
By - InnocentPerv93
Imagine discovering two new continents, for a total of 16 million square miles of new undiscovered land, meeting the (largely preliterate) natives, and then saying "well, you were here first I guess", and going home and forgetting all about it. But apparently that's what the Europeans were supposed to do.
There's a middle ground between complete acquiescence and systemic genocide, which is what I think would have been preferable, though it's hard to convince a technologically superior culture to not take advantage of the available resources in favor of a culture completely removed from their own.
For some reason a few people (not you) read my comment and thought I was literally advocating for genocide. Thanks for putting things in perspective. I do think colonists learned a lot from the Native Americans and that a large part of our pragmatic and independent streak as Americans comes from our exposure to their culture.
Most of the early interactions were relatively peaceful to. The fighting didn't really start until early settlers encountered the war tribes.
For example the Wabanaki Confederacy tribes were mostly traded with and not slaughtered in any sense.
Yep, very true. I also think the colonists were pretty smart about figuring out which tribes were friendly and helpful and which were dangerous and deadly - you would have to if you wanted to stay alive since you can't fight everyone. But once you got into a situation where Indian tribes were backing the French (French and Indian War) or the British (Revolutionary War / War of 1812), even a tribe you're friendly with today might be the ground troops for a European power tomorrow and its going to be difficult to trust anyone.
The Spanish pretty much invaded and enslaved day one lol
After what they went through with Islamic invasions, it was probably hard for them to have any faith in different cultures. Still, that doesn't even begin to justify what they'd done.
You just justified the Spanish conquest by giving them an out.
Not really. A reason does not equal a justification.
Not a justification but a baseless assumption. History is defenitely way more complicated.
What is baseless?
I was referring to my original comment.
I think the assumption you made has basis in the historical fact you brought up.
I would blame Aristotle. decades after the conquests Sepulveda described the ethos over conquering the natives.
oversimplifiedly it wasn't obvious to 16th century Spanish that they were fully human and Aristotle already gave instructions on how to handle people who were judged as brutes. And the bible discusses who should be enslaved.
again I oversimplify
Those poor Aztecs LOL
EDIT: Downvoted and sacrificed.
Hey, they had a heart. In fact they had thousands and thousands of hearts from their captured enemies.
Yeah they were doing a pretty good job of genociding themselves LOL
I suppose the Allies (especially the Soviets) had the right to ethnically cleanse Germans from at least part of Germany, due to the Holocaust and their acts against Poland and Ukraine. Right?
I don't think I have ever made a comment that so many people have drawn such absurd conclusions from.
Tbh I don’t feel that bad for the Aztecs. The others though? Sure.
Rule 1 of conquest and colonization;
When heavily outnumbered, smile and hand out trinkets while making mental notes about men of fighting age and defenses for the next trip
Idiots who whine about this really have no idea how people have survived in the past nor the kind of decisions our ancestors needed to make to create the world we live in now.
Damn I wish I had an award.
I think if the Native Americans hadn't taken sides in the French & Indian war, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812, they would have been treated very differently. Choices have consequences.
They almost had no choice at least after the French and Indian War. Basically they were being marauded by settlers repeatedly and faced raids during the war from other tribes.
What are you on about. How are people supposed to run things with more than a few people around without government. Even the indians had government. They ran things with kings and queens, except people call them chiefs.
> If they were supposed to go back that would bassically be racial segregation
That's the edgy 7th grade take, yes.
The adult take is that invading other people's lands is wrong, and doing ot successfully does not change that.
The idea that conquest is always bad seems to be a relatively new one. The vast majority of human history was about groups of humans fighting and taking shit from other groups of humans.
So if I come to your house, I can just steal it? Why, thanks for the offer! I'll see you on Sunday.
no cause we have laws backed with the promise of violence to stop you doing it
problem is those natives was not protected by our laws,sure they had violence to defend it but it was no match for ours thus conquered
your argument is exactly the same as the far right on illegal immigration also lmao,now if someone came into your home unannounced and started eating food for free,touching your daughter against her will,not contributing the house bills would you turn a blind eye?
