Conquer Club

Israel v Native Americans in the US

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby daddy1gringo on Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:47 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:I think we should give Britain back to the Celts.
Nope, unless I'm mistaken, they were usurpers too. We'd have to search the hills of Wales for relatively pure descendants of the Bretons who were the first we know of. John Rhys-Davies and Catherine Zeta-Jones for king and queen!
ImageImage
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
User avatar
Lieutenant daddy1gringo
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:47 am
Location: Connecticut yankee expatriated in Houston, Texas area, by way of Isabela, NW PR

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:57 pm

chang50 wrote:We hear a lot about Israel's claim to the lands they occupy now,a position that is maintained chiefly because of US backing.Is this claim any more legitimate or not than the claims Native Americans have to the lands that were taken from them by the US?
Does Israel have more claim to their present borders than the Apache does to parts of Texas,or does it boil down to might is right?




Throughout history, the winner gets the spoils. The losers of wars and battles do not, and I doubt that will ever change.

Israel has more claim based on ability to uphold and maintain alone.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby jonesthecurl on Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:05 pm

daddy1gringo wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:I think we should give Britain back to the Celts.
Nope, unless I'm mistaken, they were usurpers too. We'd have to search the hills of Wales for relatively pure descendants of the Bretons who were the first we know of. John Rhys-Davies and Catherine Zeta-Jones for king and queen!
ImageImage


I think you'll find that they are Welsh and therefore celts.
Inb$ someone "fixes" that comment to another c-word.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:23 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
chang50 wrote:We hear a lot about Israel's claim to the lands they occupy now,a position that is maintained chiefly because of US backing.Is this claim any more legitimate or not than the claims Native Americans have to the lands that were taken from them by the US?
Does Israel have more claim to their present borders than the Apache does to parts of Texas,or does it boil down to might is right?




Throughout history, the winner gets the spoils. The losers of wars and battles do not, and I doubt that will ever change.

Israel has more claim based on ability to uphold and maintain alone.

BULL.

Israel did not survive on its own. If the US and much of Europe had not supported and sustained Israel, it would not have done anywhere near as well. If Europe and the United States had not felt guilt, and if the impacted people had not been "brown people in robes", then its highly unlikely Israeli actions would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby daddy1gringo on Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:40 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:
daddy1gringo wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:I think we should give Britain back to the Celts.
Nope, unless I'm mistaken, they were usurpers too. We'd have to search the hills of Wales for relatively pure descendants of the Bretons who were the first we know of. John Rhys-Davies and Catherine Zeta-Jones for king and queen!
ImageImage


I think you'll find that they are Welsh and therefore celts.
Inb$ someone "fixes" that comment to another c-word.
No, as I understand it the Celts were the ancestors of the Irish and Scots. The ancesters of the Welsh were "Bretons" and pre-dated the Celts. Maybe as a yank talking to a Brit I'm making a fool of myself and talking through my (three-cornered) hat, but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes.
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
User avatar
Lieutenant daddy1gringo
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:47 am
Location: Connecticut yankee expatriated in Houston, Texas area, by way of Isabela, NW PR

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby Woodruff on Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:46 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes


Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:55 pm

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes


Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.
I would agree that almost any other business would have been better, but my point is really that the casinos have done far more than the government "stewardship" for the tribes.

In most cases other businesses were/are too difficult to develop on reservation lands. It is a VERY mixed bag, as is the native allocations/impact of the Boldt (Bolt??/) decision, etc. I actually lived next to and went to school with "res kids" --- though we did not call them that or even really think of them in that way (they were more grouped, as was I with other "not well off" kids). Anyway, the casino there is providing nice houses, college educations and a good deal of local employment. When I was a kid, my brother's friend lived in an adobe hut with no running water, only well sources. (not a truly traditional home, just a cheap one) Today, everyone has full utilities and even a tract of rentals -- nice enough that some of the local (single) teachers rent.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby Woodruff on Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:15 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes


Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.


I would agree that almost any other business would have been better, but my point is really that the casinos have done far more than the government "stewardship" for the tribes.


No, I think you misunderstand. In most cases (not all, certainly), the casinos do not benefit the majority of the Native Americans in any way at all and, in fact, provide precisely the wrong view of how to conduct oneself to reach success.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anyway, the casino there is providing nice houses, college educations and a good deal of local employment.


Casino employment is better than no job, but it is truly akin to working at any other minimum-wage job. In other words, it is NOT going to drag anyone into a good life.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby oVo on Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:29 pm

keiths31 wrote:This part is very true. The reserve system that was negotiated back in the 1800s worked for the Native Canadians/Americans of the day because they still lived a 'traditional' lifestyle Today not so much. Remote fly-in reserves don't promote the 'traditional' way of life as so much they keep the citizens locked in a vicious cycle of poverty and abuse. Since they don't rely on trapping and hunting anymore, but are supported by the government, there is no sense of self worth in many communities. There is no reason for their community to actually be, except for their history.

