Political Real Estate

[PoliticalChic]

1.In their attempt to besmirch this singularly great nation, the Left/Democrats have found truly inventive weapons to use.
The land itself.

The vastness, purple mountain majesties, and even the amber waves of grain, have all been weaponized.



Seems that a staple meme for the America-haters is ‘the land was stolen from the Native
Americans.”
Of course it wasn't.
The claim is one more example of
Rule #1
Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


I’ve had enough…..so now I’ll destroy that smear.




2. We should never allow the Left to control the language, as they corrupt it. The American Indians were not ‘native’ to this continent. Any study of same….not government school….will prove that the ‘Indians’ migrated over the Bering land bridge from my home continent. The Asian visitors settled in the northwest, moved down the west coast, and on to South America.

It’s the reason Elizabeth Warren’s DNA showed some American Indian/South American evidence.



3.The appellation ‘native’ is useful for the Left as it allows them to paint those individuals as victims to the explorers/settlers/pioneers. If there were no ‘natives,’ then both sides had equal rights to the continent.




4. Next is the nature of the Indian societies. They were far from that bogus title the elites have awarded them: Nobel Savages.

They were simply savages.

These were stone age peoples, thousands of years behind the advancement of the settlers. They moved from one locale to another, using up resources, burning down entire forests, and slaughtering species to the point of extinction.

American Indians were almost certainly responsible for the extinction of many large mammal species:
Until ten thousand years ago an incredible bestiary of mammals roamed North America. These were the so-called mega-fauna, an exotic menagerie that included the woolly mammoth, saber-toothed tiger, giant sloth, giant beaver, camel, horse, two-toed horse,and dire wolf. These were the dominant fauna on this continent for tens of millions of years. Then suddenly and mysteriously they disappeared.
Alton Chase, "Playing God In Yellowstone," p. 100


"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





4. Why were they so cavalier, so thoughtless about the future?
Because the animals were there. Destruction was second nature, not consideration of the future.
That's pretty much the difference between said culture, and civilized examples.
The Europeans brought civilization to this continent.



Next…..the introduction of the concept of ‘property’….by those mean, horrid white folks….the ones the Democrat Party is targeting with their current version of racism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. It is not possible that the Europeans 'stole' the land from the American Indians.



Before the concepts were thrust upon them, American Indians had no idea of capitalism, private property, or the sanctity of human life.
Before ‘capitalism’ was brought to the continent, there was no benefit to ‘ownership’ of land.
And, with no idea of ‘private property,’ outside of a few kitchen implements and weapons, they ‘owned’ no land that could have been ‘stolen’ from them.


6. Proof that ownership of the land was not in their ken.
"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


1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War.
Peter Minuit (1589-1638)





Clearly, the land was not ‘stolen’ from the migrants who never thought they had any claim to it…..until the white man told them that they did.
Silly white folks.

 

[BlackFlag]

In fact, I would argue it was IMPERATIVE for Europeans to slaughter the savages!

Good fucking grief

 

[PoliticalChic]

In fact, I would argue it was IMPERATIVE for Europeans to slaughter the savages!

Good fucking grief

Clean up your language, and make an effort to address either of the two posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The Europeans brought the idea of economics to this continent.
The demand for certain assets by the settlers illuminated the necessity of ‘private property’ to the Indians.



In his article “Towards a theory of property rights” Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians the impact of private property. It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).


… when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).



Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights




Changes in knowledge result in changes in production functions, market values, and aspirations. Thanks to those white pioneers.

 

[BlackFlag]

7. The Europeans brought the idea of economics to this continent.
The demand for certain assets by the settlers illuminated the necessity of ‘private property’ to the Indians.



In his article “Towards a theory of property rights” Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians the impact of private property. It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).


… when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).



Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights




Changes in knowledge result in changes in production functions, market values, and aspirations. Thanks to those white pioneers.

Ah the glories of colonialism! Tame the savage, rape their women, steal their land! That’s called economics! Your welcome, savages!

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The Europeans brought the idea of economics to this continent.
The demand for certain assets by the settlers illuminated the necessity of ‘private property’ to the Indians.



In his article “Towards a theory of property rights” Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians the impact of private property. It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).


… when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).



Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights




Changes in knowledge result in changes in production functions, market values, and aspirations. Thanks to those white pioneers.

Ah the glories of colonialism! Tame the savage, rape their women, steal their land! That’s called economics! Your welcome, savages!

1. Essentially, you have verified everything I posted.
Excellent.

2. Your ignorance is on display...
"Your welcome, savages!"
Should be "You're welcome, savages!"


Government school grad, huh?


3. I have a few more posts for this thread....you should pay close attention: education is sorely in needed.





Now stop interrupting my lecture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. If the savages did believe they were owners of the lands they traversed, how would owners treat their property?

Like this????




Let's start with the fastest way to destroy natural surroundings... forest fires: how many times have we heard that such a destructive attitude towards the environment is the product of Western man’s alienation from nature?
American Indians were forest-burners par excellence:it was not the forests which impressed the early settlers but the absence of them.



Thomas Morton, a Puritan, wrote in 1637:

"...the Savages are accustomed to set fire of the Country in all places where they come, and to burne it twize a year, vixe at the Spring, and the fall of the leafe. The reason that mooves them to doe so, is because it would other wise be a coppice wood, and the people would not be able in any wise to passe through the Country out of a beaten path."
Morton, T., "New English Canaan: or, New Canaan, 1637," rpt. pp.52-4, quoted in Chase, " Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park," p. 94.


They hated the forests...they burned them down so they could see the animals they hunted. " Once the forests have been burnt, however, and the land transformed to grasslands and savannah, these desirable species become available. The species which the Indians most wanted to hunt, like bison, moose, elk and deer, are found most easily in areas of recently burnt forest, which is why they burnt the forests over and over again."
Chase, Op. Cit.




OK....so....Hiawatha exists only in your fevered imagination, Liberals.

And so does the idea that he white man ‘stole the Indian’s land.’

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Now….about the Indians being stone age savages, with no concept of private property, or ownership of land….it is simply the condition of throw-back societies.



They were thousands of years behind the development of the Europeans…..

Here…..simply proof of this statement.




While they did have fire, probably due to a confluence of natural events, they never developed even the simplest implements of mechanical advantage. The rest of the world did, thousands of years prior.


That simplest of ‘tools’???? The wheel.

“The invention of the wheel falls into the late Neolithic, and may be seen in conjunction with other technological advances that gave rise to the early Bronze Age. This implies the passage of several wheel-less millennia even after the invention of agriculture and of pottery, dtheuring the Aceramic Neolithic.

Two types of early Neolithic European wheel and axle are known; a circumalpine type of wagon construction (the wheel and axle rotate together, as in Ljubljana Marshes Wheel), and that of the Baden culture in Hungary (axle does not rotate). They both are dated to c. 3200–3000 BCE.””
Wheel - Wikipedia

See any wheels on those conveyances????

You won’t see any land deeds either.