No, because this is the modern era. Believe it or not, times change.
If you go to yellowstone national park and there's someone else there, do you say "oh shit it's full" and drive home?
No, because its land we have agreed on at least semi-democratically can be used collectively. It is public property. If I went into unchartered woods to establish myself and saw a village there, I would ask them if I can establish myself there and if so, how far away.
you buy it off them for shiny beads then listen to them bitch bout it for 200 years lol
What does the natives being preiliterate have to do with it?
Because it was clear that they were meeting individual tribes rather than representatives of a continent-wide empire.
It's a slightly less retarded-looking version of "They were too primitive to properly use their own land, so we took it from them for their own good".
Not necessarily for their own good, but there is someone to be said about might equals right when it comes to the past. Putting our modern ethics onto these pasts is just nonsensical.
Are you really making an argument in favor of genocide? You sound like Trump trying to explain that he wouldn’t tell the director of the FBI that he was contacted by Russia, because “that’s not how the real world works”. I’m not passing judgement. This is just what it’s coming off as. If I am misinterpreting you please don’t hesitate to correct me.
You're 100% right, both Donald Trump and myself are 100% responsible for the Trail of Tears in 1825. We would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.
Such an immature statement.
I never said that. I said that you can’t just sweep colonialism under the rug and act like, “What were they supposed to do? Not Genocide them?” Yes. That’s exactly what they should have done. They should have refrained from geocoding the only reason that they survived the winter. They should have not committed a genocide against them. Raise your standards just a little but and stop making excuses for atrocities.
Do I really have to argue with someone whose knowledge of history couldn't fill a 3x5 card? Okay, sure, here goes.
In 1613, Pocahontas was captured and held for ransom by the colonists during hostilities with the Powhattan tribe. She fell in love with John Rolfe, who married her, and they traveled to England and became extremely popular with high society, including attending parties at the palace, and she likely met Squanto. They had one child, but unfortunately she died a few years later. She is buried at St George's Church in England, and is the subject of books, plays, films, paintings, statues, engravings, etc, going all the way back to (https://www.pocahontaslives.com/more-on-van-de-passe-engraving.html).
Does this sound like someone who was the target of a genocide? Of course not. What folks like you refuse to understand is that native American tribes were treated as foreign powers, i.e. other countries. The native Americans were in no way inferior - they were the undisputed masters of the terrain, which made them valuable partners or deadly enemies. But some tribes you get alone with, and some tribes you don't, and within each tribe there are individuals you get along with (and get married to) and some you don't.
"But Europeans killed native Americans". Yeah, they did. And Native Americans also killed Native Americans. And native Americans killed Europeans, and Europeans killed plenty of Europeans themselves (what they do best LOL)- Europe was basically constantly at war for centuries- which turned out to be a huge problem for the Native Americans (see below). Wounded Knee in 1890 was a massacre of 130-250 American Indians, and while obviously tragic, compare the scale to the [Siege of Paris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_\(1870%E2%80%931871\))in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 that resulted in 47,000 civilian casualties.
But if that's all you get out of history, just dudes killing dudes, you are missing a lot. You're missing: That in 1727, Ursaline Academy opened its doors to native American women, and that school stlll exists today. That the US government vaccinated Native Americans from smallpox in 1832. That horses didn't exist before the colonists brought them, and that mobility a huge impact on native American life & culture. That Sam Houston (future President of Texas) spent three years living with the Cherokee. And that the central conflict wasn't over race or resources, but assimilation - virtually every President since Washington offered native Americans entry into "civilized" life, a life that some native Americans happily embraced, but that others had no interest in and rejected. It was a complex relationship.
The reason relations with the Native Americans went south was also because of European conflicts. In the French & Indian war, tribes took sides, with some fighting for the British and others the French. In the Revolutionary War and in the War of 1812, the majority of native Americans fought for the British and against the Americans, and there were massacres of Americans as a result (Fort Dearborn). The British surrendered and didn't give a thought to the Native Americans, and that basically set the stage for the entire 1800s, starting with the trail of tears and ending with wounded knee, with only 248,000 native Americans left alive. But thankfully the story doesn't end there, and in the first half of the 20th century Presidents like Calvin Coolidge and Lyndon Johnson extended to them all the rights associated with American citizenship, while still allowing them to keep their own tribal sovereignty.