No fucking way is this BS true. ALL indigenous people on every continent were screwed by the "civilized" cultures that "discovered" and claimed their lands as their own. The northeastern USA was occupied by hundreds of tribes when the English, French and Dutch began settlements and the southern USA was not much different. Creating Indian Reserves never once took into consideration the lifestyles of the displaced people they were intended to contain and in America few treaties were worth the paper they were written on.

Plains/Prairie native tribes didn't claim --or believe in-- ownership of "the land" at all and migrated with the seasons. If you investigate the Cherokees who lived in Kentucky, Alabama & Georgia you will discover they were actually a Sovereign Nation with well educated leaders. President Andrew Jackson defied a United States Supreme Court ruling recognizing this fact --that The Cherokee Nation was indeed a legitimate sovereign entity with it's own government and territorial borders-- and initiated the land grab, occupation and eviction of all indians from the region. Part of this history is the Trail of Tears where they were rounded up and marched off to Oklahoma.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:51 pm

Most American Indians died from European diseases, so there's that to consider.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby jimboston on Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:12 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
jimboston wrote:That said, the current system of "Reservations" or Native American "Nations" that exist within this nation (i.e. the USA), is untenable. The system DOES NOT SERVE people of native american descent. The system perpetuates poverty and a system of "second-class-citizen" for those who live within it.
It's time to end the system and for people of native american descent to integrate.


I grew up on a reservation in Nebraska (but within a town that had very few American Indians, interestingly enough). I agree with everything you've said here. Unfortunately, the greatest outcry against this will be from those Native Americans, I believe.

True, though ironically enough, casinos have now changed the dynamics quite a bit, as did some of the land sales, transfer of property to native corporations in Alaska.


Casinos may be a modern form of reparations.... but not really.

Some of the money may filter down to the people, but the majority is kept by the corporate partners and the head-honchos of the Tribe. The average Native American has to kiss butt or "play ball" to get a job or get any help.

It's more like Tammany Hall than anything else.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby jimboston on Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:16 pm

Ray Rider wrote:The history of the Eurpoean expansion into Native lands and their subsequent treatment of the Native peoples was brutal and shameful. Rez life ain't easy and there is much that requires change; I was born and lived on a reserve so I know first hand. But anyone who would claim a similarity between current rez life and slave labor camps, mass shootings, and wholesale extermination of millions in gas chambers is staggeringly ignorant.


I agree with the first part of your statement.

I don't disagree with the second part.

I don't compare modern rez life to slave labor and extermination.
I do compare it to a second-class citizenship and a perpetuation of poverty.

I believe modern people of native american heritage would better serve themselves and their children if the integrated and we did away with this ridiculous system. Just accept the FACT that this is the USA and you life here, and embrace that.

I'm not saying we should forget the past. I am saying we can't change history... so it's time to move on.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:25 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
chang50 wrote:We hear a lot about Israel's claim to the lands they occupy now,a position that is maintained chiefly because of US backing.Is this claim any more legitimate or not than the claims Native Americans have to the lands that were taken from them by the US?
Does Israel have more claim to their present borders than the Apache does to parts of Texas,or does it boil down to might is right?




Throughout history, the winner gets the spoils. The losers of wars and battles do not, and I doubt that will ever change.

Israel has more claim based on ability to uphold and maintain alone.

BULL.

Israel did not survive on its own. If the US and much of Europe had not supported and sustained Israel, it would not have done anywhere near as well. If Europe and the United States had not felt guilt, and if the impacted people had not been "brown people in robes", then its highly unlikely Israeli actions would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected.


I don't see how what I said has anything to do with getting help/not getting help
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:26 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Most American Indians died from European diseases, so there's that to consider.


over 90%, wasn't it?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby jimboston on Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:29 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Most American Indians died from European diseases, so there's that to consider.


over 90%, wasn't it?


That's unclear.

I've read a lot on this, and there is MUCH debate.

It appears that the percentage is very high, maybe 80-90% when you are talking about those points of first contact... like in Central America, and along the Eastern Coast of the US. It's unclear if this percentage remains that high as time went by and European migrated West. It's likely that the population was reduce, but these tribes had time to develop immunities and "rebuild" their populations.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby keiths31 on Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:25 pm

oVo wrote:
keiths31 wrote:This part is very true. The reserve system that was negotiated back in the 1800s worked for the Native Canadians/Americans of the day because they still lived a 'traditional' lifestyle Today not so much. Remote fly-in reserves don't promote the 'traditional' way of life as so much they keep the citizens locked in a vicious cycle of poverty and abuse. Since they don't rely on trapping and hunting anymore, but are supported by the government, there is no sense of self worth in many communities. There is no reason for their community to actually be, except for their history.

No fucking way is this BS true. ALL indigenous people on every continent were screwed by the "civilized" cultures that "discovered" and claimed their lands as their own. The northeastern USA was occupied by hundreds of tribes when the English, French and Dutch began settlements and the southern USA was not much different. Creating Indian Reserves never once took into consideration the lifestyles of the displaced people they were intended to contain and in America few treaties were worth the paper they were written on.

