Indian Land???

[PoliticalChic]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Idiotic. Since I'm nearly always the only genuine Native American in any of these discussions, let me set you straight on a few things. We didn't own the land from sea to shining sea and what land we did have we often took from others by force. There's nothing done to us by white settlers that we weren't doing to other tribes, who we considered mortal enemies to be destroyed if possible. For thousands of years, this continent belonged to the most brutal, ruthless killers. There were no grandfathers because most of us died in some pointless war before we ever turned 30. The only difference is now, the savages with the best technology, the white settlers, have put an end to a very primitive and futile life. We aren't killing each other anymore, we live to see our grandchildren, we make art, beads, and make music for tourists. All in all, we're better off, or at least I am.

And I, as the only genuine Native here, don't consider "native" born Americans to be illegal aliens. That's just stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

" common knowledge" is one of those phrased that the uneducated, the ignorant, hide behind.
I provide scholarship.

Bet you think two plumb lines are parallel, too.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

Well yabut, once we murdered men, women and children, once we destroyed their homes and stole their land, history is ours to rewrite any way we want.

Let them Native Americans just put that in their peace pipe and smoke it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

Well yabut, once we murdered men, women and children, once we destroyed their homes and stole their land, history is ours to rewrite any way we want.

Let them Native Americans just put that in their peace pipe and smoke it.

This is the typical post of a dolt totally steeped in Leftist propaganda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

" common knowledge" is one of those phrased that the uneducated, the ignorant, hide behind.
I provide scholarship.

Bet you think two plumb lines are parallel, too.

Answering only yes or no,

do you deny that there were forced removals of Indians from their lands?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

Well yabut, once we murdered men, women and children, once we destroyed their homes and stole their land, history is ours to rewrite any way we want.

Let them Native Americans just put that in their peace pipe and smoke it.

This is the typical post of a dolt totally steeped in Leftist propaganda.

Answering only yes or no,

Is it 'propaganda', aka lies, that the Sullivan Clinton campaign during the Revolutionary War had as one of its primary goals to destroy Iroquois villages and farmlands for the purpose of starving out the tribes, men, women, and children,

for the purpose of breaking their alliances with the British?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

" common knowledge" is one of those phrased that the uneducated, the ignorant, hide behind.
I provide scholarship.

Bet you think two plumb lines are parallel, too.

Answering only yes or no,

do you deny that there were forced removals of Indians from their lands?

Did you just indulge in a flight of fantasy, that you could tell me what to do????


If you've ever bought an electrical appliance, take a look at the yellow tag on the back. It says that if you mess with it you ran the risk of death or serious injury. Pretend I've got the same kind of label.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I love these threads, the fucking leftist are ignoring the NA post b/c it doesn't fit the "Hate America" meme they thrive on.

The NA were brutal and violent, just like us. The land that was theirs was fed by the bodies of those indians that were already there

 

[Coyote1880]

SaintMichaelDefendthem,

No longer are you the only one

But I may not be posting as often as you

I am an old man and more comfortable in speaking as the people

I happy for your reply

I of the pueblo people, but I have known many of the people of the north east

Among the people they say much the same as you have

Some will tell a different story to the bellaganna

But in ourselves we know the truth is as you have said

 

[Coyote1880]

I am forgetting myself

Please excuse me SaintMichaelDefendthem

I meant no disrespect so I will properly introduce myself now

I am of the people of the Blue Corn

I was born to the Tséníjíkiní (cliff dwelling people) and for the Yé’ii Dine’é (the Giant people)

 

[NYcarbineer]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

" common knowledge" is one of those phrased that the uneducated, the ignorant, hide behind.
I provide scholarship.

Bet you think two plumb lines are parallel, too.

Answering only yes or no,

do you deny that there were forced removals of Indians from their lands?

Did you just indulge in a flight of fantasy, that you could tell me what to do????


If you've ever bought an electrical appliance, take a look at the yellow tag on the back. It says that if you mess with it you ran the risk of death or serious injury. Pretend I've got the same kind of label.