Have you considered the era? Like at all? Or the fact that the natives most certainly genocided each other and warred and raped etc each other long before any colonists came? Those were just the times they lived in, genocide was a part of life. We cannot just subscribe our modern ethics to the past. Well, you can, it’s just absurd to do so. Even more so to shame modern people for it.
The problem is that by making this post you’re already comparing it to modern values. And it should be. What’s the point of studying history at all if we’re just going to make up excuses for the negative events of the past, instead of learn from them? And that’s all you’ve done in this conversation. Is make excuses instead of just admitting that the country has dark origins. It’s called whitewashing and is generally frowned upon. But for some reason I get the feeling that you’d be calling it out in any other context, except for the fact that at this moment it aligns with your philosophical, political and world outlook.
sod your moral standards lmao it was 100s of years ago deal with it
You are passing judgement and deliberately misrepresenting what he said to make an unrelated comment about trump .
Orange man bad.
nothing found only hysterical rachel maddow screeching is all you have to cite
meanwhile biden puppets contacted china and told them they wont use nukes leaving the us open to attack lmao
lmao And Maddow’s the hysterical one. Get a grip. Trump’s own aids were the ones to approach Milley and say there’s something wrong with the President.
"Were the Europeans *not* supposed to rape indigenous women and children and hand out Sars blankets?!?, I mean imagine *not* colonizing other people's land, right guys?!?!?" - some white dude on the internet
lmao those girls sided with the conquerer cause women always bet on the strongest horse,and nobody knew about germs back then,COPE AND SEETH
Is it fun for you to pretend that I said something that I didn't and then be outraged about it?
When you don't think before you speak you run the risk of being called out by those more educated than yourself
> some white dude on the internet
Apparently most of the commenters on this thread. Depressing and surreal at the same time.
It's only depressing until you realize it's the same knuckle heads leaving comments on all of the posts in this relatively tiny subreddit
"Your honour, imagine discovering a big mansion at the end of the hill, meeting the elderly owners, and then saying that you WON'T murder them and steal all their shit! That's what you expected me to do? How is that fair!?!"
I think you want /r/WritingPrompts
Lmao, right back at you, champ. Your logic is silly and makes no sense.
"How can we expect people to not murder and steal?!" is useless logic. Yes, mate, we do expect you to do that, and that was what the Europeans ethically should've done.
You're just pretending I said something I didn't. The fact is that no tribe had a claim over all of north and s. america, and they couldn't possibly have enforced it if they did. There was plenty of room for colonists and native Americans to co-exist, and in many cases they were able to. If you see a picture of a native American on a horse with a gun, they have those things because they traded with the colonists.
Also this whole "Europeans genocided Native Americans" is just a paper-thin version of history advanced by people who are too lazy to read a book or even an article. Guilt doesn't just magically assign to all Europeans - there were specific people who started conflicts, like Andrew Jackson or Custer, and others who tried to avoid conflict, like Washington and Grant. Same on the native American side too - Crazy Horse attacked forts and broke treaties and basically forced Grant into a war with the Lakota that he didn't want.
>You're just pretending I said something I didn't.
>Imagine discovering two new continents, for a total of 16 million square miles of new undiscovered land, meeting the (largely preliterate) natives, and then saying "well, you were here first I guess", and going home and forgetting all about it. But apparently that's what the Europeans were supposed to do.
Nope. Right there, you can see you said exactly as much.
No one said guilt assigns to all Europeans. It seems you're trying to construct strawmen to attack because there's nothing I've said that's actually incorrect in any way.
Why did you pick out just that part and ignore the rest of the comment? Do you plan on disputing the history he provided at all? Can you?
It definitely is what they should have done. But he is right that what they did was socially as well as historically acceptable. I mean if you were to take the Bible as a historical document and use it as reference, then you could say that people have been fighting over land for many more years before the Romans.
