When was Life Truly Good in the USA?

[the_human_being]

Native Americans had no concept of the wheel. FACT

They had no written language. FACT

They practiced Institutionalized Cannibalism in the regions South of the American Border and well into South America. FACT.

They treated their women worse than they treated their animals. FACT

They had no concept of Animal Husbandry. The only domesticated animals they kept were a few Turkeys and maybe some rabbits. FACT. That is why, when they wiped out all the wild game in an area, they'd turn to Cannibalism. They brought human captives and slaves along with them in their migratory journeys as a FOOD SOURCE. FACT.

They had no beasts of burden. No Horses, no Mules, no oxen, no jackasses (until dimocrap scum came along. Now they've got plenty)

They had no tools to speak of. Stone axes, flint arrowheads.

Native Americans were quite possible THE most backwards group of morons on the Planet before Columbus. FACT.

They were, in FACT, Stone Age savages.

FACT.

While there certainly were some good things about Native Americans, they were as backward and stupid as backward and stupid gets.

And they were NOT nice people.

When you got too old to keep up with the rest of the Tribe, they just sent you away to go die on a hill top or in a cave somewhere.

dimocrap scum invariably romanticize things and people too far in the past to worry about.

You really should do some research on the subject. The Eastern and Southeastern tribes were very civilized. They even lived in towns of some size complete with houses and a community or gathering building. They raised corn, tobacco, beans, peanuts, etc.They were very family oriented. As a matter of record, should you actually research the real facts, the folks on the Mayflower would not have survived their first winter were it not for the Native Americans taking of their own crops and the deer they had killed and made gift to the white folks. That is from where you derive your first Thanksgiving celebration. I submit that these facts hardly speak of a barbaric and savage peoples.

As the whites continued to come to the New World as they called it, they pushed against the Native Americans. You can actually plot the course of their greed for land. As the whites moved into the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, etc., they began to move the Indians out of their way and take over the lands the Indians had been farming. They moved thousands out in the Trail of Tears in which old men, women, and children perished from the forced march.

 

[the_human_being]

Oh puhlease...........the Europeans did nothing to the indians that they weren't already doing to eachother.

Actually we banded together and formed an alliance known as the Five Civilized Tribes. It was our Confederacy the original 13 states were formed after.

BTW....are you taking responsibility for this?

August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken.

The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.
Fort Mims massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This material doesn't fit the" horrible white man kill native Americans' template, huh?

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

 

[Correll]

Actually we banded together and formed an alliance known as the Five Civilized Tribes. It was our Confederacy the original 13 states were formed after.

BTW....are you taking responsibility for this?

August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken.

The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.
Fort Mims massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This material doesn't fit the" horrible white man kill native Americans' template, huh?

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

The irony of a man celebrating the joys of a Stone Age lifestyle over a 21 century computer net.

 

[the_human_being]

BTW....are you taking responsibility for this?

August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken.

The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.
Fort Mims massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This material doesn't fit the" horrible white man kill native Americans' template, huh?

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

The irony of a man celebrating the joys of a Stone Age lifestyle over a 21 century computer net.

You a bottled water consumer also I wager.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually we banded together and formed an alliance known as the Five Civilized Tribes. It was our Confederacy the original 13 states were formed after.

BTW....are you taking responsibility for this?

August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken.

The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.
Fort Mims massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This material doesn't fit the" horrible white man kill native Americans' template, huh?

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

 

[Correll]

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

The irony of a man celebrating the joys of a Stone Age lifestyle over a 21 century computer net.

You a bottled water consumer also I wager.

Nope, right out of the tap. NOt sure what point you thought you were making.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

The irony of a man celebrating the joys of a Stone Age lifestyle over a 21 century computer net.

You a bottled water consumer also I wager.

Nope, right out of the tap. NOt sure what point you thought you were making.

It's difficult to see his point.....


....'cause he's wearing a hat.

 

[the_human_being]

BTW....are you taking responsibility for this?

August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken.

The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.
Fort Mims massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This material doesn't fit the" horrible white man kill native Americans' template, huh?

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

Actually controlled burning has proven itself to be beneficial to the welfare of the forest.

 

[the_human_being]

BTW....are you taking responsibility for this?

August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken.

The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.
Fort Mims massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This material doesn't fit the" horrible white man kill native Americans' template, huh?

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

 

[Correll]

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

If by recently you mean like a century ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course and proud of it. They got what they deserved. The land belonged to the Indians. Do you wish to discuss how Oseola was brought in under a flag of truce and then put in prison? No honor at all.

