Indian Land???

[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 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?

NO.

Your turn. Yes or no.

Did "Native Americans" routinely torture and even execute and cannibalize their fellow Red Brothers and Sisters?

 

[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.

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?

There never was any "genocide" of Indians by Americans.
The term is of the variety of hyperbole used by pre-pubescent teenage girls, and Liberals.

In your case, it is one more variety of lie for which you have become famous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The estimated North American bison population in the 16th century was 50 million.

 

[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?

NO.

Your turn. Yes or no.

Did "Native Americans" routinely torture and even execute and cannibalize their fellow Red Brothers and Sisters?

Yes.

Did white people do the same things?

 

[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?

There never was any "genocide" of Indians by Americans.
The term is of the variety of hyperbole used by pre-pubescent teenage girls, and Liberals.

In your case, it is one more variety of lie for which you have become famous.

Why? Because some survived? Jews survived the Holocaust.

I repeat the question:

Answering only yes or no,

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

 

[Roadrunner]

The estimated North American bison population in the 16th century was 50 million.

What was the estimated population of the mammoths, mastadons, sabre tooths, dire wolves and various other Ice Age Megafauna when the savage Asiatic hordes began to rape the virgin continents?

 

[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 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?

NO.

Your turn. Yes or no.

Did "Native Americans" routinely torture and even execute and cannibalize their fellow Red Brothers and Sisters?

No more than did white people.

Can't abide by the terms of the question?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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)

Welcome and good to see you here. I'm Blackfoot (or Blackfeet) Indian with many of my relatives living in Montana on or near the reservation there. My parents raised me in Idaho where I still live. But we travel up there a few times a year for family and tribal events. It's always a lot of fun to visit but I'm glad I don't live there, with 2/3 unemployment, it's a place I don't want to raise my children in just like my own father didn't want to raise me there. I think that in many cases, and certainly for my tribe, Indians are better off once they LEAVE the reservation and all the programs. Thanks for introducing yourself.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There never was any "genocide" of Indians by Americans.
The term is of the variety of hyperbole used by pre-pubescent teenage girls, and Liberals.

In your case, it is one more variety of lie for which you have become famous.

If it's not genocide, then what would you call it? I think the internet affords people the opportunity to find websites that re-write history to support just about any view or agenda. "No Indian genocide" sounds as repugnant to me as "no Jewish holocaust" and yet people argue for that too. I know there are a lot of myths out there, one of the biggest whoppers being the "small pox blankets" event which never actually happened. But what did happen was a systematic war of extermination against the Plains Tribes to open a safe route to the West Coast. Those that surrendered were forcefully relocated from choice ancestral hunting grounds to shitty reservations where Indians to this day continue to pine away on government pity programs. Do you believe the Trail of Tears didn't happen?

My point is, I too am a warrior against political correctness, but not to the point of denying the atrocities that whites committed against my people. And even though I believe that Indians like myself are better off with Western culture, that could have been achieved without the unnecessary killing of thousands of Natives, the breaking of peace treaties, and the forced relocation. This country was big enough for all of us, but some people (White people, that is) didn't want to share.

I'm not going to hold white people today accountable for the crimes of their great grandparents, but I'll be damned if I allow history to be rewritten so as to deny it ever happened.

 

[daveman]

I notice that none of those folks decrying the theft of land from Native Americans has signed over title to their house to local tribespeople.

Maybe one of you can explain why your exploitation of indigenous peoples is okay.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Answering only yes or no,

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

My blood is starting to boil already. This is pissing me off!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I notice that none of those folks decrying the theft of land from Native Americans has signed over title to their house to local tribespeople.

Maybe one of you can explain why your exploitation of indigenous peoples is okay.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is owed anything in my opinion, and I don't believe in reparations for historical crimes because it's an interminable and undefinable debt forced on people who had nothing to do with the initial crime. No man, Indian or not, is owed anything more than his own two hands work for, period. I have family who thinks the White man owes them and they live in squalor and poverty while blaming everyone else for their personal failures. I'm teaching my kids to own their own lives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There never was any "genocide" of Indians by Americans.
The term is of the variety of hyperbole used by pre-pubescent teenage girls, and Liberals.

In your case, it is one more variety of lie for which you have become famous.

If it's not genocide, then what would you call it? I think the internet affords people the opportunity to find websites that re-write history to support just about any view or agenda. "No Indian genocide" sounds as repugnant to me as "no Jewish holocaust" and yet people argue for that too. I know there are a lot of myths out there, one of the biggest whoppers being the "small pox blankets" event which never actually happened. But what did happen was a systematic war of extermination against the Plains Tribes to open a safe route to the West Coast. Those that surrendered were forcefully relocated from choice ancestral hunting grounds to shitty reservations where Indians to this day continue to pine away on government pity programs. Do you believe the Trail of Tears didn't happen?