It is easy to look back and say, “ya that was wrong, they shouldn’t have done that”. But if we had actually lived during that time period and were in an environment where this was socially acceptable, most would just keep their mouths shut.
I love how some people think North America was some big lovefest of Native Americans all singing and dancing together before the "evil" Europeans arrived. Native American tribes were at war with each other for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived. They were absolutely brutal to each other...killing entire opposing tribes, including women and children, scalping and decapitating each other, and taking each other as slaves. The only thing Europeans are guilty of is being better at war than the Native Americans.
Agreed. My primary issue is putting our modern ethics into long dead historical figures and governments. Makes zero sense.
Massive strawmmaning like what OP is doing.
Make that argument.
Nice straw man
don't forget about the Mongolians
Yeah, I forgot to mention them but that’s also a great point, especially with what they did to the Middle East. Everyone mentions the Crusades when talking about how horrible European Christianity was, rarely anyone mentions the atrocities the Mongolians did.
Weren't the crusades a response to Islam?
Sure but I’m not sure why that matters.
Not that it makes atrocities okay but the Crusades were the response to Islam conquering Christian countries and killing, raping or taxing the doodoo out of them.
Tbh I’ve never heard of Islamic countries conquering Christian countries, prompting the crusades.
The Muslims controlled Spain for over 700 years, and were regularly mistreating Christians, committing acts of aggression. It doesn't excuse some of the barbarism that crusaders engaged in at times, but yes, the crusades were absolutely a response to Muslim incursions into Christian lands, not unprovoked violence for funsies.
I’m just gonna say that I am not educated enough on the topic. I’ve never really defended the Crusades, I’ve only really defended modern Christianity as it is not the same as it was back then. Same with Islam.
This is very true
I'm also sick of tax exemptions. Especially for my neighbours...who live in the same neighborhood as me, work the same job, never had anything stolen for them...and pay no tax
It's complete bullshit, and does nothing but cause hate and divide
*conquered. Otherwise I agree with you and bleeding hearts can fuck off
I'm going to conquer your house.
I have an army if mercenaries.
I mean, you probably can in fairness
Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Come find out
I mean if you can take an hold land, ya, it's yours. Look at Crimea.
Irishman here, when the celts arrived they stole the land from the ancient Irish, and eventually bred out the ancient Irish from the land.
And the same likely happened with native Americans before colonialism.
Now if you want to own land, you buy it. Which is exactly what the Native American's are doing with their money from the casinos.
Agreed, and I don’t really see a problem with that, personally.
The Celts were from eastern Europe. So they stole land from whoever was there before them, west of say, Slovakia.
That’s my point, it’s a never ending chain.
Yeah, I was just emphasizing that it is even deeper. :) And then there was the actual genocide of the Huron Indians by the Iroquois when the Iroquois were given guns. Thee are some that think it was the fault of those who gave them the guns, but it wasn't. The choice to use them belonged to the Iroquois. And 30 or 40 thousand deaths later, no more Huron nation. It would have happened earlier or the other way around if one side or the other had figured out an advantage. The problem is with *people* ***who don't want to understand*** that the world worked differently one hundred and more years ago. People forget that up to the end of WW1 all of Europe was literally run by kings. The whole world in fact with the exception of six or seven democracies. The world was very different.
I always found it interesting how many tribes claim history over the black hills. Yes, you did have ancestors there. My ancestor lived in lots of places too, but I don't claim them all, because the nomadic period of my race isn't really relevant in todays world.
edit: in fact, my late Pa once said that Custer was in the family tree, I claim the black hills in the name of my ancestors.
My stance on this has always been yes America has done horrible things and yes the right thing to do is to try to apologize and make up for it as best as is possible at this point in time but no America is not uniquely evil. America is not even uniquely evil in modern times. Like in the past 20, 50, 100 or 150 years.
Why should we apologize for people that are dead, that did things the we dont agree with to people that were not the ones that were harmed?