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

I must have been pretty busy!


And....when you finish your hand-wringing.....

....don't let the door hit you on the way out.....

 

[the_human_being]

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

If by recently you mean like a century ago.

More like 50 years now. I live in the heart of the pine country where the paper mills clear cut the forests of pines. I remember when they started their reforestation program. I was probably 20 years old when they started it in South Alabama and Northwest Florida. You still can't drink the water out of the rivers here or in South Alabama because of the pollutants the paper mills expelled into them.

 

[the_human_being]

Why exactly did the Indians (natives) have this right to not have to defend "their land?"

Just curious. Every nation on earth needs adequate defenses. Why is it that the natives should just be able to have land without needing to defend it? Exactly what kind of shit is that?

Every single territory in the world has been fought for. Even in fucking africa. What, you think the natives never had wars with each other?

Do you think the natives never had slaves? What, were they all peyote smoking peaceniks hanging out on the New Mexico flats until white people showed up?

Why again are they just suppose to be able to have land that they could not defend?

Liberals are so fucking pathetic. I might listen to one of you if you gave your house to a native American family. Maybe. I might laugh in your face.

They did not have a word for wheel. They certainly did their share of killing. They did God knows what in South America and Mexico. Survival of the fittest. Oh right, liberals are only selective about their scientific perspective.

Fucking morons.

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

I must have been pretty busy!


And....when you finish your hand-wringing.....

....don't let the door hit you on the way out.....

Can't handle honesty and truth?

 

[Correll]

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

If by recently you mean like a century ago.

More like 50 years now. I live in the heart of the pine country where the paper mills clear cut the forests of pines. I remember when they started their reforestation program. I was probably 20 years old when they started it in South Alabama and Northwest Florida. You still can't drink the water out of the rivers here or in South Alabama because of the pollutants the paper mills expelled into them.

I live in a Rust Belt City. There are trees everywhere. Deer are a danger to cars INSIDE THE CITY.

I drive out to the in-laws, in their little Rust Belt rural area.

Trees all the way.

 

[waltky]

Back inna `50's...

... dat's when the ice cream truck would come `round...

... an' ring it's bell...

... an Granny would give us a dime to get a ice cream.

Life don't get no better'n dat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was never 'their land.'

Stone age savages never had a concept of property rights until the Europeans brought capitalism to the continent.


1. But didn't the colonists steal THEIR land?

"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 isjust the doctrine of collective guiltmasquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty




2. "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 therecords 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)


3. And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted 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


a. "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.

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

I must have been pretty busy!


And....when you finish your hand-wringing.....

....don't let the door hit you on the way out.....

Can't handle honesty and truth?

IQ, when it applies to you, should be written in lower case.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't know what you stone age savages thought but yes, the Indians revered the land. They believed the land owned them not the other way around.

One could actually drink the water from the rivers and streams before the white man polluted everything. One could take a breath of fresh air. Bees were plentiful. There was no dust bowl. A herd of buffalo might tke all day to pass over the horizon. Elk and other forms of wildlife were plentiful. There were no massive fish kills, no plants discharging their poisons into the rivers and streams.

"....the Indians revered the land."
They did no such thing.

You're not just a fool, but an ignorant, uneducated fool.

The savages destroyed both the fauna, and the flora....better look that up.



a. 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.


b. 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.


The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure some kind white person will help you get a library card.

You clear cut the forests. You created the dust bowl. You have almost totally destroyed the Long leaf pine. You have only recently began an effort to replant the forests you destroyed.

If by recently you mean like a century ago.

More like 50 years now. I live in the heart of the pine country where the paper mills clear cut the forests of pines. I remember when they started their reforestation program. I was probably 20 years old when they started it in South Alabama and Northwest Florida. You still can't drink the water out of the rivers here or in South Alabama because of the pollutants the paper mills expelled into them.

I live in a Rust Belt City. There are trees everywhere. Deer are a danger to cars INSIDE THE CITY.

I drive out to the in-laws, in their little Rust Belt rural area.

Trees all the way.

I live in Marine Park, Brooklyn

Trees all around....'cause we keep the Indians out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Brooklyn, NY....

There may be a tree or two......


...but no Injuns.

 

[the_human_being]

Brooklyn, NY....

There may be a tree or two......


...but no Injuns.

How many trees were clear cut to make that trashy city?

 

[Indeependent]

The 2 FDR decades you PURPOSELY omitted...1950s and 1960s.