My point is, I too am a warrior against political correctness, but not to the point of denying the atrocities that whites committed against my people. And even though I believe that Indians like myself are better off with Western culture, that could have been achieved without the unnecessary killing of thousands of Natives, the breaking of peace treaties, and the forced relocation. This country was big enough for all of us, but some people (White people, that is) didn't want to share.

I'm not going to hold white people today accountable for the crimes of their great grandparents, but I'll be damned if I allow history to be rewritten so as to deny it ever happened.

"If it's not genocide, then what would you call it? "



1. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

No such thing happened.

2 The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease..

It is a myth that generally finds it's support among those seeking a way to demonize the settlers.



3. Guenter Lewy (born 1923,Germany) is an author and historian, and a professor emeritusof political science at the University of Massachusetts. In September 2004, Lewy published an essay entitled Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide ?in which hesays [Ward] Churchill's assertions are false.



4. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20thCentury, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.



5. The only way one can claim the disease induced deaths of the natives was a "genocide" is by also attributing the deaths in Europe from the Black Plague as a genocide, as well.

 

[daveman]

I notice that none of those folks decrying the theft of land from Native Americans has signed over title to their house to local tribespeople.

Maybe one of you can explain why your exploitation of indigenous peoples is okay.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is owed anything in my opinion, and I don't believe in reparations for historical crimes because it's an interminable and undefinable debt forced on people who had nothing to do with the initial crime. No man, Indian or not, is owed anything more than his own two hands work for, period. I have family who thinks the White man owes them and they live in squalor and poverty while blaming everyone else for their personal failures. I'm teaching my kids to own their own lives.

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Stop the pasting crap, politichic. I already know there are websites that support your lie. I don't give a damn about U.N. definitions, I'm talking about the human definition of genocide by which a people with superior weaponry wiped out thousands of Natives with whom treaties were drafted and signed. Denying this happened is like a slap in the face.

 

[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

The Jews weren't angels, either. lol

one of the NA tribes might be one of the lost jew tribes

they share a common written language

saw it on tv years ago

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I notice that none of those folks decrying the theft of land from Native Americans has signed over title to their house to local tribespeople.

Maybe one of you can explain why your exploitation of indigenous peoples is okay.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is owed anything in my opinion, and I don't believe in reparations for historical crimes because it's an interminable and undefinable debt forced on people who had nothing to do with the initial crime. No man, Indian or not, is owed anything more than his own two hands work for, period. I have family who thinks the White man owes them and they live in squalor and poverty while blaming everyone else for their personal failures. I'm teaching my kids to own their own lives.

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

Did you bump your head? Decrying the crimes against American Indians doesn't obligate Nycarbineer to give up his home; a really asinine thought process to begin with. We aren't owed anything more than what we work for ourselves. Why is this so hard to understand? To argue that nobody can say anything about Indian genocide without having to give them their homes is just sophomoric stupidity.

 

[daveman]

I notice that none of those folks decrying the theft of land from Native Americans has signed over title to their house to local tribespeople.

Maybe one of you can explain why your exploitation of indigenous peoples is okay.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is owed anything in my opinion, and I don't believe in reparations for historical crimes because it's an interminable and undefinable debt forced on people who had nothing to do with the initial crime. No man, Indian or not, is owed anything more than his own two hands work for, period. I have family who thinks the White man owes them and they live in squalor and poverty while blaming everyone else for their personal failures. I'm teaching my kids to own their own lives.

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

Did you bump your head? Decrying the crimes against American Indians doesn't obligate Nycarbineer to give up his home; a really asinine thought process to begin with. We aren't owed anything more than what we work for ourselves. Why is this so hard to understand? To argue that nobody can say anything about Indian genocide without having to give them their homes is just sophomoric stupidity.

You seriously can't see Carby's hypocrisy? Okay. That must take a special effort.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I notice that none of those folks decrying the theft of land from Native Americans has signed over title to their house to local tribespeople.

Maybe one of you can explain why your exploitation of indigenous peoples is okay.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is owed anything in my opinion, and I don't believe in reparations for historical crimes because it's an interminable and undefinable debt forced on people who had nothing to do with the initial crime. No man, Indian or not, is owed anything more than his own two hands work for, period. I have family who thinks the White man owes them and they live in squalor and poverty while blaming everyone else for their personal failures. I'm teaching my kids to own their own lives.

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

Did you bump your head? Decrying the crimes against American Indians doesn't obligate Nycarbineer to give up his home; a really asinine thought process to begin with. We aren't owed anything more than what we work for ourselves. Why is this so hard to understand? To argue that nobody can say anything about Indian genocide without having to give them their homes is just sophomoric stupidity.

You seriously can't see Carby's hypocrisy? Okay. That must take a special effort.

It isn't hypocrisy. Your argument that people have to give their houses to American Indians in order to acknowledge what was done to them was wrong is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo. And the fact you don't see the stupidity of that argument makes you the biggest ass on this thread.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why? Because some survived? Jews survived the Holocaust.

I repeat the question:

Answering only yes or no,

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

She likely denies the holocaust happened too. That would fit the pattern. I'm beginning to really not like this person.