When I think of bad things we can affect now I think of all the places we're involved in in the middle east and we bomb because....? Like [this one](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/17/drone-strike-killed-10-civilians-in-kabul-us-acknowledges) we just acknowledged Or regime changes we really shouldn't have done( but continue to do) that have only made the situation worse such as Libya ten years ago. We took out Gaddafi and that place has become a humanitarian disaster, there was/is a brutal civil war and the area became involved in the slave trade. The civil war is only recently tentatively calming down.
So far as other things I'm not saying we still need to be making reparations for slavery in America or anything like that or to give land back to people. Both would be retarded in the present day. I don't really there's anything material we can reasonably do for anyone today, we're so far removed, although I hear life can be quite bad in many indian reserves. From what I know gambling is big problem in some.
If there are things we haven't acknowledged were wrong we should acknowledge them and apologize. Turkey to this day refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide ever happened, even though there was a regime change. Japan also doesn't acknowledge much of what happened during WWII really happened. And there were still ''comfort women'' alive atleast through the 2010's.
apologizing means you must accept what you did was wrong and thus lose face on the world stage and wind up paying trillions in reparation's
i would rather we wage war than apologize for the empire tbh
You don’t have to apologize, just recognize how the system you benefit from was put in place.
the system built by us for us? lmao no even if we have privilege why should i give it up? would you?
would you fuck
You don’t have to give up privilege, just extend it to others. On the plus side, at least you recognize certain people as privileged.
Weeeeeeeell.... the last 50 years has seen Iraq, Afghanistan and all that US meddling in Latin America supporting pretty despotic regimes with their death squads to make sure the wealth from natural resources there benefited US corporate interests rather than, you know, the people who own it. So it's not like the whole pillage thing went away with the Vikings you know?
I just typed out a long reply to someone else coming at it from the opposite (seemingly) side from you, so I'm gonna copy and paste atleast a portion of it here as a reply and then add on. You can look at/for the rest if you want, but not all of it seemed relevant to responding to yours.
''When I think of bad things we can affect now I think of all the places we're involved in in the middle east and we bomb because....? Like this one we just acknowledged Or regime changes we really shouldn't have done( but continue to do) that have only made the situation worse such as Libya ten years ago. We took out Gaddafi and that place has become a humanitarian disaster, there was/is a brutal civil war and the area became involved in the slave trade. The civil war is only recently tentatively calming down.''
I also think we need to stop sticking our noses we shouldn't. I know there are probably geopolitics as to why we do but I think we've only made situations more than one country, such as the above listed, objectively worse. We really don't need to stick our thumbs in every pie in my opinion essentially.
Only place my people stole land from was from the ocean.
I’m curious, what do you mean by that?
Edit okay we took a bit from Indonesia and Suriname and a few others but we gave it back. Not the ocean tho, fuck the ocean.
Finally a good post^
I think native Canadians are the only group I know of that got defeated in war and conquered and are receiving reparations.
Like I genuinely don’t know if any other country does this? If you can prove celtic ancestry in Europe should you get free shit? Doesn’t make any sense but whatever
Land can't be stolen because it can never truly be owned. Governments come and go but the land remains. Governments controlling the land is an administrative quirk, nothing more.
Agreed, and there’s nothing wrong with that imo.
Am I to take it that if extraterrestrials came over here and decided to take Earth for themselves while pushing humans to the least desirable lands (if any of us survived at all), you'd be OK with the ETs saying "Get Over It!!" to we few humans remaining? Just curious.
I mean, I probably wouldn’t as I would be effected in this hypothetical (and therefore pointless) situation, but as a bystander, yeah.
It's all sins of the father nonsense.
Great way of putting it actually.
True that’s basically what I say all the time. No land is stolen since no one owns it and land has been past around by people for thousands of years. To say it belongs a certain group of people is just sad.
I blame beavers.
I don’t think I get the reference.
It still works that way. It's why Canada will eventually lose the arctic archipelago when either Russia or the USA decide the mineral wealth is worth moving in on. Especially as the arctic warms up. Canadian politicians have consistently ignored the fact that we have no one up there, and we can't patrol it with the ships we have. When Russia or the USA set up, it will be gone. Canada is one of the only countries, if not the only country that recognizes its claim to the far north islands and water of the region.