Plains/Prairie native tribes didn't claim --or believe in-- ownership of "the land" at all and migrated with the seasons. If you investigate the Cherokees who lived in Kentucky, Alabama & Georgia you will discover they were actually a Sovereign Nation with well educated leaders. President Andrew Jackson defied a United States Supreme Court ruling recognizing this fact --that The Cherokee Nation was indeed a legitimate sovereign entity with it's own government and territorial borders-- and initiated the land grab, occupation and eviction of all indians from the region. Part of this history is the Trail of Tears where they were rounded up and marched off to Oklahoma.


I honestly don't know much about American History, not being American and all. Speaking from a Canadian point of view here. I do know that First Nations in Canada (my part anyway) have 'traditional' lands they claim as their own. Lands that they have been connected to for hundreds and hundreds of years. Lands they wish to occupy and create communities. No where in my post did I defend anything that 'civilized' cultures did to the Native population. I am very respectful of Native Canadian culture. My children's mother is Native Canadian and I encourage my children to be very proud of their First Nations roots.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class keiths31
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:32 pm

That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:48 pm

Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?


It's about legitimacy. With land, there are legitimate title transfers (voluntary exchange), and there are illegitimate title transfers (those involving fraud and/or coercion--involuntary exchange).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby oVo on Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:15 pm

BBS, you left out violence, lawlessness and brute force.

Euro-diseases did not wipe out 80-90% of Native Americans,
unless you are referencing lead poisoning. Small Pox was
introduced to tribes in the Dakotas with the worst of intent
and had devastating results.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:32 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?


It's about legitimacy. With land, there are legitimate title transfers (voluntary exchange), and there are illegitimate title transfers (those involving fraud and/or coercion--involuntary exchange).


on a national scale? Cuz it sounds like you are describing property in real estate terms. Like, what would a good example be for the Acheans vs. the Trojans? Like, what about before the time when language was invented to be even able to record or recognize a transfer of any kind
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:28 am

oVo wrote:BBS, you left out violence, lawlessness and brute force.


You can file those under:

"illegitimate title transfers" (Since violence and brute force involve coercion.)

Not sure if lawlessness matters with my argument. The rule of legitimate v. illegitimate title transfer is pretty clear.
(Of course, between a government and some governing group (tribe) the law doesn't matter too much if one can simply kill the other with no repercussions from some 3rd party.) I'm talking about 1v1 or group v. group transfers on property.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:33 am

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?


It's about legitimacy. With land, there are legitimate title transfers (voluntary exchange), and there are illegitimate title transfers (those involving fraud and/or coercion--involuntary exchange).


on a national scale? Cuz it sounds like you are describing property in real estate terms. Like, what would a good example be for the Acheans vs. the Trojans? Like, what about before the time when language was invented to be even able to record or recognize a transfer of any kind


If a tribe lays claim to X-amount of land, and some other organization (whether it's a national government, the IDF, the Hagunah, whatever) comes in and takes that land, then clearly that's an illegitimate title transfer. It's a violation of property rights. Pretty hard to refute that.

"or the Acheans vs. the Trojans?"


Well, ask yourself, "who owned what?" and "was the exchange voluntary or involuntary?" and go from there.

"language before time"

lolwut. There's property rights of persons, which hardly ever involved legitimate title transfers of ownership cuz it was slavery (which is an illegitimate title transfer).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:07 am

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:The difference is that while US conditions have improved, partly because of actions by various Native American tribes (with situations too diverse to get into specifically) and things like casinos have as much to do with the changes as any change in US law or attitudes


Having lived on a reservation that has a casino (Winnevegas), I would argue that the appearance of "Indian casinos" has actually been a DETRIMENT to Native Americans at large, not a positive.


I would agree that almost any other business would have been better, but my point is really that the casinos have done far more than the government "stewardship" for the tribes.


No, I think you misunderstand. In most cases (not all, certainly), the casinos do not benefit the majority of the Native Americans in any way at all and, in fact, provide precisely the wrong view of how to conduct oneself to reach success.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anyway, the casino there is providing nice houses, college educations and a good deal of local employment.


Casino employment is better than no job, but it is truly akin to working at any other minimum-wage job. In other words, it is NOT going to drag anyone into a good life.

I don't disagree, my statement is more a reflection of how poorly some tribes have been treated in the past than a true endorsement of casinos. That said, when it has moved people forward, its not so much through direct employment as from a sharing of proceeds, but not all tribes have done that well or at all equally, and certainly not with other tribes.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby keiths31 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:33 am

Phatscotty wrote:That's a good post Keith. Just innocently curious though, is that what it all comes down to? who was there longest, or who was there first?


It is quite complicated in all honesty. First Nations land claims are far from settled in Canada. For the most part treaties were signed with the First Nation communities that occupied the lands when they were negotiated.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class keiths31
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario

Re: Israel v Native Americans in the US

Postby jonesthecurl on Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:53 pm

Give the beach back to the lungfish.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Minister X, mookiemcgee