Answering only yes or no, did you just threaten to kill me?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

" common knowledge" is one of those phrased that the uneducated, the ignorant, hide behind.
I provide scholarship.

Bet you think two plumb lines are parallel, too.

Answering only yes or no,

do you deny that there were forced removals of Indians from their lands?

Did you just indulge in a flight of fantasy, that you could tell me what to do????


If you've ever bought an electrical appliance, take a look at the yellow tag on the back. It says that if you mess with it you ran the risk of death or serious injury. Pretend I've got the same kind of label.

So you're incapable of acknowledging that there were in fact forced removals of Indians from their lands.

Why? Because it ends your attempt at an argument with a miserable failure?

lol, you can't alter facts by denying them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

 

[NYcarbineer]

I love these threads, the fucking leftist are ignoring the NA post b/c it doesn't fit the "Hate America" meme they thrive on.

The NA were brutal and violent, just like us. The land that was theirs was fed by the bodies of those indians that were already there

The Jews weren't angels, either. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

"On 26 June 1869, the prestigious Army Navy Journal reported that "General Sherman remarked, in conversation the other day, that the quickest way to compel the Indians to settle down to civilized life was to
send ten regiments of soldiers to the plains, with orders to shoot buffaloes until they became too scarce to support the redskins."

http://history.msu.edu/hst321/files/2010/07/smits-on-bison.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

Now to deal with the stupidity of the Left, exemplified by their romanticized version of the American Indian.


After slapping you around, educating you may be my second best enjoyment.

The Indians were the destroyers of the buffalo ....




1. "According to the myth of the noble eco-savage, indigenous peoples live in such a sympathetic relationship with the eco system that they only kill for their immediate needs, and never on a scale likely to drive species to extinction.... In fact, these ‘cultural mechanisms’ exist primarily in the minds of Western environmentalists.

It is difficult to find any evidence of them amongst the tribal peoples, either now or in the past.... The aim was to kill as much as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimum risk to the hunter. There was no concern for conserving future stocks, nor for taking only as much as was necessary to meet present needs."
Whelan, "Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage"



A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meantstampeding herds of animalsover a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West display the remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous, in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!"
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.





And so...as the sun sets over this mysterious land, we say good-bye to the 'Noble Savage,' who is too busy to say good-bye.....

...he's busy burning down forests, and destroying every animal he can find.

 

[Roadrunner]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced th ePuritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

The forced removal of Indians from their homelands is such common knowledge that one must possess uncommon stupidity to deny it.

" common knowledge" is one of those phrased that the uneducated, the ignorant, hide behind.
I provide scholarship.

Bet you think two plumb lines are parallel, too.

Answering only yes or no,

do you deny that there were forced removals of Indians from their lands?

Did you just indulge in a flight of fantasy, that you could tell me what to do????


If you've ever bought an electrical appliance, take a look at the yellow tag on the back. It says that if you mess with it you ran the risk of death or serious injury. Pretend I've got the same kind of label.

Answering only yes or no, did you just threaten to kill me?

Only if you are a complete idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

Now to deal with the stupidity of the Left, exemplified by their romanticized version of the American Indian.


After slapping you around, educating you may be my second best enjoyment.

The Indians were the destroyers of the buffalo ....




1. "According to the myth of the noble eco-savage, indigenous peoples live in such a sympathetic relationship with the eco system that they only kill for their immediate needs, and never on a scale likely to drive species to extinction.... In fact, these ‘cultural mechanisms’ exist primarily in the minds of Western environmentalists.

It is difficult to find any evidence of them amongst the tribal peoples, either now or in the past.... The aim was to kill as much as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimum risk to the hunter. There was no concern for conserving future stocks, nor for taking only as much as was necessary to meet present needs."
Whelan, "Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage"



A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meantstampeding herds of animalsover a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West display the remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous, in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!"
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.





And so...as the sun sets over this mysterious land, we say good-bye to the 'Noble Savage,' who is too busy to say good-bye.....

...he's busy burning down forests, and destroying every animal he can find.

That's a creepy way of justifying genocide.

Answering only yes or no,

was the bison in danger of extinction before the Europeans had begun to populate North America?