Maybe Russia, but I think you overestimate almost western countries’ willingness to do those sorts of things anymore. Like I said, the world has changed.
I could see Russia trying to take some land up there. Canada being lame can't do anything about it. America not wanting Russia so close does do something and pushes the Russians off. And then the Americans stay there and defacto own it. In fact I'd bet a fiver on that happening sometimes. It might happen after I'm dead when the water is more open, but I think it will.
It's natural to feel upset when your "people" got their ass kicked, even after thousands of year of the events. However, that's as far as things should go. Being obsessed with revenge or imaginary justice is useless.
In the American/Canadian case, I think the effects are still felt because what took place in the colonization period is still relatively recent.
>And while it is unfortunate that shit happened, there is wisdom in just letting those incidents go to history. People are addicted to grudges it seems like.
You know what? I'm gonna say it. Can we let 9/11 or all of the terrorist attacks of the last decade go to history?
sure when the people involved are all dead,nobody affected by the colonial era are alive
Apart from all their descendants.
lmao im the great grandson of 2 jewish drs in poland
they was rounded up and my gran put in a camp to which she survived and came to england met a man then had my mum and then she met my dad and had me
do i hate germans for it? no....no german alive today took part in it and the few that remain that did are old af and nearly all gone
unlike you im not a perpetual victim and this grievance archology is just a big grift cause you think if you screech racist and colonizer enough you will get free shit and its cringe.
Their descendants are not affected by that shit, stop lying.
Not affected by having all the best ressource-rich areas taken from them and being left with places with no drinkable water?
Or not affected by having the people who took those ressource-rich areas compound the whealth they made through time and to be thus left at the bottom of the economic hiarchy?
I actually agree tbh.
Nobody is claiming that indigenous peoples are the only ones who had their land stolen, but they are the most recent and horrible examples of genocide. We haven't moved away from it if we are still dealing with the consequences
That’s not even close to the most recent. Yes in the Western hemisphere borders have been stable, but in the rest of the world genocide and redrawing of borders have been a regular occurrence, even through the end of the 20th century.
Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Chechens, Russians, Hutus, Tutsi, Arab Jews/Christians, Israeli Muslims, Uyghers, Afrikaans, Ukrainians, Tatars, Moldovans, Hong Kongers, and Tibetans have all faced expulsion and land confiscation in the past since the 1990s.
It's the combination of the recent, ongoing, horrible in terms of scale and proximity (assuming you're in north America) that makes the topic so relevant, not any one factor alone
Very ignorant comment, as there’s more Native Americans alive today than there were 200+ years ago.
That is not accurate. Most of the cases mentioned occurred on a similar or greater scale than the resettlement of the native americans, in terms of the number of people directly affected. Furthermore, the native americans are the only group in this discussion to have received any form of contrition, legal recognition, or reparations from their oppressors. In every one of these cases the oppressors are uniformly convinced to this day that they did nothing wrong, with the sole exception of the Americans.
Wow, you got totally put in your place and shown to be ignorant after that last user's comment, but instead of admitting you were wrong and misinformed, you just start babbling and squirming, unable to admit your ignorance. However, watching your moronic assertions get destroyed in nearly every thread in this sub is perpetually hilarious.
>they are the most recent and horrible examples of genocide
No, they absolutely are not.
We aren’t still dealing with the consequences though?
Another problem is that native Americans aren’t just one group there’s like hundreds of tribes and land redistribution would be a nightmare
I think this is one of the most pronounced cultural differences between Canada and the US.
The fallout from the First Nations genocides are very much at the forefront of politics and social issues with racism, etc, today. Everyone has an opinion on it, and having grown up near a large res area I've seen first hand the stigmas and overt racism these people still have to deal with today.
Canada as a nation did horrendous things in the not-too-distant past, and "moving on" is simply impossible when many people involved are still alive today. There are no easy answers, but the one thing we *aren't* doing is largely forgetting about it, which seems to be the American approach.
We have been incorporating more and more First Nation history into our education because that's a *huge* part of the story of Canada, but from what I gather there's very little in the States? Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
America/Americans are definitely NOT forgetting about it. It gets brought up constantly, about what America/Britain did toward the Natives throughout history. I have no issue with it being taught as a part of our history, because like with Canada, it is also a part of the US’s story. I’m fine with that. And despite popular perception, the US education system certainly isn’t hiding what the country did back then toward Natives. I was taught all about it in 5th, 11th, and 12th grades in our history classes. It was all about the mistreatment of natives. Almost at nauseam.
My primary issue are the people who feel like modern Americans should feel ashamed about something that happened outside of their lifetime. And the same goes for Modern Canadians as well. We shouldn’t.
>My primary issue are the people who feel like modern Americans should feel ashamed about something that happened outside of their lifetime. And the same goes for Modern Canadians as well. We shouldn’t.
These things weren't just happening in the 1700s. The Canadian government - in association with the church - were straight up stealing children from FN families and shipping them off to re-education camps to "kill the Indian", often with insane mortality rates where the families would never find out... In the 1960s. The last school closed *in 1997*.
Or in the early 2000s, we had ["Starlight Tours"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths), where the police would drive FN men into the wilderness to freeze to death. Recently it's come to light that this practice goes back to the '70s.
These are fresh wounds.
I think Australia was even worse. I've read that the indigenous people were treated like slaves into the 60s and 70s. (Stolen, chained, sold, etc.)
The US looks pretty good by comparison TBH - we had an [Indian Civil Rights Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#Civil_rights_movement_era:_1960%E2%80%931968) passed in 1968 that guarantees that the bill of rights applies to native Americans. It's just not common knowledge I guess.
>I've read that the indigenous people were treated like slaves into the 60s and 70s. (Stolen, chained, sold, etc.)
That's not quite right actually. Don't get me wrong, the Aboriginals were seriously fucked over. Technically slavery has never existed in Australia, but back in the day many Aboriginals were forced to work for sweet fuck all and weren't allowed to leave...in other words slavery.
Our PM got himself into some shit earlier this year trying to claim we've never had slavery here, he was shot down pretty quickly and took it back and apologised. FYI: Our PM is an oxygen theif.
Yeah, exactly - that's why I stopped just short of saying they were actually slaves, but saying they were treated like slaves is accurate. The question is of course what do you do with that history, and how you figure out how to get along going forward.
You’re right, treated as slaves, I don’t think it was as recent as the 60s and 70s though.
Great comment. All of your comments ITT are, and I appreciate how succinctly you present the facts.
Maybe YOU aren't.
Obviously you’re not. The Native Americans are.
They aren’t though. They have their reservations given to them by long dead people.
Who the fuck did the Inuit steal land from, the fucking seals?
I don't even think natives thought of land the same way we do. The concept of nation states didn't come about til the early modern period.
They fought with each other and raided each other but it's not like they really thought of North America the same way we do. Most were somewhat nomadic.
The ones that really stayed in one place were the ones who actually built city states like the Aztecs and the Incas.
> I don't even think natives thought of land the same way we do.
... regardless of whether they thought of land the exact same as we do now, native tribes in early America most certainly had territory, invaded and conquered each other and she'd considerable blood over territory wars and disputes.
Some did some didn't. Some were nomadic. The Aztecs enslaved their neighbors and what not.
Actually yes, they stole it from and killed many of the native species that had been living here. We have this idea that the natives lived in perfect harmony with nature, and it's complete bs. We know from the fossil record that when natives showed up here they wiped out massive amounts of plant and animal life, causing the extinction of entire groups of species.
Agreed. We also act like natives were peaceful toward each other as well. They certainly weren’t.
The Native American conquest was large-scale invasion and genocide. And it occurred right here, 200 years ago. People don’t talk about the ancient Babylonian empire because it’s far as fuck, and happened BCE. It doesn’t resonate as strongly.
People talk about the Native American genocide all the time. What they don't talk about is how the British used the Native Americans to massacre colonists in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, resulting in the [Fort Dearborn Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Dearborn) in which Native Americans captured and killed Americans (including woman and children) who were evacuating the fort. One of the Americans who was trying to defend the women and children was killed and his was heart cut out and eaten immediately. Once the British were defeated, they didn't care about what happened to the Native Americans and the American policy became to remove them from anywhere that they were too close to its citizens.
Its not genocide, it was a war. The natives killed many many Europeans, that doesnt happen during a genocide.
It was genocide. Upon European arrival, the Aboriginal American population was nearly entirely eradicated over the next century
A lot of that was unintended due to disease as well
The vast majority died before they ever saw a white man
In a war. Stop pretending like the natives were all peaceful nature loving children. They were adults that had their own goals and desires, unfortunately for them the Europeans were better at war.
Stop acting like they had to invade the land. The French colonised North America largely through the consent and cooperation with the native populations of the area. They didn't have perfect relationships, but it shows that you didn't need to massacre an entire people to establish yourself.
>That’s just how it was for most of history until the recent century.
So why do we randomly choose now as the time for when its no longer acceptable?
Because the world has changed drastically when it comes to this? The French still committed genocides multiple times around that time, before and after. It literally makes zero sense to perpetuate victim mentality 100+ years ago, and believing in the sins of the father garbage.
Upvoted, as it is indeed an unpopular opinion, interestingly it is also one of the rare opinions that is technically true.
everything the sun shines on is british,it is gods will
Pretty much all humans no matter the race, are instinctively greedy for resources, and will kill each other for it sadly
That's why I don't understand about "return the land" movements. The people who have the oldest claims to that land and are still around are in that position because they conquered the land and then committed genocide against the previous inhabitants. Is that not worse than simply conquering land? Do people really deserve things they got via genocide?
Your initial statement seems to counter everything after that.
Here is an example.
People A: Has land
People B: Conquers people A and wipes them out committing genocide and taking their land.
People C: Conquers people B but doesn't commit genocide, so there are still decedents of people B.
Return the land movements: People C should give the land back to People B because acquiring land via genocide makes them more deserving.
“You can’t complain about your wallet being stolen as there was another wallet stolen last week.”
>That’s just how it was for most of history until the recent century. And we shouldn’t be ashamed of that, we should be proud that we moved away from that (or at least, most of us have). And while it is unfortunate that shit happened, there is wisdom in just letting those incidents go to history. People are addicted to grudges it seems like.
Maybe if Americans and Canadians stopped fetishizing about their History and country and pretending their whealth was magically generated through capitalism rather than through violence, oppression and war. If we can agree on that, then it would be a start. But even there, native populations' conception of land was very different so the idea of owning it didn't really make sense for them, so technivally you'd be wrong. For example, the Mik'maq in the Atlantic maritime provinces had this kind of interpretation.
it was though innovation and invention,you simply are a tiny part of the story lmao
I mean, modern wealth was/is generated by capitalism (though poor word choice, economy would be a better word for it). Also neither Canada nor America fetishizes their history with natives whatsoever. Both are obsessed with teaching almost excessively what both countries did to natives in their histories. Also, why are you leaving Mexico out of this? Why are they never brought up when it comes to this issue?
Yes I agree, private ownership of land is inherently based on theft due to ownership being fundamentally impossible. We should instead move to a communal system to escape this massive theft.
Not at all what I meant. I’m talking about the fact that things were different back then compared to now, and we shouldn’t be ashamed of that, and should just let shit go.
Based and Proudhon-billed.
property is theft
It's not about taking lands but rather how you treated them. The British, The French colonial period was a horrible nightmare for the people living there. They have long harbouring hatred for the oppression still now.
An average farmer doesn’t care who is sitting on the throne/parliament. He is happy untill his livelihood are endangered.
If only people could understand that these things are long in the past now. The world is the way it is, rather we like it or not. We have to make the best of it, and we can't do that by uselessly focusing on stuff that happened many, many years ago.
When the left starts clamoring about restoring Constantinople maybe I’ll take the stolen land thing as a good faith argument.